People don’t establish standards of conduct. I’m not saying that people should “judge” (we all ‘judge’, by the way), but rather, we simply need to make it clear to others, in a diplomatic way, what we will and will not respond to favorably, or not at all.
People also need to be willing to accept criticism and judgment in return. I had a friend once whom I accidentally flaked out on by accidentally forgetting that we’d agreed to have lunch together on one of my days off – worse, this was after we’d recently had a conversation in which we both talked about how we didn’t like it when people flaked out on appointments or get togethers.
So I apologized profusely and set up a time to meet for lunch the following week – which he, ahem, “forgot” about. I got it. I could have responded and said “You’re a dick for doing this” but I got it – I hadn’t kept my word and I had hurt his feelings. It wasn’t like he went out and banged my girlfriend or anything. Just a kind reminder that it ain’t cool to stand people up. I deserved it.
We met a week or two later and acted as if nothing had happened.
Remember this is all just entertainment. Dear Abby, et al, do NOT exist to solve peoples’ problems. They exist to be a reason for people to look at the page and read the advertising nearby.
Once in awhile here somebody does actually post looking for advice. But mostly they’re seeking validation. At least around here sometimes they get it; other times they get an earful about their obviously contrived BS or their grossly entitled attitude or …
I donno. In the real world, adults aren’t perfect and if she’s going to act all pissy even after you apologized for a one off mistake then it shows you his character.
Getting angry about being stood up is something most people do when it’s a repeated event.
I’d be pissed. Accidently forgetting is one thing (although I never forget appointments). Intentionally “forgetting” as a passive-aggressive “tit for tat” is a good way to have me never hang out with you again.
There are varying degrees and tradeoffs with everything. In most cases - jobs, marriage, and places where people live ( at least those who don’t have vast wealth) have significant aspects that are inherently “crappy”. Probably can be crappy even for rich people too.
I don’t really love my new job, but I don’t have any illusions that if I were to quit and find a new job tomorrow, there wouldn’t be things about that new job that annoy me.
I also tend to find my marriage and raising kids tedious. Just normal wife and kids shit that everyone complains about. Don’t get me wrong, I still love my wife and kids. But it’s still tedious. To me it seems kind of irresponsible and selfish to just abandon my obligations so I can “live my best life” (whatever that means).
Certainly there are situations that are intolerable or unsustainable. Like if your work situation is dangerous or illegal or you are in an abusive relationship. Problem is most situations aren’t that cut and dried. In fact, most are like a frog slowly boiling in water. No one says “let me take this shit job with this shit company” or “I really want to marry this a-hole”. One day you just wake up and are like “how the fuck did I get HERE?”
I thought the point of this thread was discussing unambiguously bad relationships. I mean, “abusive” is one of the first words of the OP (even if it’s later heavily watered down to shocking behaviour like “chronic lateness” )
How many relationships start out that unambiguously bad? Although I suppose there is that circa 2010 “pick up artist” phenomenon where they teach people to use “negs” to pick up women by insulting them.
If that’s at me, I never claimed they had to start out unambiguously bad. Remember I am the one that brought up the boiling frog analogy first.
Actually I am one of the resident PUA defenders on this board, so that’s somewhere we could have an actual disagreement, though I guess not in this thread.
Not that I would defend all people and all practices, of course, just that IMO IME the popular characterization is not a fair representation about what the majority of it was about.
I actually missed that post. But it’s a common expression. So yeah, we’re basically saying the same thing.
Actually I am one of the resident PUA defenders on this board, so that’s somewhere we could have an actual disagreement, though I guess not in this thread.
Not that I would defend all people and all practices, of course, just that IMO IME the popular characterization is not a fair representation about what the majority of it was about.
[/quote]
We can debate the practice if you like. But I will stand by my opinion that if the start of a relationship is based off of one party using manipulation and psychological tricks to present a distorted view of themselves (or an accurate one based on “dominance” and whatnot) there’s a good chance it will turn shitty.
a friend had a friend spend the weekend with him. He said the guy spent the whole weekend saying he hated his job. So my friend said “why not get another job?” and the guy said “Leave IBM?”
I would agree with that.
But I’m saying that is not a fair characterization. In my experience it was simply sharing advice on being more attractive. I don’t recall anyone in my group talking about negging, though I was familiar with the term from “The Game”, and know it doesn’t simply mean “insulting women”.
Anyway, it was years ago and it’s all academic now I guess.
Yeah, I’ve seen that with people in certain companies or industries. Particularly with law or consulting firms like Deloitte or Accenture. I think it’s because they put up with so much crap over so long of a period of time in the pursuit of “making partner”.
There might also be an aspect of assuming that no other job could be as good as working for IBM. I mean if you don’t like it at IBM, imagine how bad other places must be!
Women (and maybe men) stay in abusive relationships for a complex of reasons are fairly extensively studied. This information is readily available. Often, they are afraid to leave because the abuser has threatened to self-harm, kidnap their children, or kill them. These are often legitimate fears as it’s quite common that abusers exact retribution upon partners who try to leave. When you can see abuse from the outside, it’s probably much much worse from the inside.
Part of an abuser’s m.o. is breaking down whatever autonomy and self-esteem the partner had going into it, making them doubt their own senses, and generally fucking up their minds. People who get into abusive relationships also pretty often have seen this modeled by their parents – it feels "normal’.
Just a few of the reasons I can think of off hand.
Everything you say is true and important but I was really talking about the stuff which doesn’t qualify as abusive, but is nonetheless stuff no one sho7ld really tolerate.
Well, in that case, I would say that in any relationship, both parties make cost-benefit analyses which are mainly if not entirely unconscious on a continual basis. The costs and benefits of leaving vs staying are complicated – for some people, change is a lot more costly in terms of emotional uncertainty, the stress of new decision-making, etc., than it is for others. For many, as well, putting up with less than ideal behaviors is less costly than confrontation. People’s insides are all different.
Some folks even take the approach that “I admit I’m kinda hard to get along with. I give out X amount of crap. So maybe taking Y amount of crap is just my fair share in return.”
You can tell a lot about a person by their idea of their relative sizes of X & Y. And how well their behavior matches what they say they think of themselves.
Thinking your X is tiny and your Y is large when your actual behavior reality is the dead opposite is not a good look. A very common look, but not a good one.
)