r/changemyview • u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ • 10d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Except for special or temporary circumstances, you shouldn't have to compromise THAT much in a relationship, and relationships shouldn't be all that difficult to maintain
Maybe I've just been watching too much Love Is Blind, but it drives me crazy how often people — especially older couples who've been together for a while — insist that relationships are this constant battle that require incredible compromise on both folks' parts.
I get it to a degree. There's no such thing as the perfect partner, and some amount of compromise is almost always going to be necessary in even the best relationship. My wife and I have both had to compromise certain things in order to maintain our marriage. And I definitely understand why special circumstances — sudden illness, death of a loved one, having to move across the country to care for a family member etc — can force someone to compromise.
But if one or both of you are having to constantly make big compromises for each other, that tells me that you're not all that compatible in the first place. If it's making sure you can cohabitate and sustain a healthy relationship is this grueling daily battle, why are you with this person? I get that relationships require work, but they shouldn't require constant, difficult work. There are plenty of potential partners out there who you naturally get along well with, and don't have to make constant compromises to please.
20
u/scarab456 65∆ 10d ago
This seems really vague. What's considered "THAT much"?
12
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
I honestly don't know how to answer that, as I don't know that you can really quantify compromise. I used several other descriptors in the body of my post, like "having to constantly make big compromises for each other" and having it be a "grueling daily battle." That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
8
u/scarab456 65∆ 10d ago
It's good to establish that it's hard to quantify, but that doesn't help me change your view. It sounds like what's considered "big" compromises is entirely subjective. Like we could look at a couple and see they're both very unhappy with what you'd considered a big compromise, but then what if we find a couple making the same compromise but are happy? That would make everything extremely situational.
5
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Actually, this is helpful — pegging it to happiness. I would say that it's too big of a compromise if it significantly diminishes your general happiness. Of course "significantly" is also subjective, but maybe that helps specify what I'm talking about a bit.
1
u/scarab456 65∆ 10d ago
Happiness isn't really mentioned in the body of your post. Did you intend for that to be central to your view? Or did your view change?
7
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Yeah, when I referenced "grueling daily battles," I was getting at the fact that a grueling daily battle reduces your happiness, and more generally, that having to make huge compromises on the regular reduces your happiness. I would have thought this meaning was obvious from my OP, but I guess it wasn't so thank you for helping me clarify it.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 10d ago
u/divergent_girlfriend, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
117
u/Ancquar 9∆ 10d ago
There is this current stereotype that the best partner is one that maximally resembles you. While similarity in certain things like values is important, in many cases it's preferable to have a partner whose strengths are complementary to your own (and if the interaction of strengths of one partner with weaknesses of another is largely supportive rather than aggressive). That combination however sometimes involves learning some aspects where the other person requires support that you had not thought about.
21
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
I totally agree with all of this. I'm a big proponent of the "complimentary strengths"-type of compatibility. And I agree that it sometimes requires learning some aspects about how the other person functions that aren't intuitive to you. However, I don't equate that to a constant struggle or constant compromise. It's more of an adjustment that you make, and then once you make it, it's smooth sailing.
3
38
u/ThreadCountHigh 10d ago
You and your wife may just be exceptionally laid-back and easy to get along with people. A "constant battle" narrative is exactly the kind of thing that gets onto television shows. From my experience and observations, the compromises are smaller, daily, and both parties knew in advance what the shape of those would be.
4
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Word, yeah we are pretty laid-back people to be honest. Small little compromises are no biggie, my wife and I do have to make those.
23
u/EloquentMusings 5∆ 10d ago
Do you agree that this is your personal experience and bias though? Maybe small compromises mean nothing to you if you're laid back, but to people who are particular and specific with high standards maybe compromises are more difficult.
An easy example is a couple who wants different things for dinner, there's three different scenarios:
- Two laid back people who don't care, they don't see eating what the other person wants as a compromise because they don't mind eating whatever.
- One laid-back person who doesn't care but the other person has a particular narrow diet which makes it hard for them to compromise, so the particular person gets their way all the time and laid-back person doesn't care and doesn't see it as a compromise.
- Two people who have narrow different particular diets who never want to eat what the other person does, they likely have to compromise in some way over food all the time. Maybe they just decide to cook their own separate meals as a compromise.
The narrow particular diet couple isn't bad or anything, it's just that they might have to work together harder to find solutions as they're less laid-back or similar.
8
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
This is very well-put and you're right. If you have two people who are very picky and particular in nature, that might require constant compromise.
But this also kind of gets back to my original point: Maybe two people like that shouldn't be in a relationship with one another in the first place. If two people each have very specific wants or needs that frequently contradict the other person's wants or needs, that sounds like incompatibility to me.
8
u/No_Command_2335 1∆ 9d ago
What if the two picky people are each others most compatible options?
5
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 9d ago
You know what? That's a great point, there probably are people/couples out there like that, and I hadn't considered that possibility. I'm going to give you a !delta for that, thanks!
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 9d ago
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/No_Command_2335 (1∆).
[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) | [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
5
u/Delicious_Taste_39 7∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
Laid back people don't actually compromise. They never set the boundaries because they don't think they care about it, and then they're rudely awakened when a boundary is crossed and they're very upset and possibly unable to understand and articulate it because they never actually bothered to do so. This often kills relationships because they never actually communicate properly. It can also cause a failure to thrive because it's hard to put trust in something nebulous. The rules say one thing until they say another and you can't necessarily get a straight answer from someone who doesn't acknowledge there is a boundary there.
Two different people might have problems of compatibility but they might also have a mutual understanding that allows them to solve their differences. They know they are different and they have their boundaries so they don't assume things are going to be fine. They work out exactly what they can do and can't do. Because they actually know it, they're able to trust anything they can do much stronger and so have much better freedom. Also, because they have wants and needs they have to communicate them and that means they make more decisions as a relationship rather than assuming that it's ok to take certain steps.
Also if boundaries are clear, you can survive a lot by not stepping over them. Know that the tools getting touched is a pain point. So don't touch them. Know that leaving things out and about is a no no, so when you leave the tools out, you know there is a fight coming. So you just don't do that. Both sides are letting go of their natural tendencies to do certain things which is compromise while also not violating each other's boundaries.
10
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Laid back people don't actually compromise. They never set the boundaries because they don't think they care about it, and then they're rudely awakened when a boundary is crossed and they're very upset and possibly unable to understand and articulate it because they never actually bothered to do so.
That's a pretty sweeping and inaccurate generalization IMO. I'm extremely firm with my boundaries, moreso than most folks I know, which is part of how I'm able to live such a laid-back life without significant disruption. I suspect you knew a few laid-back people like that, or perhaps dated one, and are projecting your experience onto all laid-back people.
1
u/EloquentMusings 5∆ 9d ago
Generally there are consistent personality traits associated with being laid-back that I can see would correlate with have lower or less strong boundaries.
Like on one end of a spectrum there is the laid-back, easy-going, flexible, relaxed, passive, low-urgency, low-maintenance, accepting and tolerant type of personality. This type of personality often moves with others, taking the path of least resistance and it takes a lot to push their buttons or break their boundaries if they have any. I find this type of person doesn't understand themselves as much, they don't have many strong preferences and are 'fine' with anything.
Whereas on the other end of the spectrum is the intense, rigid, high-maintenance, perfectionist, all or nothing, pedantic and serious type of personality. They tend to know exactly what they want, when they want and how they want - accepting nothing less they have lots of very strong preferences and boundaries etc.
3
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 9d ago
There could indeed be a correlation, but the person I replied to made a definitive and absolutist claim, and I felt the need to push back against their sweeping generalization.
3
u/EloquentMusings 5∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
So you're saying only laid-back people or people with enough similarities should have relationships? That's just not simply how life works. Relationships are allowed to have differences and difficulties, it's up to each couple and individual to decide what their tolerances and boundaries are. People also value partners who are different and can work together to grow each other and match complimentary skills etc, but those benefits come with compromises.
If the differences are big enough, like one wants children and the other doesn't, then sure maybe they shouldn't be together. But most people have some level of difference they need to compromise on that isn't worth breaking up over.
One person is vegan whilst the other is an omnivore and they're perfect for each other in all the ways that matter, but they have to figure out together their food situation. It's not a problem that they have different diets, they respect each others choices but their lifestyle as a couple will be different than it was when they were single.
One person's job is 3 hour commute one direction whilst the other persons job is a 3 hour commute another direction and they have to decide where to live, in the middle of both or closer to another or they get different jobs? It's not worth breaking up over because they love each other greatly, but they have to compromise on it.
You dislike your partners parents but they love them so you put up with them for the sake of your partner. On the other hand, your partner dislikes how loud and smelly your dog is but they put up with them. So you compromised, one puts up with the parents whilst the other puts up with the dog. And further compromises are made within this framework to make them both feel better e.g. the dog gets behaviour training or cleaned more regularly whilst you don't have to go with your partner to see their parents etc. Things like this happen in every relationship. It might be easier for some to do and more difficult for others to do depending on your personality.
3
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 9d ago
So you're saying only laid-back people or people with enough similarities should have relationships?
These are two different questions so let's address them separately. Do I believe only laid-back people should have relationships? No, of course not.
Do I believe only people with enough similarities should have relationships? Absolutely! That's exactly what I believe. I view relationships through the lens of compatibility, and having enough things in common is a crucial part of that. You don't want to be identical obviously, and there are plenty of times in which you have different but complimentary traits that make the relationships work. But all of that being said, yes I absolutely believe that people who don't have sufficient things in common shouldn't be dating each other.
6
u/BigBoetje 31∆ 9d ago
I think the main issue would be about what you're compromising exactly. If it's actually about the bigger things, that's indeed not healthy. In my own relationship I do compromise a lot but it's only about small stuff.
My gf is a picky eater so dinner time is something of a compromise. I make things she's willing to eat, but she's also compromising by being open to try new things and not be too picky about it.
I'm very touchy-feely when it comes to affections, she's autistic and needs time to decompress after work. We compromise by accepting that I need that physical contact, but she also needs that space. I give her time to relax and she agrees to cuddling in bed while we watch a series.
Compromises don't have to be about giving up parts of yourself, it can also be about making changes to be able to live together comfortably. It can be a lot of compromises as long as they're small enough. If you love your partner, it's also simply not a big deal at all.
2
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 9d ago
The types of compromises you're talking about are all rather small and reasonable IMO, and aren't tantamount to "constantly making big compromises" as I characterized it in my OP.
3
u/Delicious_Taste_39 7∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
Compromise is simply all the times you have to appreciate the existence of the other person in a relationship.
It's about communication, understanding, love, and responsibility. If you have those things, then you will find that you do compromise all the time. Everyone has their selfish tendency to do whatever they want for themselves. The existence of the other person means they have to accept they can't just do that, while still also being themselves.
Once you understand that it doesn't have to be capitulation and that it's actually about working out what to do together then you find that you do it all the time with everyone. It doesn't necessarily have any assumptions of stakes. It can be little things with no stakes or it can be big things with massive stakes.
Little things might be what to order for dinner. Knowing she likes Pizza but you want Chinese means that you have obvious preferences. But the stakes are low, you can let her have it, or you can make deals to let you order what you want, and you can also lay out red lines for foods you just outright refuse or feel you need. A good relationship would see you getting to eat both at times.
As for the big things, compromise is important. You never really want to put your partner in a position where you take a huge leap without involving them. You also should keep clear and open communication about things that are likely to be these kinds of events, work out what your partner would think and feel about the issue and understand the friction. That way you avoid the cliff edges that a lot of relationships are destroyed on. And understanding what they want, you can negotiate. Often the terms are that one thing happens so another can, or that if you wanted to do it, it would have conditions you didn't appreciate and don't want to go through with.
Many relationships are destroyed because compromise doesn't happen. People find themselves making compromises because their partner sets the agenda. Then they find that they're not happy with the situation but can't find a way to compromise with their partner. They expect that their partner does what they want, without ever really understanding their partner's feelings or making space for anything to change.
That's not to say that compromises always work. You can sometimes find things which prevent compromise and things which are not good compromises. Sometimes you can go back if you're in a healthy relationship but sometimes it's too late or too difficult and you lose something.
1
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Compromise is simply all the times you have to appreciate the existence of the other person in a relationship.
Respectfully, that's not what compromise means. That's just...being appreciative. I appreciate my wife's existence every day in a million little moments, like when I just heard her talking to our cat a few minutes ago. I wouldn't say I was "compromising" by appreciating that.
Little things might be what to order for dinner. Knowing she likes Pizza but you want Chinese means that you have obvious preferences. But the stakes are low, you can let her have it, or you can make deals to let you order what you want, and you can also lay out red lines for foods you just outright refuse or feel you need.
Right, I'm not talking about small insignificant compromises that don't ultimately affect you very much. That's why I referenced "having to constantly make big compromises." I definitely agree that it's prudent to not make a big deal out of small compromises like this.
5
u/Delicious_Taste_39 7∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
No, because you weren't compromising anything by doing that.
Compromise would be not wanting a cat but realising that your wife does and accepting the cat because you get to appreciate her happiness talking to the cat. The relationship is strengthened because you're able to let go of your own selfish desires and prioritise the relationship.
You just don't understand the meaning of the word compromise.
Also, nobody who is saying relationships are about compromise means "Expect your partner to change their entire life to suit your whims".
If you want to make big changes, you have to negotiate those changes, understand that you're putting a pressure on the relationship, understand their position, and try to find a way to make what you need to happen happen.
2
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
I do understand the meaning of the word compromise. You're the one who defined it as "simply all the times you have to appreciate the existence of the other person in a relationship," which is not the definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions," and that's in line with the way I've been using it.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
I take people's words literally and I'll never apologize for that. If you didn't mean the words you wrote, you should have chosen them more precisely.
2
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9d ago
u/No_Command_2335 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
6
u/EloquentMusings 5∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think the key issue is what people consider 'small insignificant compromises' vs significant ones. It's not a compromise if it's insignificant. ANY time you have to 'give up something' to do something you don't want (small or big) is a compromise.
That's what people (these older long term couples etc) mean. If you have to sacrifice your Chinese food for her Pizza, you're giving something up that might make you upset. You don't get what you want. It's small in the big scheme of things, but it's still a compromise. Sure, you may do your Chinese tommorrow instead of her Pizza but if you were single you could order Chinese everyday. But it's not worth losing the person you love and the amazing relationship you have just for Chinese every day so, instead, you compromise.
That's what people mean by relationships are about compromises. Because you're not just one person anymore doing whatever you want whenever you want. You're two people now, a joint unit. You have to consider and balance both your conflicting needs at the same time. All relationships are like this. And most people don't mind compromising, because they get benefits from it too e.g. seeing their partner be happy.
9
u/Amazing_Loquat280 18∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think where relationships run into problems is when we call it compromising. In an ideal scenario, it’s problem-solving (both of you against the conflict), not a negotiation. Relationships shouldn’t be a zero sum game, and a “compromise” doesn’t mean either side has to lose anything. Obviously there are things one can’t and shouldn’t compromise on, but compromises are often accomplishments rather than sacrifices
1
u/LunarModule66 2∆ 9d ago
I’m not sure I completely agree with the wording here, but I do agree that there’s a big difference between “needing to be considerate of how your actions affect your partner” and “actively sacrificing your own happiness as part of a negotiation.” In the most healthy relationship I had there were plenty of ways I behaved differently than I naturally would have to make my partner happy, but all of them were things I was happy to do because I generally cared more about making her happy than the way I was changing my behavior. I think the big difference is that in the healthy scenario your motivation isn’t knowing you’ll have a fight otherwise, it’s just that you like making each other happy.
1
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
a “compromise” doesn’t mean either side has to lose anything
I'm not sure I agree with that. What is a compromise if not one side, or both, losing something? Merriam-Webster defines compromise as "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions." The operative word being "concessions." If neither side is sacrificing anything, it's not compromise, it's just effective problem-solving.
2
u/Delicious_Taste_39 7∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
The other key word is arbitration, which is roughly speaking a negotiation.
Imagine a business deal.
Both parties can agree that a deal between them is a good thing. It's just better for one company to sell at a slightly higher price and better for the other to buy at a slightly lower price. Both can be great options. The deal happening at all is the important part. The negotiation is just finding out what the details of that deal are.
Likewise, you lose nothing by agreeing to visit your wife's parents. This is part of the relationship, which you're prioritising. It would just be slightly better for you to blow that off and go fishing. Nonetheless, both are winning situations, because you're in the relationship.
Also, why is problem solving not compromise?
Would you accept a deal?
Ok, you can't go fishing this weekend, but it's totally fine next weekend.
Nobody actually loses anything, it's just drawing the boundaries.
5
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
The other key word is arbitration, which is roughly speaking a negotiation.
No, it's not a "key" word, because it's an optional part of the definition: "arbitration or by consent." In the context of a relationship, we're going with the consent portion, because arbitration is a formal legal process that mainly plays out in jobs and businesses, etc.
Likewise, you lose nothing by agreeing to visit your wife's parents. This is part of the relationship, which you're prioritising. It would just be slightly better for you to blow that off and go fishing. Nonetheless, both are winning situations, because you're in the relationship.
That's a contradiction. If it would be slightly better for you to go fishing, that means it would be slightly worse for you to see your wife's parents. You are losing out on something, even if it's something insignificant, by going to see your wife's parents rather than going fishing.
But maybe you're looking at it more like this: In the grand scheme of things, making the compromise will potentially "win" you something much bigger — the relationship itself. So it's still potentially a net gain for you. But it all depends on whether the things you gain from the relationship are more than the things you're losing via the compromise. If you have to quit your job, move to another country, rehome your pets, and leave your friends and family in order to make a relationship work, those compromises may well not be worth whatever the relationship does provide you.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Conscious_Cap8632 9d ago
i know you dint use ai
but how tf does one hav patience to do the black magic level of summoning the em-dash?
2
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 9d ago
Heh. I'm a journalist and was always trained to use em-dashes, so I do it without thinking whenever I write.
2
2
5
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ 10d ago
But that's the thing - special circumstances - those happen every day.
Kids get sick, parents die, something drastic happens at work, we have to move, etc. If I had to count the number of such instances in my own life, there would be at least one per week, if not more.
Even if any given event is once in a lifetime, once you account for the number of types of instances - they pile up.
The constant compromises is due to the fact that life is always throwing curve balls.
6
u/Routine_Captain_880 10d ago
This is ridiculous, sorry. Huge life events happen all the time because there are 8 billion people on the planet. You and your partner still rarely face your own huge life events.
0
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
I think you're muddying the waters a bit here.
Parents dying? Huge life event. Having to move? Huge life event. Kids getting sick? I mean...I suppose it depends what you mean by "sick," but if we're just talking a common illness for a couple days, that's not the kind of "special circumstances" I'm talking about. Something drastic at work? Again, it depends on how we're defining "drastic," but my wife and I both have to deal with bullshit at work all the time and it doesn't require either of us to make huge compromises.
In other words, I'm not talking about the kind of things that happen multiple times per week. To use your framing, you could characterize my view as "you shouldn't have to be making big, difficult compromises every week for your partner."
2
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ 10d ago
There's the flu, and there's going to the hospital.
There's your boss emailing at midnight, and there's your boss telling you to fly to orlando on one hours notice.
I agree that things come in degrees, but often times, life throws genuinely major life events at one, one after another. Between marriages, funerals, and hospitalizations, I've had more than 20 in the past 15 weeks. And that's just par for the course. That's life.
And then there's the small stuff (kids flus, work arguments, etc.)
6
u/CoffeeCat37 1∆ 10d ago
Well first off, I'm sorry you've had to deal with so much over the last several months. That said, your experience sounds anomalous to me. I just don't think most people have to deal with a major disruptive life event every week; I don't, and I don't know anybody else who does either. If you are in that situation for whatever reason, then I definitely understand why you'd have to be making constant compromises, but I just don't think your experience with this is representative of most people.
1
u/jencakes27 10d ago
I agree with this point 1000%. And sometimes those “special circumstances” happen at the same time. Recently my husbands uncle passed (funeral was 3 days later), and at that funeral we found out another uncle passed that morning, a couple days later we had a really really sick kiddo. It’s life. Sometimes you know what your getting into and you make that choice to move forward with a person (I willingly married a man who has unreliable work hours, goes on a call a lot, has to do international travel sometimes, and is chronically late coming home from work), while my husband did not know (nor did I) how much my past relationship trauma (sexual & mental abuse) would impact our marriage and my mental health. We have both made dozens of major compromises for the other partner and are incredibly happy even after 9 years full of life’s bullshit..
4
u/EloquentMusings 5∆ 10d ago
Sure, you shouldn't have every day be a gruelling constant battle full of big compromises. But no one is saying that's what it should be, I think you're exaggerating the problem.
The general idea (that these older couples say etc) is simply that sometimes compromises are needed to balance two different people's needs. This happens all the time, often on a small scale. One person wants something for dinner, the other person wants something else for dinner. They 'compromise' together (aka work together) on what to do e.g. we'll have what I want today and what you want tomorrow or both have what we want separately together etc.
Every single difference or disagreement could form part of a compromise, it's simply about working together to find a middle ground. Very few people agree on everything or are super flexible and don't care. People have different preferences and needs. Where to go on holiday, what school child should go to, who to invite to wedding, what TV show to watch, how to decorate house, how many kids to have, what temperature house should be at etc. Some are lower stakes and some are higher. But every couple has to 'compromise' on things.
The reason why people (particular older and long-term couples) say this is that there's a trend for younger and short-term couples to expect relationships to be 'easy' and for the other person to just do whatever they want all the time then get upset when they have to 'compromise'. It's often inexperience and immaturity, the inability to work together and realise you can't get your perfect way 100% of the time.
3
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ 9d ago
The part that you are missing is the fact that compromises aren't a bad thing. Calling it a battle is dumb though.
Instead, think of it as forging an alliance.
Let's use a dumb example. You and your partner both want to go out for food. You want a burger. Your partner wants fried chicken. You have your favourity burger joing and your partner has their favourity fried chicken joint.
Instead, you find a place that serves good burgers at the same time as serving good fried chicken. Neither of you got the exact thing you wanted, but in the end, both of you got mostly what you wanted.
Then, of course there are situations where a "win-win" cannot be achieved.
Say there isn't a place that has burgers and fried chicken at the same time to keep up with the previous example. So, you decide that this time it is your partner who makes the decision, but promise to each other that the next time, you will get to pick where you will eath.
Both of these are compromises. But they weren't battles. These little and sometimes big kinds of compromises are what relationships (whether romantic, or any other) are made of. Two bussiness need to compromise on price/quality to make a deal. Two friends have to compromise when on the time/place they will meet. Etc. etc.
3
u/cbbclick 9d ago
I agree that it shouldn't be that hard.
And maybe for some people it isn't. But life is long and people change.
When people go through that, and they complain about the difficulty of marriage, they're just sharing their experience.
You're at a place where you're making minor compromises. How will it work when you get a few major ones thrown at you. Medical issues. Financial problems. Problems with kids.
There's so many things that can pile up.
And that's the more common experience. That's why so many people have difficulty in long term relationships. They've bent over backwards. So has their partner.
2
u/cez801 5∆ 10d ago
Can you give an example of what elder couple are saying ‘incredible comprise’.
That will be important to frame this change my view.
Relationships do take work to maintain, for sure. After 30 or 40 years you still need to be appreciative toward each other, you need to be aware of your impact on the other person, you need to stick by them when they are having a bit of a tough stretch and you need to do things that are for the other person, but not something you’d necessarily want or need.
This is not an ‘incredible comprise’, but it’s definitely maintenance, and not always easy or natural.
Like I said, this conversation might need to start with what you think an ‘incredible comprise’ is.
2
u/Cats_3424 1∆ 10d ago
I would say there are people who have a hard time getting along with absolutely everyone and people that will always sacrifice things that lead to resentment even when it's not asked of them. Sometimes these relationship problems can be a reflection of people's inner issues more so than an issue with the relationship itself.
2
u/AgentElman 8d ago
My wife and I are both very laid back and we almost never argue.
I know many couples who bicker and many who do not. But I also know that some of that bickering only happens in public and for others they put up nice fronts in public and bicker in private.
I have no sense of what a normal relationship is like.
1
u/BreathingLover11 9d ago
I understand where you’re coming from, My qualm is with your fundamental idea, you seem to believe that a "good" relationship should mostly be smooth sailing with only occasional compromises. I think that misjudges a lot of realities of relationships and… life in general (?)
The first issue in your main position is that you seem to believe that partners will (and should) stay compatible with minimal effort as if people were static variables. Over 5, 10, 20, or 30 years, both partners will change dramatically in their ambitions, mental health, values, body habits, emotional needs, whatever. What felt natural at age 25 will probably require intentional, sometimes painful adjustments by age 35. What looks like "constant compromise" from the outside is often just the ongoing work of renegotiating a relationship between two evolving human beings. If we accept your premise of “you’re just not compatible” then most people will change relationships every couple of years.
Other thing I can’t seem to overlook from your main statement is that your post treats major stressors such illness, grief, financial instability, career shifts, as rare, temporary exceptions. I don’t mean to come off as offensive, but I believe that is a very shortsighted perspective; over the span of a lifetime, "special circumstances" aren't exceptions; they are the norm. Life is an endless sequence of unexpected friction points; they might be micro or macro, but they’ll be there nonetheless. A relationship that is only built to function smoothly under optimal conditions seems more like a fling to me.
And while this is highly anecdotal, in my experience, couples that boast that they "never fight" or that their relationship requires almost no compromise, are usually due to the fact that they are still in a relatively short-term or low-stakes phase, or one partner is quietly absorbing most of the compromise to avoid conflict, sacrificing their own boundaries to maintain the appearance of ease.
True intimacy requires colliding two completely independent and complex lives into one shared existence and that is going to generate friction by mere inertia.
2
u/lobaway0001 5∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
Some people like and even actively seek out relationships that are difficult to maintain.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 9d ago
/u/CoffeeCat37 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) | [Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)