Does marriage ALWAYS mean someone has to give up something

[Batya33]

I think, when it comes to something like pets, it is important not to get involved with someone who is "that" attached to his/her pets unless you are a pet person too. I've had too many experiences where people who are that attached to their pets put their needs before people's needs in situations where I found it rude, selfish or potentially very dangerous to the person involved. I've surmised that only a fellow pet lover would "relate."

 

As far as compromise, of course it's about compromise - in this instance he knew what he was getting himself into but if the behavior of feeding the pets first is a new one I don't blame him one bit for his reaction.

[Dako]

It's hard for some to give up unconditional love for that troublesome romantic sort. When I encounter a bickering couple, I think of how a fine partner could be found at the pound.

[hosswhispra]

When I encounter a bickering couple, I think of how a fine partner could be found at the pound.

 

Funny! But absolutely true..........

[Aurian]

Some things are negotiable, but some things are not. I know I would refuse to give up my desire to have a dog of my own when I can afford one, and I would expect anyone I am with to accept that.

 

I am willing to adjust (not give up, only adjust!) some of my habits and hobbies - playing video games by myself all weekend is a wee bit antisocial (maybe if we played together... ;p).

 

The guy I am seeing wants a cat eventually, and I am not wild about them. But I accept he wants one and if we have a cat and a dog, then we'll both be happy.

 

In the case of allergies, then someone will have to make a choice between pet and allergic person, or ciggies and allergic person. Or peanuts!

 

Otherwise, you should accept who the other person is. Adjustments, yes, but not outright changes.

[Bethany]

I guess you could argue the point that if he loved her, he wouldn't ask her to give anything up for him ( or vice versa)

 

I think there is also a big difference between 'would' and 'will' and the issue shouldn't be forced just to prove your love for someone. It's like saying "I would die for you" but asking someone to to lay down their life for you, is another thing. The very words should be enough for them to know how much you loved and cared for them, in my opinion anyway.

 

I, myself, would dump anyone who forced me to make a choice. I wouldn't want to be with someone like that. The decision would be mine, with no external pressure, or forget it, your gone.

[assumeLove]

They would have made their marriage stronger and themselves happier if they would have joined forces to find a way to get what both of them wanted. Compromise is something you do with a rival. "If you loved me" is emotional blackmail.

 

I can almost guarantee that getting rid of the guinea pigs was just the only thing he could think of to get what he really wanted, whether it was more of her attention, less odor, less mess, or something else. And what she wanted probably was just to enjoy her four guinea pigs, not to keep things exactly as they were.

 

Together, they could have surely found a way for BOTH of them to get what they wanted. It might have required something as simple as changing her schedule for caring for them or cleaning their cage more often or building a new space for them or loaning out two pigs at a time to local schools. Neither of them could come up with this sort of solution alone, because they wouldn't know what the other really wanted and they'd be working with only half of their joint creativity.

 

When you marry, you'll do better than they did.

[afrodite79]

I think, when it comes to something like pets, it is important not to get involved with someone who is "that" attached to his/her pets unless you are a pet person too. I've had too many experiences where people who are that attached to their pets put their needs before people's needs in situations where I found it rude, selfish or potentially very dangerous to the person involved. I've surmised that only a fellow pet lover would "relate."

 

As far as compromise, of course it's about compromise - in this instance he knew what he was getting himself into but if the behavior of feeding the pets first is a new one I don't blame him one bit for his reaction.

 

 

I had an ex who had a saltwater fishtank that he spend most of his time maintaining. He'd spend all day maintaining it and researching stuff on the internet about it. He'd sit and just watch the snails, fish shrimp and sponges. We'd go spend hours in the fish store with him talking to the guy about fish, plants and other stuff. thought the tank was awesome and interesting but sometimes i really felt neglected because I'd get to sit and watch him mess with the tank for hours. He'd ask me to come over (we only saw each other on the weekends) and he'd spend all this time with the tank. That sucked. I remember asking him if he had to choose the tank or a girl. He said he'd choose the tank. I would have never made him get rid of the tank but that said a lot about how much he loved it. I ended up breaking up with him for other reasons but i get the feeling that if we'd stayed together it would have been a problem.

 

I think if you already know someone has a pet or hobby that they really love and consumes most of their time that you shouldn't tell them to get rid of it. I'm a pet person and i'd be extremely angry if someone i was with who already knew how much i loved my pet/s told me to get rid of them.

[ghost69]

i think there is a basic rule. only give up things if it is completely affecting the relationship and the advancement of it. do not get rid of anything that you feel completely alienates you in any way to where you feel uncomfortable without it. if they have a problem with it, you shouldn't be getting married.

[QuestSanity]

"her husband objected to them and told her that if she loved him

enough, she would sacrifice and give up some of her guinea pigs"

 

1) I take heart from the fact that she's being asked to

give up *some* of her guinea pigs- not all. Which might

indicate there might be an extreme part to the case we

are not aware of. Maybe she has hundreds of the little

things running around- however, if that was the

problem, then it could have been asked in a different

way, without bringing up the idea of "sacrafice for my love".

 

2) Its the *way* it was requested that I find manipulative and wrong.

I find that usually when people coach requests in that way to me, (if

you loved me, you'd do this) it usually has nothing to do with real love per

se but more to do with assuaging some insecurity they want to address

by exercising power over you by getting you to do something that they

know you dont want to do for their sake. I always have to ask myself- if I

gave up this today, then what will I have to do tomorrow to prove that I

love you? And if I have to *do* something to prove that I love you, (as

opposed to just being, well ME, guniea pigs and all) well then Im probably

not going to be able to ever sacrafice enough of myself for you

unless I give up more of myself that I should be willing to do.

 

For me personally it would be very difficult for me to ask somebody that

I loved to give up something that *they* loved, for my sake, unless it

was under the most extreme case, (a dangerous animal or behavior

or something that was medically harmful to me like an extreme allergy

for example). I would feel that I was hurting them and I dont see how

I'd feel good about myself the day after they had done it.

[ghost69]

i would never give up anything i felt passionate about.