Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: Loyalty due partners

BoxDog · Guru

*Patricia Cornwell thread-drift to follow:

After reading Cornwell for years and fully enjoying the Scarpetta novels I have some serious concerns that she may, in fact, be bat**** nuts. I don't know if it's her sexuality issues, her republican(ness), or the out and out devotion and friendship she has maintained over the years with the Bush klan. But, something ain't right. Somethings really weird. I Love Lucy though! And I will support this guy in that alot of the internet stuff has "poofed" as it relates to Cornwell in manners other than complimentary. That alone tells me one or more of these two is, bat**** nuts. Now, having said that, I would not turn down the opportunity to discuss this in person with Cornwell, over coffee, in a sauna. During a long weekend in Miami Beach or somethin'.

This is a follow-up to a previous post about the anti-Semite and
famous author Patricia Cornwell, who is going on trial in Great
Britain, for her threats to murder a Jewish journalist in Belgium.

To summarise again:

Patricia Cornwell has paid for a giant media smear campaign to help
exterminate a Jew, to ban his writings, tell lies about him, and then
kill him. Lawyers are calling it the biggest media smear campaign ever
done against a political refugee.

Cornwell has also paid for two US legal actions, which turn out now to
have been complete staged frauds.

I know something about this anti-Semite Cornwell and about her Jewish
victims.

I have posted a public letter I have written to my fellow Jew,
Ambassador Sam Fox of Belgium. Like Patricia Cornwell, Sam Fox is a
good friend of USA President Bush, and he gives Bush money, just like
Patricia Cornwell gives Bush money.

Ambassador Sam Fox, though a Jew himself, seems to be supervising
activities to help murder another Jew. Sam Fox is co-operating with
the anti-Semite Patricia Cornwell.

The letter is called "A Public Letter from one old Jew to another old
Jew, and to a Chabad Rabbi, about threats to murder a Jew in Belgium"
- That is a public letter, and anyone is free to reprint it.

I also want to share with the public an e-mail I have received from Dr
Les Sachs, maybe the most major victim of Cornwell and her threats of
murder over this past several years. It lays out well the whole
perversion of the slanders and libels against Dr Sachs that are now
filling the internet, and what will become better known in the
upcoming trial in Britain.

Shalom

Herschel Greenbaum

Email received -

From: "Dr Les Sachs" <Dr-Les-Sa...@Laposte.net>

Subj.: Correcting internet lies re Dr Les Sachs, Patricia Cornwell
legal cases

Correcting the internet lies told about Dr Les Sachs (Dr Leslie Sachs)
and about the legal cases involving Patricia Cornwell -

A statement by Dr Les Sachs

Many of the things, indeed most everything, that you read on the
internet about me, and about the Patricia Cornwell legal cases in the
US, are a lie and a fraud, and the lies and fraud will be brought out
in an upcoming legal case in a few months in the UK.

Thousands of pages of proof documents which show that what I have been
saying is true, will be entered into the record in the UK courts. Most
of these documents are available to anyone.

As we get closer to the UK court date, media companies have begun to
pull back and withdraw some of the stories telling lies about me. But
many of the lies still remain.

The US judges have illegally banned from Google and the search
engines, nearly all of my own articles and journalism, but also most
articles that link to me or which tell the truth about me. - The US
government and judges, believe that my journalism is such a threat to
them, that they need to take direct political control of Google and
the search engines, to try and erase my writings, and to make it
easier for me to be murdered.

It is because I am such an important dissident and critic of the US
regime - because my writings have touched many thousands of families
hurt by the US legal system - that the US judges and government, and
the US-UK media companies, have joined to ban my words, and have
joined in what UK legal papers call the largest smear campaign of lies
ever conducted against a political refugee.

That is why they have banned my journalism from the internet. Most of
the articles and journalism they have banned, are not even about Patsy
Cornwell - The journalism they have banned, is mostly about the
corruption of US judges and lawyers and media companies.

Though the case was started, in order to silence and block me from
writing journalism about the political financier Cornwell, about her
crimes with the Bushes and her crimes with US judges.

Because I hold proof of serious crimes by US federal judges, US
lawyers were afraid to help me. US lawyers are often disbarred if they
dare to say a word to help a victim of the judges' hatred.

First, some true things about me, that most internet articles hide
from you -

- The threats to jail and murder me by the US judges and government,
forced me to be a political refugee from the US. I escaped to safety
in Europe in 2004, and I am now an EU citizen.

- In the US, the judges banned my freedom of speech instantly, in a
phone call from the federal judge, minutes after I received the legal
papers. No trial, no hearing, no nothing, just an illegal deal
arranged in advance by the corrupt Willcox & Savage firm, lawyers for
Bush's friend Cornwell, in a deal with a judge appointed by Bush. -
Apparently the only such case in US history, instant banning of
journalism and freedom of speech, advance injunction without trial or
hearing.

- They used the ban on my speaking, to threaten to torture me to death
in a US jail cell, and to stage a brief Stalin-style 'legal
proceeding', with me banned from denouncing it as a fraud.

- Friends of the US judge pretended to be my lawyers. While
threatening to have me tortured and killed, these lawyers signing fake
papers claiming I "agreed" to ban my freedom of speech for the rest of
my life, plus "agreed" to spend the rest of my life paying money to
the judge's friends. These friends of the judge, also pretended to be
part of a 'Freedom Works Foundation' which doesn't exist, and even put
this fraud in writing.

- Patricia Cornwell is a friend of the Bush family for 25 years. When
the first Bush was President, they made Cornwell into a 'famous
author' as a way for media companies to funnel millions back to the
Bush family.

- Cornwell has been a special 'friend of the judges' since 1998. Media
companies at that time also agreed to begin to hide the real facts of
Cornwell's life, and to join the US judges to help destroy anyone who
writes truth about her.

- Cornwell threatened to destroy the books of a Jew, in writing, and
then committed perjury about it. It is Cornwell's threats of book-
burning against a Jew, that started the public controversy between
myself and Cornwell.

- Cornwell publicly boasted in Vanity Fair magazine that she can get
away with murdering people, and I am one of the people she has enjoyed
threatening to murder.

- In 2007, after three years of my journalism about US court
corruption, the same US judges who threatened to kill me and who
forced me to become a refugee in Europe, these same judges held a new
fake 'trial', in part to smear me with brand new lies claiming I was a
'stalker' of Bush's friend Cornwell, but mostly in order to issue
illegal orders upon Google and the search engines, to ban most of my
journalism from the internet, so people cannot find my writings.

- The majority of my writing banned from the internet, is not even
about Cornwell, it is rather about the corrupt US legal system and
judges. These banned writings have been important to tens of thousands
of people. The US government seeks to have me silenced and murdered to
prevent this journalism being more widely known.

Some big lies and hoaxes about me, that you find on the internet -

- The lie that the case is about 'plagiarism'
I never used this word in accusations about my writing and Cornwell's.
The fake story about 'plagiarism' is a set of words shoved into my
mouth, to distract from the facts about Cornwell's threats of book-
burning a Jew's books, Cornwell then hiring people to extort me and
threaten to kill me, and to illegally ban my journalism and freedom of
speech. - The 'sticker on my book' discussed in news articles, spoke
only of Cornwell's book-burning threats, not about 'plagiarism'.

- The lie that I am a 'stalker' or 'cyber-stalker' harassing Cornwell
From 2004-2007 I published three years of factual journalism about
Cornwell and the US judges, proven by documents, and totally
unchallenged by Cornwell's lawyers. - Then, Cornwell's new corrupt
lawyers at Morris & Morris in Richmond, and their partner corrupt
lawyers at WilmerHale in Boston, just invented fake 'stalker' stories
out of thin air, and spread these false stories through media
companies tied to Cornwell and the US government. Today, Cornwell's
lawyers don't even deny the stalking charges are fake, because the
'stalking' stories Cornwell has invented are literally impossible -
Cornwell says I have been sneaking back into the USA, somehow evading
Homeland Security at the borders, just to 'stalk' her, and then I am
able to sneak back to Europe, ha!

- The lie that I "agreed" to ban my own freedom of speech as a
"settlement" I have been an anti-corruption book author and journalist since the early 1980s. - The written order banning my freedom of speech for the
rest of my life, is a clear fraud, only signed by the judge's friends,
not by me. - I had no assets to lose by going to trial or appealing
illegal orders. - No one in the Cornwell gang can explain why I had
any reason to quickly "agree" to ban my own freedom of speech and
journalism for the rest of my life, plus "agree" to have my publishing
company and reputation destroyed, plus "agree" to spend the rest of my
life paying several hundred thousand dollars to the judge's friends
with their fake 'civil rights foundation' that doesn't exist. - These
lawyers even joked, on the written court record, about threatening to
murder me, and about conspiring with the federal judge to pose as my
lawyer while they were really working for Cornwell. - Yes, ha, very
funny. - The Cornwell group has also circulated fake 'apology letters'
created by Cornwell's lawyers.

- The lie that my journalism is for 'marketing' my books, or that I am
'jealous' of Cornwell.

This is more absurdity. The initial claim of Cornwell and that the
judges is that there is nothing wrong with threatening to burn a Jew's
books, and that I was only saying this to 'market' my own writing,
thus I must be banned and suppressed. They claim that US judges can
ban any independent journalism, merely by declaring that the
journalist is 'marketing' and selling his writing. - They claim that I
am only showing proof documents of how they illegally banned my
journalism, of how they committed court fraud and threatened to murder
me, of how they destroyed my publishing career, how they forced me to
become a political refugee in Europe to save my life - just because I
am engaged in 'marketing' or 'jealous'. Yeah, sure.

- The lie that Cornwell doesn't hate Jews

Documents and witnesses prove that Patricia Cornwell really does hate
the people she describes as "dirty, filthy Jews". Cornwell grew up
under the foster care supervision of Billy Graham, whose anti-Semitic
hatred was recorded on the Watergate tapes. Like some Nazis, Cornwell
likes using submissive Jews for business, or in her eroticism.
Cornwell's gay marriage to a Jewish woman seems a political fake,
taken under legal advice, to cover for crimes: Victims of Cornwell
have had swastikas painted on houses, Cornwell's friends record her
hatred of 'filthy Jews', and Cornwell did, in writing, threaten a book-
burning of the books of a Jew, and then paid people to threaten murder
to cover up for this.

Internet media sources are mostly tied to Cornwell -

Do note how many internet "sources" turn out to be Patricia Cornwell's
own publishing companies or others with a vested interest in her
crimes.

CNN is a branch of one of Cornwell's publishing companies, Time-Warner
Books.

AP (Associated Press) is partly owned by Cornwell's publishing
companies, and by parties named as co-defendants of Cornwell in past-
crimes (Times-Dispatch Media General).

David Mehegan, Boston Globe (New York Times Company) sent me hate
mail, does not deny taking a bribe from Cornwell's Boston lawyer Joan
Lukey.

The UK Guardian is in joint financial projects with Cornwell's
publishers at Pearson and elsewhere.

Media General - Times Dispatch editorial board had a personal meeting
with Cornwell, agreeing to help her in any way whatsoever, due to the
money she gives the Bushes.

US law prof. Roy Girasa, works for Cornwell's publisher Pearson,
doesn't deny he took money to write lies for Cornwell.

Wikipedia and Answers-com are defendants in the UK legal case, facing
possible closure, they have a vested interested in supporting the
banning of my journalism and the threats to murder me, after they
worked with Cornwell and the CIA to spread lies about me for several
years. Wikipedia's UK spokesman David Gerard has sent me personal hate
mail, telling me how he is working to destroy me.

Media companies that operate in the US fear revenge by US judges in
future cases, if they expose crimes by the judges - media companies
want favours from US judges, so they help the US judges to attack and
smear critics of the courts.

The US federal judges, anxious to cover up for their court fraud
crimes, as partners of Cornwell and Bush, of course wrote extensive
public lies and smears about me as part of their illegal 'court
orders', while banning my responses and my websites from Google and
the search engines.

Patricia Cornwell has spread lies about me to readers of her books,
encouraging them to spread smears about me on the internet, while her
judge friends ban my replies from being visible on Google and the
search engines.

And of course you have various other people who never contacted me,
writing their own false material on the internet, based on lies
originally written by the Cornwell team or the Cornwell judges, and
spread through Cornwell's media connections above.

Feel free to share or publish the above with anyone you wish.

--

Dr Les Sachs

More about: Anti-Semite Patricia Cornwell on trial in Britain, threats to murder Jew in Belgium - rec.arts.books | Google Dis.

My Turn · Senior Member

Of course if i introduced gf as my devotee shed clunk me over the head with a book or something and others would prolly ask me if ive built a shrine for her and of course id have to remind them that in lesbian relationships the shrine building comes *after* the breakup!<--psych

________________________________________

that's funny!

-- Edited by My Turn at 14:08, 2008-12-02

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

lover
1 a: a person in love ; especially : a man in love with a woman bplural : two persons in love with each other2: an affectionate or benevolent friend3: devotee4 a: paramour b: a person with whom one has sexual relations
partner

Now these are two i like. i especially like devotee. it has a certain exoticness about it! Of course if i introduced gf as my devotee shed clunk me over the head with a book or something and others would prolly ask me if ive built a shrine for her and of course id have to remind them that in lesbian relationships the shrine building comes *after* the breakup!

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

for committed relationships i like lover better than partner. its naughtier...more...whats the "t" word thats escaping me right now?

"Titillating?"

well its that too lol but i was thinking of "transgressive." its one of the things i really like about being queer and i think its one of the things that gives us an edge if only a vicarious one from watching half naked women in chains on a parade float. one of the not so good aspects of living and working in blue states where we do have equal rights is that, imo, the community in general has lost that sense of the transgressive. well except for ptown but i suspect thats all coming from those who arent allowed to be who they are in other places.

I prefered "lover" too, but was convinced, in my last relationship, that it speaks only to the sexual part of a realtionship, not the whole committed part.

yep and im sitting here thinking about this. wife tho refers

It took a while for me to accept it easily -- "partner" sounded too clinical at first, but I'm good with it now.

Partner always feels sort of code wordy to me tho ive used it in work situations or in a lighter way, my "SO"

I suppose, in theory, one might have a "partner" (aka the equivalent of "spouse") and a "lover" on the side, yanno?

true or partners or lovers all of which are possible when relationships are self defined?

I was reading an article on Patricia Cornwall and the release of her new novel. Its an interesting article in several ways mostly, for me her discussion of her sexual orientation and how she takes that up. She lives in Ma now and is married to a woman. Her discomfort about being a lesbian seems palpable not only in this article but also in the depiction of the Lucy character in her books.
She remarks several times about how difficult it is to be gay and that in her opinion the idea that being gay is a choice is nonsense. the unstated aspect of that sentence seems to me to be that if it were a choice nobody would make it. I dont know if its a choice or not. I tend to think its more than genetics but less than a lifestyle decision. but if it is a choice, its one i would make again. i dont get people who wish they were heterosexual, im thinking more the other way, that heterosexuality is a choice, and a rather limiting one at that!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-12-01-patricia-cornwell_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

-- Edited by Psych Lit at 13:44, 2008-12-02

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

for committed relationships i like lover better than partner. its naughtier...more...whats the "t" word thats escaping me right now?

"Titillating?"

I prefered "lover" too, but was convinced, in my last relationship, that it speaks only to the sexual part of a realtionship, not the whole committed part. It took a while for me to accept it easily -- "partner" sounded too clinical at first, but I'm good with it now.

I suppose, in theory, one might have a "partner" (aka the equivalent of "spouse") and a "lover" on the side, yanno?

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

whats the "t" word thats escaping me right now?

not sure what "t" word...hmmmmm

for me...i think "provocative" is fairly descriptive of "lover" and not the impression i wish to put out there when describing/labeling my gf/relationship.....

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

My Turn wrote:

wow. thats really cool how things are so different....everyone i know that is in an exclusive dating situation calls that person their girlfriend.

so do you call the person you are exclusively involved with, "friend" ? wasnt exactly sure...nomb really, but interested.....

--------------------------------------------
Committed Relationship:
Last century: "Lover"
This century: "Partner"

Non-committed relationship: I introduce the woman by her first name.
see here ya can get married, the real deal and the common law variety so ya have to be reallly careful how ya throw that word wife around or someday you may be sitting in court with all of your friends saying she referred to her as her wife.

for committed relationships i like lover better than partner. its naughtier...more...whats the "t" word thats escaping me right now? partner sounds like a biz deal. of course that can be a bit awkward in some situations. like at work where something that doesnt get the x rated videos rolling in the heads of male coworkers is prolly best. for those relationships where comittment has not quite passed the lips and wont until im moving first passes the lips lol then id go with date or gf or her first name.

i really dont like the term "lover" to describe publicly describe someone i care about/love and am in a relationship....and part of that has to do with the "x-rated" connotations that others associate with that term as was mentioned. for me, my relationship with another person is so much more than just the sexual aspect.

just for the heck of it, i looked up the definitions of these terms...

lover

1 a: a person in love ; especially : a man in love with a woman bplural : two persons in love with each other2: an affectionate or benevolent friend3: devotee4 a: paramour b: a person with whom one has sexual relations

partner

d: a person with whom one shares an intimate relationship : one member of a couple3: a member of a partnership especially in a business

girlfriend

1 : a female friend 2 : a frequent or regular female companion in a romantic or sexual relationship

wife
2: a female partner in a marriage

marriage
: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

i completely understand the terms one uses to identify their relationship is a personal choice between the two people involved....for me, reading the above descriptions, lover sounds, idk...something superficial, and mostly only having to do with sex, maybe even something that should be secretive or clandestine...again, JMO...i still like, gf, partner and wife....to describe a relationship i would have....gf for an exclusive relationship, partner along with gf to decribe a live in relationship, and wife....for that one day when and if we would have a marrige/commitment ceremony....and i dont care if it would not be "legal"...it is still a marriage in my mind and would be honored and priviledged to be referred to as "wife".

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

uhhhhhhhhyep. I remember it happening a lot, and being on both sides of the equation, a lot (hit on, and having my partner hit on.) It really irritated me, back in the day, how there were so many women whose eyes literally lit up, when you told them you had a lover. It was like a challenge, or something. That's probably the one thing about lesbians "as a group" which used to really irritate me, and I thought back then (70's, 80's) that if we were married, it wouldn't be that way -- wouldn't be acceptable, anyway, but because we didn't have a legally and societal recognized relationship, then it was easily affronted time after time, and you just had to develop a plan for dealing with the unwanted overtures.

i think there is a lot of truth in that and also in the average length of our relationships. i know there are some who go the distance but i do think there would be more if there was a sense of, if you take this step, youre taking it for life to it. there was also a lot of dating of friends exs in there too which is always an uncomfortable thing even if they did wait till the relationship was over. icky. especially when you were the common denominator. ive always imagined the pillow talk that went on:)

Geezopetes. What a jerk.
I wonder if you'd been introduced in a more firm way; if the relationship had been splled out, if it would have continued.

she was pretty clear about who i was and it didnt seem to deter her in the slightest. honestly ive never seen anything like it. i figgered her as someone who walks up to butches and beckons and usually gets what she sets her sights on.

But again: imagine the scenario if your date had turned to you and said: "Oh, I'd like you to meet the woman to whom I'm married: PsychLit."

before or after i went fleeing into the stands?

Speaking of which, and along the lines of GLBT marriage -- I'm not sure I'd want to be introduced as anyone's "wife." Nor would I want to introduce my female partner as "my husband" or "wife." Those, to me, both carry gender and gender role IDs.

yes and a lot of het baggage to go with the gender stuff. lesbian relationships are not faint carbons of heterosexual relationships and words of ownership like wife or hersband or any of those other terms have that such a polluted history. i do like the butch /femme dance but i dont see it as a copy of heterosexuality and would walk far away from someone who took it up as such.

Hmmm. How about: "This is _________. We're married."

That sounds a little overly insecure, though, don't you think?

yep!

"My huswife?"

Oh, wait -- said outloud, that sounds too much like housewife. OK, reverse 'em: "wifehus."

Yeah! I'm liking that. I think that's my chosen made-up word for me, and my future ___. (As if... LOL) OK, the word works -- it's just a relationship and legal action now, which are the sticking points. LOL.

Even, so, I think I'd better practice, now, so it will fall trippingly off my tongue when the time arrives...

"This is Meryl Streep, my wifehus."

"I'd like you to meet my wifehus, Lauren Hutton."

OK... I'll keep practicing ...

wish there were a lecherous :eyebrow wiggle: LOL

rofl!

And for the cyberly addicted: Wi-fus

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:52, 2008-12-01

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

than to say she's X years "young."

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:07, 2008-12-01
So, are you saying I may have inadvertently offended Maxine by pointing out that she is more than old(er) enough to have given BIRTH to John McCain? Who, according to her, may have been too old to be president, but she is quite capable at 89 to form that opinion? I think I thread drifted. I better call it a night.

No, I'm just sayin' that if I have a birthday, and someone starts talkin' about how many "years YOUNG" I am, I know it's time to go shoppin for an urn.

omg you two are on a roll tonight. lol. how about when the sales/man and its always a man, says hello young lady. thats urn time too.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

My Turn wrote:

wow. thats really cool how things are so different....everyone i know that is in an exclusive dating situation calls that person their girlfriend.

so do you call the person you are exclusively involved with, "friend" ? wasnt exactly sure...nomb really, but interested.....

--------------------------------------------
Committed Relationship:
Last century: "Lover"
This century: "Partner"

Non-committed relationship: I introduce the woman by her first name.
see here ya can get married, the real deal and the common law variety so ya have to be reallly careful how ya throw that word wife around or someday you may be sitting in court with all of your friends saying she referred to her as her wife.

for committed relationships i like lover better than partner. its naughtier...more...whats the "t" word thats escaping me right now? partner sounds like a biz deal. of course that can be a bit awkward in some situations. like at work where something that doesnt get the x rated videos rolling in the heads of male coworkers is prolly best. for those relationships where comittment has not quite passed the lips and wont until im moving first passes the lips lol then id go with date or gf or her first name.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

And while I'm on a roll about "peeves" there is no way to more pointedly out and out call a woman

"OLD -- REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY OLD!"

than to say she's X years "young."

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:07, 2008-12-01
So, are you saying I may have inadvertently offended Maxine by pointing out that she is more than old(er) enough to have given BIRTH to John McCain? Who, according to her, may have been too old to be president, but she is quite capable at 89 to form that opinion? I think I thread drifted. I better call it a night.

No, I'm just sayin' that if I have a birthday, and someone starts talkin' about how many "years YOUNG" I am, I know it's time to go shoppin for an urn.

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

And while I'm on a roll about "peeves" there is no way to more pointedly out and out call a woman

"OLD -- REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY OLD!"

than to say she's X years "young."

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:07, 2008-12-01

So, are you saying I may have inadvertently offended Maxine by pointing out that she is more than old(er) enough to have given BIRTH to John McCain? Who, according to her, may have been too old to be president, but she is quite capable at 89 to form that opinion? I think I thread drifted. I better call it a night.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

My Turn wrote:
....ok, i love! being called someones girlfriend...sigh..makes me feel special.... <MT

--------------------------
I hate it.

Girlfriends are, IMO, 14ish, and not having sex.

My friends are adult women, not girls, otherwise, they'd be my "girlfriends," not my partner.

A woman would probably only refer to me as "their girlfriend" once, and then, after they felt the full impact of the look I'd shoot them, opt for something else. IMO, it's ridiculous to call a woman over 14 a "girl" even when it's "girlfriend." Ditto boy and boyfriend. Maybe OK for JR High, but boys and girls are not adults.

JMO.

And while I'm on a roll about "peeves" there is no way to more pointedly out and out call a woman

"OLD -- REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY OLD!"

than to say she's X years "young."

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 18:07, 2008-12-01

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

My Turn wrote:

wow. thats really cool how things are so different....everyone i know that is in an exclusive dating situation calls that person their girlfriend.

so do you call the person you are exclusively involved with, "friend" ? wasnt exactly sure...nomb really, but interested.....

--------------------------------------------
Committed Relationship:
Last century: "Lover"
This century: "Partner"

Non-committed relationship: I introduce the woman by her first name.

My Turn · Senior Member

wow. thats really cool how things are so different....everyone i know that is in an exclusive dating situation calls that person their girlfriend.

so do you call the person you are exclusively involved with, "friend" ? wasnt exactly sure...nomb really, but interested.....

i miss having a girlfriend and being called a girlfriend....

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

My Turn wrote:
....ok, i love! being called someones girlfriend...sigh..makes me feel special.... <MT

--------------------------
I hate it.

Girlfriends are, IMO, 14ish, and not having sex.

My friends are adult women, not girls, otherwise, they'd be my "girlfriends," not my partner.

A woman would probably only refer to me as "their girlfriend" once, and then, after they felt the full impact of the look I'd shoot them, opt for something else. IMO, it's ridiculous to call a woman over 14 a "girl" even when it's "girlfriend." Ditto boy and boyfriend. Maybe OK for JR High, but boys and girls are not adults.

JMO.

My Turn · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Speaking of which, and along the lines of GLBT marriage -- I'm not sure I'd want to be introduced as anyone's "wife." Nor would I want to introduce my female partner as "my husband" or "wife." Those, to me, both carry gender and gender role IDs. "Marriage partner" seems a bit wordy, as does "the person to whom I'm married." So what words would we use, if we didn't want husband and wife? I guess I could assimilate, and whip out "ball and chain" ...

But seriously, we're still stuck with "life partner" or "marriage partner" or some "alternative" wording, when it comes to our marriages, aren't we? Unless, of course, the standard husband and wife or wife and wife are acceptable.

....ok, i love! being called someones girlfriend...sigh..makes me feel special....if i am in a live-in situation one day, i still like gf, and feel it is a good time to add "partner"....now...for me one day if i ever, ever find someone that i would even consider marrying -- and that, i feel, will be a long shot since i have only ever felt the desire (which shocked the h*ll outta me!!) to marry one person in all of my 40 some years on this planet -- i sooooooo wanna be called "wife"

when i was married to a guy, i would cringe at that phrase...i never considered my self that...and never referred to him as husband..i either called him by name or my kids father....still do to this day...to me, "wife" is very special and i would be so honored to have the person that melts my heart refer to/introduce me as: "my wife"......

she can pick what ever she wants to be called....even if it is wife also....

what does everyone else like to or wanna be called?

p.s loving the new icons!!

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

hmm on the receiving end of this, i prolly would have told the friend to knock it off and not mentioned it to my partner unless the friend kept it up after firmly being told to stop. this kind of stuff happens a lot when youre in your 20s and 30s and not so much later on. the drama levels seem to settle with the over 40s. i wish i could say that lesbians hitting on their friends partners was an isolated thing but it isnt, happens a lot especially with other women.

uhhhhhhhhyep. I remember it happening a lot, and being on both sides of the equation, a lot (hit on, and having my partner hit on.) It really irritated me, back in the day, how there were so many women whose eyes literally lit up, when you told them you had a lover. It was like a challenge, or something. That's probably the one thing about lesbians "as a group" which used to really irritate me, and I thought back then (70's, 80's) that if we were married, it wouldn't be that way -- wouldn't be acceptable, anyway, but because we didn't have a legally and societal recognized relationship, then it was easily affronted time after time, and you just had to develop a plan for dealing with the unwanted overtures.

on the other hand the other thing that happens a lot is for someone to play the jealousy card if they feel that they are not being desired in the way that they want to. not saying thats what happened here just that its a very common thing in relationships between women. the latter pisses me off more than the former so my reaction when these kinds of things have come up for me is to say, so is that what you want to do? youre free and over 21 so if thats what you want, go for it! it doesnt go over very well but thats ok too. its better to nip those kinds of things in the bud very early on. that kind of stuff feels gamey under the best of circumstances no matter who originates it. best to not let it take hold. if your relationship is solid nobody can come between you. if it isnt then anybody can.

i did have an interesting experience like this last month. we were at a multi day arts venue and this cute blonde mid 30s femme who was sititng in front of us struck up a conversation with my date. it was one of those things where she turned around in her seat to check out the room, saw my date and did one of those double takes. then she started a conversation about the artist. my date was polite and answered her many questions but didnt encourage the conversation. after the show, when we left to go to the coffee bar i said that chick was hitting on you and she said no way, she was just making conversation. i laughed and said, yer kidding? nope she was hitting on you in a big way. at the next days events, we were seated in the front row with an empty group of seats next to my date and in walks blondie, scans the room sees my date, her eyes light up and she plops herself right down next to her and says is anyone sitting here? date says no but these seats are saved for the corporate sponsors she flings her tresses, puts her hand on my dates knee and says well that would be me now wouldnt it? date turns 5 shades of red and the women, keeping her hand on dates knee, then asks her what she thought about the previous nights performance. date says she should really ask me since its more my area of expertise than hers, blondie ignores me completely and now has her hand on my dates shoulder and is gazing into her eyes and asking more questions, another 6 inches and shed be sitting in my dates lap. date keeps trying to bring me into the conversation and is moving way over close to me and away from her and at this point im finding it amusing not threatening. so she goes in for the kill like 5 times and gets rebuffed 5 times and finally settles into her seat, watches the performance and when its over gets up and literally flees out of the place. so we get outside and date looks at me and says, you were right! she *was* hitting on me...duh...no buildings have to land on your head, eh? lol. so i said what did that feel like? she said, actually its pretty good on my ego, how old do you think she was? i say dunno, mid 30s? but she has very good taste. what did strike me about this was how rude the womans behavior was. my date made it clear that we were there together and yet this woman saw someone she wanted and went for it. repeatedly. a real class act, yanno?

Geezopetes. What a jerk.
I wonder if you'd been introduced in a more firm way; if the relationship had been spelled out, if it would have continued.

But again: imagine the scenario if your date had turned to you and said: "Oh, I'd like you to meet the woman to whom I'm married: PsychLit."

Speaking of which, and along the lines of GLBT marriage -- I'm not sure I'd want to be introduced as anyone's "wife." Nor would I want to introduce my female partner as "my husband" or "wife." Those, to me, both carry gender and gender role IDs. "Marriage partner" seems a bit wordy, as does "the person to whom I'm married." So what words would we use, if we didn't want husband and wife? I guess I could assimilate, and whip out "ball and chain" ...

But seriously, we're still stuck with "life partner" or "marriage partner" or some "alternative" wording, when it comes to our marriages, aren't we? Unless, of course, the standard husband and wife or wife and wife are acceptable.

Hmmm. How about: "This is _________. We're married."

That sounds a little overly insecure, though, don't you think?

"My huswife?"

Oh, wait -- said outloud, that sounds too much like housewife. OK, reverse 'em: "wifehus."

Yeah! I'm liking that. I think that's my chosen made-up word for me, and my future ___. (As if... LOL) OK, the word works -- it's just a relationship and legal action now, which are the sticking points. LOL.

Even, so, I think I'd better practice, now, so it will fall trippingly off my tongue when the time arrives...

"This is Meryl Streep, my wifehus."

"I'd like you to meet my wifehus, Lauren Hutton."

OK... I'll keep practicing ...

wish there were a lecherous :eyebrow wiggle: LOL

And for the cyberly addicted: Wi-fus

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 09:52, 2008-12-01

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

hmm on the receiving end of this, i prolly would have told the friend to knock it off and not mentioned it to my partner unless the friend kept it up after firmly being told to stop. this kind of stuff happens a lot when youre in your 20s and 30s and not so much later on. the drama levels seem to settle with the over 40s. i wish i could say that lesbians hitting on their friends partners was an isolated thing but it isnt, happens a lot especially with other women.

really? this happens a lot?? hmmm, i didnt know that....and have never had that happen before...but then again i am pretty oblivious to other women when i am in a relationship...and my expirience has been that even if i go on one or two dates with someone, it seems that many people toss you into the "relationship" category and say well arent you "with" such and such...umm, no. we had two dates..! i cant recall having seen anyone hitting on anybody i know who is in a relationship...hmmm interesting. i guess for me the crazy part was that it was a "very good and close" friend. and like i said i was very clear in blowing her off, but for several days after, the phone calls and texts continued...i ignored them and they finally stopped. and i didnt mention it to my former till several months after when we had had a rough patch and made an agreement to tell each other everything. and you are right, for me at least, when i am in a relationship, no one can come between me and my girl. no one.

on the other hand the other thing that happens a lot is for someone to play the jealousy card if they feel that they are not being desired in the way that they want to. not saying thats what happened here just that its a very common thing in relationships between women. the latter pisses me off more than the former so my reaction when these kinds of things have come up for me is to say, so is that what you want to do? youre free and over 21 so if thats what you want, go for it! it doesnt go over very well but thats ok too. its better to nip those kinds of things in the bud very early on. that kind of stuff feels gamey under the best of circumstances no matter who originates it. best to not let it take hold. if your relationship is solid nobody can come between you. if it isnt then anybody can.

nah, for me, it was not an attempt to make her jealous. i dont play that. there was nothing to be jealous of from me...i have never been unfaithful in my gf relationships, ever. plus this particular girls claims, "there is not a jealous bone in my body"....i guess it was more like this was a very good long term friend of hers and this behaviour was ok, and yet there were a coupla of aquaintances, not even friends, more like people that might happen to be at the same place as i at times, that were, to her, not acceptable for me to be around. didnt matter to me, really, cause as i said, those people she didnt like were not anyone i needed to be around if it meant it would upset her....woulda had no problem never associating with them again out of respect for her feelings, but i didnt know that till it was too late....of course now, its funny cause i dont even talk to or interact with these particular two people at all now....

i did have an interesting experience like this last month. we were at a multi day arts venue and this cute blonde mid 30s femme who was sititng in front of us struck up a conversation with my date. it was one of those things where she turned around in her seat to check out the room, saw my date and did one of those double takes. then she started a conversation about the artist. my date was polite and answered her many questions but didnt encourage the conversation. after the show, when we left to go to the coffee bar i said that chick was hitting on you and she said no way, she was just making conversation. i laughed and said, yer kidding? nope she was hitting on you in a big way. at the next days events, we were seated in the front row with an empty group of seats next to my date and in walks blondie, scans the room sees my date, her eyes light up and she plops herself right down next to her and says is anyone sitting here? date says no but these seats are saved for the corporate sponsors she flings her tresses, puts her hand on my dates knee and says well that would be me now wouldnt it? date turns 5 shades of red and the women, keeping her hand on dates knee, then asks her what she thought about the previous nights performance. date says she should really ask me since its more my area of expertise than hers, blondie ignores me completely and now has her hand on my dates shoulder and is gazing into her eyes and asking more questions, another 6 inches and shed be sitting in my dates lap. date keeps trying to bring me into the conversation and is moving way over close to me and away from her and at this point im finding it amusing not threatening. so she goes in for the kill like 5 times and gets rebuffed 5 times and finally settles into her seat, watches the performance and when its over gets up and literally flees out of the place. so we get outside and date looks at me and says, you were right! she *was* hitting on me...duh...no buildings have to land on your head, eh? lol. so i said what did that feel like? she said, actually its pretty good on my ego, how old do you think she was? i say dunno, mid 30s? but she has very good taste. what did strike me about this was how rude the womans behavior was. my date made it clear that we were there together and yet this woman saw someone she wanted and went for it. repeatedly. a real class act, yanno?

this sceniario to me, i find amusing and like you and your gf/date said, kinda an ego booster. the difference to me here, was that it was a complete stranger....like i said, if someone flirts with me or my gf, to me its like, nice try but i'm/she is going home with her/me....

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

again to me, this is not a relationship based on love and a desire to be together based on a truly loving the other person....one partner trying to control the other and the other not being "allowed" to be thenselves and having to act, behave, live as another dictates is not normal or healthy and is not want i was referring to. i did not address loyalty in relationships where one partner or both, clearly have mental or actual psychological disorders.

no, of course not. the thing is tho that people who have these behaviors often arent aware of them, nor are their partners. if anything they only know that something isnt working.
take the idea of codependence mentioned before. while it has become a psychological term, its not an illness, rather its a construct. we cant cut someones codependence out of them. what it is, is a cluster of behaviors that have been labled because they commonly occur together. now if two people who do these behaviors meet and partner then maybe, if there is a ying/yang to their codependence it can work out and maybe they would describe each other as the love of their lives. no harm no foul, right? the problems arise when one person has the behaviors and drives the other one nutty with them or their behaviors compete for chaos within the relationship. doesnt matter what the psychological label is, if it doesnt keep you from where you want to be then is it an "illness?"
there are no perfectly "normal" people and prolly few if any "normal" relationships. everybody has something they might work on. in fact i think if most of us met the textbook example of an "emotionally healthy adult" wed prolly think they were very strange. a certain amount of adaptation to this crazy world is necessary and anyone who doesnt adapt tot he craziness is prolly someone id be doing the sociopath check list on!

i was using extreme examples because its easier to see the problem at its polarities. for most its more of a continuum thing. to use the parenting example, its easy to see why we would draw the line at abuse of any sort but what if its not abuse but still leaves us uncomfortable?

i really do think that opposites attract, that people fall in love with those who represent some challenge within that needs fixing and so there is bound to be some friction. lets say that person a is someone who shuns routine, whos stated desire is to live in the moment. lets say she hooks up with person b who believes that there is a place for everything and everything in its place and that schedules are our friend. a really needs the structure b provides, b really needs the freeness that a provides and in an unconscious way they have literally met their match. lets say that, god forbid, they decide to reproduce:) so how do they raise the kid? these are two very different personality types and both will feel strongly that the others way of doing it is wrong, wrong, wrong and since they both care very much about the kid and want the kid to either not be constipated or not be vomiting into the world they will dig heels in and fight for their beliefs. the problem with this is that the kid is in the middle and gets conflicting messages and will prolly end up with all sorts of issues and will prolly pull a gandhi by the age of 3. but getting those two types of parents to agree on some middle ground would take the wisdom of solomon.
same too with other types of relational issues. what feels right to one may feel really constrictive to the other or may feel like the wrong way to handle it and i think we are drawn to those who think differently. i while i do think being loving and supportive of each other in both private and public is a great thing but what happens when values clash? what happens if what feels loving and supportive to one feels smothering to the other? whose rules do they play by? and why?

i agree here too. i would not want my partner speaking up for me if i were in the process of taking care of business by myself. the example i used was a situation where someone was extremely rude to a woman and it visibly upset her and she really didnt know what to say...was speechless...her partner said that and i could see how it made the woman feel good that her partner stood up for her....that to me is a couple with a connection and they obviously have mutual respect and love and will not allow someone to attack their partner...especially when the attacker is so hurtful the attack-ee is embarrassed and doesnt know what to say in response.
then it was a good thing. if one does something and the other thinks it is beneficial then its all good. as long as there is harmony among participants then its working!
unconditional love means, to me, that you love that person without expectation of change...that you compromise both ways.....your partner leaves the cap of the tooth paste and that drives you insane...? well, if you asked and she still doesnt put the cap on, to me it is better to accept that and either let it go or put the cap back on yourself. if my partner needs to go to bed at 9pm every night and i wanna go to bed at 2 am, but we have a mutual desire to snuggle some nights....well for me i would prefer not to be forced to change my bed time, nor i hers....i would absolutely be willing tho to compromise and come snuggle with her at her bed time and then after she falls asleep, i can get up and do what ever it is i do till 2 am....to me, quirks are just that...and it makes my partner who she is....i have them, you have them, we all do....if she would like me to try to change them, i have to choice to try or not, and she has the choice to accept them or work with them....that is unconditional love.

this kind of compromise is a good thing but is it really unconditional? we got into a discussion on the aol boards about the idea of unconditional love a few years ago and it got really heated. i think the idea means different things to different people and its very important for a lot of people. because my head is made of concrete (literal and all of that) i think of unconditional anything as being without any conditions atall and thats the hard part for me. i think everyone has conditions and often when i hear people say that they want unconditional love they really mean that they want to be loved unconditionally but have conditions of their own when it comes to loving others. id say the closest i could come to what i suspect real unconditional love is would be with my children and yet i can think of extreme circumstances where i might stop loving them tho i cant imagine any of them in those circumstances.

and as i said before, if there were occassionally some things that really, really bothered my partner and she was willing to walk away from the relationship because of it, then i still have the choice with what i do with that. i dont think that applies to normal little stuff, socks on the floor, forgetting to turn lights off, leaving the water run while brushing ones teeth....that little stuff is not worth making an issue over and if one partner finds that stuff a deal breaker, then fine, but a healthy love partnership can usually find ways to compromise or accept the wierd little quirks especially was we get older...my general philosophy is dont sweat the small stuff..

and i completely agree with you here!

..however, bigger issues such as alcoholism, drugs, abuse, refusal to get a job or in some way contribute to the house hold, cheating, these are things that dont fall under "quirks" and do not fall into the unconditional love category.

ok to play devils advocate here is it then i love you without conditions or i love you as long as...?
im with you on the above. but these would all be in my as long as pile.

sorry, i guess i didnt understand that we were also to include unhealthy and damaging relationships. i was only speaking of my position of loyalty in mutally loving healthy relationship and outside influences/people that would try to insult or cause problems in my relationship or someone trying to hurt my partners feelings.

not to beat da horse till it dies but i guess im still thinking that how we take up those outside influences depends a great deal on who we are personality-wise and that even in the best and closest realtionships theres bound to be areas of overlap and areas of dysfunctional stuff. i mean i get what youre saying. that partners should be the primary and foundational relationship from which all other relationships spring and that we owe our loyalty to partner first and in many ways i can agree with the sentiment its the practice of it that would be thorny perhaps!

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

the girl i was with was no good for me, and instead how if she were with me, she could and would give me the kind of relationship "i deserved" because she has known my gf for a long time and knows that she is not capable of giving me the relationship i want...wtf? i made it quite clear where my heart, love and loyalty lay and left. the crazy thing is when i shared this info with my then gf, she was basically non-plussed...she said something along the lines of, yeah, she was pretty messed up then...for me i dont get that. i never asked her to not be friends with that person, cause that is not how i do things...i guess i just expected more of a surprised reaction (but then again, maybe this behavior was not surprising to her...) and perhaps maybe for her to feel offended/hurt/upset that her "very close friend" would do something like that to her and/or her gf. for me, i would have had a rather serious talk with this "very good, close friend", at the very least and reassured my partner that this talk would take place.

hmm on the receiving end of this, i prolly would have told the friend to knock it off and not mentioned it to my partner unless the friend kept it up after firmly being told to stop. this kind of stuff happens a lot when youre in your 20s and 30s and not so much later on. the drama levels seem to settle with the over 40s. i wish i could say that lesbians hitting on their friends partners was an isolated thing but it isnt, happens a lot especially with other women. on the other hand the other thing that happens a lot is for someone to play the jealousy card if they feel that they are not being desired in the way that they want to. not saying thats what happened here just that its a very common thing in relationships between women. the latter pisses me off more than the former so my reaction when these kinds of things have come up for me is to say, so is that what you want to do? youre free and over 21 so if thats what you want, go for it! it doesnt go over very well but thats ok too. its better to nip those kinds of things in the bud very early on. that kind of stuff feels gamey under the best of circumstances no matter who originates it. best to not let it take hold. if your relationship is solid nobody can come between you. if it isnt then anybody can.

i did have an interesting experience like this last month. we were at a multi day arts venue and this cute blonde mid 30s femme who was sititng in front of us struck up a conversation with my date. it was one of those things where she turned around in her seat to check out the room, saw my date and did one of those double takes. then she started a conversation about the artist. my date was polite and answered her many questions but didnt encourage the conversation. after the show, when we left to go to the coffee bar i said that chick was hitting on you and she said no way, she was just making conversation. i laughed and said, yer kidding? nope she was hitting on you in a big way. at the next days events, we were seated in the front row with an empty group of seats next to my date and in walks blondie, scans the room sees my date, her eyes light up and she plops herself right down next to her and says is anyone sitting here? date says no but these seats are saved for the corporate sponsors she flings her tresses, puts her hand on my dates knee and says well that would be me now wouldnt it? date turns 5 shades of red and the women, keeping her hand on dates knee, then asks her what she thought about the previous nights performance. date says she should really ask me since its more my area of expertise than hers, blondie ignores me completely and now has her hand on my dates shoulder and is gazing into her eyes and asking more questions, another 6 inches and shed be sitting in my dates lap. date keeps trying to bring me into the conversation and is moving way over close to me and away from her and at this point im finding it amusing not threatening. so she goes in for the kill like 5 times and gets rebuffed 5 times and finally settles into her seat, watches the performance and when its over gets up and literally flees out of the place. so we get outside and date looks at me and says, you were right! she *was* hitting on me...duh...no buildings have to land on your head, eh? lol. so i said what did that feel like? she said, actually its pretty good on my ego, how old do you think she was? i say dunno, mid 30s? but she has very good taste. what did strike me about this was how rude the womans behavior was. my date made it clear that we were there together and yet this woman saw someone she wanted and went for it. repeatedly. a real class act, yanno?

-- Edited by My Turn at 13:34, 2008-11-30

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

I dont think any relationship where someone tries to get you to avoid another person or activity or to stop a friendship with another or to manipulate you into acting one way or another is a healthy one. The person who would do this is not putting your interests on par with hers.

i just re-read this. very good point.

thinking further on the loyaty issure brings up a memory for me...a former of mine has/d, according to her, a very close and good friend. this very close and good friend, on one occasion, clearly and unquestioningly propositioned me, asked several times for me to come to her apt., attempted to kiss me and rub my back, and told me how, in many ways, the girl i was with was no good for me, and instead how if she were with me, she could and would give me the kind of relationship "i deserved" because she has known my gf for a long time and knows that she is not capable of giving me the relationship i want...wtf? i made it quite clear where my heart, love and loyalty lay and left. the crazy thing is when i shared this info with my then gf, she was basically non-plussed...she said something along the lines of, yeah, she was pretty messed up then... weirdface

for me i dont get that. i never asked her to not be friends with that person, cause that is not how i do things...i guess i just expected more of a surprised reaction (but then again, maybe this behavior was not surprising to her...) and perhaps maybe for her to feel offended/hurt/upset that her "very close friend" would do something like that to her and/or her gf. for me, i would have had a rather serious talk with this "very good, close friend", at the very least and reassured my partner that this talk would take place.

-- Edited by My Turn at 13:34, 2008-11-30

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

i dont think that healthy relationships have to have that joined at the hip thing going on where to speak to one is to speak to the other and that all of your activites have to be the shared. In fact, i think thats a recipe for relational disaster! Nothing fresh comes into a relationship like that. And, I dont think any relationship where someone tries to get you to avoid another person or activity or to stop a friendship with another or to manipulate you into acting one way or another is a healthy one. The person who would do this is not putting your interests on par with hers. And while i wouldnt invite the disliked friend over for a dinner with the two of us, thereby forcing her to interact one on one, id invite her to dinner with me alone or to places id go without my partner or to a house party and id expect my partner, if present, to be at least polite.

i totally 100% agree with this and have actually used that exact phrase: "we dont need to be joined at the hip"....i get really frustrated when in a relationship one person wants to do everything together all the time or obsessively calls...that can really drive me nuts....especially in a live in arrangement. my thoughts are: "go have fun....and i'll see you when you get home"...i mean the trust should be there between both parties and i certainly cant see enjoying every activity my partner does or even if it is something i like just dont feel like going or doing it that time....but i would know and feel good that she is coming home to me! if we are in this with the idea of growing old together, then what difference does it make if we each wanna do something without the other on occasion?

on the other hand, i also will tell the other person what i am doing. for example, if i ask my gf (and we are in an established relationship..not just beginning dating, for example) out, and she already has plans, that is fine...but i answer with, and would like the courtesy of being told, no, i cant. i already made plans with ___ to go _______. how about (tomorrow, next tuesday, whatever...). i have been in situations where i was told, i'm sorry. i already have plans. another time? to me, this seems like secrecy....i dont see anything wrong with just letting me know what your doing, just as i do you.....i think this is a respect and common courtesy issue.....or for me, i find it worse when sometimes i am told, sorry i already have plans, with my sister, mother, brother, jane, jim, tom, whoever....but then other times, its just, sorry i have plans. that kind of situation can lead me to wonder...gee, hmmm, should i be worried about something here....? for me, if i have nothing to hide, i dont need to be secretive or evasive about my plans with another to my gf. again, i dont mean in the beginning when you are first dating someone or perhaps two or three someones.....but after you have established a relationship or what you both agree is an exclusive (both in "dates" and sexually) arrangement.

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:
i see a relationship as two people coming together and united as one. two people who love and accept, support, encourage and strengthen each other. having the ablity to honor the other person quirks, faults and all.

I dunno, i am more a believer in differentiation within individuals in families and relationships. I think it makes for healthier boundaries even between lovers or partners. as to the quirks and faults this is perhaps why relationships dont go the distance. i was in the bookstore this afternoon doing some shopping and saw a workbook for partners to find unconditional love. made me feel kind of queasy reading it. lol. I think healthy love has conditions. for me its based upon respect and freedom at the very least and if someone is not respectful or tries to limit my freedom then they run into two of my conditions! i think the united front sounds good and its what the childcare books always refer to but what if, in the example of parenting, one of the parents was abusive? or emotionally withdrew to get compliance? as a parent, i could not support those actions and i could not stay in a relationship that endangered kids. thats the real life usual scenario. often you get parents who have very different ideas about child rearing, often polar oppositions, and its a very difficult thing to get people who feel strongly about how kids should be raised to go in the other direction and yet this is the most common circumstance. opposites do indeed attract. yes, they should come together and decide how best to handle certain situations that arise but unless they agree completely on some middle ground the divide and conquer of parental units will remain.

i get what you are saying here...and i agree...abusiveness (sp) is not normal or healthy and is not up for compromise or acceptance. one must protect children from the partner if that is what is going on. i was thinking more on normal issues such as, perhaps bedtimes...one parent says the child needs to go to bed at 8 and the other 10....or one parent grounds the child for being 10 minutes late to come home and the other thinks, gee its only 10 minutes....or say, one parent insists the children must do homework as soon as they arrive home for school and the other thinks it would be fine to let the child have a snack and relax a little before having to begin their homework.......i think the one parent must let it go for that moment and discuss the issue between them selves with out the child present...then if a compromise is worked out, both parents can approach the child and say, look, we talked about this and we are going to....(whatever the parents have agree upon). in too many cases i have seen one parent make a rule or try to enforce a consequence for breaking a rule and the other parent starts an argument with the other parent in front of the child. i dont agree with that. as i said, the exception would be verbal, or physical abuse or any other such situation where the parent is over reacting and the child needs one of the parents to step in to protect them. however, this is still not a healthy relationship and therefore not was i was talking about.

with adult relationships, friendships, etc presenting a united front can be more problematic. anything that dictates who or how you may interact with others tends to make the world a smaller place and is, imo, not healthy. id prolly not want to befriend someone who said negative things about my partner. that part is easy. the harder is when you already have a friendship in place and this happens.

again, i agree....one should not dictate to the other what they can and cannot do. things like this can be discussed if one partner feels strongly about an issue and a request can be made....then either a compromise can be reached or if one partner issues an ultimatum because of how strongly she feels, then the other partner still has the choice to do as asked or not and accept the ultimatum.....but again, this really should be rare and not the normal dynamic of the realtionship.

perhaps i wasnt clear. if my partner is "factually" wrong about something or some issue, and another person personally attacked the character or intelligence or sanity, looks, clothing, race, etc. of my partner, i would side with my partner and defend her honor in that regard. a mutally repectful conversation where ideas are being presented and exchanged, i would voice mine and point out the issues where i felt my partner was factually mistaken. that is what debates, discussions are for..the exchange of ideas, facts, opinions and differing ones can be analyzed without personal irrelevant attacks.

id agree with this.

i dont see it as co dependancy. co dependancy is a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition or one who had a dependence on the needs of or control by another. co dependancy is not a mutally respectful relationship. it is by definition one person controlling another and the other willingly going along with it.

it is also someone who gets their needs met by others and who cannot allow others to change their behavior if it means that their needs will no longer be met. even if they can reasonably be expected to meet those needs themselves. people who stay in bad relationships where the financial security is tied to the partner for example when they could get employment that would free them from the situation or someone who has a need to be loved who cannot let go of a bad relationship. or, lets say the partner is a tad bitchy or abrasive with others and someone says something about that to you. do you defend the behavior? id prolly refer them back to the partner so as not to get in the way of whatever needed to be worked out. but lets also say that your needs are met in some way by the partners abrasiveness with others, perhaps shes the fambly attack dog or something and so maybe we dont say anything because shes filling a need or worse we set off the time bomb with an "innocent remark" that ignites the situation that would also be codependence.

again to me, this is not a relationship based on love and a desire to be together based on a truly loving the other person....one partner trying to control the other and the other not being "allowed" to be thenselves and having to act, behave, live as another dictates is not normal or healthy and is not want i was referring to. i did not address loyalty in relationships where one partner or both, clearly have mental or actual psychological disorders.

i have personally seen situations where something disrepectful is said to ones partner and that person's partner has clearly stated: "you will not speak to my wife that way." i like that. it is, imo, the right and honorable thing for a partner to do for the other.

i have mixed feelings about this. on the surface it seems very nice but theres a patronizing sort of thing in that for me. i guess id expect my partner to not help them out with the bashing of me and perhaps id expect some physical supportive behavior on her part(as i unleashed my awful kerry woman self on them) but id also expect my partner to understand that i am capable of defending myself and to not speak for me.

i agree here too. i would not want my partner speaking up for me if i were in the process of taking care of business by myself. the example i used was a situation where someone was extremely rude to a woman and it visibly upset her and she really didnt know what to say...was speechless...her partner said that and i could see how it made the woman feel good that her partner stood up for her....that to me is a couple with a connection and they obviously have mutual respect and love and will not allow someone to attack their partner...especially when the attacker is so hurtful the attack-ee is embarrassed and doesnt know what to say in response.

again for me, i was discussing how i think a normal relationship would define loyalty. being in a relationship with someone with clear psycho issues is not normal and my concepts certainly would not be workable. however, two relatively normal people can come together, quirks, faults, differing likes and dislikes and still be loyal and respectful in the relationship. unconditional love means, to me, that you love that person without expectation of change...that you compromise both ways.....your partner leaves the cap of the tooth paste and that drives you insane...? well, if you asked and she still doesnt put the cap on, to me it is better to accept that and either let it go or put the cap back on yourself. if my partner needs to go to bed at 9pm every night and i wanna go to bed at 2 am, but we have a mutual desire to snuggle some nights....well for me i would prefer not to be forced to change my bed time, nor i hers....i would absolutely be willing tho to compromise and come snuggle with her at her bed time and then after she falls asleep, i can get up and do what ever it is i do till 2 am....to me, quirks are just that...and it makes my partner who she is....i have them, you have them, we all do....if she would like me to try to change them, i have to choice to try or not, and she has the choice to accept them or work with them....that is unconditional love. and as i said before, if there were occassionally some things that really, really bothered my partner and she was willing to walk away from the relationship because of it, then i still have the choice with what i do with that. i dont think that applies to normal little stuff, socks on the floor, forgetting to turn lights off, leaving the water run while brushing ones teeth....that little stuff is not worth making an issue over and if one partner finds that stuff a deal breaker, then fine, but a healthy love partnership can usually find ways to compromise or accept the wierd little quirks especially was we get older...my general philosophy is dont sweat the small stuff....however, bigger issues such as alcoholism, drugs, abuse, refusal to get a job or in some way contribute to the house hold, cheating, these are things that dont fall under "quirks" and do not fall into the unconditional love category.

sorry, i guess i didnt understand that we were also to include unhealthy and damaging relationships. i was only speaking of my position of loyalty in mutally loving healthy relationship and outside influences/people that would try to insult or cause problems in my relationship or someone trying to hurt my partners feelings.

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:
i see a relationship as two people coming together and united as one. two people who love and accept, support, encourage and strengthen each other. having the ablity to honor the other person quirks, faults and all.

I dunno, i am more a believer in differentiation within individuals in families and relationships. I think it makes for healthier boundaries even between lovers or partners. as to the quirks and faults this is perhaps why relationships dont go the distance. i was in the bookstore this afternoon doing some shopping and saw a workbook for partners to find unconditional love. made me feel kind of queasy reading it. lol. I think healthy love has conditions. for me its based upon respect and freedom at the very least and if someone is not respectful or tries to limit my freedom then they run into two of my conditions! i think the united front sounds good and its what the childcare books always refer to but what if, in the example of parenting, one of the parents was abusive? or emotionally withdrew to get compliance? as a parent, i could not support those actions and i could not stay in a relationship that endangered kids. thats the real life usual scenario. often you get parents who have very different ideas about child rearing, often polar oppositions, and its a very difficult thing to get people who feel strongly about how kids should be raised to go in the other direction and yet this is the most common circumstance. opposites do indeed attract. yes, they should come together and decide how best to handle certain situations that arise but unless they agree completely on some middle ground the divide and conquer of parental units will remain.

with adult relationships, friendships, etc presenting a united front can be more problematic. anything that dictates who or how you may interact with others tends to make the world a smaller place and is, imo, not healthy. id prolly not want to befriend someone who said negative things about my partner. that part is easy. the harder is when you already have a friendship in place and this happens.

perhaps i wasnt clear. if my partner is "factually" wrong about something or some issue, and another person personally attacked the character or intelligence or sanity, looks, clothing, race, etc. of my partner, i would side with my partner and defend her honor in that regard. a mutally repectful conversation where ideas are being presented and exchanged, i would voice mine and point out the issues where i felt my partner was factually mistaken. that is what debates, discussions are for..the exchange of ideas, facts, opinions and differing ones can be analyzed without personal irrelevant attacks.
id agree with this.

i dont see it as co dependancy. co dependancy is a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition or one who had a dependence on the needs of or control by another. co dependancy is not a mutally respectful relationship. it is by definition one person controlling another and the other willingly going along with it.

it is also someone who gets their needs met by others and who cannot allow others to change their behavior if it means that their needs will no longer be met. even if they can reasonably be expected to meet those needs themselves. people who stay in bad relationships where the financial security is tied to the partner for example when they could get employment that would free them from the situation or someone who has a need to be loved who cannot let go of a bad relationship. or, lets say the partner is a tad bitchy or abrasive with others and someone says something about that to you. do you defend the behavior? id prolly refer them back to the partner so as not to get in the way of whatever needed to be worked out. but lets also say that your needs are met in some way by the partners abrasiveness with others, perhaps shes the fambly attack dog or something and so maybe we dont say anything because shes filling a need or worse we set off the time bomb with an "innocent remark" that ignites the situation that would also be codependence.

i have personally seen situations where something disrepectful is said to ones partner and that person's partner has clearly stated: "you will not speak to my wife that way." i like that. it is, imo, the right and honorable thing for a partner to do for the other.

i have mixed feelings about this. on the surface it seems very nice but theres a patronizing sort of thing in that for me. i guess id expect my partner to not help them out with the bashing of me and perhaps id expect some physical supportive behavior on her part(as i unleashed my awful kerry woman self on them) but id also expect my partner to understand that i am capable of defending myself and to not speak for me.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I'm not talking about fidelity -- I'm talking about "loyalty."

How much do we "owe" a partner?

"My partner right or wrong?"

If she can't stand someone, are we "supposed" to, at the very least, be "cold" to them? How about her family? If, say, she can't stand a sibling, how are we supposed to interact with that sibling at family gatherings, and such? Aloof? What if we really like the person?

Are our reactions to people who come from "her" world to be guided by her present reacions to them, regardless?

What about when criticism is directed at her? Should we just listen silently, or stand up for her? Seems silly to ask, even, but should we "defend" her even if we can very easily see the other side as well?

What is "loyalty" to our partners? How do we define it?

I would define loyalty to a partner as doing all possible to affirm her authentic choices but because i would expect the same in return that would mean not allowing her choices to become my choices.

This is an easy one for me because i am usually on the "good" end of this and yet its come up a lot over the years. I like most people and can find common ground with pretty much anyone and yet i tend to partner with women who feel differently and often strongly and who have no qualms about expressing those feelings.

I think the minimum thing that we can do as an invited guest is to be civil and not let our issues bleed all over whatever the occasion for a get together may be. adults should be able to be in the same room with someone they dont care for and not trade barbs or act out. if i was in the presence of someone who was acting this way, id prolly excuse myself and go find someone more interesting to talk to. i dont do well in the face of tedious and that kind of stuff feels tedious to me. In smaller groups or one on one this can present more of a problem. If a partner says i dont like your friend susie for example, id try and probe to find out what the issues were. was she feeling threatened? was suzie rude to her? is it just that there is no common place for a friendship? what exactly was it? and once that was discussed id try and absorb how i felt about what she said. was this an isolated occurance? or is the partner someone who says these kinds of things about many people? i think two things are important to think about. is there some sort of triangulation going on and is the partner trying to isolate you? either one of those is deadly.
if someone made a disparaging comment about my partner to me and it felt unfair or uncalled for id prolly go with the catty old standby of, "gee and she always says such nice things about you!" (said with a sneer) usually this makes people really think about what they are saying and own it and ive yet to meet the person who wasnt taken aback when this is the response. However, if they made a comment that felt true, and they werent triangulating but perhaps speaking to me out of concern, id listen and really give thought to what they said and then id bring it up with my partner.

i dont think that healthy relationships have to have that joined at the hip thing going on where to speak to one is to speak to the other and that all of your activites have to be the shared. In fact, i think thats a recipe for relational disaster! Nothing fresh comes into a relationship like that. And, I dont think any relationship where someone tries to get you to avoid another person or activity or to stop a friendship with another or to manipulate you into acting one way or another is a healthy one. The person who would do this is not putting your interests on par with hers. And while i wouldnt invite the disliked friend over for a dinner with the two of us, thereby forcing her to interact one on one, id invite her to dinner with me alone or to places id go without my partner or to a house party and id expect my partner, if present, to be at least polite.

My Turn · Senior Member

BoxDog wrote:

For years I was hush about "Laura", general demeanor, disrespect, selfishness, self loathing and jealous ways. Especially the comments she had for her three sisters in law, one of which was my ltr. She is the loudest, most uncouth woman I have ever known. I respected that she was/is my ex's sister in law. Raised in the alleys or woods or not, she's "Anthonys" wife. I loathed/loathe her. They deal with her..... She was lamenting over how bad everything in her life was, to most people she has everything, I lost it...... In typical fashion, "Laura" was too drunk to recall any of it, but man oh man, to this day my ex and I still get a howl out of it. "Anthony", on the other hand, didn't say word one, from the beginning of her whining and jealous digs the piece of steak I tossed at his wife. Good boy Ant. Our partners are not always right. But see how it might have turned out? Had everyone decided they were going to defend their partner to the end? It would have been a helluva food fight.

anthony and laura perfectly illustrate your example of co dependancy. for me, i would not be in this type of relationship and i perfectly understand the reasons why anthony didnt say anything.....he has been subjected to years and years of a disrespectful, selfish, self loathing, uncouth, loud mouth drunk and he sits by and enables and thus, silently gives approval of her and her actions.

i would never allow my self to fall prey to a person such as this and therefore would not find myself in anthony's position. she is clearly unwell in the mind and spirit and not one i would ever be able to partner with nor one who would understand the "two way street" aspect of a relationship, and i am sure she is just as mean and disprespectful to anthony as she is with everyone else. anthony is not being loyal...he is a beaten down door mat who does not have enough respect for himself that he allows himself to be involved with that type of "relationship."

completely different from a normal healthy, united, relationship, where an outsider is rude and disparaging to my partner, imo.

-- Edited by My Turn at 10:32, 2008-11-29

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I'm not talking about fidelity -- I'm talking about "loyalty."

How much do we "owe" a partner?

"My partner right or wrong?"

If she can't stand someone, are we "supposed" to, at the very least, be "cold" to them? How about her family? If, say, she can't stand a sibling, how are we supposed to interact with that sibling at family gatherings, and such? Aloof? What if we really like the person?

Are our reactions to people who come from "her" world to be guided by her present reacions to them, regardless?

What about when criticism is directed at her? Should we just listen silently, or stand up for her? Seems silly to ask, even, but should we "defend" her even if we can very easily see the other side as well?

What is "loyalty" to our partners? How do we define it?

I think it's wise to remember that we are all individuals. Partners included. My example is a woman we'll call "Laura", because that's her name. For years I was hush about "Laura", general demeanor, disrespect, selfishness, self loathing and jealous ways. Especially the comments she had for her three sisters in law, one of which was my ltr. She is the loudest, most uncouth woman I have ever known. I respected that she was/is my ex's sister in law. Raised in the alleys or woods or not, she's "Anthonys" wife. I loathed/loathe her. They deal with her. Me, the day I couldn't take it any longer was at a restaurant when she started to eat off of her plate with one hand holding the fork and the other shoving the food onto the fork. She was lamenting over how bad everything in her life was, to most people she has everything, I lost it. Tossed a piece of my steak at her and said if she wants to eat like an animal she should do it on the floor. In typical fashion, "Laura" was too drunk to recall any of it, but man oh man, to this day my ex and I still get a howl out of it. "Anthony", on the other hand, didn't say word one, from the beginning of her whining and jealous digs the piece of steak I tossed at his wife. Good boy Ant. Our partners are not always right. But see how it might have turned out? Had everyone decided they were going to defend their partner to the end? It would have been a helluva food fight.

My Turn · Senior Member

all good points BD...for me, i dont look at it as gang mentality. i see it as a unified front within the couple. along the same lines as raising children together. when one parent does or says something pertaining to the child, the other parent should present a unified front in front of the children. discuss it later....in privacy between the two of you...but united in front of the children. then if there is still a difference in opinions or positions on the matter, the two must work together to reach a mutally satisfying compromise.

i see a relationship as two people coming together and united as one. two people who love and accept, support, encourage and strengthen each other. having the ablity to honor the other person quirks, faults and all. and of course it is a two way street....i accept and support my partner in my love for her and i would expect the same from her. not that i or she would have to agree on everything, disagreements and discussions are healthy and can allow for personal and couple growth....however, in public or to outside people is not the time or place to speak out against my partner or show any type of lack of commitment to her or her to me. yes, i can and do speak up for my thoughts, beliefs and opinions even if they would or do differ from my partner, but that is about me. someone publicly disparaging my partner to me is unacceptable. perhaps i wasnt clear. if my partner is "factually" wrong about something or some issue, and another person personally attacked the character or intelligence or sanity, looks, clothing, race, etc. of my partner, i would side with my partner and defend her honor in that regard. a mutally repectful conversation where ideas are being presented and exchanged, i would voice mine and point out the issues where i felt my partner was factually mistaken. that is what debates, discussions are for..the exchange of ideas, facts, opinions and differing ones can be analyzed without personal irrelevant attacks.

i dont see it as co dependancy. co dependancy is a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition or one who had a dependence on the needs of or control by another. co dependancy is not a mutally respectful relationship. it is by definition one person controlling another and the other willingly going along with it.

i see it as repect on both sides for the two people involved in the relationship. a willingness to be together, work on differences and for each to still remain their own true and authentic self.

i have personally seen situations where something disrepectful is said to ones partner and that person's partner has clearly stated: "you will not speak to my wife that way." i like that. it is, imo, the right and honorable thing for a partner to do for the other. and as i have said several times, a two way street for both parties in the relationship. each party should not let another person come between them. their relationship is special and should exclude those who would disrepect it. again, it is about the two people involved and unconditionally defending and supporting them in the public arena...in private is where discussions, compromise, boundaries, desires and expectations are hashed out.

-- Edited by My Turn at 10:07, 2008-11-29

BoxDog · Guru

My Turn wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I'm not talking about fidelity -- I'm talking about "loyalty."

How much do we "owe" a partner?

"My partner right or wrong?"

If she can't stand someone, are we "supposed" to, at the very least, be "cold" to them? How about her family? If, say, she can't stand a sibling, how are we supposed to interact with that sibling at family gatherings, and such? Aloof? What if we really like the person?

Are our reactions to people who come from "her" world to be guided by her present reacions to them, regardless?

What about when criticism is directed at her? Should we just listen silently, or stand up for her? Seems silly to ask, even, but should we "defend" her even if we can very easily see the other side as well?

What is "loyalty" to our partners? How do we define it?

i think it depends upon the situation and the couple. in family interactions, if my partner "cant stand" a sibling or other family member, i would be cordial, in the name of keeping peace at the function, but i would certainly not attempt to develop a friendship with that person, as it is clearly disloyal to the thoughts and feelings of my partner. altho, if my partner had an interaction that was so extremely egregious to cause her to hate or want to have absolutely nothing to do with the family member, then no, i wouldnt even be cordial. i would not take it upon myself to be "attacking" or confrontational, but i would definitely be solid in my loyalty to my partner..however, in this particular sceniario, i am guessing my partner would not even want to be present at the function. i cant see how i would "really like" the person who feels or thinks so little of my parnter or who hurt them so badly.

if criticisms are directed at her, i would defend her. even if she is clearly wrong on the facts or just her emotional reaction to something, i could not stand by and allow criticism of "her." in a private place and time, if my partner were open to discussion on whatever part of her position or facts are wrong, then that is the time to talk to the partner...but never, imo, is it ok to side with another against my partner to anyone else.

yes, people in "her world" or mine, should be guided by her or my feelings. that also means one has to know how she feels....and that is her responsibility also. if there is someone that she dispises and does not want to associate with that needs to be respected. if there is someone in my world that she feels that strongly about and does not want me to associate with, then that must be clearly stated...not just: i really dont like her and dont want to be involved with her...i mean she needs to clearly state: i detest this person and want nothing to do with her....and if you wish to be friends or associate with her, i cant accept that and it is a "deal breaker" for me. for me, it would be a no brainer in choosing my loyalty to my partner. that is a clear boundary and request and i would honor it for her. period. the biggie here is for my partner to be clear about something that is that important to her so that i can have the opportunity to honor that request. and i dont even care what the reasons are..if she has reasons, fine, share them if she wants...but even if it is something she doesnt want to share at that time, or not a specific reason, just her personal aversion to that person, i would absolutely respect that.

i think all of it comes down to communication and my partner clearly stating what she wants and needs. for me, my love relationship takes number one priority over friends and family. it is her responsiblity to make her position on these matters clear and it is my obligation/duty to honor that. my partner comes first to me in all aspects.

The world is round, yes, but not as round as we think. Relationships include everyone around us, in and outside of our immediate circles and that DOES include our current or "lifetime" partners, of any variety. NOT, that is, if we want healthy relationships. I would not defend my partner to the end that they are absolutely wrong. That would be shortchanging my personal beliefs and feelings and really, engaging in a real life flame war, and those are not productive. If we were to look at some of these comments from the perspective of how they relate outside of the "intimate relationship" then I think this role model is an ominous one for the world. See, if we were to look at your relationship "business plan" and apply it to organized religion, we would understand the rampant and universal distrust and contempt of gays (because the church says so, that's why) apply it to the backing of a political candidate because of their gender or race (because I'm black, or I'm a woman, that's why...) how about this one, because it's my kid, that's why...or if we were to simply sit down at the dinner table and defend our partners RIGHT to a drumstick...well, unless you can get that turkey to grow a third leg, someone has to be the voice of reason. And a gang of two is still a gang. Hell, a gang of one, more commonly known as a thug, is still a gang. Personally I believe the key to interpersonal partner loyalties is healthiest when guided by the communication that is had before nearly any scene were to "pop up". I disagree strongly with the sentiment you've laid out. At best, in my opinion, it's a romantic albeit tragic path. At worst, a textbook example of codependency. Sometimes our friends, co-workers, lovers and even children, are in fact, just wrong. And that too is okay, but to wrap myself around that because of my relationship with them is unfair and deceptive to my own being.

My partner comes first, without a doubt, in one aspect and that is in the matter of fidelity.

My Turn · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I'm not talking about fidelity -- I'm talking about "loyalty."

How much do we "owe" a partner?

"My partner right or wrong?"

If she can't stand someone, are we "supposed" to, at the very least, be "cold" to them? How about her family? If, say, she can't stand a sibling, how are we supposed to interact with that sibling at family gatherings, and such? Aloof? What if we really like the person?

Are our reactions to people who come from "her" world to be guided by her present reacions to them, regardless?

What about when criticism is directed at her? Should we just listen silently, or stand up for her? Seems silly to ask, even, but should we "defend" her even if we can very easily see the other side as well?

What is "loyalty" to our partners? How do we define it?

i think it depends upon the situation and the couple. in family interactions, if my partner "cant stand" a sibling or other family member, i would be cordial, in the name of keeping peace at the function, but i would certainly not attempt to develop a friendship with that person, as it is clearly disloyal to the thoughts and feelings of my partner. altho, if my partner had an interaction that was so extremely egregious to cause her to hate or want to have absolutely nothing to do with the family member, then no, i wouldnt even be cordial. i would not take it upon myself to be "attacking" or confrontational, but i would definitely be solid in my loyalty to my partner..however, in this particular sceniario, i am guessing my partner would not even want to be present at the function. i cant see how i would "really like" the person who feels or thinks so little of my parnter or who hurt them so badly.

if criticisms are directed at her, i would defend her. even if she is clearly wrong on the facts or just her emotional reaction to something, i could not stand by and allow criticism of "her." in a private place and time, if my partner were open to discussion on whatever part of her position or facts are wrong, then that is the time to talk to the partner...but never, imo, is it ok to side with another against my partner to anyone else.

yes, people in "her world" or mine, should be guided by her or my feelings. that also means one has to know how she feels....and that is her responsibility also. if there is someone that she dispises and does not want to associate with that needs to be respected. if there is someone in my world that she feels that strongly about and does not want me to associate with, then that must be clearly stated...not just: i really dont like her and dont want to be involved with her...i mean she needs to clearly state: i detest this person and want nothing to do with her....and if you wish to be friends or associate with her, i cant accept that and it is a "deal breaker" for me. for me, it would be a no brainer in choosing my loyalty to my partner. that is a clear boundary and request and i would honor it for her. period. the biggie here is for my partner to be clear about something that is that important to her so that i can have the opportunity to honor that request. and i dont even care what the reasons are..if she has reasons, fine, share them if she wants...but even if it is something she doesnt want to share at that time, or not a specific reason, just her personal aversion to that person, i would absolutely respect that.

i think all of it comes down to communication and my partner clearly stating what she wants and needs. for me, my love relationship takes number one priority over friends and family. it is her responsiblity to make her position on these matters clear and it is my obligation/duty to honor that. my partner comes first to me in all aspects.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

I'm not talking about fidelity -- I'm talking about "loyalty."

How much do we "owe" a partner?

"My partner right or wrong?"

If she can't stand someone, are we "supposed" to, at the very least, be "cold" to them? How about her family? If, say, she can't stand a sibling, how are we supposed to interact with that sibling at family gatherings, and such? Aloof? What if we really like the person?

Are our reactions to people who come from "her" world to be guided by her present reacions to them, regardless?

What about when criticism is directed at her? Should we just listen silently, or stand up for her? Seems silly to ask, even, but should we "defend" her even if we can very easily see the other side as well?

What is "loyalty" to our partners? How do we define it?