3 ms·
She doesn't say that couples have to have the same passions. She says that you should at least know something about what your partner does, beyond just their j
by kscaldef 16y ago
She doesn't say that couples have to have the same passions. She says that you should at least know something about what your partner does, beyond just their job title.
- run4yourlives 16y agoAnd that's what I question, for two reasons: 1. The example of herself is invalid. Her interests in Ruby go beyond an interest in her husband's passion. They are her own passions. For some reason I don't think his interest in ballet is of the same quality. I'm sure there is something that she "tolerates" rather than "also enjoys", but she doesn't provide any data here. 2. I don't think it's required for my wife to know my programming passion to the levels of knowing that I prefer Python as a language any more than she should be required to know that the pilot-in-common sits on the left side of the aircraft in that profession. The fact is that your programming passion in many cases is just one of your many interests. Provided that there are many areas that overlap with a significant other, in my mind it is silly to criticize those that don't share this particular one.
- spitfire 16y agoPilot-in-command.
- run4yourlives 16y agolol, -1 google spellcheck. Thanks for the correction.
- nailer 16y ago1. Agreed with her actually writing something. 2. Disagreed. It's reasonable to understand your partners passions and career. I'd be disappointed in my wife not knowing I like Python and why - she'd probably tell someone 'because he can't be bothered telling the computer than 17 is a number'. I, conversely, know a great deal more about ballet, fashion production, textiles and event management - if someone asked me 'classical or jazz', I'd know the answer, the difference, and why. It would be pretty lazy for me not to.