J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Here is some food for thought for anyone entering into a new relationship where you are exclusively dating someone. We usually agree on parameters such as not having sex with others, etc., but we don't often set up parameters for when to end the experiment. Most relationships last beyond the point where both parties are satisfied. In other words, most relationships that last one year should probably have ended after six or nine months. I think that's because we don't agree on what indicates a failed relationship. I think a good indicator of a relationship that is destined to fail is the first fight. It's hard to define what exactly is a fight, but you probably have a good general idea already. The fight I'm imagining ends with hurt feelings, confusion, and the sense that your ally became an adversary. I think that may be the best time to end the experiment that was your exclusive dating relationship. If we weren't compatible enough to avoid a fight, how can we be compatible enough to get over that same fight completely? If we don't get over that first fight completely it will lead to a second, a third and a fourth... There is always the potential to make a relationship work, with enough effort, but how much effort should be required to maintain it? If both people agree that the first fight represents the end of the relationship they will both try to avoid it. If that's the case and they still end up having that first fight then they clearly were not able to avoid fighting. If you are unable to consciously avoid a fight with your partner then I believe that's a good indication that the relationship will go downhill. Thoughts?
Els Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Well, in every relationship, there eventually has to be a fight. It's not something that you can completely avoid. While a fight too early on is certainly a bit of a red flag, I'm curious what you intend to achieve by this experiment. Let's say you set the parameters for a month, thus both of you try to avoid it. How does that help you when the fight occurs at a month and a day? Instead of making this so incredibly scientific, why not just treat it as a day-to-day thing and reevaluate as necessary, at this point of time? At the beginning of a relationship you should both be head over heels with one another and enjoying one another, not overcomplicating everything and making everything a stoic business transaction (or scientific experiment). The fact that you feel the need to do so, even, points towards a likelihood for failure IMO (either because you're really not that interested in them if you are treating your relationship this way, or because the other partner correctly, IMO, assumes so and breaks it off).
kassy Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I think you have it wrong, fighting on occasion is healthy, not fighting ever means you aren't communicating. What really matters is how you fight, do you both fight fair, is it ultimately constructive to the relationship? Can you have a fight and resolve the issue and then it's done, not revisit the issue on many occasions? Do you only fight when it's really come to a head not just over petty stuff? 1
TigerCub Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 If we weren't compatible enough to avoid a fight, how can we be compatible enough to get over that same fight completely? If we don't get over that first fight completely it will lead to a second, a third and a fourth... What if the fight was based completely on a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Should the people completely write each other off, although they are compatible, just because they happened to have a fight? I think the better test of compatibility and how well the relationship works would actually depend on how a fight is resolved and if both sides can really get the other to understand where they were coming from - so that there would be no hurt feelings. Like think on it - when you were in school, or maybe you still are. If you don't get a math problem right away, do you just quit and say "oh, well I'm not meant to know math" and therefore not graduate and not move on to get a higher education. Just because there is a bump in the road, doesn't mean that everything is doomed. The test is how well a person handles these bumps, and how frequent they are (in the case of relationships). There is always the potential to make a relationship work, with enough effort, but how much effort should be required to maintain it? If both people agree that the first fight represents the end of the relationship they will both try to avoid it. If that's the case and they still end up having that first fight then they clearly were not able to avoid fighting. If you are unable to consciously avoid a fight with your partner then I believe that's a good indication that the relationship will go downhill. Thoughts? But what if the people just bottle things up and build up resentment towards one another because they don't want to speak their mind and oh no, have that lead to a "fight"? What kind of relationship would that be? You idea is interesting, I just don't think that its best to quit as soon as something that's no ideal happens - I would imagine that finding someone that you would NEVER have a "fight" with over anything would be nearly impossible. Or maybe, what I think of as a fight you might think of as a disagreement...I dunno.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 Well, in every relationship, there eventually has to be a fight. It's not something that you can completely avoid. While a fight too early on is certainly a bit of a red flag, I'm curious what you intend to achieve by this experiment. Let's say you set the parameters for a month, thus both of you try to avoid it. How does that help you when the fight occurs at a month and a day? Every relationship does not have a fight. My sister and brother in law have been married for 24 years and have never had the type of fight I described. I've questioned their adult children to confirm this. I think the idea that relationships must include fighting is flawed. I'm not setting a time frame for the first fight; it would end the relationship whenever it happens. Instead of making this so incredibly scientific, why not just treat it as a day-to-day thing and reevaluate as necessary, at this point of time? What I'm proposing isn't overly scientific, it's simply a device to get two people focused on their relationship in a way that is more conscious than what most people do. It is also a device for shortening a doomed relationship to length that is more pleasant and beneficial for both parties. At the beginning of a relationship you should both be head over heels with one another and enjoying one another, not overcomplicating everything and making everything a stoic business transaction (or scientific experiment). How does this concept preclude being "head over heals with one another"? You can be joyful over a new relationship and still set a constructive goal of not attacking each other. Instead of abandoning your mind, why not make it a pleasant common goal to respect and be patient with each other?
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 I think you have it wrong, fighting on occasion is healthy, not fighting ever means you aren't communicating. What really matters is how you fight, do you both fight fair, is it ultimately constructive to the relationship? Can you have a fight and resolve the issue and then it's done, not revisit the issue on many occasions? Do you only fight when it's really come to a head not just over petty stuff? Of course to have a constructive discussion we need to define the term "fight". In my OP I started out with the following definition: The fight I'm imagining ends with hurt feelings, confusion, and the sense that your ally became an adversary.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 You idea is interesting, I just don't think that its best to quit as soon as something that's no ideal happens - I would imagine that finding someone that you would NEVER have a "fight" with over anything would be nearly impossible. Or maybe, what I think of as a fight you might think of as a disagreement...I dunno. My definition in this thread: The fight I'm imagining ends with hurt feelings, confusion, and the sense that your ally became an adversary.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 What is important, is that people can get past the fight in quick order. That shows more than anything, how strong the bond is between them. If the bond is so strong (that it can last a lifetime) then why couldn't the fight have been avoided in the first place? This isn't so much about controlling your emotions, it's about being able to control what you say and do to the most important person in your life.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 What if you just meet and don't know each other that well, and that person is not "the most important person" in my life....and on a 3rd Date you have a fight because of misunderstanding or failure to communicate....should that be the end of it like OP says? The fight I describe is more than just a failure to communicate. It is a failure to respect and support.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 If the bond is so strong (that it can last a lifetime) then why couldn't the fight have been avoided in the first place? This isn't so much about controlling your emotions, it's about being able to control what you say and do to the most important person in your life. In this context I mean important in the way that romantic relationship is important.
kassy Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I still think this is overly simplistic. I guess what I call a fight you call a discussion. But it is still upsetting. To show how this is too simplistic I'll tell you about my current relationship. My boyfriend is Muslim, I'm an atheist, we come from very different cultures and English isn't his first language (it's his 5th, but it's damn good). We have had a lot of times where we have different takes on things, there are oh so many different social norms and have been real misunderstandings. We have both at times been hurt, felt very confused and I guess at times felt that we weren't on the same team. But so far we have been able to regroup have a conversation and come to some resolution/understanding of what is going on... so should we have broken up because we got hurt and confused? It's inevitable to have misunderstandings in a relationship with such different backgrounds as you come to new ground... If we didn't want kids I think we could make it work forever, but we both do and agree that our views on raising kids is so different it can't work. (And I'd have to become Muslim for us to even be able to get married, and we both know that isn't going to happen). I would hate to have missed out on this wonderful relationship with this fantastic man (even though it won't be forever) because we had a fight over a a misunderstanding.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 I still think this is overly simplistic. I guess what I call a fight you call a discussion. But it is still upsetting. To show how this is too simplistic I'll tell you about my current relationship. My boyfriend is Muslim, I'm an atheist, we come from very different cultures and English isn't his first language (it's his 5th, but it's damn good). We have had a lot of times where we have different takes on things, there are oh so many different social norms and have been real misunderstandings. We have both at times been hurt, felt very confused and I guess at times felt that we weren't on the same team. But so far we have been able to regroup have a conversation and come to some resolution/understanding of what is going on... so should we have broken up because we got hurt and confused? It's inevitable to have misunderstandings in a relationship with such different backgrounds as you come to new ground... If we didn't want kids I think we could make it work forever, but we both do and agree that our views on raising kids is so different it can't work. (And I'd have to become Muslim for us to even be able to get married, and we both know that isn't going to happen). I would hate to have missed out on this wonderful relationship with this fantastic man (even though it won't be forever) because we had a fight over a a misunderstanding. So you want to continue in a relationship that "can't work"? Am I misinterpreting your comment? I guess it's important to point out that I don't want to spend any time in a relationship that doesn't have the potential to be my last.
Els Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Every relationship does not have a fight. My sister and brother in law have been married for 24 years and have never had the type of fight I described. I've questioned their adult children to confirm this. I think the idea that relationships must include fighting is flawed. What sort of parents fight in front of their children? That's like saying, I know all married couples don't have sex, because I questioned my friend's children to confirm this. The only two people in a relationship who know whether a fight has happened or not are usually the two people themselves. And of course if we have a fight we're not going to tell other people that we had one. That would be washing your dirty linen in public. I'm not sure what sort of fight you have in mind, but IMO many fights do generally end with 'hurt feelings and confusion' and a temporary thought of the other person being the 'adversary'. That's why it's called a fight. Not a discussion, not a debate, not a disagreement, but a fight. Perhaps you could give us concrete examples of fights you consider to be 'okay' and fights you consider not to be? Almost all long term couples I have spoken to honestly, have admitted that there has been at least one or two big fights in their relationship before. Because we're all human, and sometimes we slip up. The key for most people, I think, is that both people have to be willing to learn from their mistakes, work towards healing from it and work towards solving the issue that caused it, to prevent future reoccurences. That is an ongoing process, because two imperfect humans are coming together to merge their lives with one another. There is inexcusable fight behaviour, of course, such as verbal abuse or physical violence, and you are correct in that we all have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for us, personally. But there are two things about this: The first being that I don't see the point in the 'experimental' and 'contractual' portion of this. If the other person's behaviour during a fight exceeds your boundaries of what is okay, then naturally you will want to call it quits. Isn't that something that most adults know and understand, without needing a whole contract about it? I don't think I need to tell my bf something like, 'We need to make an agreement. One of the parameters of our relationship is that if you hit me, I'm gone. Can we agree on that so that you can consciously make an effort not to hit me?' How does this concept preclude being "head over heals with one another"? You can be joyful over a new relationship and still set a constructive goal of not attacking each other. Instead of abandoning your mind, why not make it a pleasant common goal to respect and be patient with each other? Continuing from above, I don't see why you would need to define your relationship as an 'experiment' and set 'if this happens, we break up' parameters to achieve these goals. My gripe is not about trying to set a goal for a tolerant and peaceful relationship. My gripe is about the manner in which you are attempting to do it. It seems quite redundant and, frankly, terribly clinical and stand-offish. Not exactly the foot I personally would like to start a R on. My second question, is what is the longest relationship you've ever been in? Have you ever cohabitated, or married? Edited March 15, 2012 by Elswyth
kassy Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 No, my relationship won't be for forever, but if for example we didn't want kids then it could, it wouldn't change any of the things that cause fights. But 99% of he time we are very very happy, just because we have a fight we should throw it in? (assuming it could work out for your question). On a side note, I also think it is bizarre how the people I know who say they wouldn't date someone who didn't have the potential to be the one doesn't matter how great they are, seem to be the people who settle because they are so fixated on the goal of getting married. Everyone is different I guess, each to their own.
xxoo Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 The fight I'm imagining ends with hurt feelings, confusion, and the sense that your ally became an adversary. If your definition of a fight includes a bad ending, then I agree with you. There is little future if you can not resolve conflicts together. But I don't understand why the fight would need to end at that point. In my relationship, we take a break at that point, and come back to it later. A disagreement might get to this point once or twice a year. After coming back to it--sometimes twice--we can end with a feeling that we better understand each other, feel heard, and have a true ally. IMO, it is not about avoiding conflict. It is about how well you can resolve it. And sometimes the middle of a fight is not the best time to gauge that 1
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 What sort of parents fight in front of their children? That's like saying, I know all married couples don't have sex, because I questioned my friend's children to confirm this. The only two people in a relationship who know whether a fight has happened or not are usually the two people themselves. And of course if we have a fight we're not going to tell other people that we had one. That would be washing your dirty linen in public. You can believe it or not but it's a fact that these two did not fight in the way I'm talking about. It's a sad commentary that that is so hard to imagine. Almost all long term couples I have spoken to honestly, have admitted that there has been at least one or two big fights in their relationship before. Because we're all human, and sometimes we slip up. The key for most people, I think, is that both people have to be willing to learn from their mistakes, work towards healing from it and work towards solving the issue that caused it, to prevent future reoccurences. That is an ongoing process, because two imperfect humans are coming together to merge their lives with one another. There is inexcusable fight behaviour, of course, such as verbal abuse or physical violence, and you are correct in that we all have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for us, personally. This isn't about being perfect, it's about having enough respect that you don't turn on your partner, not even temporarily. But there are two things about this: The first being that I don't see the point in the 'experimental' and 'contractual' portion of this. If the other person's behaviour during a fight exceeds your boundaries of what is okay, then naturally you will want to call it quits. Isn't that something that most adults know and understand, without needing a whole contract about it? I don't think I need to tell my bf something like, 'We need to make an agreement. One of the parameters of our relationship is that if you hit me, I'm gone. Can we agree on that so that you can consciously make an effort not to hit me?' Every relationship is an experiment and contains some type of contract or agreement, whether it's consciously acknowledged or not. Your example of not hitting is a great one, and I think it serves to illustrate my point; emotional violence can be as bad or even worse than physical violence, and if you can't stop yourself from coming at me with emotional violence then "I'm gone". Continuing from above, I don't see why you would need to define your relationship as an 'experiment' and set 'if this happens, we break up' parameters to achieve these goals. My gripe is not about trying to set a goal for a tolerant and peaceful relationship. My gripe is about the manner in which you are attempting to do it. It seems quite redundant and, frankly, terribly clinical and stand-offish. Not exactly the foot I personally would like to start a R on. Why not begin a relationship with a conscious intent on both sides to treat each other with respect at all times? I don't see that as clinical, I see that as intelligent and thoughtful. My second question, is what is the longest relationship you've ever been in? Have you ever cohabitated, or married? I was married for almost ten years and I am still great friends with my ex. Tomorrow I'm driving 120 miles to take her and her husband and daughter out to dinner for my ex's birthday. I visit them regularly. I recently ended a 13 year LTR. I also still care about my ex GF, and hope that our relationship evolves into a friendship like I enjoy with my ex wife. My GF and I had many fights over the years, but they can all be traced back to the first one in terms of the basic cause. I have also had a handful of relationships that lasted about a year each.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 No, my relationship won't be for forever, but if for example we didn't want kids then it could, it wouldn't change any of the things that cause fights. But 99% of he time we are very very happy, just because we have a fight we should throw it in? (assuming it could work out for your question). On a side note, I also think it is bizarre how the people I know who say they wouldn't date someone who didn't have the potential to be the one doesn't matter how great they are, seem to be the people who settle because they are so fixated on the goal of getting married. Everyone is different I guess, each to their own. If I was in your situation I would not continue dating that person, I would keep them as a great friend, but I would open myself to others that might have the potential for something deeper. The only difference between that and what you're doing seems to be sex.
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Quote: Originally Posted by J322Y The fight I'm imagining ends with hurt feelings, confusion, and the sense that your ally became an adversary. I disagree with you. Of course, you are right about many cases. The fighting and the bad feelings the ensue can certainly signal incompatibility, bad communication and / or a contentious, unhealthy relationship. But, fights can "end" as you describe above and be resolved later, after the hurt feelings subside. The most telling thing is whether the people learn from the experience of the fight and the resulting negativity how to resolve conflicts differently next time. A complete commitment to avoiding "fighting" might be just as unhealthy to a relationship as habitual fighting.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 If your definition of a fight includes a bad ending, then I agree with you. There is little future if you can not resolve conflicts together. But I don't understand why the fight would need to end at that point. In my relationship, we take a break at that point, and come back to it later. A disagreement might get to this point once or twice a year. After coming back to it--sometimes twice--we can end with a feeling that we better understand each other, feel heard, and have a true ally. IMO, it is not about avoiding conflict. It is about how well you can resolve it. And sometimes the middle of a fight is not the best time to gauge that I underlined the bad ending part of my definition of a fight because it shows that the couple couldn't find a peaceful solution at the time. If no solution can be found then I'm saying that the odds of that relationship growing into something better is extremely low. I think we would all agree that the vast majority of couples who begin exclusively dating will decide to part ways eventually. This concept is an attempt to identify if a relationship is one of these majority relationships and to end it before a lot of time is wasted. In others, why not be smart and end it on a relatively high note? I can look back on every (failed) relationship I've had and remember gut feelings that accompanied the earliest signs of discord. I'm suggesting that we be more aware of those gut feelings and bravely act on them. Most of us get caught up in the euphoria of new relationship and ignore these inner signals. My concept here is just a potential method for staying in touch with your gut feelings.
Mme. Chaucer Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I think that being in touch with your gut feelings includes knowing when it's worth it to fight something out. By the way, my husband and I seem to never fight. So I am not a proponent of fighting. Some people are fighters. They seem to need to do it. Probably they came from a family where fighting was normal. If these folks walked every time they had hurt feelings and the sense that their partner had become their adversary, they would be alone forever. There is a such thing as "fighting fair" and solid couples will come to understand what would be an unforgivable low blow in a fight, and not go there even when feelings run high. But early on, they don't know this. My parents fought a lot. I don't even think it was healthy fighting. BUT, they were compatible temperamentally, bonded like crazy and a totally solid couple that stayed together for life, 2
Els Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 You can believe it or not but it's a fact that these two did not fight in the way I'm talking about. It's a sad commentary that that is so hard to imagine. But here's the thing - you cannot speak for anybody else. The only person you can speak for, is yourself. If you genuinely tell me that you have had relationships lasting, not forever, but even 10, 20 years where there was not a single fight, then that would sound more plausible. That being said, I guess I don't judge the health of a relationship by whether or not fights occur. Certainly fighting often, fighting early or fighting repeatedly over the same issue could be signs of incompatibility. But not fighting at all, if it were possible, could also be a sign that one party is repressing his/her own needs and opinions, or just afraid to anger the other. It depends on the context. I was married for almost ten years and I am still great friends with my ex. Tomorrow I'm driving 120 miles to take her and her husband and daughter out to dinner for my ex's birthday. I visit them regularly. I recently ended a 13 year LTR. I also still care about my ex GF, and hope that our relationship evolves into a friendship like I enjoy with my ex wife. My GF and I had many fights over the years, but they can all be traced back to the first one in terms of the basic cause. I have also had a handful of relationships that lasted about a year each. I think this is the key. You believe that the demise of your relationship could have been avoided had you scrambled for the door at the first fight, so now you are swinging in the other direction because you are afraid of it happening again. But here's the thing - you don't know. Assuming she wasn't displaying extremely despicable behaviour during the fight, for all you know it COULD have worked if you had both tried to make it work. For all you know, if both parties had tried to work on resolving conflicts better after the fight and improving the issue that was initially fought about, it could have worked. Sometimes it doesn't, because the issues are too numerous or there is no compatibility, but sometimes it does. The only way to know is to try. In the end, it's up to you. You have asked your question, and most people here have given you their opinion, and you have refuted all of it and sticking to your initial opinion. In that case, I guess I don't see why ask at all. I personally feel that some people, due to having been hurt in the past, bolt way too quickly now at even the slightest whiff of trouble, and that is a surefire way to exclude themselves from an LTR. Because all LTRs involve some form of effort and compromise, even if a good LTR returns rewards that make the effort worthwhile, tenfold. And I feel that your bringing up that 'contract' in such a way as you mentioned it here, during a budding relationship, will only turn off the woman. But essentially, you seem to have made up your mind, so good luck with that.
FitChick Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 A friend of mine opened my eyes when she told me that she'd always tried to avoid fighting with her boyfriends and eventually they'd have one big blow up and split. She and her then boyfriend had "spats" constantly. She said doing that kept them together because it cleared the air and no resentments built up. They eventually got married. I think resentment kills a relationship. That being said, learn to fight fair. There have been books written on the subject.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 I think that being in touch with your gut feelings includes knowing when it's worth it to fight something out. Exactly. My definition of "fight" in this context is one that ends without resolution. Hugh Prather said that most couples suffer from arguments that are too short. I expect some discord in any relationship, it's how it's handled that is the key. A disagreement that ends in resolution is not the point of this thread. Some people are fighters. They seem to need to do it. Probably they came from a family where fighting was normal. If these folks walked every time they had hurt feelings and the sense that their partner had become their adversary, they would be alone forever. Granted, someone who is a fighter will not even consider what I'm saying because they accept fighting as normal. My concept is based on people who don't believe that emotional attacks are healthy and normal. I don't expect a fighter to be alone forever, I expect them to be with anyone but me. There is a such thing as "fighting fair" and solid couples will come to understand what would be an unforgivable low blow in a fight, and not go there even when feelings run high. But early on, they don't know this. They may be able to know this early on by paying attention to it and not completely indulging in the euphoria of new relationship.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 But here's the thing - you cannot speak for anybody else. The only person you can speak for, is yourself. If you genuinely tell me that you have had relationships lasting, not forever, but even 10, 20 years where there was not a single fight, then that would sound more plausible. I'm confused. I've had fights in my relationships, my sister is the one who didn't fight. That being said, I guess I don't judge the health of a relationship by whether or not fights occur. Certainly fighting often, fighting early or fighting repeatedly over the same issue could be signs of incompatibility. But not fighting at all, if it were possible, could also be a sign that one party is repressing his/her own needs and opinions, or just afraid to anger the other. It depends on the context. I'm floating an idea, no one has to be dogmatic about how they apply it for it to have merit. Everyone will interpret "fight" differently. We shouldn't have to suppress strong emotions to avoid fighting but I only want a partner who is able to resist attacking me emotionally. It takes maturity to keep your head when things don't go your way and I expect my partner and I to be able to do that. I think this is the key. You believe that the demise of your relationship could have been avoided had you scrambled for the door at the first fight, so now you are swinging in the other direction because you are afraid of it happening again. But here's the thing - you don't know. Assuming she wasn't displaying extremely despicable behaviour during the fight, for all you know it COULD have worked if you had both tried to make it work. For all you know, if both parties had tried to work on resolving conflicts better after the fight and improving the issue that was initially fought about, it could have worked. Sometimes it doesn't, because the issues are too numerous or there is no compatibility, but sometimes it does. The only way to know is to try. I don't think your psychoanalysis of me is very accurate. Also, I'm not suggesting anything about avoiding the demise of a relationship; I'm talking about a way to recognize earlier when a relationship is going in the wrong direction. In other words; I would rather have a 6 month relationship that was pleasant for most of the time than a 1 year relationship that was a chore or a drama for the last 6 months. My point is that we tend to drag out relationships longer than they deserve. In the end, it's up to you. You have asked your question, and most people here have given you their opinion, and you have refuted all of it and sticking to your initial opinion. In that case, I guess I don't see why ask at all. I personally feel that some people, due to having been hurt in the past, bolt way too quickly now at even the slightest whiff of trouble, and that is a surefire way to exclude themselves from an LTR. Because all LTRs involve some form of effort and compromise, even if a good LTR returns rewards that make the effort worthwhile, tenfold. And I feel that your bringing up that 'contract' in such a way as you mentioned it here, during a budding relationship, will only turn off the woman. But essentially, you seem to have made up your mind, so good luck with that. It's funny that you accuse me of being close-minded. I'm not trying to prove anything or make a claim that my idea is bulletproof. I challenge what people say because that is how a concept can be refined. It seems like you just want me to accept your ideas as the "right" approach. I spent hundreds of hours trying to salvage my last 13 year LTR, including sessions with an excellent psychologist that both my GF and I admire. I'm not lazy about relationship and I'm certainly not timid about risk. I'm still great friends with my ex wife because of the huge amount of effort I put into the relationship. It's probably not very efficient for you to try and understand my psychological makeup based on this thread. Instead you should probably focus on the concept itself and see if you can make comments that add to the discussion.
Author J322Y Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 A friend of mine opened my eyes when she told me that she'd always tried to avoid fighting with her boyfriends and eventually they'd have one big blow up and split. She and her then boyfriend had "spats" constantly. She said doing that kept them together because it cleared the air and no resentments built up. They eventually got married. I think resentment kills a relationship. That being said, learn to fight fair. There have been books written on the subject. All I could ask is that my partner "fights fair". The fight I'm referring to in my OP is the first "unfair" fight.
Recommended Posts