Disagreements are probably a sign that we’re getting to know each other, peeling back the layers of our respective onions.
We’d have to say this is a good thing, given that we met as strangers and haven’t had the advantage of growing up together or school or work or project time together. Peeling back onions is what “getting to know you” means, I think, unless we are actually two-dimensional figures or muppets. Which is not beyond the realms of possibility; I’ve dated muppets and people who turned out to be line drawings.
Unless you are a particularly sweet onion, exploring your inner layers (and mine too) will involve tears at some point. Whether those tears result from frustration, rage, disappointment or cooking together with onions doesn’t really matter, it’s the nature of the fruit that we won’t always react positively.
Arguments – disagreements if you like – are the most testing of all the onion discoveries. When your ideas clash with mine, or another mechanism like, say, a disparaging tone, is at work, we could well rise to defend ourselves. In my experience, that’s how arguments develop, with a siege by both of both.
Resolution means listening, analysis and synthesis followed by shouts and ill-conceived verbal barbs. Fun, eh?
Every couple negotiates around all that stuff, but for best results, ditch your ego. Unless you’re right, of course.
If you have ever wondered whether the universe of male-dominant sex-drive is an accurate description of the true state of male/female motivators, here’s a thing.
It seems that researchers in Canada found that men consistently underestimate women’s sex drive, specifically in relationships of over three years.
Does this not ring the bell? After all, it takes two to tango; for the arrangement of our reproduction to be unevenly distributed makes no sense to me. Would it even be likely that females have less interest in continuing the species than men? I think not.
And so the spin-off is how this male mis-read can be redressed. To be continued.
Summary WSJ article.
One benefit of recording the weekly podcast is that I find myself saying things that I didn’t know were rattling around in my head. Something about the flow of conversation and microphones loosen the synapses to the point where stuff comes out from I’m not sure where.
It’s a little like dynamiting for opals, where you figure the explosion will unearth one thing and, once the dust cloud subsides, there’s a dinosaur bone at your feet. (For those who haven’t seen how opals are mined, it’s all gelignite and dust in an extremely dangerous underground shaft. The nature of opals is that they’re often created from the calcium found in ancient bones, so that old dinos and opalescent rocks are frequently co-located.)
An idea that slipped loose yesterday is one we brush over all the time. It’s the fact that luck plays a big part in who we meet and whether we hit it off or not. A closely related idea is that even if our cogs mesh reasonably well, the timing of meeting can affect the outcome enormously. If you’re entangled with someone else, we won’t work; if I’m working on an big business project, it might not work; if your last boyfriend turned you off men with cats, it probably won’t go far; if I fail to keep you amused to your satisfaction, you will look elsewhere.
None of these things alone will doom a strong attraction – or the desire for pursuit, should that exist – on their own, but unfortunate placement of events on a timelines might. Two timelines, actually, because two people with lumpy life bits skewing their thinking need to find a way around such bumps, especially if you’re just finding yourself on a smooth patch of road.
As with much in life, so much is in the timing.