options 1 & 2 have the additional requisite clause that, should timing slip beyond the explicitly-defined boundary, that change MUST be communicated by the party doing the slipping.
I'm not in your relationship, and I was not part of the conversation. I will say having been on both sides of the "being on time" fence I'm pretty sure I understand.
But if it were me, and I had to do 1 or 2, chances are good that I might not, because I'm having *fun* and if I call, I might be told to *stop* having that fun, getting a need filled and come home. And i dont wanna stop having fun.
But if it were me, and I had to do 1 or 2, chances are good that I might not, because I'm having *fun* and if I call, I might be told to *stop* having that fun, getting a need filled and come home. And i dont wanna stop having fun.fearing you might be told to stop is, IMO, insufficient reason to avoid calling, simply because if what you're doing is going to cause significant surprise to someone else who has specifically-set expectations of your behaviour, then odds are good that the fun you're having is fun you maybe shouldn't be having
( ... )
It appears to me that this posting should have had "weasels" in the tag list. Yes, I know congruency's there, but it appears this post is actually a discussion of weasels -- they just happen to be Matthew's weasels this time.
"in the moment, previously-determined, need-meeting ________ shift to accommodate the shorter-term, self-indulgent wants, without engaging the relevant communications processes."
Having read your definition of weasels in your lexicon, I'm thinking, basically, this is one and the same. Whether you're talking about "previously-determined, need-meeting" priorities, agreements, time commitments, limits -- whatever you use to fill in that blank -- I don't know that it's a deliberate casting off of an importance or of caring about the person with whom the pre-determination need-meeting is concerned, but more a succumbing in the moment, regretted heartily when faced with the crestfallen face of the need-not-met.
Comments 42
I'm not in your relationship, and I was not part of the conversation. I will say having been on both sides of the "being on time" fence I'm pretty sure I understand.
But if it were me, and I had to do 1 or 2, chances are good that I might not, because I'm having *fun* and if I call, I might be told to *stop* having that fun, getting a need filled and come home. And i dont wanna stop having fun.
Reply
Reply
Old habits are sometimes the ugliest to break.
And sometimes fun just makes it difficult to keep track of the time.
Reply
Now that I understand more than the "someone might tell me to stop" thing. Gods know I've simply and honestly lost track of time in the past.
Reply
It appears to me that this posting should have had "weasels" in the tag list. Yes, I know congruency's there, but it appears this post is actually a discussion of weasels -- they just happen to be Matthew's weasels this time.
"in the moment, previously-determined, need-meeting ________ shift to accommodate the shorter-term, self-indulgent wants, without engaging the relevant communications processes."
Having read your definition of weasels in your lexicon, I'm thinking, basically, this is one and the same. Whether you're talking about "previously-determined, need-meeting" priorities, agreements, time commitments, limits -- whatever you use to fill in that blank -- I don't know that it's a deliberate casting off of an importance or of caring about the person with whom the pre-determination need-meeting is concerned, but more a succumbing in the moment, regretted heartily when faced with the crestfallen face of the need-not-met.
Additional Comment, the Second:
Re: "he asked me at one point, since ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment