What REALLY Bothers

Post Reply New Topic

At any given point in a relationship compromises will be asked of you. For a relationship to not be torturous, you must be able to make an honest decision about those compromises and to not make those compromises has to be a viable option. Not making those compromises should result in one of two responses 1). "I disagree, but will move on and not inflict pain on you in an act of vengeance for your insolence." 2). "Very well, but that's a dealbreaker. We're broken up now goodbye." If I could be guaranteed one of those two reactions to any refusal to compromise I might make, then compromise would be more okay. That's not how it works though is it? Were I in a relationship and refused to compromise on a given thing, the much more likely response would be for her to stay with me but make my life miserable for refusing to compromise. Barking mad.

-Frank

Compromise is a major part in relationships; sometimes, that compromise is accepting that some things won't change, and finding ways for them to be less antagonistic. There are some compromises where both parties acquiesce; there are those when one party may choose to bend completely to the other. When there is something I can do, that does not affect me negatively, then this is something that I can do. It might not be perfect, or as expected, but what have I lost in making her happy? There are things I can't do - for example, spending large amounts of time in social settings. Sometimes I will force myself through, some times we stay in, and there are times when she may end up going alone. There are shades to everything; absolutist approaches do not work in relationships, in my experience. Worthwhile things rarely come without cost... but we remember why it is worth it when it hurts.


M.

Compromises in relationships must be made on a case-by-case basis, because the variables will differ each time. Obviously, you'll get rewarded for compromising, if you can pull off what's being asked of you, but there are a few things to consider. Will the compromise fill you with so much misery that no compensation could be enough? Can you even pull off the compromise if you agree to it? If you can only pull off the compromise to a limited degree, then to what degree? All of this means that compromises within relationships must be made completely dispassionately. Yes, you love her. That doesn't mean you can change for her any more than if you tried real hard just for yourself when you were single. If you've tried to lose weight for yourself before, and always failed, then it's not going to work this time just because you've promised to do it for her. Trust me, this is the sort of thing I learned the hard way. Saying yes was easier than saying no and promises I couldn't keep were easier to make then confronting her with the truth. Emotion gets in the way and you start thinking you CAN keep these promises. Ultimately, I suppose I would be willing to try and compromise again, but it has to be on my terms. That means I cannot fear the consequences if I decide to stand my ground, whether those consequences be breakup or torture, and if they are the latter, then I break up with them. Compromising is a part of daily human life, but you cannot do it at emotional gunpoint.

-Frank

Making successful compromises starts with being honest with yourself; if you know you can't fulfill your end, then it isn't compromise, but deception. And yes, there is a risk that things will fail - but that is inherent, and cannot be avoided. What changes I make, I make for myself. But we're talking compromises - in the example cited, it's the idea of socializing. And compromises aren't hard and fast... we work through things. I'm sorry that it appears that such an approach has not worked for you, but what you say leaves a bit of distaste in my mouth - you'll compromise, but only on your terms? *shakes head* You have to be accepting of the risks before you engage anything, otherwise you will feel the effects to a much greater extent.


M.

This is actually the point where most people simply state that I shouldn't be in a relationship, that they agree with me about that 100%. As far as the socializing compromise bit, that always sounds like to me, "You say you love me, and I'm going to have to ask you to do painful and irrational things that make no goddamned sense to you on a regular basis. That's called compromise. What will I be compromising? Oh, nothing. If I compromise, that's you trying to dominate me. If you compromise, that's called thinking of others." Naturally, faced with this I take my ball and go home.

-Frank

That's a pretty reductionist viewpoint - you're not either being submissive or being gratuitous. I respect your viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. Compromise is a conversation, and it evolves. I don't understand the preoccupation with permanence that seems pervasive here - things change and evolve. It hurts, and it is uncomfortable, but I can't stop it from happening in my life, and I haven't seen anyone else be successful doing so in their lives without catastrophic consequences. Yes, I do things that are painful for me and difficult, because they are important to her. And her happiness is important to me. When I know that I am unable to take part in such things, I have boundaries. That is part of the compromise. There is give and take on both parts. And we're happier being together, despite those troubles, than facing all problems alone. It is all a matter of perspective.


M.

Part of the problem is that there is no take on my part in relationships. No really. I don't ask for any compromise from the other person. They can pretty much do whatever they want. Something completely intolerable, like drugs, would've been obvious enough before dating began that it's been ruled out. Part of this reflects my own view of compromise, which is that I don't treat others differently than I wish to be treated. If they snore, I get earplugs, if they're vegetarian I learn to cook more vegetables, if they skydive I take pictures from the ground while they do that. Pretty much the limits of my tolerance are that they may do whatever they wish to do so long as my freedom to participate or not participate is completely unlimited. Think about that. How uncontrolling and understanding is that compared to what most people have? They're literally giving up nothing from their single lives. So when I've asked to give on something, they can't give me back anything in return because I don't want anything.

-Frank

Then you need to find someone who reciprocates in the same manner you do, whose boundaries are distinct and absolute. It will define parts of your relationship, but that doesn't preclude it. I've known some whose personalities almost exactly coincide with what you're describing. You're an amenable enough fellow, from the sounds of it - perhaps the discussion of compromise needs to come earlier in the process, so that it A) isn't new to the other person, and B) you don't feel surprised or resentful of being asked to sacrifice. What you're describing is a limited form of compromise; you make no demands on the other provided they make none on you. But there is little interaction, interdependence and connection developed in such detachment. Just a thought.


M.

Romantic feelings, at least to my mind, need not require interdepence. A person who you are dependent upon has power over you and that's never a good thing. You should have power over you, no one else. None of this has anything to do with what you actually end up doing together. It's a matter of feeling trapped or not to some extent. If you're interdependent, then you could get stuck putting up with something that would normally make you leave her, except she's got this damned leverage. Both of you must be completely capable of walking away at any moment. Threats to break up must be met with a calm, "suit yourself." Emotional blackmail is futile, threats of breakup irrellevant, and crying strange, yet ineffectual, infantile behavior. We must both be free agents in a relationship because at all moments we want to be and acting accordingly.

-Frank

the problem i have isn't just the thought of being single for the rest of my life but also that i'll be with the wrong person. due to having aspergers i had to attend a college with those who had either learning dissabilities or criminal records, neither the type i would like spending the rest of my life with. now i'm looking into a program that could get me into work but once again the only people i'll have a chance to meet are those who aren't in my league, either the ASBO type who enjoy other's suffering or those who can't hold a conversation for longer than ten seconds.

i once contemplated joining an NHS stop smoking group, not for the support issue but as an excuse to meet people... i haven't managed to do this but still think it could have positive results.

_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal

I have given thought of this on occasion. I feel, for all the greif NTs give people who have unique hobbies, as well as other differences. I think NTs are jealous, cause their lives are constantly in pursuit of materialism or getting laid. They're jealous, that perhaps we don't have to work, so they bother those of us who might not be able to cope with having a job. They say we "Have no life" because we don't have to play by the same rules they are confined to.

So when I give all that consideration, to the reality that it's possible NTs really are the ones who are given the shaft when it comes to deciding what they want out of life, I feel better about things.