posted
In the case Squicky is describing, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Honey, I have a serious problem with Valentine's Day. I don't like it for x, y, and z reasons, and I'd rather not celebrate it. Instead, I think we should focus on showing each other how much we care throughout the year." I would imagine many women would be fine with it, as long as he follows through. I know I certainly would be. If he's dating someone who thinks Valentine's Day is important for some reason, she can lay out why, and they can have a discussion about it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because expressing affection between partners - in whatever way a couple has decided to do it - should be the default. If she really wants it, I think it is unreasonable to deliberately dissapoint her.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat -- Of course there is nothing wrong with expressing affection on V-day or any other day. Most people who have problems with V-day have two specific gripes:
1. commercialization 2. bad memories that involve being single or friendless or both and feeling terribly left out
In my case, it was all of that.
Given my history, it would be incredibly unfeeling of my husband to come home on Wednesday with a heart-shaped box of chocolate and say, "Happy V-day." He knows how I feel about it. What he should do, instead, is come home like he does every other day. He should give me and our son a hug and a kiss and talk with us while we eat dinner. Afterwards, he should play with out son until his bedtime and then spend some quality time with me. He may even say he loves me, but he does that most days.
I don't think people who hate V-day are out to create a vacuum of affection on one day a year. We just choose not to make it special. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe this is the crux: No, I don't think a desire to withhold affection from a romantic partner because you're mad at society - to the point that you're willing to make her unhappy - is reasonable.
Where did I ever say I was advocating withholding affection or that I was mad at society?
I never withhold affection. And I'm not mad at society. I disapprove of the cultural conception of Valentine's day. And I have no idea why you would think that the gifts and all that go along with Valentine's day are the only way to show affection.
What I'm having problem with is the disparity in needing to care about the other person's desires that you seem to be pushing. I don't think that them compromising that includes not doing the Valentine's thing means that the not wanting boyfriend is obviously horribly self-centered.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think a lot of these scenarios fall outside of the "reasonable" qualification I outlined above.
The more personal the request (touching, intimacy, etc) the more justification needs to be provided.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
C: That's fine. I was picturing this boycott - a rebellion against all things love-related in order to flummox against society expectations. It's too bad, because society couldn't possibly care less and wouldn't notice at all. The sweetheart probably will notice, though, and is the only one affected by the boycott.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because expressing affection between partners - in whatever way a couple has decided to do it - should be the default. If she really wants it, I think it is unreasonable to deliberately dissapoint her.
And it doesn't matter what he thinks.
---
quote:a rebellion against all things love-related in order to flummox against society expectations
Why the heck would you think that? That's just bizarre.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's thinks that he's opposed to expressing affection? Really? That's something to take a stand on? Yeah - I think if someone refuses to express affection, it's a problem in a relationship.
I don't think gifts are the only way to celebrate Valentine's Day. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Did you hallucinate somewhere that I said gifts were necessary? Maybe the reason you are so opposed to what I'm saying is that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't agree with what to me seems like a very twisted version of expressing affection i.e. only by doing the Valentine's day stuff, but if that's what you are using for expressing affection, then I know lots of people who are opposed to it.
Of course, I don't think that they love their partners less or are actually less affectionate using a reasonable definition of affection.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think gifts are the only way to celebrate Valentine's Day. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Did you hallucinate somewhere that I said gifts were necessary? Maybe the reason you are so opposed to what I'm saying is that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I don't know what kind of relationships you are used to, but, for me, expressing affection is the default state of being in a relationship. It doesn't need any sort of occasion to be expressed.
When we're talking about celebrating Valentine's day, I, at least, am talking about the gift-giving and various other special measures that are taken. These are things that the girl is wanting in what I am saying.
So, the case is, the girl wants some sort of special thing to happen (granting the assumption that basic affection is not special in this relationship). The boy does not. From what I am gettign from what you are saying, if they don't do something special, the boy is horribly self-centered.
If you are just talking about displaying basic affection as being something special, I have no way of relating to you.
---
And, again, you may notice that I've managed to maintain a civil tone towards you in this conversation, despite your disrespectful provocation. It's really not that hard. Could I request that you at least attempt the same?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do not understand what I have been saying if that is your summary. Considering how many times I have explained it and you still don't understand, I don't know what else to do.
If you don't mind expressing affection normally, why the opposition to a day for expressing affection?
That's what I don't get - if someone is willing to do it the rest of the year, why not the rest of the year + one day?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's what I don't get - if someone is willing to do it the rest of the year, why not the rest of the year + one day?
No one ever said anything about not expressing affection. You've introduced that with no reason that I can see. What we've been talking about, doing special things for Valentine's Day, has been perfectly clear to me throughout this entire discussion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have not been talking about the same things. It shouldn't have been clear, because what you've been assuming isn't true and isn't based on anything I said. I've been talking about expressing affection, however a couple decides to do that. It's always special, no matter if it happens every day or every weekend. Declaring V-Day a day to NOT do it at all, because society wants you to, is awfully hard on your sweetheart.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
A dark bathroom. A woman enters, sleepy, and approaches the toilet. She starts to sit down---
*SPLASH*
SCENE 2:
The woman flips on the light over the bed. Her husband wakes up.
WOMAN: John, I asked you to put the toilet seat down after you use it.
JOHN: Barb, I told you to stop trying to repress me.
BARB: I'm not repressing you-- why would you think that?
JOHN: You're still doing it-- emotional terrorism. Look, wife, why don't you just look down before you sit down? Why do I have to be bothered to watch out for your hiney?
BARB: (quietly pulls out her Glock): I'm sorry it's come to this.
JOHN: What the---
Barb shoots him in the neck.
Announcer: Avoid death and long, tedious murder trials! Buy the Acme automatic toilet lid closer kit today!
*********************
At this point, this conversation is just absurd.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, You've taken pains to say that I have trouble with reading comprehension. Perhaps you could explain to me how this:
quote:Maybe the act of love is not the flowers, but getting her the flowers despite not caring for the holiday.
In other words, no convincing needed. He thinks it is dumb, but he loves her and she doesn't, so he gets her flowers and they make her happy. I think someone has to very unselfish and sweet to think about his partner instead of himself.
Boycotting it without the enthusiastic consent of one's partner or else giving a gift begrudgingly is horribly self-centered.
is about expressing affection as opposed to what it appears to me to be about, i.e. getting her flowers and similar?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is getting someone flowers considered exceptional? I thought that was an ordinary expression of affection.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He loves her. He sees how happy she is when he gets her flowers.
He knows she likes V-day. He doesn't. He wants her to be happy. He references the experiences he's had when he's given her flowers. He cross references experiences he's had when he fails to meet her reasonable expectations.
He goes and buys her flowers as an expression of affection. The affection is in 1) the flowers, 2) the flowers on a day special to her, 3) the flowers on a day special to her but perhaps not so special to him.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I'm afraid that where we are going wrong here is in our definitions of "normal affection." I don't get flowers often. I don't think I'd want them very often -- they would lose that *specialness* that I do, in fact, think they possess.
"Normal affection" is, of course, something to be negotiated by each couple, but I would venture a guess that bringing home flowers would be considered special by most people. We could take an informal poll here, if you like. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think...I think something can be both normal and special. I mean, I get a thrill whenever I get asked to dinner and a movie for Friday. It doesn't matter that it happens 90% of weekends anyway - I still love it.
Same with flowers, I think. You can buy flowers here for a few dollars from vendors at most metro stops. They are really easy to get, but that doesn't mean they aren't beautiful and sweet every time.
Christine, your explanation makes sense. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, Does buying presents, like say jewelry or making plans to go out to an expensive restaurant also fall under the heading of normal affection?
If so or even if not and we're just talking about the flowers, I'll ask again, if the girl expects flowers (or gifts or an expensive night out - also, I'm assuming that these things don't happen on an everyday or very frequent basis, but rather as something special as Christine suggested) for Valentine's day and the boy doesn't want to get her flowers, etc. on Valentine's day, is he always horridly self-centered if he doesn't end up doing so, but instead treats it as any sort of normal day? (And, again, I'm assuming that on a normal day, he demonstrates basic affection towards his girlfriend.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Please put the toilet seat down after flushing.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? I mean, assuming that the purpose of the lid is to mitigate the spread of human waste throughout the bathroom, surely it should be closed before flushing. It can even, optionally, be re-opened after the flush is complete, for subsequent ease of sitting.
As to Valentine's Day, I'm not terribly concerned about it one way or the other.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: He knows I don't want to go see an NBA game (notice, I don't say a "basketball" game. I like Basketball. I don't like NBA.) I don't need anything romantic for VD (an appropriate abreviation for Valentine's Day) but he could at least *not* drag me somewhere I don't want to go for the day.
Now I could have said "Under no circumstances will I go to see the (explitive) Golden State Warriors" but he was just so excited about it I had to give in. So I comprimized and came here to complain to my friends. I know it's a stereotypical thing to do. I'm fine with that.
But just see if he gets anything on "Steak and BJ(*) Day". (March 14th. Valentines for Guys)
posted
Other than a corsage for prom I think the only time I have received flowers from a romantic partner was the morning John was born and Bob brought me flowers from the hospital gift shop.
So I'm going to come down on the "special occaision" rather than "normal affection" end of the flower spectrum.
Oh, and we bought a rosebush on Mother's Day last year.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:assuming that the purpose of the lid is to mitigate the spread of human waste throughout the bathroom
While that purpose always comes up in arguments on the topic, it seems that is generally not the reason behind those who feel most strongly that the seat should be down.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:is he always horridly self-centered if he doesn't end up doing so, but instead treats it as any sort of normal day?
If it's important to her and he knows it and he still doesn't? Yes, it's self-centered.
*shrug* Maybe her gift to him is to not mind and not express how sad she is because of it. For her sake, I sure hope he doesn't always place himself before her in his list of priorities.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: assuming that the purpose of the lid is to mitigate the spread of human waste throughout the bathroom
What? Oh, I get it. I said lid when I meant "seat."
Yeah, twinky. Whatever.
Pix:
What's March 14th? I'm a guy. I had no idea we had a holiday then. I grew up in a family of guys, and we never celebrated March 14 as anything but Death-of-Caesar Eve.
Steak's appropriate, I guess...but they stabbed him. They didn't use blackjacks on him. Knives, lady. Long, sharp knives.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I could have said "Under no circumstances will I go to see the (explitive) Golden State Warriors" but he was just so excited about it I had to give in.
As I udnerstand it under what, at least Scott, is still saying, that would have made you horridly selfish.
I still don't understand why.
---
quote:If the desire is reasonable as defined in their specific, communicated understanding of the word, yep.
I'm not sure what happens to the equally or even more reasonable desire not to do this. Why is that ignorable?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine what often happens is that both are really sefish about it. Maybe those kinds of people attract each other.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: It's not really "Black Jack" Please don't make me spell it out. It might (would) offend someone.
I mean, yeah, I heard about it on the radio and thought it was a great idea. Valentine's for Guys. A day for the two things guys love most. I could make my hubby really happy... But he's making me go see the (explitive) Golden State Warriors. *grr* There is no need for reciprocation... unless I make him take me to see a chick flick. (A lesbian chick flick if there are any good ones out right now.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine what often happens is that both are really sefish about it. Maybe those kinds of people attract each other.
What the heck are you talking about?
If two people have opposing views on something like Valentines day, they most both be really selfish? That doesn't make any sense to me.
To me, in a situation where one partner desires something and the other desires not something, the way to handle that is to compromise. And if that compromise ends up with that thing not being done, I don't think that this means that the not wanting partner is horridly self-centered.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a whole world of difference between cooperation and what you said, which made "the enthusiastic consent of one's partner" the requirement for non-self-centeredness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You prefer begrudging compromise where someone just stops fighting because they see it isn't doing any good?
No, there isn't a huge difference. Honestly, I think you'd be happier if you took off the distortion glasses that puts the narrowest, worst possible spin on my posts for you. You'll be happier, and you'll be closer to reality if you start with an assumption of good faith.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:*shrug* Maybe her gift to him is to not mind and not express how sad she is because of it. For her sake, I sure hope he doesn't always place himself before her in his list of priorities.
See, this is the thing I really don't get. It seems perfectly okay for you for her to put herself ahead on him by having him do things that he doesn't want to do, but the opposite but, to me, equal situation is horridly self-centered. I don't see what the enormous difference between these two are that you seem to be working from.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you don't understand. I don't know what else I can do about that beyond what I've done already. Maybe if you go back and reread without the assumption that I must be wrong in there somewhere you'll understand.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pix Said: Now I could have said "Under no circumstances will I go to see the (explitive) Golden State Warriors" but he was just so excited about it I had to give in.
Quoth Squicky:
As I udnerstand it under what, at least Scott, is still saying, that would have made you horridly selfish.
Nah. I'd never use the word horridly.
Nor would I presume to judge what is "reasonable" within Pix and her husband's relationship.
Whether or not she is being selfish is up to them. Ultimately judgements of this type are best left to the couples themselves. Outsiders like us, the most effective thing we can do is talk hypothetical people, and hypothetical situations.
I'll judge hypothetical people all day long. With impunity.
Real people like Pix and her beau? Not a chance. It would be a deeply stupid thing for me to do. Almost as stupid as insinuating that I *would* judge them...
Really, I think the main problem here is one of 'reasonableness.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You prefer begrudging compromise where someone just stops fighting because they see it isn't doing any good?
No, of course not. I prefer a compromise where the girl realizes that although she continues to want to do X, doing so puts them in conflict with her boyfriends equally valid desire not to do X. Thus, some accomodation needs to be made. And this may include her accepting some disappointment because they don't do what she wants, but that it is better for them in the long run or more fair or maybe it is just his turn.
Her consent could hardly be said to be enthusiastic, but this is, to me, healthier than saying "I didn't get to do what I wanted. Therefore you are selfish."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
