Furious with girlfriend - or am I being stupid?

Post Reply New Topic

I completely agree.



If you expect me to take off my muddy shoes without saying a word, then your expectations are your problem. However, if you request that I take off my muddy shoes before entering your house, and I totally ignore you, then that's a completely different situation. But, having said that, you're still only responsible for your reaction to my muddy shoes. You can ignore it, or ask me to leave, or you could even throw me out of the house, but you can't 'make' me be how you want me to be. You can't force me to be kind and considerate just because you are. You can only control you.



Again, your contextual assumption is only a dilemma for you - not me. And it's not about snubbing, it's about acceptance and controlling only what you have the power to control.

I don't drink alcohol. If a group of my friends all agree to meet at a bar and invite me to come, I'll say yes with no intention of drinking. If someone expects me to drink, that's not my problem.

Still, contextually you are expected to eat something, drink a non-alcoholic beverage, interact or talk with your friends. If you showed up, sat down and stared at the wall and reacted in a neutral or negative way to attempts to get your to interact they'd more than likely develop negative responses towards you. Of course, that's only a guess, you might have extremely understanding friends who over step the middle mark. Although it's nice, i don't think people should expect people to do this, you should always aim to meet in the middle.

I understand the OP's hurt and anxiety (on a word level anyway). But there are merely details, we need to look at the whole picture, which includes his partners hurt, anxiety and numerous other things. Is this situation a misunderstanding? Yes. Is it worth leaving the relationship for this misunderstanding? No, the OP is completely over-reacting. Is his partner out to manipulate, or hurt him? NO!

Michjo, I agree with everything you just wrote.

I only wanted to add that you seem to think 'doing' will grant you some sort of acceptance by people. And I could be completely wrong. You may not be saying that at all.

But, up until recently, I've lived my life trying to do the 'right' things to fit it - and I'm an NT. I have to tell you, it just doesn't happen. Or at least it never has for me. My parents, school, church, places of employment. I don't fit in. And I've found that people will think exactly what they want to think about you, and it doesn't matter how many right choices you make - how polite you are or how many drinks you order. Whether someone accepts you or rejects you is about them, not you.

Yes, we definitely need to consider the people around us, but do it because it's the right thing to do for you. I know it sounds horribly cliche, but people have to learn to love and accept themselves for who they are first - before trying to figure out others. Then the misunderstandings and problems are easier to accept and work with - and let go of.

Last edited by studentM on 17 Jul 2009, 12:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I think the OP is overreacting. Women are crazy like that, end of story. You shouldn't have assumed the worst, and you shouldn't have tried to force it out of her in a public place (especially next to the NT knitting circle).

I think the OP is reacting appropriately. Only very manipulative women are like that. Women who are willing to be equal partners would never pull such a manipulative mind game.

And trying to "force it out of her in a public place"? She's the one who said she wanted to meet him at Starbucks to discuss something but she wouldn't say what. She chose the place. She set the agenda- discussing something specific. She then failed to follow through because he wouldn't order a drink. I find that to be manipulative. It amounts to punishing the OP for not obeying her when she said he should order a drink. To a non-manipulative person it would be a non-issue. After all, wasn't the whole point of meeting him (in a public place of her choosing) to have a discussion? If it wasn't, she should't have said it was.


If I were in a relationship I would never tolerate this behaviour. And by "never tolerate" I mean I would break off a relationship with anybody who tried to manipulate me like that. Since the OP is an AS man, he was likely more anxious and jittery than an NT man would have been. An NT man would be far more likely to get angry than anxious. In either case, what she did is not ok.

Contextually, when you tell somebody that you want to meet them at Starbucks specifically to discuss something, you have set the agenda as being a discussion with drinks being secondary. The burden is on the person who called the meeting and set the agenda to follow through. Refusing to follow through because the person you summoned doesn't order a drink is manipulative. If somebody ever did this to me, I absolutely would leave the relationship because it's a very bad sign. It's normal for him to be anxious when summoned for a discussion (even a benign discussion) that he is then told could last an hour. I'd be in suspense too. If she gets so hurt and anxious because he won't order a drink.....???? That in itself is another bad sign. Two bad signs.

The OP was under the obligation to talk to her when he agreed to meet her. Not to drink anything. But definately to discuss whatever it is she wanted to discuss. That was his part of the social obligation. As far as I can see from the OP, he was fully prepared to hold up his end of the bargain. He even blurted out that he wanted to know what she'd called him there to discuss. That's a fair question. But she witheld that information- breaking her part of the social obligation. Manipulative!

So are you or aren't you in a relationship right now? And have you been in many? Also, are you male or female?

I'm an NT woman who has been married for almost 20 years. I would never dream of doing something like that to my husband nor has he ever done anything like that to me. Prior to meeting him, I had a couple long term boyfriends and they never did anything like that nor did I. This is why I'm coming down so hard on the girlfriend. What she did is just not cool (that proves I'm old, a young person wouldn't say "not cool"). "If you don't do this, I won't give you that" is a standard-issue manipulative trick. It doesn't develop overnight (from what I've heard from others). This is a two year relationship. That's another reason why I'm coming down hard on her. This sort of behaviour doesn't come out of thin air. In the people who do it, it's a theme in their interactions. So even though the OP doesn't say so, I'll bet dollars to donuts (another oldtimer expression) that she's pulled stunts similar to this before and this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe he'll come on and post that never in 2 years has she ever tried to play mindgames in which case, forgive and forget. But I bet this is more of a "mind games again!" scenario than a "she's never been like this before" scenario.

Wether the drinks is primary, secondary or tertiary does not matter. The fact is, contextually it is an expected action and the OP did not cover himself for if he decided not to drink, it's his lack of communication that set the tone.


I can only assume you think this way because you are only able to veiw the ordering of the drink in a literal fashion. If i were to offer a child a drink, and he smashed it out of my hand, i highly doubt people would suggest i was manipulating him if i reacted negatively.

Not ordering a drink at Starbucks is not so much of a breech of protocol as you make it out to be. Asking somebody to meet you so you can discuss something but then refusing to discuss it because they won't order a drink is a huge breech of protocol. Others have pointed out that he could have gotten water, which is true but beside the point. People ususally get something to drink when others are doing the same but it's not that big a deal. Saying "meet me to discuss something" and then refusing to discuss it really is a huge breech.

The analogy of the little kid smacking a drink away is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be a little kid shaking his head and saying "not thirsty". Reacting negatively to that by saying "then you can't go to the playground" would be a closer fit to what happened here.

Wether it's a big deal or not is based off of contextual information. His behaviour was weird and inappropriate, he was projecting that he wasn't in a good mood, not to mention that ordering someone to tell you something in a room full of people is rude. He then comes on this website and says he is furious! !! Well no crap, she probably saw the fact he was getting angrier and angrier as well, for the stupidest of reasons. It's no wonder she didn't tell him anything, she probably felt like she was in a no-win situation whereby no matter what she said would have resulted in him getting worse.

I agree -- he was acting grumpy and refusing to do his part to make it a constructive conversation. I mean really, they don't have your favorite mocha, so you can't have anything? How is that reasonable? To me, that is being difficult in a way that is more woman-like than manly.

She sensed the negativity, and replied in kind. Was she being bitchy or manipulative? Sure. And every woman I've ever dated or had as a friend has been the same way. Nothing new under the sun here, and it just goes with the territory. You want to date women (or effeminate gay men), get ready for some bitchiness and manipulation, and know that the payoff is worth it.

If a store doesn't have what I want, I don't buy something out of obligation - if he didn't want a drink, then that is the end of the story in my book on that count. As for the conversation, I think both parties are at fault... she choose a public environment and withheld information after two years and likely having at least some idea that it would affect him; he goes along with it instead of voicing concerns immediately then becomes demanding later on.

Michjo, I'm curious why you are arguing social protocol here and where it is that you are getting these ideas and rules?


M.

I've read all the posts so far and I have only this to say. I don't like coffee, if there was no tea sold in this place or if it was hot, I wouldn't order a drink. I have been in peoples houses and have been offered drinks when I was not thirsty and said so, and didn't have a big dissruption, they thought that I was odd but didn't get upset in any way.

A person in a two year relationship should know someone well enough to know this. If there was no drink that he wanted, he shouldn't have to conform to minor social norms if she knew him at all because if she knew him, she'd know that it wasn't to slight her. Also, the words 'I need to discuss something with you' have negitave resonance, even saying 'it's not bad' doesn't soften this resonance much, though, saying that, she may not realise this was causing as much stress as it did.


OP
You both need to sit down (when calm) and discuss the situation that has happened, the feelings and what lead up to them. Both need to listen when the other one speaks, no interrupting the other person. If you both want to speak first, toss a coin. Make a rule to listen.

Good communication is the root of good relationships, if two people can't talk to each other, how can they understand each other?

It's not really so much social protocol or rules as it is veiwing the situation from more than one angle, it's not a social obligation to drink something. Every single thing we say can be interpreted both contextually and grammatically. It's perfectly understandable for people to struggle with one or the other, but if you completely ignore one side you are going to head into troubles.

Don't misunderstand me, i am not claiming he should drink a coffee. But...

When you agree to goto a coffee shop to talk, you are contextually agreeing to drink something as well. I'm sure that may sound stupid to some people, but you've pretty much stated i am going to have a cup of coffee. I understand why the OP did not have a cup of coffee, because they did not have any mocha and he likes mocha. But because he was in a bad mood, he is contextually he is saying i am pissed off by not having the coffee.

Put simply, he various actions throughout the day have stacked up. He is stating things he is not trying to say without even realising it. It's a misunderstanding, but it's a misunderstanding created by himself.

I actually see the problems more so myself, because i am crap with literal language, when talking to people in person most of the information i project is contextual. I constantly run into troubles with people who are too literal, because from my point of veiw they are completely ignoring what i am actually saying.

The coffee shop owners will insist that at least somebody in the party order something. But once that's been satisfied, there are no further obligations that everybody in the party order something. I've gone to Starbucks with a friend and got nothing while they got something and vice versa. I also don't see how a "mocha or nothing" stand converys that he's pissed off contextually. Lots of people have their favorite things and they get nothing if their favorite isn't in stock. There is no breech of protocol unless the person gets all hissy about the favorite being out of stock and starts berating the cashiers (I have seen that happen- very bad form).