Most guys, if not a good number, would greatly appreciate it (okay, try dying for) if their girlfriends gave them the freedom to do as they want with their friends, especially female ones, within reason of course.
That’s what stable relationships are based on right? Mutual trust. Apart from a lot of other things of course.
I’m the kind of girl who’s never had issues with my guy hanging out with his female friends, whether one to one or in a group. And I’ve never been the kind to expect my boyfriend to ask permission or to check with me before he does something.
I basically treat my partner the way I want to be treated and don’t do anything that I wouldn’t like done to me.
The thing is, something like that can only be mutually experienced if the two people in the relationship are on the same wavelength. Granted, being on the very same wavelength doesn’t happen often, and when it doesn’t happen, you at least make the effort to meet halfway, or compromise mutually so that both feel comfortable. I personally don’t believe there’s such a thing called one-sided adjustment. I think that’s selfish and pure bollocks.
However, when you two people attempt to make adjustments to each other so that they can understand each other better, where is the line drawn between accommodating and giving in?
I know of people who would give into their partners (and I’m talking about guys too) just to pacify them. My Bitch and I were talking about it earlier and she could’ve possibly meant it jokingly (being the nutter she is, I never know – kidding! Teehee.), but I’d never just pretend to be affected just to let someone think I need the validation. That’s just crazy. Making issues out of non-issues. It’s lying to yourself. And to your partner, might I add.
Which leads me to another little thought – don’t so many people want love to be as simple as possible? I’m not saying that in a naïve way – who needs complications? Thing is, in love, do there always have to be issues?
Jeremy sees things a little differently. He sees hanging out one to one with a female friend as an ‘investment of time’ in someone else and as a let on to how much one cares about the other. I personally think that’s a little on the overanalyzing end, especially if all you’re doing is just being matey and hanging out. My not being bothered by his hanging out with girls isn’t an indication of nonchalance or whatever, its just that I’ve never been the sort to be bothered. Whether I’m there or not.
Those of you who’ve known me well will know that any way you slice it, however you try to pick me apart and rearrange things, possession’s just not in me. Not an ounce. Of course, I’d get upset if the situation called for it, but other than that, nothing. But I can’t be someone I’m not. I probably will understand your point, but I can’t be something just because I think it will help the situation, because ultimately, it won’t.
posted by LadyNik @ 9:12 pm
6 Comments:
lol, your so cool nikki.
My great quote of the day
"Once you know everything you want from life. You can usually feel alot happier if you have it, or not."
Lovingly distrubed among good friends,
Matt
:) tis true. LadyNik sends Sir Matt many thanks.
And a *BIG HUG*
it was supposed to be
Lovingly distributed among good friends..
-matt
ps. and its not lovingly disturbed.. although some people beg to differ we me. (but they dont count)
**Public Announcement**
Sir Matt meant "lovingly distributed among good friends", "aka I live to give" - in his words.
Pardon his spelling error, its probably a combination of lateness and minor twitness :)
Oh cool this means I'm a good friend! :) Wheeeee!!!!
the fair lady declareth lord pleuger way cooler. and utterly hot and loveable :D
xxxxx
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home