X
Xantippe
Guest
I don’t think I changed a lot personality-wise during those years, but I did become more responsible and also got A LOT more savvy about people.
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think that’s especially true when you live close.
Our extended family has amazing potential for drama, but since almost all of our family lives 2,000 miles away, it’s physically impossible for the personalities involved to cause us any day-to-day trouble.
Yeah. I think I’m the same. I’m more mature and more aware of who I am as a person. Definitely less naive and capable of “reading” people’s intentions with more accuracy. But essentially I’m not a different person.
J
jdavani
Guest
I think there’s a lot of people out there who were different people during their college years. I was.
A
alice24
Guest
Well, I have to say that university changed me much more than"just" paying my living costs and work for others. For other people this can be a different thing, but meeting people with completely different background than mine was definetely needed before marriage.
A
alice24
Guest
This.
My best friend was kidding me some months ago with a telenovela soundtrack as contact song because of this
My best friend was kidding me some months ago with a telenovela soundtrack as contact song because of this
Last edited:
I’m currently in university. I didn’t go to a large university til I was 26. By that time I think I was relatively mature. (I’m 30 in Feb and finish University in May)
I don’t think it changed me too much. Though it did strengthen my faith somewhat.
Last edited:
A
Allegra
Guest
That’s an easy question. The answer is always “no”. It’s not the pant’s fault.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
“Marriage is 100/100 not 50/50.”
It seems to say something profound when it’s not. In practice, what ends up happening is that the spouse feels neglect and like the relationship is one-sided, but then, not being able to change their spouse, they tell themselves “Well, I just have to keep giving more. Maybe my example will motivate my spouse?” And in the end, all you’re left with are words and resentment, lecturing your spouse on morality while still enabling your spouse to take advantage of your generosity.
The reality is that the equation can only equal 100 unless you’re living lives as seperate individuals rather than as a team that works together as one.
It seems to say something profound when it’s not. In practice, what ends up happening is that the spouse feels neglect and like the relationship is one-sided, but then, not being able to change their spouse, they tell themselves “Well, I just have to keep giving more. Maybe my example will motivate my spouse?” And in the end, all you’re left with are words and resentment, lecturing your spouse on morality while still enabling your spouse to take advantage of your generosity.
The reality is that the equation can only equal 100 unless you’re living lives as seperate individuals rather than as a team that works together as one.
C
Clementine14
Guest
In my own experience, what builds resentment is keeping score. What good is it to think that it can ever really be 50/50? That’s not possible. So accepting that one’s role is to give 100% of what is possible, regardless of how well the spouse is doing, seems more healthy for a marriage. It’s not necessarily to motivate anyone to do anything, but rather to do your job as part of a family and do it well, without trying to be a martyr and ruminating on percentages and trying to quantify something that is impossible to quantify. And it doesn’t do any good for one spouse to keep giving more, while at the same time not being good at communicating that they need help. That’s a communication problem, not a fairness problem.
Certainly, there are families where one person pulls a lot more weight. That’s obviously a problem. But in a good marriage, spouses will try to sit down and figure out what is fair, while still realizing that it’s never going to actually be fair. The amount of work might equal 100%, but when my husband has had to work 70 hours in one week, I will be picking up the slack, and when I have finals to grade and have lost a day due to a migraine, he will give more than 50%.
S
sny
Guest
Yup, this exactly. Looks like lots of us are in agreement!
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
What builds resentment is saying no to your spouse’s needs. Couples are to be submissive to one another, and we often find ourselves arguing about whether the other’s stated needs are legitimate. “That’s a want, not a need.” So rather than discussing HOW you will both go about saying yes to one another (How and when, that is, because you can’t do two things at once), a spouses tend to fall into arguing why their own needs are more important than the others’.
Indeed, the 100/100 simply tells the spouse who’s needs have been rejected that they need to not acknowledge that their spouse has sinned against them, but just give more. And this enables the other spouse to persist in their sinfulness and doesn’t remotely help them on their path to sainthood.
So the correct response to a spouse who says no to your needs is to not allow your spouse to get in the way of meeting your needs. “Okay, well, I understand that you are expressing this particular need is important to you. And since you’re saying no to helping me get my need met, I’m going to have to do it myself. And I’m sorry, but this means I won’t be as available to you to serve this other need unless you have some other suggestion for a point of compromise.”
The spouse who is saying ‘no’ and selfishly insisting on their own will likely tell the spouse “No, I want both.” But ultimately in such a situation, the spouse that is being asked to give too much and to basically be used has to ultimately come up with a plan till the other spouse says “Okay, I’m sorry. My needs aren’t being met well this way. I’m sorry for dismissing yours. Here’s a better idea over how we can BOTH get our needs met.”
I highly recommend Dr. Gregory Popcak’s books on marriage. He REALLY knows what he’s talking about.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think the advice about not keeping score works in a basically equitable relationship, but doesn’t work when the relationship has become unfairly one-sided.
C
Clementine14
Guest
I guess this is not how I see the 100/100. I have always seen it as “give 100% of what you are able”- not “give more until the point of exhaustion”. Sometimes this might entail doing what you have suggested- not completing a particular task because you are simply at the end of your rope and cannot do any more. You’ve still given 100% of what you can. Whether a spouse gives 100% of what he or she is able to is beyond one’s control.
I also agree with Xantippe that a relationship can be one-sided, which is problematic and needs to be addressed beyond any simple advice. But basic “marriage advice” that marriage should be 50/50 isn’t realistic, in my opinion. If couples go into a marriage thinking things are always going to be “fair” and each is always going to be giving half to make a perfect whole, it just doesn’t work that way. We pick up each other’s slack, and that is how a good marriage functions. We should strive for fairness, but that doesn’t always mean the same thing as completely equal.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
But who thinks fairness is about giving only 50% of yourself to your marriage? This is an equivocation. You can’t compare effort to contribution. They’re not the same thing. The advice seems to be saying something when it’s saying nothing.
Certainly, sometimes the divisions of labor will be 20/80, 90/10, and maybe even some tasks that are handled entirely by one person. For instance, if a husband is the sole breadwinner and the wife is a homemaker, he’s making 100% of the income. And it’s not possible to equally compare all our contributions.
I get that it’s trying to say that a sincere effort to be fair matters more than actual fairness, but it’s easily misinterpreted. AFterall, my 100% is working until I’m physically not able. Who says I need to stop when I’m exhausted? Who says I can’t work myself sick? That was how I was raised, so telling someone like me to just give 100% is telling me to behave codependently. And if advice is only going to help those with basically happy marriages while adding fuel to the fire of people’s marriages where real problems exist, than the advice is bad.
Last edited:
C
Clementine14
Guest
As I posted above, I believe a “useless marriage tip” is that marriage is 50/50. This is actually fairly common advice, and I think a lot of people do believe it. I do not. It makes no sense, in practical terms.
Instead, I believe that both spouses should give all they can. I am coming from the idea that score-keeping and nit-picking are harmful to a marriage, no matter what it’s called in terms of “percentages of giving”. The advice that the alternative to thinking “division of labor is always going to be equal” is to remember that it is not, and that you should both strive to give what you are able marriage and to the functioning of the household, simply does not seem like bad advice to me.
If one spouse does not hold up their end of the bargain, that still doesn’t make it bad advice. That means that there are other issues within the marriage that need to be addressed, maybe professionally or maybe not. 100/100 doesn’t mean that people should just give give give until they keel over. It’s meant as an alternative perspective to the misguided 50/50 idea, and 100% is 100% of what you are able. Anything can be misinterpreted. I think it is more dangerous for a marriage if spouses are keeping score, than if they believe that it’s not always going to be “mathematically” fair.
Last edited:
X
Xantippe
Guest
How about 95/95?
Alternately, 90/90?
Alternately, 90/90?
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
I agree 50/50 is a useless tip too. But 100/100 is NOT the solution. It is not related to the problem.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, the 100/100 is (a) still keeping score when you’re on the same team and (b) ignores that there is an ebb and flow to our capacity to do what we can do and want to do, let alone what we ought to do.
It is better to say that you give as much of your all as you have to give. When you can’t, you say, “Lord, you love her,/him because right this minute I can’t do it.” (That is a remarkably effective prayer, if you haven’t tried it.)
My advice to married couples, for instance, is this: Always apologize when you’re wrong, but especially when you aren’t the most wrong.
Why? (a) the person who is the most wrong is very often the most defensive and has the most difficult time coming out and being vulnerable by saying they’re wrong. They know their spouse has it on them, and it is hard to go there. If your spouse who did less wrong apologizes, though, it is far easier to be generous and say, “oh, no it should be me apologizing to you.”
(b) let’s face it, most disputes wouldn’t be disputes if we didn’t think the other party is the most wrong.
Also, apologizing means you’re saying you’re sorry without expectation of a counter-apology. You’re sticking with what you did wrong. You have to go in realizing that the other party may not even see that they did anything wrong…maybe yet, maybe not ever.
Last edited:
- Status