4 ms·

She wrote an article about "What Romance Really Means After 10 Years of Marriage" and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband. Unless I'm of

She wrote an article about "What Romance Really Means After 10 Years of Marriage" and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband. Unless I'm off, she didn't say "But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should" because she thought that's an normal response to her dog greetings; but rather because she knows he's chop liver with regard to attention.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mverwijs 10y ago
I agree with omission of "what she did for her husband". But aside from that, as my ten years are coming up, with two kids, I found the article spot on. Life is a mess. Find someone that is willing to handle the mess with you. I believe that people reading this article /before/ getting married and having kids, and agreeing with each other that they see the world in likewise fashion, will end up staying together in a solid and constructive relationship. Having the " traditional" view of romance that Hollywood portrays is more likely to end up in divorce.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband." If you act out of self-aware point scoring you'll never understand why. Also, the woman is being self-deprecating throughout the whole article, did you not notice that?
- apatters 10y ago
  Asking something here with genuine interest: I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated. My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? My ethical question is wouldn't a society based on this principle create inequality through winners becoming bigger winners, because they're the ones who can most afford to give stuff away without expecting a return (whether it is money, emotional energy, or anything else)?
  - rosser 10y ago
    Heuristically, I suppose, if the "skew" is so obvious that you can see it without "score-keeping", then you avail yourself of a different approach. Which one? I'm not your marriage counselor. But talking about it is probably a good start.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated." If you want my honest, non-expert answer, making relationships transactional means making them closer to business arrangements. Maybe that's what some people are comfortable with, but I prefer when my personal relationships are a little more spontaneous and free. So, for me, relationships shouldn't be transactional. How do you stop getting screwed over? I'd say it comes down to trust. Trust is something that builds up over time. The more you trust someone the more you can give without expecting something in return. Trust is based on support, but it's not something you have to actively track, it's something you feel (or don't feel). When trust starts to breaks down, that's the time to either work on it together or cut your losses.
  - nl 10y ago
    My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? As someone who lives this way I find it pretty easy: you develop an instinct for people like that and don't deal with them. If you make a mistake do deal with them and they screw you over... oh well. I don't worry about it, and it isn't something that has ever had a negative effect on my life.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  Except she's an advice columnist giving advice on the question posed to her of how to keep the romance alive. Her being self-deprecating still doesn't mean she shouldn't consider the wife's role in keeping the romance alive. And I was responding to the question of how I came to believe that the husband might be the better partner. Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"Except she's an advice columnist giving advice on the question posed to her of how to keep the romance alive. Her being self-deprecating still doesn't mean she shouldn't consider the wife's role in keeping the romance alive." The wife's role? This is what I mean about seeing relationships as business arrangements. If that's how you want your relationships to be, that's fine with me, go for it, but that's not what I'm interested in. To me, when you strip away everything around it to get to the core, a relationship is about spending more time with someone you enjoy spending time with. People are complex, if you can only enjoy a fake role-based version of them you're missing the bigger picture. As for one-sided relationships, they aren't healthy, but I really think you're stretching what you found in the article in order to suggest that this is what's being written about. As I said before, you'll not understand it if you look at relationships as point-scoring. Plus, the article wasn't meant to be '10 point plan' kind of article, it was about painting a picture of how romance evolves as time goes on, it's a narrative-style piece rather than a do's and don'ts of relationships. >"Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner." If scoring works for you, fine, but I prefer to give without expecting something in return, which I can do most easily with people I trust.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      Scoring doesn't necessarily mean you give with expecting something in return, rather you're cognizant of your own contributions. If you don't do any scoring, you can easily become complacent and not be as good of a partner as you could be and your relationship could fall out of the balance it may have had before. Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango. Do parents not have roles in a family either? Maybe you don't like the terminology because it sounds business like, but we all have roles in relationships. The definition applies several ways - the part you play in the relationship and your responsibilities.
sanderjd 10y ago
It's pretty simple: the author thinks she's the worst and her husband is the best, but the husband (if he were a similarly engaging and witty writer) would write an article where his interpretation would be that he is the worst and his wife is the best. What you're missing is that you're only seeing one self-deprecating side of the story. You're assuming it's painting a full picture when it clearly isn't trying to.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mverwijs 10y ago

I agree with omission of "what she did for her husband". But aside from that, as my ten years are coming up, with two kids, I found the article spot on. Life is a mess. Find someone that is willing to handle the mess with you. I believe that people reading this article /before/ getting married and having kids, and agreeing with each other that they see the world in likewise fashion, will end up staying together in a solid and constructive relationship. Having the " traditional" view of romance that Hollywood portrays is more likely to end up in divorce.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

>"and not once did she mention one thing she did for her husband." If you act out of self-aware point scoring you'll never understand why. Also, the woman is being self-deprecating throughout the whole article, did you not notice that?

apatters 10y ago
Asking something here with genuine interest: I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated. My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? My ethical question is wouldn't a society based on this principle create inequality through winners becoming bigger winners, because they're the ones who can most afford to give stuff away without expecting a return (whether it is money, emotional energy, or anything else)?
- rosser 10y ago
  Heuristically, I suppose, if the "skew" is so obvious that you can see it without "score-keeping", then you avail yourself of a different approach. Which one? I'm not your marriage counselor. But talking about it is probably a good start.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"I interpreted your comment about "self-aware point scoring" to mean that you shouldn't think of relationships as transactional, or be too concerned with whether your contributions to them are reciprocated." If you want my honest, non-expert answer, making relationships transactional means making them closer to business arrangements. Maybe that's what some people are comfortable with, but I prefer when my personal relationships are a little more spontaneous and free. So, for me, relationships shouldn't be transactional. How do you stop getting screwed over? I'd say it comes down to trust. Trust is something that builds up over time. The more you trust someone the more you can give without expecting something in return. Trust is based on support, but it's not something you have to actively track, it's something you feel (or don't feel). When trust starts to breaks down, that's the time to either work on it together or cut your losses.
- nl 10y ago
  My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists? As someone who lives this way I find it pretty easy: you develop an instinct for people like that and don't deal with them. If you make a mistake do deal with them and they screw you over... oh well. I don't worry about it, and it isn't something that has ever had a negative effect on my life.
exclusiv 10y ago
Except she's an advice columnist giving advice on the question posed to her of how to keep the romance alive. Her being self-deprecating still doesn't mean she shouldn't consider the wife's role in keeping the romance alive. And I was responding to the question of how I came to believe that the husband might be the better partner. Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"Except she's an advice columnist giving advice on the question posed to her of how to keep the romance alive. Her being self-deprecating still doesn't mean she shouldn't consider the wife's role in keeping the romance alive." The wife's role? This is what I mean about seeing relationships as business arrangements. If that's how you want your relationships to be, that's fine with me, go for it, but that's not what I'm interested in. To me, when you strip away everything around it to get to the core, a relationship is about spending more time with someone you enjoy spending time with. People are complex, if you can only enjoy a fake role-based version of them you're missing the bigger picture. As for one-sided relationships, they aren't healthy, but I really think you're stretching what you found in the article in order to suggest that this is what's being written about. As I said before, you'll not understand it if you look at relationships as point-scoring. Plus, the article wasn't meant to be '10 point plan' kind of article, it was about painting a picture of how romance evolves as time goes on, it's a narrative-style piece rather than a do's and don'ts of relationships. >"Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner." If scoring works for you, fine, but I prefer to give without expecting something in return, which I can do most easily with people I trust.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    Scoring doesn't necessarily mean you give with expecting something in return, rather you're cognizant of your own contributions. If you don't do any scoring, you can easily become complacent and not be as good of a partner as you could be and your relationship could fall out of the balance it may have had before. Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango. Do parents not have roles in a family either? Maybe you don't like the terminology because it sounds business like, but we all have roles in relationships. The definition applies several ways - the part you play in the relationship and your responsibilities.

sanderjd 10y ago

It's pretty simple: the author thinks she's the worst and her husband is the best, but the husband (if he were a similarly engaging and witty writer) would write an article where his interpretation would be that he is the worst and his wife is the best. What you're missing is that you're only seeing one self-deprecating side of the story. You're assuming it's painting a full picture when it clearly isn't trying to.