4 ms·

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

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.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"Scoring doesn't necessarily mean you give with expecting something in return, rather you're cognizant of your own contributions." It means being conscious of your own contributions so you know what to expect in return. If you were just interested in what you contributed you wouldn't need to keep track of your past, seeing the opportunities in the here and now would be enough. >"If you don't do any scoring, you can easily become complacent" I'm struggling to think of an example I can give you that shows an alternative to your current view on relationships is possible. What I'm talking about is a subtle difference, but something I personally think is an important one. It's not so much about particular actions per se, but more about the motivations behind those actions. This is the best example I could think of to share with you, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vwe0OlKhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vwe0OlKhM >"Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango." Perhaps it'll help if we look at what these roles are. What are the roles you're referring to? >"Do parents not have roles in a family either?" In the early years, parents have a role because their kids depend on them for guidance and survival. Once the kids reach adulthood the relationship can change into one closer to friendship. That's been my experience. In a relationship with a partner, this is different. Both partners choose to be in the relationship. It's mainly about the chemistry between the two people, how they energise and comfort each other. However, this doesn't really feel like 'effort' in the sense of duty, or at least it doesn't have to. Consider the difference between play and work, both require effort, but they feel completely different. That's really what I'm trying to get across.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      For me it really is about making sure I'm being an attentive and good, equal(ish) partner for my wife as we age together and things change. She does the same. Both men and women want consistency, especially in marriage. Inconsistency makes people uneasy and sometimes just doesn't meet expectations based on their prior time together. I don't think it's bad to challenge your partner either if their behavior or contributions to the relationship change over time; it's just a discussion if you've built a good relationship in the first place. But if you harp on the past and use it to beat down the other person, yes that's definitely bad. Regarding the roles for maintaining the romance - it can differ on the relationship. From the article, it seems the husband's role and contribution is to be a good dad, a good team player and attentive to her idiosyncrasies. She appreciates that and finds it sexy and attractive. That's his role in maintaining the romance. I'm not sure of her role for maintaining the romance; she doesn't get into it. But they both play parts in the success or failure of romance, regardless of their definition. Regarding the video - I like it and can relate; Thanks for sharing. Some good stuff from the video: > Feeling obligated means, you don't feel responsible for that, but others are demanding that from you > If you feel obligated to somebody.... today or tomorrow you will take revenge on them..... You won't be able to handle ... somebody demanding part of you and sitting inside of you nagging > Go for completion as early as possible. Let you be free from all obligations Both my wife and myself have actually found ourselves at times putting obligations on ourselves when there's no reason to. That can cause stress and impact our relationship. And once in awhile we do make each other feel obligated to do things. Sometimes her pushing me to an "obligation" to go out with her after dinner during the week to meet a new business acquaintance. I don't like obligations pushed on me and it has gotten me in trouble with my wife. I've had conversations with her and let her know that it feels like she is demanding things from me, not asking and that since I run several companies I usually just want to go home and spend time with her relaxing; that's all. I also expect her to check with me before trying to organize these types of events because that's just courteous. She's been very good with understanding that and I do the same with her. We're going on 10 years so we've gotten way better at discussing these things and also being more mindful of each other.

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.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"Scoring doesn't necessarily mean you give with expecting something in return, rather you're cognizant of your own contributions." It means being conscious of your own contributions so you know what to expect in return. If you were just interested in what you contributed you wouldn't need to keep track of your past, seeing the opportunities in the here and now would be enough. >"If you don't do any scoring, you can easily become complacent" I'm struggling to think of an example I can give you that shows an alternative to your current view on relationships is possible. What I'm talking about is a subtle difference, but something I personally think is an important one. It's not so much about particular actions per se, but more about the motivations behind those actions. This is the best example I could think of to share with you, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vwe0OlKhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vwe0OlKhM >"Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango." Perhaps it'll help if we look at what these roles are. What are the roles you're referring to? >"Do parents not have roles in a family either?" In the early years, parents have a role because their kids depend on them for guidance and survival. Once the kids reach adulthood the relationship can change into one closer to friendship. That's been my experience. In a relationship with a partner, this is different. Both partners choose to be in the relationship. It's mainly about the chemistry between the two people, how they energise and comfort each other. However, this doesn't really feel like 'effort' in the sense of duty, or at least it doesn't have to. Consider the difference between play and work, both require effort, but they feel completely different. That's really what I'm trying to get across.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    For me it really is about making sure I'm being an attentive and good, equal(ish) partner for my wife as we age together and things change. She does the same. Both men and women want consistency, especially in marriage. Inconsistency makes people uneasy and sometimes just doesn't meet expectations based on their prior time together. I don't think it's bad to challenge your partner either if their behavior or contributions to the relationship change over time; it's just a discussion if you've built a good relationship in the first place. But if you harp on the past and use it to beat down the other person, yes that's definitely bad. Regarding the roles for maintaining the romance - it can differ on the relationship. From the article, it seems the husband's role and contribution is to be a good dad, a good team player and attentive to her idiosyncrasies. She appreciates that and finds it sexy and attractive. That's his role in maintaining the romance. I'm not sure of her role for maintaining the romance; she doesn't get into it. But they both play parts in the success or failure of romance, regardless of their definition. Regarding the video - I like it and can relate; Thanks for sharing. Some good stuff from the video: > Feeling obligated means, you don't feel responsible for that, but others are demanding that from you > If you feel obligated to somebody.... today or tomorrow you will take revenge on them..... You won't be able to handle ... somebody demanding part of you and sitting inside of you nagging > Go for completion as early as possible. Let you be free from all obligations Both my wife and myself have actually found ourselves at times putting obligations on ourselves when there's no reason to. That can cause stress and impact our relationship. And once in awhile we do make each other feel obligated to do things. Sometimes her pushing me to an "obligation" to go out with her after dinner during the week to meet a new business acquaintance. I don't like obligations pushed on me and it has gotten me in trouble with my wife. I've had conversations with her and let her know that it feels like she is demanding things from me, not asking and that since I run several companies I usually just want to go home and spend time with her relaxing; that's all. I also expect her to check with me before trying to organize these types of events because that's just courteous. She's been very good with understanding that and I do the same with her. We're going on 10 years so we've gotten way better at discussing these things and also being more mindful of each other.