Heh - well two of my fave philosophers can't be all wrong. Rand was referring to physical control (coercion). She was incredibly controlling personally, of course.
Hmmm...well, you may be highly fortunate in find someone with whom only minimal change/accommodation was necessary. It happens. My dad's fourth wife and him, for instance. Near-perfect harmony. I doubt they even argued about never arguing.
But that is extremely rare, I think. For most people, there is plenty of negotiation and adaptation. And I'm not sure that this means their relationships are inferior to my dad's.
Sometimes a great passion and strong wills can breed not only discord, but also transcendental experiences that simply aren't available to more mellow pairings (but to keep things from achieving nuclear detonation, I always keep some strong chains and a fire extinguisher on hand. )
I guess now we know where the author got that one line (it seemed like more than just an offhand remark, but it also seemed so generically representative of a particular point of view).
"Either you already fit into my mold, or you can sod off." Beautifully illustrative of how actually intolerant and inflexible this *apparently* beautiful sentiment truly is. I love it how your restatement exposes its inner ugliness.
It's funny how often people quote some conventional wisdom without any awareness of some its deeper implications.
Interesting thoughts, my friend. Thanks! I particularly liked your line about the two extremes - "silent treatment" and "talking too much" - which I think may be basically two sides of the same coin.
"Opposites" can only work, in my view, in a very limited way - basically only if the opposite characteristics are complementary (e.g., a person being weak in finances while you're strong, fearful while you tend to be brave, etc.).
Not when the opposites are logically opposed (for example, liking to party and liking quiet privacy).
I had never intended this thread to get quite that deeply philosophical, Time.
But perhaps even CS can handle a little deep philosophy from time to time. (I happen to be VERY fond of French Maid outfits...and have the photos to prove it. :laugh)
It's nice to see someone who has enough love in them to at least consider drastic changes - but enough intelligence and good sense to realize that's basically impossible (or pointless).
The kinds of changes I'm speaking of are twofold: 1) compromise/concession changes where you alter minor behaviors out of a spirit of love and respect (for instance, removing your shoes before entering the house or perhaps changing your bedtime), and 2) large changes which are in your self-interest (for instance, quitting smoking or drinking, losing weight and becoming more healthy, addressing personal psychological insecurities, and so on).
I think you should be open to making those changes for both your love of someone AND for yourself (mostly in the latter case).
Hmmm...that's an interesting distinction between "concession" and "change." I wonder where the line between those two things would be. I suppose "change" would apply to something you value more highly (like, in my case, giving up my favorite American beer for some wimpy Canadian beer!).
Is it reasonable to ask or expect a partner to change?
Don't worry - we'll keep it just between us.