I read Improving's latest thread(so credit to her for getting me thinking of this). My scenario doesn't apply to her exactly, I guess, but I was thinking...

There is a BS, lets say male.

And a WS...female.

The WS wants to go to some event.

The BS does not want the WS to go.

Now, who is being selfish? The WS wanting to go, lets say, alone? Or the BS telling the WS they don't want them to go?

I mean they both seem selfish to me. Both want something. They are not the same thing. What are the best ways to negotiate this without using the "Your just being selfish" defense?

Additionally, I am not a big fan of either party using negative statements about the other person as a means to get their way.

"I'm going the the racetrack"

"I don't want you to go"

"But I was wanting to go with my friends"

"If you loved me, you would stay here with me"

I hope you get the idea of my question and I look forward to the responses.

How about a compromise?

We both go?

Could be fun!

Why do I feel like there is a fish hook in the water here?

Patriot, there are too many other variables that have to be taken into account. Like are the parties practicing "Radical Honesty"? How is the old love bank doing? And bottom line, is the relationship to a place of "safety"?

If'n the couple in the scenario are practicing good MB principles then they will be able to POJA something like this without having to resort to selfish arguements. It's a tough one though, I agree. My wife and I have talked at length about how one "could" address certain scenario's which appear to be lose-lose situations.

Who cares ?

Why not try to negotiate an amicable bilateral solution to the problem rather than attempt to apply "selfish" to the correct party?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I want to go to this event"

"I don't want you to go to that event."

"Why not?"

"I don't want you to spend the money"

or

"I don't want to be left alone with the kids all that time."

or

"I don't feel protected when you go there since you used to go there with OP."

or

"I want to go with you."

~~~~~~~~~~ find out what the objection is .... and work from there to make something agreeable for both.

Now this cracked me up because my BF and I were just discussing "racetrack" events. He wants me to go with him to the track so he can yack with his buddy and race his car. He wants me to come and his buddy has thrown in the extra incentive of bringing his wife along and we can go to dinner before the event.

Um, well the fumes and the noise are going to drive me nuts within a short period of time - just can't handle that really loud noise and the fumes make me queasy. But I am willing to meet his new buddy's wife (will be tedious if she is boring), and make my honey happy, so I said yes.

Then my BF says two days later - guess what they are going to have the NRHA cars competing on blah blah blah and wouldn't that be cool?

To make a too long story shorter, I said I would go if he would attend a scrapbooking session with me since all we did lately was stuff he liked and it would be fair for him to do stuff I liked. He thought I was joking. So, I said he either needs to attend quilting or scrapbooking, or else he had to pick one event or the other because I didn't want to be nauseated two evenings.

Sooooo, why don't you open a negotiation. I don't think you are going to get cooperation unless the WS is willing to cooperate. You could find something you both enjoy and offer that as an alternative. You could offer to accompany the WS to her event in exchange for an evening of something you like. Or you could just give up on trying to control what she does and wait for her to decide she would rather spend an evening with you.

V.

POJA means that you do NOTHING until you both enthusiastically agree.

Calling each other selfish over the negotiation is full of lovebusters, and really misses the entire point of POJA.

Neither is selfish. Selfish implies that one or the other is obligated to be non-selfish and sacrifice for the other's gain.

Bramble is correct about the POJA.

Put another way, a spouse should not take any action that will make the other spouse unhappy.

The spouse's desire to go to the concert should not be greater than the desire to see his/her spouse happy.

IMHO <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

k

I think this makes my point exactly.

What about the this.

The spouse's desire to not let the other spouse go to the concert should not be greater than the desire to see his/her spouse happy.

Isn't it selfish to stop someone from doing something that makes you unhappy?

Someone?

Or a spouse?

Again, to say that selfishness is involved is to say spouses are obligated to sacrifice for each other.

Sacrifice causes resentment, resentment leads to lovebusters, lack of met needs, and gee...cause environments were marital affairs are possible.

sn't it selfish to stop someone from doing something that makes you unhappy?


Our WS having affairs make BS unhappy, so are we selfish to ask that they stop ?

I ceded to every whim of Squid over the years. I was left with nothing but an entitled and unfaithful spouse that it took the devastation of an affair to want to change her ways.

Its not selfish if the reason is honest IMO. Its selfish to GO if your spouse has demonstrated how and why it hurts them.

Point well taken Bob.
I too, have conceded to my husbands wants and needs over the year, forgoing my needs for his. You are so right. All it got me was a very selfish husband that felt he was intitled to anything he wanted and never felt the need to do what I wanted to do. Or if by chance he agreed to it, he would be so sullen, that he would make the event miserable.

Patriot

I suggest you re-read the MB basic concept #10

Four Guidelines for Successful Negotiation

burn it into your brain's hard drive <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Patriot, et al,

If I wanted to do something, and asked may spouse if it was OK, and she said that it would hurt her or make her unhappy, I WOULD NOT DO IT!!

Simple as that.

If I went anyway, putting my self interest/gratification first, then I would be the one that was selfish.

Her saying that it would hurt and make her unhappy is not being SELFISH, but being HONEST.

k

With due respect, you and your W are communicating like 4 year olds.

For you and your W to have a workable M, both you and her have to find it fulfilling. So, both you and her had a right to have your "legitimate needs" fulfilled in a M. If you and she are not getting you needs met within the M, then the M will be a disaster.

So, you *MUST* tell her what you need and want. She has to tell you what you need and want. THEN, you and her decide how best to fulfill your needs.

E.G.:

H: "I want to go to the racetrack."
W: "Why?"
H: "I love you honey, but I like hanging out with the boys."
W: "So, you need to have time with your male friends?"
H: "Yes"
W: "I worry when you are out late. I worry you will get drunk and not show up for work tomorrow."
H: You are afraid I'll be too hung over to work tomorrow. What can we do about that?
W: How about if you are "in the door" at 10:00 PM?
H: OK

NOW, if you don't come home when you say you will, that is a different story. You've made a commitment and a promise. You break a promise you made to your W, the "bearer of your children", and you deserve to be treated like a mealy mouthed toad.

The PJOA is *NOT* designed to stop you from getting your needs met. It is designed so that you and your W are continually talking about what you both want out of the M.

As to her happiness: It is not your duty in life to make her happy. In fact, you can't. She can only make herself happy.

Amen!

Frankly I think just the "who is being selfish" topic is childish. No offense Pat, JMHO

My... this is getting sporty now, isn't it?

Ok, Jim.. please explain how my wife and I are communicating like 4 yo's? I believe I explained in the very beginning that the situation posed in the thread was hypothetical. For you slow learners... that means not real.(maybe you find my sarcasm funny... maybe not). So, given this fact, this specific situation does not apply to froz and I. I believe it was Improving that had a post and the subect matter in it made me think.

...like how when people don't get what they want, one of the first things they do is try to find someone to blame. Or someway to deflect off of themselves an points of ridicule. Again, for short-bus occupants, this would be called a defense-mechanism.

Maybe getting people to discuss the finer points of the difference between a selfish demand and a valid need is what I am after here.

Lets take the easy one. Physical Appearance. Its a need. The SH-miester says so. But when does it cross the line? I don't want a spouse that is extremely obese. Does that cross the line? How about if I had made the stipulation that she lose 15 pounds or no ring? Does that cross the line. Is it valid communication of my need? Or is it a selfish demand? Possibly being mean to my spouse because I say she needs to drop the saddle-bags before I walk her down the aisle?

Maybe some folks classify it as a need when they want to fill it. And maybe its a selfish demand when they don't want to fill it.

I am after more discussion on this kind of thought. If you don't appreciate the topic of the post, no one is holding a loaded chicken to your head telling you post or else.

Maybe it's a touchy discussion that helps people around here figure out how they really feel. And, say it isn't so...

learn.

Patriot,

Just in case people again make the error that you're NOT being hypothetical...could you please clarify on the "saddlebags" comment?

I DO have a loaded chicken, btw, and I'm completely willing to hold it to your head.

(was that a selfish demand or me communicating my needs to you) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

bwhaaaaaa <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> FROZ good one !!!!!

"Saddlebags" was a completely hypothetical remark... and if you will excuse me, I have to change my shorts.

(I guess communicating a need... because I wanted to do it) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />