SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
|
I agree with that notion about absolute honesty being un-necessary and almost un-wise in many LTRs (gosh, anyone who is thinking of getting married, or in a LTR, underline that, print it out, and post it to your fridge, 'cuz you might end up needing it someday).
Do I look fat in these jeans, honey? Were you really at a strip club, dear? etc, etc ad infinitum. I think someone has to weigh the impact of their words. Is it really humane to emotionally pummel someone who say, just won't diet, and is perhaps taking a marriage for granted in many ways, as blanket grounds to act however they please, but won't consider the needs of a partner, or consider counselling (yes these situations really do exist) bluntly: You have really become out of shape and if you cared more about me, you'd do something about it and it's a huge turn-off for me?, for instance? I mean I'd bring it up (in a nice way) and encourage dieting, but what if they just won't do it, and furthermore act offended you even suggested it, for example?
The implication seems to be that the married person receving the short end of the stick is just obligated to suck-it-up and take-it, because after all, they're married. Sure, they can get a divorce. But isn't it a wee bit extreme to divorce someone because they are fat? I mean, it's not like they are beating the kids, or something. But they still are taking their partner for granted, IMO.
This is the "side of the story" I don't often hear mentioned in these situations. Then there is the somewhat amusing idea that if the offended party were somehow just a good enough communicator, this would never have happened. It surely couldn't be the fault of the slob on the couch with the remote, who eats ice cream all day long, no. Never.
That might be a poor example, but one could easily think of many other examples along these lines, where what one partner is doing, isn't quite extreme enough to warrant ending the relatiionship (esp. perhaps if UMs are involved), and yet is making the other partner feel the one is just almost completely taking them for granted. And doesn't really appear to care, or be willing to do much to change. You cannot, IMO, make anyone change. You can merely suggest and encourage someone else to change. And sometimes another person still won't do it. What then?
I guess I want to make clear that I do think if someone is representing themselves as completely un-attached to someone who is looking for a long-term LTR, and the relationship is developing into something serious, and someone ends up getting their heart broken, yes, I do think that is wrong. I know there are instances where people get their hearts broken and stomped on, and I don't think it's nice. However, I do see situations where both people may have gone into a situation wishing and hoping, and I think that is not only human, but understandable, and maybe on either end sometimes, too. Hence, I guess, the notion: Trust but verify.
It's just that sometimes when I've seen this kind of thread or convo on these message boards, I often don't see as much that folks express a recognition for any times that could possibly exist, where there indeed might be such a thing as any mitigating circumstances.
Within the context of the bdsm world itself, there are instances where some folks get into situations where one person believes they have blanket consent from person X to do whatever, and yet that isn't quite what person Y had in mind, and this is sometimes (from what I've read) another instance where someone says: But hey! We had an agreement. A verbal (or written) contract, so you're obligated - no matter what.
Hmmm. I guess I'm not saying that contracts and someone's word isn't supposed to be worth something, I'm saying that I think people who honestly think it always defies the notion of communication and negotiation in a relationship to be a little scary to me, (depending on the situation). People seem (to me) to want easy answers to all situations, sometimes. I think they sometimes really plain don't exist.
These are supposedly sometimes folks (from what I've read anyway) who may have even known eachother for quite a long time, too. I hear people state that communication and negotiation are necessary (I agree), and yet even when it supposedly is there, there are still instances where misunderstandings can occur. That is the reason I can't get in the CIAW camp. The notion seems to me to pre-suppose a world where problems rarely happen, and a contract is somehow going to save all, and rescue the day, in the long run.
My take: If that were really true, and all the time, then there wouldn't ever be people having Qs on these boards about situations like I described before, where notions of what actually constitutes "consent" can get fuzzy. It's not that I don't think cheating isn't wrong, ever. I will be bold enough to suggest though, that there are people who can't seem to describe how they'd resolve a situation like the ones I talked about before, or why they exist in the first place. It's not a perfect world, IMO. And some folks, in some instances, could use a little compassion. Until I've walked a mile in their shoes, I don't feel it's possible to judge these folks very fairly, most of the time.
- Susan
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 3/14/2007 2:42:20 PM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|
RE: CIAW - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread