Page 10 of 14

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:15 am
by 7Wannabe5
@Colibri:

Happy to hear you were mistaken about rejection due to frugality. However, I still think it would be very ERE to rescue a sweater from under some rotting stuff as long as you wore gloves and washed it before wearing.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:36 am
by Gilberto de Piento
What's happening here is that every dump has a section or more precisely a large shed (a.k.a. the Free Store) where people can just give away stuff they don't want but that are still usable.
That is a good idea. It must be a very small garbage dump for this to work?

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:51 am
by theanimal
There's the same thing here. About a dozen locations around town. There's no garbage service so this is how people get rid of trash. The outer ring of the lot is lined with open dumpsters, there's probably about 12-50 depending on the size of the site. There's an open, covered area like Colibri described where people leave appliances, furniture, toys , clothes and all kinds of things. Everyone looks through it, no matter the class.

I have friends who have supplied their kids with most of their toys from the site. Others who have furnished their homes. And for the more enterprising, obtaining something from nothing. I was intrigued by a nice leather couch yesterday, but decided to pass on it.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:45 am
by C40
This is cool. I've been to a handful of dumps and didn't ever notice something like this. Is it uncommon?

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:33 am
by Gilberto de Piento
This is cool. I've been to a handful of dumps and didn't ever notice something like this. Is it uncommon?
I see one of the posters is in Canada and the other in Alaska. Maybe these dumps are localized to that area.

Where I am at there is a separate municipal dump area for large item recycling. It has sections for recyclables by type (metal, plastic, building materials, etc.). The few times I have visited there have been items of value if a person wanted to grab them out of the big bins. It was unmonitored though I'm guessing that taking items rather than leaving them is frowned upon, especially in quantity. For example, there often were perfectly good pieces of plywood or metal.

One idea for someone with no better options would be to drop off a small item with no value (to gain entry) and then take as much scrap metal as you felt you could get away with. Turning the metal in at a scrapyard would result in a profit, if you have enough of it. Repeat this every day until the authorities are onto the game and shut it down. It seems easier than the way the scrappers usually do it, which is driving around looking for metal on the curb.

Relationship Derailment Thread successfully derailed. :D

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:56 pm
by Colibri
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:15 am
@Colibri:

Happy to hear you were mistaken about rejection due to frugality. However, I still think it would be very ERE to rescue a sweater from under some rotting stuff as long as you wore gloves and washed it before wearing.
I actually did it once. It was not a sweater but a beautifully hand crafted crocheted blanket made of deep blue yarn. I gave it a good wash and soak and now I use it. It blew my mind someone could trow away such a nice blanket.
It was under some rubish in the (not so dry) dry waste pile. We still have piles of trash instead of containers like TheAnimal mentionned. And yes, these small regional dumps work well on a small scale. We had a Free Store at our local dump (28 000 population). The city closed it a few years ago after someone found a diabetic needle between two t-shirts.

Alright... back to the actual topic ! :D

.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:12 am
by EdithKeeler
Wow. This has become an interesting thread. Well.... interesting may not be the right word.

I think I was the one who asked a few months ago about the ratio of men to women on these boards. I thought we had a pretty good discussion about it.

For the record, I, as a woman, generally don’t find the discussion here particularly misogynistic or sexist. I think there’s a few goofy ideas occasionally about M-F relationships, but mostly I put that down to some immaturity on the part of certain individuals. They’ll figure it out. The great thing about message boards on the internet, though, is you can avoid/ignore stuff/posters that you don’t care for.

And ever since we had a bit of a dust up a while back, I try to remember this is Jacob’s living room and I’m a guest in his home, and I try to behave accordingly.

Life’s too short to get into pissing matches with people on the internet. I think that if someone finds this an overall unpleasant place to be, well... it’s a big internet world out there. Go in peace to find a place you like better.

I do think that the beauty of this forum is that generally there’s a pretty high tolerance for doing stuff your own way, whether it’s FIRE or relationships or cooking or dump shopping. I like that. I think if you look for ways to be offended, you are going to find offense everywhere. I try to assume people are coming from an overall good place unless they repeatedly show me that they are not.

Anyway... I just felt like I should weigh in since I’m one of the women who post here and some people were speaking on behalf of “women” who were not necessarily speaking for me. I’m not particularly offended, I don’t feel the forum—or the movement—is particularly misogynistic, and I think it’s pretty clear when Jason is joking—and I think he’s funny.

ETA: it occurs to me, too, that the whole idea of FIRE is completely counter-cultural and antithetical to the world at large. So it’s not surprising at all to find other counter-cultural ideas to creep in as well. So if we assume that the larger culture is concerned about misogyny and sexism (I think there’s a good argument that it’s not really that concerned...) then it’s not unexpected that, if you’re on a board questioning our 9-5 until you die, big house in the ‘burbs, spend it if you got it—or even if you don’t—larger culture that other counter cultural ideas slip in, like questioning monogamous relationships, or questioning being politically correct all the time, etc.

So. Back to it.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:18 am
by Jean
Reading the women on this forum probably contributed a fair share at stopping me from falling into mysoginy. Being misandrous or misogyniste is often a symptom of you not having learnd to select members of the opposite sex you interact with. If you think women are bitches, try to identifie what select for bitches in the way you attract them. This was difficult to learn, so i don't blame anyone.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:17 pm
by Freedom_2018
From what I see:

Misogyny, misandry etc emerge from human inability to reconcile between our biological urges and instincts and our rational belief and desire that we can rise above that. It is essentially a cognitive dissonance (essentially like a malnourished vegan who is vegan for the 'right' reasons but unfortunately the cells of his body have not heard of ethics, they just want the nutrition they want irrespective of source)

We need to honor both biology and rationality for full expression as a human being and learn to self modulate between those two viewpoints. If we don't do it for ourselves, many others are happy to tell us which way to think/behave.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:02 pm
by Ego
Many of the themes talked about here on the forums are money-related so it is normal for people to be in a money-mindset while they are here. Many interactions and relationships in life like working, buying, selling, and doing favors for neighbors, are transactional. We give something and get something else.

It is tempting for those who are good with money and good at managing tranactional relationships to apply these skills to all relationships. But the good relationships, the ones that inject meaning and joy in life, are not transactional at all. They are something entirely different. A transactional mentality kills them.

This article is a bit hokey but it gives a good overview of the difference....

https://medium.com/thrive-global/how-to ... 1edfb68d89

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:43 pm
by prognastat
Believing there was/should be no transactional aspect to a romantic relationship is what lead me to staying in an unhealthy and probably slightly abusive relationship for far longer than I probably should have. It shouldn't be all there is to a romantic relationship, but completely ignoring it can lead to some very unhealthy outcomes.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:51 pm
by classical_Liberal
@prognastat
There is a difference between codependancy and non zero sum game.

I don't think that is to say there aren't "transactions" in "transformational" relationships. Rather, the transactions themselves are not evaluated on individual merit, instead they are evaluated on the basis of advancing the relationship itself, which is non zero sum based.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:01 pm
by prognastat
I mean he literally says "are not transactional at all" that would mean no aspect of it is transactional/contains transactions. That's what I was responding to. That might work if both participants are healthy individuals, not so much when one of more of the participants aren't.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:13 pm
by 7Wannabe5
Well, I would note that even strictly business partnerships are non-zero sum, so I would assume the author is suggesting higher shared purpose.

Also, you can have a healthy, transformative, or at least collaborative, relationship with an individual who is overall less functional than you, but if and only if it is a strictly limited partnership. One of the dreariest things I learned about human relationship capacity is that on average a couple can only last about 3 months after formation of large functional gap.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:18 pm
by classical_Liberal
Maybe it's just a definitional or semantics problem. Replace the term transaction with interaction in transformational relationships. The goal of an interaction is to advance the relationship, without any obvious individual benefit for one or both of the parties, yet both gain from advancement of relationship as a separate entity.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:26 pm
by classical_Liberal
@7WB5
Relationships with functional gaps can be the most transformative if those gaps are complimentary. Opposite attract, no?

Edit: I actually see this all the time in the elderly. One is physically impaired, the other cognitively. Together they form a symbiotic partnership that keeps them out of the old folks home.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:44 pm
by 7Wannabe5
Yeah, but doesn't it kind of irk you out sometimes when Bob and Shelly become BobnShelly?

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:58 pm
by Freedom_2018
I hope to be a BobnShelly someday. Honestly I don't see too many BobnShellys in society these days. I think unless naturally lucky (and some couples are), it is always a work in progress by both parties.

Here is a new slogan for baseball hats : MBSGA "Make BobnShelly Great Again" ;-)

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:42 am
by 7Wannabe5
@Freedom_2018:

lol- Good point.

Let me attempt to express myself again at higher level. One of my touchstone human lifestyle design books is "A Pattern Language-Towns.Buildings.Construction."(1977) This book is composed of many small sections, each describing an element of a larger functional system and how that element is related to other elements. This is from the small section (77)entitled "A HOUSE FOR A COUPLE.."
...again, ideally, every couple is part of a larger group household-THE FAMILY(75)-If this can not be so, try to build the house for the couple in such a way as to tie it together with some other households, to form the beginnings of a group household, or, if this fails, at least to form the beginnings of a HOUSE CLUSTER (37).

***
In a small household shared by two, the most important problem which arises is the possibility that each may have too little opportunity for solitude or privacy.

Consider these forces:
1. Of course, the couple need a shared realm, where they can function together, invite friends, be alone together. This realm needs to be made up of functions which they share.
2. But, it is also true that each partner is trying to maintain an individuality, and not be submerged in the identity of the other, or the identity of the "couple." Each partner needs space to nourish this need.
It is essential, therefore, that a small house be conceived as a place where the two people may be together but where, from time to time, either one of them may also be alone, in comfort, in dignity, and in such a way that the other does not feel left out or isolated. To this end, there must be two small places-perhaps rooms, perhaps large alcoves, perhaps a corner, screened by off by a half-wall- places which are clearly understood as private territories, where each person can keep to himself, pursue his or her own activities.
Still, the problem of balance of privacy in a couple's lives is delicate. Even with a small place of one's own, tenuously connected to the house, one partner may feel left out at various moments. While we believe that the solution proposed in this pattern helps, the problem will not be entirely settled until the couple itself is in some close, neighborly, and family-like relationship to other adults. Then, when one needs privacy, the other has possibilities for companionship at hand. This idea and its physical implications are discussed in the pattern, THE FAMILY (75).
Once the opportunity for withdrawal is satisfied, there is also a genuine opportunity for the couple to be together; and then the house can be a place where genuine intimacy, genuine connection can happen.
There is one other problem, unique to a house for a couple, that must be mentioned. In the first years of a couple's life, as they learn more about each other, and find out if indeed they have a future together, the evolution of the house plays a vital role. Improving the house, fixing it up, enlarging it, provides a frame for learning about one another: it brings out conflict, and offers the chance, like almost no other activity, for concrete resolution and growth. This suggests that a couple find a place that they can change gradually over the years, and not build or buy for themselves a "dream" home from scratch. The experience of making simple changes in the house, and tuning it to their lives, provides some grist for their own growth. Therefore, it is best to start small, with plenty of room for growth and change.
Therefore:

Conceive a house for a couple as being made up of two kinds of places- a shared couple's realm and individual private worlds. Imagine the shared realm as half-public and half-intimate; and the private worlds as entirely individual and private.


Again, treat the house as a distinct territory, in some sense owned by its users- YOUR OWN HOME(79). Lay out the common part according to the pattern COUPLE'S REALM (136), and give both persons an individual world of their own where they can be alone- A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN (141)...
In my experience and observation, it is very difficult for couples to establish this balance when the house in which they attempt to form their relationship is owned by and was previously occupied by only one partner to the couple. That is why I worry a bit about the members of this forum who are constructing very large "houses" for their individual lifestyles prior to forming primary relationships. It is very difficult to release dominance over a realm once established, and no other healthy, complete individual just wants to be "the cherry on top."

OTOH, what I obviously meant by "irked out by BobnShelly" is the vibe a couple will sometimes give off of lacking the healthy space for individuality as described above.

Re: Random Relationship Derailment Thread

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:13 am
by Jean
I agree. Idealy, i would like a forest patch, where each family member would have its own hut, and there would be a common hut. It's great to be invited by your partner or inviting her.