Guys (and ladies): Is this a "FEMALE" trait?

[reservoirdog1]

I'm not sure where to post this, so please bear with me.

 

In my last two relationships, I've encountered a weird phenomenon.

 

I do something that upsets her. However, she believes that the extent of what I did is actually WORSE than what I tell her it is. Thus she's even more upset. And the discussions/fights that ensue are all founded on the basis that I didn't just do X, I did "X+3".

 

Naturally I don't like being taken to task for something I didn't do. So I attempt to explain the situation, and assure her that I actually only did X, and not "X+3".

 

That turns into its own fight, because in her eyes I'm trying to justify myself/make excuses/minimize/etc, when what I SHOULD be doing is addressing her feelings and trying to work on those with her. Or, from my perspective, taking the blame for something I didn't do or that wasn't as bad as she's convinced herself it is.

 

E.g.: Her: "I've been thinking today about when you did X+3 recently, and I'm really hurt by that."

Me: (thinking): "I DIDN'T DO X+3!!! I ONLY DID X!!!" But I don't say that because then there's a fight about me not addressing her feelings, regardless of whether or not they're based on what really happened.

 

Maybe she just doesn't believe me when I tell her I only did X. But eventually, being taken to task for having done X+3 -- which I didn't -- gets REALLY old.

 

Is this a female thing? Is this how women think? Or are the two women in question just flakes?

 

Or, is this all a problem with ME?

 

I'm being intentionally vague about the actions in question, but that's to try to focus the responses on the thought process of the other person in the equation (her). If anybody can respond but feels they need more details, no problem.

 

Thanks, everybody.

[alphamale]

you cannot reason with a female who is upset

[northstar1]

I'm not sure where to post this, so please bear with me.

 

In my last two relationships, I've encountered a weird phenomenon.

 

I do something that upsets her. However, she believes that the extent of what I did is actually WORSE than what I tell her it is. Thus she's even more upset. And the discussions/fights that ensue are all founded on the basis that I didn't just do X, I did "X+3".

 

Naturally I don't like being taken to task for something I didn't do. So I attempt to explain the situation, and assure her that I actually only did X, and not "X+3".

 

That turns into its own fight, because in her eyes I'm trying to justify myself/make excuses/minimize/etc, when what I SHOULD be doing is addressing her feelings and trying to work on those with her. Or, from my perspective, taking the blame for something I didn't do or that wasn't as bad as she's convinced herself it is.

 

E.g.: Her: "I've been thinking today about when you did X+3 recently, and I'm really hurt by that."

Me: (thinking): "I DIDN'T DO X+3!!! I ONLY DID X!!!" But I don't say that because then there's a fight about me not addressing her feelings, regardless of whether or not they're based on what really happened.

 

Maybe she just doesn't believe me when I tell her I only did X. But eventually, being taken to task for having done X+3 -- which I didn't -- gets REALLY old.

 

Is this a female thing? Is this how women think? Or are the two women in question just flakes?

 

Or, is this all a problem with ME?

 

I'm being intentionally vague about the actions in question, but that's to try to focus the responses on the thought process of the other person in the equation (her). If anybody can respond but feels they need more details, no problem.

 

Thanks, everybody.

 

Yes, it has happened, with my most recent ex as well. Actually to the point where it brought the relationship to the point of no return.

 

Or they bring up something from a month ago that you don't even remember saying and then they get angry when you can't remember or try to disarm the situation.

 

And even if you do deal with their concern or change what 'bothered' them, it still comes up over and over again.

 

I made the mistake of taking issue with the fact I was still paying for things I'd said or done months before, and that pretty much sealed the fate of the whole thing.

[reservoirdog1]

Or they bring up something from a month ago that you don't even remember saying and then they get angry when you can't remember or try to disarm the situation.

YEP. Been there, done that, bought the fyckin' tshirt. You can't say that you didn't say it because you honestly can't remember WHAT you said, so as the person with the clearer memory on the subject, she wins. And then you're in full consolation/reassurance mode and may as well just put your balls in a mason jar.

[northstar1]

YEP. Been there, done that, bought the fyckin' tshirt. You can't say that you didn't say it because you honestly can't remember WHAT you said, so as the person with the clearer memory on the subject, she wins. And then you're in full consolation/reassurance mode and may as well just put your balls in a mason jar.

 

Yep, and they have memories like steel traps. once it's in there, it can be brought out at anytime, esp if they are mad about something else

 

"You said something mean to me last night"

"Im sorry, I didnt mean it, I wasn't thinking"

"You also didn't hold my door open"

"Huh, when?"

"Back in February"

"You don't think I'm attractive"

[GrayClouds]

Another way to look at it, are you arguing to be right or reach an understanding. If it appears the partner is "x3" what you done, that may be more of an indication of the level of impact on them then a furthering attempt to incriminate you.

 

Then the discussion can be about understanding that it did have a high impact and discovering the partner has specific sensibilities in that area leading to greater intimacy rather then each defending their position about the scope of the error.

 

Or it could be the partner is a full fledged wacko and you could try heavy drinking;)

[reservoirdog1]

I'm okay with her having certain sensibilities; to me, that governs how the discussion should happen.

 

But I do have a fundamental problem with having to deal with her issues over X+3 when what really happened was X. I don't really see that as a desire to be "right" -- it's a desire for things to at least be fair, and for the ensuing discussion to at least start from a position based in the facts of the situation. For her though, my attempts to set the record straight and reach that factual basis are simply taken as me trying to justify/excuse/get off on a technicality.

 

As an analogy, say you're charged with first-degree murder -- that is, you're accused of having planned and pre-meditated the act of killing somebody, and of having actually done so. What really happened, however, was that the dead guy came at you with a baseball bat. Should you have simply subdued him, rather than killing him? Perhaps -- it's not like he had a gun. People don't usually die from one hit with a bat. But it doesn't follow that by trying to explain the actual circumstances that led to the guy being dead by your hand, you're trying to say that what you did was okay. You're not necessarily -- you're saying that you didn't cold-heartedly construct a plan to kill the guy. There's a big difference.

 

So anyway, THAT'S what it comes down to with these relationship situations I described -- wanting to at least have the record straight, rather than get unjustifiably crucified for something I didn't do.

 

Actually, sometimes, dealing with these situations via heavy drinking sounds pretty good.

[Kamille]

I think I do this, although I never bring stuff back once it's been resolved. Or maybe I don't, but I think I get the mindset behind it. Grayclouds is right, it's not a call for "straight facts" it's a call for reassurance.

 

And I've been with a guy who also did X+3 to me. So I would do X and he would multiply it in his head so that I would be dead wrong and therefore need , in his mind, to grovel for an apology.

 

I've also been with a guy who insisted his interpretation of thing was always the "factual" one while mine were always, therefore, off-based (and it didn't matter whether it was me or him who had made a mistake. In this sense, if I said you did X, he would argue that he did X-3, but then when he would say I did something wrong, it would be an X+3. The bottomline was - our relationship clearly had control issues. We spent more time arguing about what we were arguing about then we spent time making the relationship stronger.

 

Thanks to current bf, I've learned that one of the best relationship strategy is to build healthy communication, regardless of the facts. So try to be a bit more lenient. Focus on making sure your gfs know you heard and understood their concern first and then give them your version of things (and avoid presenting it as "facts" - that just limits the possibilities for dialogue).

 

How about a compromise. Accept that you don't need to agree on the facts to find a healthy compromise and move the relationship forward. The final equation should be X+1.5.

 

Both partners need to learn how to let things go.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Kamille

[GrayClouds]

I'm okay with her having certain sensibilities; to me, that governs how the discussion should happen.

 

But I do have a fundamental problem with having to deal with her issues over X+3 when what really happened was X. I don't really see that as a desire to be "right" -- it's a desire for things to at least be fair, and for the ensuing discussion to at least start from a position based in the facts of the situation. For her though, my attempts to set the record straight and reach that factual basis are simply taken as me trying to justify/excuse/get off on a technicality.

 

As an analogy, say you're charged with first-degree murder -- that is, you're accused of having planned and pre-meditated the act of killing somebody, and of having actually done so. What really happened, however, was that the dead guy came at you with a baseball bat. Should you have simply subdued him, rather than killing him? Perhaps -- it's not like he had a gun. People don't usually die from one hit with a bat. But it doesn't follow that by trying to explain the actual circumstances that led to the guy being dead by your hand, you're trying to say that what you did was okay. You're not necessarily -- you're saying that you didn't cold-heartedly construct a plan to kill the guy. There's a big difference.

 

So anyway, THAT'S what it comes down to with these relationship situations I described -- wanting to at least have the record straight, rather than get unjustifiably crucified for something I didn't do.

 

Actually, sometimes, dealing with these situations via heavy drinking sounds pretty good.

 

Wise Person recently gave me some good advice, it may help you too.

 

Wise person: GrayClouds you know what your problem is?

 

GrayClouds: No What?

Wise Person: You expect people to behave logically but they behave emotionally and selfishly. And until you accept that, life is going to be a bigger struggle then it needs to be.

GrayClouds: But your not behaving selfishly by given me this advice...

 

Wise Person: Wrong, While it will help you, I'm giving it to you for my own pleasure because I enjoy busting the bubble of your belief system.

GrayClouds: Thanks..., I guess?

Wise Person: By the way there is no Santa, and there are hookers with a heart of gold.

 

GrayClouds: I need a drink.

Edited April 29, 2010 by GrayClouds