4 ms·

That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act. In a good relationship the fact that the other one is enjoying a movie is most of the satis

That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act. In a good relationship the fact that the other one is enjoying a movie is most of the satisfaction. Otherwise a marriage is a union of two individuals, not a project for a single joint life. Of course the above is just a silly example but enlightening.

didibus 5y ago
So in your case, you suggest that you'd simply always let your partner choose the movie, even though you never enjoy the movies they pick? That means your partner is not self-giving. Assuming both of you are self-giving, I just don't see a resolution that doesn't involve a compromise.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Perhaps they could simply take turns?
  - didibus 5y ago
    Exactly! That's my point, you've got to compromise like the author said: > Of course, we compromise: by taking turns
- zpeti 5y ago
  What happens next time? In a decent relationship your spouse will want you to pick the movie next time. And so everyone is happy half the time, and you are mutually trying to make each other happy. That’s fair, supportive, and a good marriage basically.
  - didibus 5y ago
    The author says: > Of course, we compromise: by taking turns And the OP I replied to said that's not a self-giving attitude. So in my case, taking turn counts as a compromise. And so this is my point, I don't think compromising means that you're not in a self-giving relationship, in fact, I think it shows that you are, since both of you are considerate of the other and finding ways to please the other in turn.
    - bandushrew 5y ago
      I think maybe its the attitude, not the act that is different between a "self giving" turn taking, and a "compromise" turn taking. Under a "self giving" regime, I want to spend time with my partner, enjoying her enjoying the movie she wants to watch. My partner wants to spend time with me enjoying the movie I want to watch. We can't both do that, so we each take turns letting the other one enjoy being with us while we watch the movie we want to watch. Under the "compromise" option, we each get to watch the movie we want to watch, taking turn and turn about. That is what is important about the event: that we get to watch the movie we want to watch. I think maybe the movie choice is a pretty trivial aspect of the relationship anyway, the GPs post around the willingness to serve your partner was a lovely insight to what makes a partnership work over the long term, far beyond how you both decide what movie to watch.
  - blackhaz 5y ago
    Until she accidentally bumps into someone she actually enjoys watching movies with! Whoops. Sorry!
    - usrusr 5y ago
      That could of course happen. Or you might actually start to actually like what your partner liked, fail to realize your partner's taste in movies moving on and eventually end up with a weird foster taste if/when the relationship ends (for that reason or another) (sfbsab)
- jcims 5y ago
  I think the nit thats getting picked at is that the word ‘compromise’ might suggest sacrifice or debt in that you’re not getting something you want. In a parent/child relationship most wouldn’t call it a compromise to watch cartoons with their kid because a) some cartoons are great and b) even when they aren’t, just being with your kids when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience. Yes it’s possible for that to become pathological in a romantic relationship if there is no balance, but if neither partner has any personal fulfillment in letting their significant other enjoy something it’s going to get lonely quickly.
  - didibus 5y ago
    I think you nailed the nuance. That said, I'm curious about the realism of all this. Just being with your partner when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience. Is that true? Can this continue to be the case over many many years of a marriage? The article mentioned a much more extreme scenario than movie watching, having someone walk you through the details of a geometry proof that they came up with. How many times can you enjoy having them walk you through a proof and still think it's a wonderful experience listening to them about this thing that you find so boring and soul crushing and might not even understand any piece of it, yet because of the passion in their voice, you enjoy the time and pretend to be excited and interested? In my opinion, there's a bucket of how much you can do this for. Once the bucket is depleted, to refill the bucket, you need to either spend some time apart, have them spend time with you doing something of your enjoyment or spend time doing things you both enjoy together.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do? >> Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock. > That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act. Another mistake might be conceiving of one's "taste in movies" as fixed and unchanging when it isn't. You might be able to find something to like in your partner's preferences, when you didn't before; or find some new type of movie you both like. Making that effort may be what being "self-giving" is in this case.

didibus 5y ago

So in your case, you suggest that you'd simply always let your partner choose the movie, even though you never enjoy the movies they pick? That means your partner is not self-giving. Assuming both of you are self-giving, I just don't see a resolution that doesn't involve a compromise.

smackeyacky 5y ago
Perhaps they could simply take turns?
- didibus 5y ago
  Exactly! That's my point, you've got to compromise like the author said: > Of course, we compromise: by taking turns
zpeti 5y ago
What happens next time? In a decent relationship your spouse will want you to pick the movie next time. And so everyone is happy half the time, and you are mutually trying to make each other happy. That’s fair, supportive, and a good marriage basically.
- didibus 5y ago
  The author says: > Of course, we compromise: by taking turns And the OP I replied to said that's not a self-giving attitude. So in my case, taking turn counts as a compromise. And so this is my point, I don't think compromising means that you're not in a self-giving relationship, in fact, I think it shows that you are, since both of you are considerate of the other and finding ways to please the other in turn.
  - bandushrew 5y ago
    I think maybe its the attitude, not the act that is different between a "self giving" turn taking, and a "compromise" turn taking. Under a "self giving" regime, I want to spend time with my partner, enjoying her enjoying the movie she wants to watch. My partner wants to spend time with me enjoying the movie I want to watch. We can't both do that, so we each take turns letting the other one enjoy being with us while we watch the movie we want to watch. Under the "compromise" option, we each get to watch the movie we want to watch, taking turn and turn about. That is what is important about the event: that we get to watch the movie we want to watch. I think maybe the movie choice is a pretty trivial aspect of the relationship anyway, the GPs post around the willingness to serve your partner was a lovely insight to what makes a partnership work over the long term, far beyond how you both decide what movie to watch.
- blackhaz 5y ago
  Until she accidentally bumps into someone she actually enjoys watching movies with! Whoops. Sorry!
  - usrusr 5y ago
    That could of course happen. Or you might actually start to actually like what your partner liked, fail to realize your partner's taste in movies moving on and eventually end up with a weird foster taste if/when the relationship ends (for that reason or another) (sfbsab)
jcims 5y ago
I think the nit thats getting picked at is that the word ‘compromise’ might suggest sacrifice or debt in that you’re not getting something you want. In a parent/child relationship most wouldn’t call it a compromise to watch cartoons with their kid because a) some cartoons are great and b) even when they aren’t, just being with your kids when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience. Yes it’s possible for that to become pathological in a romantic relationship if there is no balance, but if neither partner has any personal fulfillment in letting their significant other enjoy something it’s going to get lonely quickly.
- didibus 5y ago
  I think you nailed the nuance. That said, I'm curious about the realism of all this. Just being with your partner when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience. Is that true? Can this continue to be the case over many many years of a marriage? The article mentioned a much more extreme scenario than movie watching, having someone walk you through the details of a geometry proof that they came up with. How many times can you enjoy having them walk you through a proof and still think it's a wonderful experience listening to them about this thing that you find so boring and soul crushing and might not even understand any piece of it, yet because of the passion in their voice, you enjoy the time and pretend to be excited and interested? In my opinion, there's a bucket of how much you can do this for. Once the bucket is depleted, to refill the bucket, you need to either spend some time apart, have them spend time with you doing something of your enjoyment or spend time doing things you both enjoy together.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do? >> Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock. > That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act. Another mistake might be conceiving of one's "taste in movies" as fixed and unchanging when it isn't. You might be able to find something to like in your partner's preferences, when you didn't before; or find some new type of movie you both like. Making that effort may be what being "self-giving" is in this case.