Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Bob,
    
    Grrr to 'Toni nnn'.  Sure I'm human and have managed to muck up
    ocassionally on an agreement but I certainly feel guilty as hell
    when I do! 
    
    I, too, feel rather strongly that if friends have made a commitment
    to ______, it is both peoples responsibility to follow through or
    renegotiate the agreement.  If I have qualms about what is being
    asked of me I tend to not make an agreement per se; but rather to
    negotiate for a "Let's try that for n perod of time" agreement and 
    then we can reevaluate from both of our perspectives.
    
    I am not at all partial 'all Xs do/are.....' statements, in my
    experience sure as can be they all don't/aren't!
    
    Yawn,
    	   Audrey

    
    	I dont see anything wrong with what you were doing - it was
    just fine - and NOT the reason why...
    
    	I've read that agreements between SO's should be made with the
    understanding that life and growing are dynamic processes. In the
    best case, the agreements are in a continous state of flux (change)
    evolving toward what is most suitable for *both* parties. Notice
    "both" has 'stars'.
    
    	When things become one sided (ish), its time to say "Hey! Things
    are becoming a little one sided here, obviously what we agreed to
    isnt working out the way we'd thought. Lets then change it to something
    different that can work". There's no need to "throw it all away",
    unless any change cannot be accomodated.
    
    	Yes, I know, its a long wait for 'the right one' - maybe forever
    eh? Soo many things that have to align between two people (besides
    the above mentioned aspect) for it to work out...
    
    	Sorry...                                     
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Having spent a good portion of my existance on this planet trying
    to prove to people that I am indeed *not* a "capricious creature"
    I highly resent those remarks.  It's that kind of thinking that
    puts women back twenty years, but that's another topic.  The fact
    that it came from another woman is disgusting enough in itself.
    
    I believe that agreements are a very important part of any relation-
    ship, and are necessary to keep communication channels open.  They
    are both a means of compromise and a means of keeping the relationship
    comfortable, yet open to change.  Personal agreements are sacred
    with me and are not broken unless under the most dire circumstances.
    If there's a problem with the terms, I, like Audrey, will agree
    to a trial period.  While not being capricious, I am an independent
    creature and I need a good deal of personal space, something that
    often isn't easy for SO's (spouse in my case) to understand.  Laying
    these things on the table in the beginning so that both parties
    understand the other's feelings on key issues, is essential.  Perhaps
    the word "agreements" isn't the right term.  It's always an issue
    of compromise, and equitable compromise is the key to many a successful
    relationship.
    
    And yeah, Bob, finding the right one takes time.  Sometimes, even
    when you think you've found that "forever" someone, you're wrong.
    As I've said before, if life wasn't so painful part of the time,
    it wouldn't be so great the rest of the time....
    
    Hang in there.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Any jerk can get on radio and make themselves sound like an
    authority.  Ever listened to "Princess Cheyenne" on WBCN in
    Boston trying to pretend she knows 1% as much as Dr. Ruth (whom
    I don't place much trust in either)?  Ditto for local advice
    columns in newspapers, most magazine columns, etc.  EVERYONE who
    generalizes is wrong.  (Now what does that say about me?)
    
    I'm of the opinion that you should be comfortable with the
    personal philosophy of your partner.  And each of you should act
    worthy of the trust that you share.  I too don't hold for "convenient
    lapses of memory", "it just happened", etc.
    
    As for swapping in particular - it just doesn't work for me.  People
    are not interchangeable, and I believe there is a very close
    relationship between physical and emotional intimacy.  I could never
    be physically close to someone I was not emotionally close to already.
    But this is what I'm comfortable with - I accept that other people
    may think differently.  It's just best if the partners in a
    relationship share similar (or compatible) views on the subject,
    and one doesn't agree to something they're uncomfortable with just
    because it's what their partner wants.
    					Steve

    re: Tony nnn
    
    	I wonder if any of my ex flames subscribed to that assenine
    philosophy?  They must have.  That is the kind of thing that I've
    had to deal with more than a few times in my life.  If that is so,
    then tell me if it's therefore OK for the men?  I know that as with
    all things, it's open to interpretation, but I would like to hear
    some thoughts on this philosophy being applied to the men and how
    women would like it if it were to be used on them.
    
    
    					Phil
    
    ps-I know that most (from what I've read so far) of our DEC women
    do not subscribe to this mockery of "expertise", so please no flames,
    just speculation.
    

    re: 5
    
    Personally, I feel that no one of any decent age has any
    business acting immature and at the same time be involved
    in a serious relationship.  Just because some women act
    "capricious" (and that's being generous.  I like the word
    asseneine far better), doesn't give the rest of us the right
    to do likewise, male or female.  
    
    If you noticed someone committing suicide, would you follow
    suit out of spite?  Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
    
    Anyway, I'm not flaming.  I believe that in a relationship
    each party is charged with the responsibility of being mature
    and reasonable about feelings and demands.  They should also
    be open to compromise in order to find a common ground where
    the relationship can function and grow.  If no compromise can
    be found, the the relationship should be allowed to end.
    
    I would be (and have been in the past) quick to end any 
    relationship with a man who could not express his needs
    and wants in a mature and rational manner, and who could
    not meet my needs and wants in a similar fashion.  In fact,
    the relationship wouldn't get very far. I don't play head
    games.
    
    Mary-Michael 

    
    I've known some capricious men in my day, too.  I don't think treating
    other people badly is limited to either sex.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Based on past experience, I can confirm that men tend to
    act "capricious" at times also.  I tend to be understanding
    of mistakes, slip-ups etc.  And I certainly feel that people
    should be allowed to make mistakes.  I don't feel that either
    sex should be treated like a doormat, though.  
    Communicating with one another is vital to a good relationship.
    If it bothers you, talk about it.  Unfortunately you can't 
    expect to change people.  And chances are if someone hasn't treated
    YOU very well, they've probably been that way to others, also.

    re: -3
    
    	I agree with all of you, it would seem that a relationship of
    that kind would be doomed.  Plus, I think it would be all too easy
    to slip into that frame of mind, after being put through it for
    a couple of turns.  The real test however, would be to retain the
    original amount of optimism for future relationships.  It can
    be done! 8)
    
    	re: .6
    
    	I would never cut off my nose to spite my face!  8) 8)
    
    						Phil
    

    RE:  10
    
    However, it has been empirically found that there are differences
    and that they are not bad, just different.  See _In A Different
    Voice_, by Carol Gilligan.  Her basic thesis is that women tend
    to be relationship oriented in their moral behavior but men tend
    to be rule oriented in their moral behavior.
                 
    

    re:  13
    
    I hear what you are saying but...
    
    It is possible to generalize.  The book in question, _In A _Different
    Voice_, is an empirical study.  That is, people of boths sexes,
    were brought in and questioned, etc.  
    
    By the way, this is considered a feminist book and is in no way
    uncomplimentary to women.  If anything, the other way around.

    Although you apparently, disagree, many folks feel that is important
    to study pyschological sex differences.  For example, Ms.  Gilligan
    desires to look at moral developement from an unbiased persective.
    She feels that the male was held to be the norm in the studies of
    Kolhberg for example.  She agrees that the norms are different for
    men and women and that neither should be the "right one".
    
    I found it interesting and very insightful, after reading the book,
    to relook at some of my assumptions.  I found myself understanding
    the behavior of men and women more when I understood that each may
    be operating under two different models of moral development.
    
    There appear to be substantial pyshcological differences between the
    sexes.  The real debate is whether they are conditioned or innate.
    Most people think they are conditioned.
    
    While on one level you can and should treat everyone the same, on
    another level, you should be aware of the cultural differences that
    - if you understand them- can make you appreciate people even more.
    
    Suzanne, check out this book and you will see what I mean- It's
    realy good and I am not giving it justice in this note.
    
                     John H.
    
                              

    RE:  .-1 
    
    OK. 
    
    Peace...
    
    John H.  :-)