Conference quark::human_relations

    Similarly, rose-colored glasses and blanket statements defining human
    relationships will probably not help a lot of the people who are in
    here looking for shades of gray.
    
    Leslie

    
    re. 1
    
    Absolutely. 
    
    The only thing we can really do, IMO, is to encourage
    people to "think" about stuff from all angles and be
    honest about their own feelings. IMO, we can help by
    suggesting questions, but they have to fill in the
    answers themselves.
    
    
    Eva
    
    

    
    	Re .0 -
    
    >trying to "help". Worst off, some people don't even 
    >read all the related material and jump on a few
    >sentences. 
    
    	Hmmmm, that must be me! ;') I jump on what strikes me and perhaps
    those who read our armchair advice do the same. I'd think so, because
    they're under the distress; are they going to analyze the _whole_ text
    objectively, realizing the context within which certain profound things
    have been said?
    
    >But, in any relationship (except for truly abusive kinds - and yes,
    >we've abused the word abuse), there are and were  positives. It is
    >uttermost important to remember that people tend to look for
    >justifcation to leave a relationship and move onto a new one by
    >focusing on the negatives and forgetting/putting down the positives.

    	Have we abused the word abuse? By who's definition of the term?
    The one I like is "that which makes someone other than God". The way
    I explain it is "any treatment that's other than divine". So when
    someone's boyfriend handles them roughly, or someone doesnt trust
    another in what's apparently an arbitrary manner, or if someone is
    clearly being taken advantage of - that's abuse; they're being *abused*
    and I will choose to enlighten them to that fact if I can do so.
    
    	Sure there are positives. "Well - at least I had a roof over my
    head". C'mon! It's the oldest story ever told; people get the sh*t beat
    out of them all the time and are able to yet justify staying within a
    relationship on something like "well he brings home a paycheck" or "at
    least she'll have sex with me". Sometimes *less*! Sometimes it's merely
    "at least I dont have to be alone..." Can you feel how sad that is?
    
    	One thing my now-seperated-from spouse says - that I like and
    understand completely - is "You dont, like, get 'extra credit' for
    doing the right thing; for doing what you're supposed to do". What 
    that does is wipe these so-called positives right off the table of
    contention and puts the focus on what's really going on that's
    _damaging to someone_.
    
    >Helping to pull apart relationships which do not deserve it, IMO, puts 
    >holes in our souls. 
    
    	Eva, I know you; you're an advocate of hanging in there in
    relationships because that's the choice you've made in yours. I know
    your agenda is to spread the truth - your truth - of your own
    experience which for you has been successful. However, "your truth" and
    "my truth" may not be _the truth_ for whomever it is with the question.
    
    	I'm glad you're here to present the side of things that you do -
    because I know it's best for people to hear "all" the options and then
    decide for themselves. You do make some "blanket statements" (which has
    been noticed by others I'll quickly add) that I find interesting to
    challenge, just as an idea. This is done in the spirit of expanding the
    knowledge I have for, certainly myself, and others to see.
    
    	Joe

    
    Joe,
    
    	I take offense that you stated that I am a proponent of
    hanging in relationships and I am here to spread MY truth.
    
    	You don't know me a bit, judging by your assessment of
    my agenda. Just because I take certain stands that you find
    "traditional", I believe you project me to fit in a stereotype.
    I'm as unconventional/untraditional as a woman can come.  I 
    don't have the arrogance to say that I know you because I don't. 
    
    	If anything is my agenda, it is to present different views,
    old and new. If there is anything I can offer to anyone, it
    is my ability to take in loads of any kind of information,  
    understand them, sort them out and present to people in a
    logical/comprehensive way. And at times, pull out related 
    information that I've have encountered in the past. That's
    it.
    
    	Human emotions is time-irrelevant. I've read books from
    all over the world, in different languages, from all different 
    times. I have kept up with the latest scientific discoveries. And 
    guess what, our feelings have not evolved since we could read and 
    write or for matter since we lived in caves. Life styles have 
    changes, but human nature has not.
     
    	You don't know me a bit...
    
    Eva
                                  

    
    Joe,
    
    	I was thinking about this last night and I think
    I need to be more specific about the incidents that
    led me to write .0.
    
    	A short while ago, one noter came here saying 
    he had an affair. You and some other noters said he
    should follow his heart and go after the new love.
    That's one side of the coin. You didn't call him
    any names and you didn't say he abused his wife.
    Now, another noter comes in saying that his/her
    lover had an affair. This is the other side of the
    coin. Now, you call the lover names and said the
    lover abused the noter. In both cases, you suggested
    splitting up. 
    
    	From my observation, you let your emotions run
    the show. Yes, people come here in pain, no matter
    which side of the coin they are on. BUT, there are
    principles that we need to adhere to, keeping in
    mind ALL THE TIME that we only hear from one side
    and one side only, IMO. IMO, one side's description
    of the other side is most often unreliable, otherwise
    the relationship would not be in trouble, ie.
    misunderstanding and miscommunication.  
    
    	People got killed, countries got lost when people 
    let their emotions, instead of their principles, got in 
    the driver seat.  
    
    
    
    Eva
              

    
    	Eva,
    
    	I tend to side with the person doing the talking, unless it's
    obvious to me that they're the one who's totally screwed up. They
    came forward; took the chance and had the courage to open up, so
    they'll get my favorable reaction...ordinarily.
    
    	The first case, it seemed that things were well "on the rocks"
    and the difficulty was long and hard already - which is probably what
    led me to not charge that person with "abuse" - even though they did
    have the affair for some time *without* informing their partner
    (however tenuous the situation was at the time) of precisely what was
    happening.
    	
    	The second case, from the best I could gather, there was no such
    difficulty beforehand. It sounded like everything was "fine" from the
    perceptions of the basenoter - until information of "there being a
    problem" was given sometime after the affair had started. It was like
    "Well of course there's 'a problem' *now*!"
    
    	The stark differences between these two situations was what led me
    to say the very different things that I did, in response to each one.
    
    	Joe

    
    Joe,
    
    	>I tend to side with the person doing the talking, unless it's
        >obvious to me that they're the one who's totally screwed up. They
        >came forward; took the chance and had the courage to open up, so
        >they'll get my favorable reaction...ordinarily
    
    	Well, their partners do not have a chance to come forward because
    most likely they don't work here. To me, it is not fair for the other
    side, not being able to speak up for themselves, and being judged based
    on someone else evaluation. It is like not having a judicial system.
    If I don't get to hear the other side, I would at least give the other 
    side a benefit of the doubt, I can't shoot before I ask questions.
    Relationships are not any different than other businesses in our lives, 
    eg. financial or work-related, IMO, principles of fairness, honor, commitment 
    and discipline apply. I would be mighty upset if my boss fired me
    because someone said something about me, without giving me a chance to
    rebute.
    
    	>The first case, it seemed that things were well "on the rocks"
        >and the difficulty was long and hard already - which is probably
    	>what led me to not charge that person with "abuse" - even though they
    	>...
    
    	So? Both sides are responsible for a relationship's decline, IMO. If
    someone gave me a finger or yell some racial slur at me over a traffic dispute, 
    is it ok for me to run the person off the road? Of course not. If I
    did, it would reflect on my lack of discipline/self-control and my inability to
    distinguish right from wrong. Emotions CANNOT take precedence over
    principles, IMO.  
    
    	>The second case, from the best I could gather, there was no such
    	>difficulty beforehand. It sounded like everything was "fine" from
    
    	The basenoter didn't say much about the relationship itself. Just
    because someone didn't mention something doesn't something cannot be
    there. To me, it is an unknown at best, not a definite known of
    non-existence. Logic, IMO, is as important as principles in our lives
    and relationships. If someone didn't tell me the color of a rose,
    the fact will be the color is unknown, I can't say it sounded like pink 
    or red. Emotions CANNOT take precedence over logic, IMO.
    
    
    Eva	
    	

    
    Joe,
    
    	>The stark difference between these two situations...
    
    	The stark difference could be very well refect the 
    differences in the two basenoters'
    
    	0. We are hearing 2 different sides
    
    	1. Willingness to tell us about the details
    
    	2. Expectations in their relationships
    
    	3. Personalities
    
    	4. Outlooks in the situation - one has a lover waiting
    	   and the other losing a lover
    
    	etc, etc. But the principles and responsiblities of both sides
    stay the same in either case, IMO. Emotions CANNOT take precedences
    over objectiveness, IMO.
    
    Eva                     

    
    
    Joe,
    
    	Think about this - when the second noter saw the
    first noter being encouraged by you to seek the new love 
    because of a rocky relationship, would the second noter 
    want to tell you that his/her relationship was rocky too, 
    so that you can tell him/her that his/her lover deserved
    to leave him/her?! I don't think so - it would be like
    saying "Here is my face, slap it."
    
    
    Eva

    
    	Eva,
    
    	I'm suprised that you didnt say "Emotions CANNOT take precedence
    over..." in your .9! ;')
    
    	I think there's some situations where emotions can take precedence
    over what you're "supposed to do" or whatever. It's a balance thing, 
    as is a lot of life. There are times when it's useful to follow through
    with your feelings and there are times when it's not. I think someone
    who's totally controlled by their emotions is no less 'sick' than
    someone who just never listens to them and instead always succumbs to
    their own rationality! One can respect proprieties while doing this;
    there's a difference between going after someone with a gun due to a
    traffic mishap and making an extensive effort to be with someone you
    feel, say, an abundant amount of love for and connection to.
    
    >Relationships are not any different than other businesses in our lives
    
    	That sounds a little Scientology-ish to me. (Not that I know much of
    anything about Scientology...) Anyway, sure they are! They're a lot
    different. I'm sure one could be very successfully run as a business;
    I'm sure there are even some distinct advantages in doing so! It's just
    not for me - I like the emotional component in them. I think that has
    value - tremendous value. If feelings change over time - they change -
    whattaya going to do - try and change how another person feels? You can
    accept it, change whatever behavior or aspect of yourself that led
    them to their new feelings in the first place - and 'hope' that they
    change back - or you can leave.
    
    	In the cases people have presented here, I get the impression that 
    what's happening is unacceptable, which is why they've written - So,
    scratch off "accept it". From what I can gather (and the "unfairness"
    of not being able to hear the story from the other side may be a
    fact-of-notes that we simply have to accept - notice I didnt say 'work
    around') these folks didnt "do" anything - they're victims trying to
    cope as best they can. Perhaps my propensity to suggest "leave" is
    based on that. I do understand that it's useful to take a look at their
    own behavior relative to what's happening - but it really didnt look to
    me that they needed to!
    
    	It's hard to say what's right for another person - whether they
    should follow their feelings or look into what they're contributing to
    the failing system. I try not to be so definitive when I write and I'm
    sure I fail at this effort from place to place. I've said it before; I
    think both perspectives are useful for people to hear - only they can
    decide if they're going to "wimp out" on either one; the committment or
    taking their chances. 
    
    	Joe

    
    Joe,
    
    	 >differences in gun vs be with someone we love
    
    	The problem is you missed the part that we have to break a
    promise/vow/commitment/our word and in some case break up a family,
    to be with someone who potentially could/would love us back, etc.
    Freedom of choice comes with responsiblities. I am not talking
    about rationale. I am talking about the basic principles that we
    need to adhere so that this society/world does not disintegate
    into choas. Do you want to live in the middle ages again? How
    about the wild west? These are the principles that human civilizations
    are built upon, IMO, not some old traditions. 
    
    	>Scientology...
    
    	No idea what it is.
    
    	>didn't do anything,...victims of ....
    
    	Give me a break. You can choose to see your cup as half empty and
    I choose to see mine as half full!
    
    	I guess, you and I are very different people, with different
    outlook in life and different value systems. So, I don't see the 
    point in further discussion on front.
    
    
    Eva
    
    

    
    	Eva,
    
    >	The problem is you missed the part that we have to break a
    >promise/vow/commitment/our word and in some case break up a family,
    >to be with someone who potentially could/would love us back, etc.
    >Freedom of choice comes with responsiblities. I am not talking
    >about rationale.
    
    	I disagree - you dont *have* to be or remain with anyone - I dont
    care what "promise/vow/commitment/word" was made. What if you're
    being abused - in whatever sense of the term? Just because you once
    said "forever" with a smile on your face does not mean you *have* to
    continue to collaborate with them.
    
    >Give me a break. You can choose to see your cup as half empty and
    >I choose to see mine as half full!
    
    	Oh, so my perspective is necessarily the negative one - I dont
    think so!
    
    >  	I guess, you and I are very different people, with different
    >outlook in life and different value systems. So, I don't see the 
    >point in further discussion on this front.
    
    	Understood: like I said (which had apparently sailed over your head)
    is that I do see your perspective as useful for someone questioning
    their path. Mine is _also_. What's *most* useful is to be presented
    "all" the alternatives; "all" being deliberately quoted because I
    understand that neither your perspective nor mine, perhaps presented in
    one reply string, covers all the possibilities. There's surely another
    one - as valid - that somebody else will come up...
    
    	Joe

    
    Joe,
    
    	>What if you're being abused - in whatever sense of the term?
    
    	I don't see a point of talking about this if you insist on looking
    for abuse and victimization in every case, IMO.
    
    	>Oh, so my perspective is necessarily the negative one ...
    
    	In the few cases we've encountered, yes, IMO.
    
    	>apparently sailed over your head
    
    	No, it hasn't. Rather, what I've said so far has apparently
    been filtered out or fitted to match your pre-determined image
    of me. You are hearing but you are not listening, IMO. Thus, I have
    to keep repeating myself. I guess, in vain. 
    
    	So long.
    
    
    Eva