Question for Bluepers about relationship dynamics.

GODZILLAFLAMETHROWER · 2014-08-07T14:13:30+00:00

Since Bluepers back up the righteous 50-50 relationship power to both parties

Well, that's just wrong, for a start.

Am I here just to wait while my partner fixes it? Or am I obligated to fix it too? If so then why am I fixing problems that I didn't agree to?

Yes, because you are not a child and because it's not a matter of who is at fault but how to fix it. If you cannot bear a compromise with your SO then leave, this is not fit for a relationship.

Thinking of optimality is stupid here.

Seriously, you cannot fathom the fact that you would just discuss and make a few compromise for some important decisions? How old are you?

Time4Red · 2014-08-07T14:17:19+00:00

As I said to robesta, I prefer the 100 percent consent model, not 50-50. 100 percent consent means that both parties agree 100% and approve each group decision.

Obviously sometimes there are differences of opinion. In those cases both partners present their arguments and resolve the dispute with reasoning. Some people might say this leads to fights, but it doesn't have to. Part of a healthy relationship is knowing which partner feels more strongly or has more expertise in certain areas. Partner-A concedes and agrees to go with partner-B's plan in some cases, while the opposite happens in other cases.

So lets say your girlfriend wants to go for a walk, but you don't. If she feels more strongly about it than you do, then you should go. It makes her happy because you're doing something nice for her. A good partner will remember that incident and reciprocate in the future. Maybe the next day you're going to run some errands and you want company, but you're girlfriend doesn't feel like going. A caring girlfriend will remember the nice thing you did for her the other day and reciprocate. The key to this dynamic is not begrudgingly going along with your girlfriends plans or visa versa. Both of you have to be enthusiastic about your decisions.

This is how my relationship of 7+ years has operated. We really haven't had any problems. Overall, the relationship just gets better and better. We actually have more sex now than we did when we first started dating.

Trorbes · 2014-08-07T13:32:20+00:00

I don't think optimization is the reason, given such a thing can't exactly be measured. What is an optimal relationship to begin with?

Rather, the idea of equal partnership is based on humanistic ideas like respect, and the goal is to create an environment in which neither partner is expected to be subservient to the other. The dynamics may be different in practice, but not due to some expectation of hierarchy.

What does anyone do (or should do) in a disagreement? If they can't agree, they should compromise. If that fails, get a mediator. If they still can't work it out, then perhaps the relationship is not a good one to begin with.

Those_Who_Remain · 2014-08-07T14:26:14+00:00

Who chooses what direction the relationship go?

You both discuss the issues at hand and come to an agreement. Some times you compromise on something that is important to him/her, while the other time your partner will compromise. If you can't reach an agreement (especially on important decisions as marriage/having kids etc.), one of the two either compromises or the issue may lead to a break-up.

Relationships aren't a static 50/50 in the eyes of BP. It's fluid and changes with every decision that has to be made.

la_sabotage · 2014-08-07T17:03:28+00:00

Help me shed light to why BP thinks that a 50-50 is the optimal way of being in a relationship.

Because a relationship is not composed of one person, but two.

It follows from this that trying to achieve the desires of both would be the optimal way to conduct a relationship.

Kokujinkun · 2014-08-07T15:38:39+00:00

The older people get the more they know what they want for themselves out of life. Sometimes, we're not aware that our desires aren't even our own. Learning from our earliest relationships, mother and father, determine how we derive our desire. Sticking with the food example; There are millions of different ways for that situation to go. Neither party may be willing to compromise. BOTH parties may be willing to compromise. But ideally, one person compromises, and another takes lead. This whole stupid alpha beta thing is such a retarded concept people perpetuate because they think someone HAS to be the "alpha all the time". That dynamic is like water. It changes and sways back and forth within whatever shape it exists. We exists to work together. If you're not working together well with others, then you need to question yourself. Plain and simple.

[deleted] · 2014-08-07T20:27:08+00:00

It's a partnership. No one decides the fate of the other, they both decide together. There aren't "leaders" because there's no need for a hierarchy, and there's a lot of compromising between the two. If an issue arises, then the responsibility doesn't fall on one member of the relationship, both of them work together to solve the issue. It's all about teamwork and having your SOs back.

SpaceWhiskey · 2014-08-07T22:44:19+00:00

You talk to each other. It makes much more sense than one partner being 100% in charge. I don't think anyone is arguing for literal 50-50, as it all depends on the situation, but the whole Captain/First Mate thing is kinda dumb in my opinion. I know it works for some people, and power to them, but that's not how I roll. A job that requires moving? You talk about it. About money, about motivations, about the future, about how it fits into the plan, both of your individual plans and also the plan for both of your as a couple. And if there is a crossroads with no solution, you break up, but obviously that should be the last option discussed.

GridReXX · 2014-08-07T14:17:53+00:00

I never viewed an equal partnership as this taxing? I guess this is why TRP befuddles me at times. It makes things seem harder than they are. Sounds like a stressful way of life overall.

If one person gets a coveted job across country and the other person has a job on a career track where they are or wants to be close to their family, etc.., they have to make a decision together. That's called being an adult. In this case, the decision is going to set one of them back in one aspect, and perhaps move the relationship forward in another? Or not.

Anyhoo, it's called compromise. Not a foreign concept. Sometimes you get the lionshare of the compromise, sometimes your SO does. Sometimes it's an even split. Sometimes you may both decide to do it totally your way, sometimes you may both decide to do it totally your SO's way. Basics. They key here is to mitigate any/all feelings of resentment. If you feel as though "hey I've been getting my way a lot lately" it's time to pick your battles and do some things your SO wants to do.

There's a movie that deals with this dilemma. Called 5 Year Engagement.

In what world would one partner have total authority over a life decision as serious as that?

It would seem when it came to serious life decisions, that's time for a couple to be more egalitarian in decision making.

For things like "Should we get Chipotle or Sweetgreen?" Who cares. I'll eat whatever he brings home, he'll eat whatever I bring home. And honestly, I probably know what he likes anyway and vice versa.

gatorademebitches · 2014-08-07T15:46:38+00:00

you get a better job and (i'm assuming you're a guy) she doesn't want to leave? you sit down and talk about where your relationship is going. she deosn't want to change her own life so much for you? that's fine, that's life - you go forward in life separate ways but still having had enjoyed the time you had together heavily. If a guy moved state for his girlfriends job he'd be a 'beta', right? he'd be losing control of his own life by making big compromises for a woman. It's the same the other way round too - if you compromise so heavily for another person you're gunna be fucked if you ever break up or if anything ever goes wrong, there would be such a high level of dependency that I think it's too risky. obviously everyone always thinks their own relationships are perfect and never will go wrong though.

also, not all relationships have to be 50/50; as long as both people approve of the relationship dynamics then it's fine. hitting a woman for being 'out of line', ignoring her because she won't have sex with you and ignoring her resistance isn't what i'd call approved by both partners. There's a reason guys and girls get into abusive relationships and are scared to get out, and TRP says to go for girls without a strong group of friends, don't let her have male friends ect, creating this environment

[deleted] · 2014-08-07T20:50:33+00:00

I'm really, really picky about who I have a serious relationship with precisely for this reason. I had a 5 year LTR that was very egalitarian (he was a bigger feminist than I was) and making decisions together wasn't an issue 80% of the time because we were very alike in some rudimentary ways (similar tastes, similar penchant for the odd, similar subversive attitude toward authority). Sometimes he was stubborn and I was far too controlling, but my ex was very good at making me see the error of my ways without uttering a word. Whenever I'd do something unfair to him, he'd do it right back to me at some later point in time. I'd then get furious at him, stop, think for a second, and apologize. Sometimes he went overboard with the whole "show don't tell" "tit for tat" business and I wouldn't ravish him even though it was something both he and I wanted because I didn't want to get ravished in return (occasionally I do, but when I don't want it, I really don't want it and would not appreciate it being sprung on me.) And he didn't like to talk about the passionate, angry parts of sex because he felt it spoiled the "naturalness" of it...sure babe, but I'd kind of like to know at some point that you're down for sporadic, rough, no-questions-asked sex. Puts my mind at ease.

God, he'd often piss me off too. He's a prankster with a big anti-authoritarian streak, so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if he had Oppositional Defiant Disorder. I eventually wore him down and started disciplining him by making him ask for my opinion before he did anything interesting. He finally said he didn't know what to do without my input and I realized I wanted my old boyfriend back. From then on I learned to back off and give him some space to be annoying, fun, and a general pain in the ass.

Y'know, because I loved him.

He showed me when and how I was wrong through his actions at some later point in time, whereas I would instantly tell him how I thought he was wrong with some intense diatribe right then and there. He was understated, I was a bull in a china shop. He'd hold onto things, I'd fume about things and then forget them relatively quickly. But despite my intense desire to control him and make him admit he was wrong when I was angry, I adored him and didn't really want to change who he essentially was.

We fought a lot, but we were very good at finally talking to one another (once we had both cooled off) and moving through our disagreements together. We're both very strong-willed people, but we also wanted the other to be happy, so we would both concede and negotiate fairly often. Who would ultimately "win" depended largely on the dilemma itself. But overall if he was happy, I was happy. His stubbornness enraged me at times, but I was also proud of him for having that quality.

A 50-50 relationship is far less structured than the Captain/First Mate relationship; I think it's made for people who can be dominant, submissive, and equals at different points in time. But you really need to get one another in order to do this. Honestly this is the only relationship I've had where I was that in tune with my partner. There are times I would let him take the lead, there are other times when he pushed me to take the lead, and I goddamn loved him for it. But some of the best times were when we were simply two friends exploring the world together.

IRScientist · 2014-08-07T21:53:47+00:00

I don't think dividing things 50/50 is fair at all. It might seem fair that half the time when the dog barfs, I pick it up, and the other half, my husband picks it up, but in reality it's just hot wet dog food to me, while he struggles not to puke himself. Does the fact that he let the dog out, where the dog ate a bunch of grass (which we know makes him sick) change the dynamic? No, it's still not fair, because my husband will feel gross all night, whereas I might be grossed out for a minute.

And there's no such thing as "his problems" or "my problems". If there's something wrong in the relationship, we both need to fix it. If he needs to find a better job, I need to support him in the ways he deems appropriate. If I'm feeling ill, he needs to help out with dinner. Pointing fingers is useless. It doesn't solve anything. And as a grownup, I'd rather get the problem solved.

Fair to me means we both bring our A game. If he knows more about something, I'll step aside and let him take the lead. If I know more about something, he'll step aside and let me take the lead. I don't think it's unfair for the more flexible partner to yield more, because goddamnit, they're more flexible! Keeping count in order to render things perfectly even is bloody juvenile. I don't even do that with friends.

For all the bitching RPers do about people misinterpreting the first mate and captain dynamic, you sure prefer a strawman when it comes to talking about other relationship dynamics. When necessary, we switch roles. When we have trouble coming to a compromise, we talk about it. And if we need to, we talk about it some more, and eventually we get it right.

While some relationships work with the man taking the lead every time, others work with the woman taking the lead, and some work with both parties taking the role as necessary. People are different, and different things work for them.

polyhooly · 2014-08-08T01:14:56+00:00

Since Bluepers back up the righteous 50-50 relationship power to both parties, how does decisions work in a relationship?

No. There are some things I take domain over, and some things he takes domain over. There are something I generally get the final say on, and some things he generally gets the final say on. We take on whatever our strengths are. This does not mean that either of us rule with an iron fist of our subjects of strength. The other's input is always wanted and considered.

But what about harder life decisions? What if one gets a better job at a different State/Country and the other doesn't want to leave? Who chooses what direction the relationship go?

If there is a major conflict of interest, you have to learn to compromise. The notion that men automatically get their way just because they're men is laughable to me.

Also who is responsible for the wrong decisions?

If you fuck up, you take responsibility for it.

Am I here just to wait while my partner fixes it? Or am I obligated to fix it too?

You're a partnership, and so their fuck up probably affects you, too. You are responsible for helping fix it if need be. Taking the attitude toward your partner of "well that's your problem!" is going to be unproductive for both of you.

If so then why am I fixing problems that I didn't agree to?

If your coworker makes a bad decision that affects how the company runs, that affects your job, you can't just sit back and say "but I didn't do it, it was X's fault!" You're on that team, too, so mopping up the shit is part of your job as it is going to benefit you, too.

a_guy_from_CEE · 2014-08-13T11:34:23+00:00

Since Bluepers back up the righteous 50-50 relationship power to both parties

NO! Rather, where there is real love, there is no power. Selfish people divide 50/50 or 10/90, unselfish, loving people have 100% the power together.

robesta · 2014-08-07T13:37:35+00:00

Not a blue piller, but thinking back to my blue pill days, things were never 50/50. If I wanted something, I had to convince her and she was the approval authority. If she wanted something, I supported it and did whatever it took to make it happen. Not 50/50 in the least.

Title	Question for Bluepers about relationship dynamics.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	8
Comments	113
Date	August 7, 2014 1:07 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2cvp8m/question_for_bluepers_about_relationship_dynamics/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/question-for-bluepers-about-relationship-dynamics.285153 https://theredarchive.com/post/285153

Comments