Can an affair ever have a happy ending?

Taadaa

euronorris wrote: »

I agree, in principle, but in our relationship my OH is simply better at the manual, more physical stuff. So, for example, he will always insist that he moves heavy stuff.

And I am better at the emotional side of things, and supporting him with that, getting him to open up, talk it through, and claming him down.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and I feel it is beneficial for us both to use our strengths to support each others weaker areas.

God, did that come out right? I know what I'm trying to say, but I don't think I'm explaining it very well! :rotfl:

Yes, it did! Women are generally physically weaker than men, and we should all play up to our strengths. But one shouldn't expect that a female is a great comforter because she is female.

euronorris

Taadaa wrote: »

Yes, it did! Women are generally physically weaker than men, and we should all play up to our strengths. But one shouldn't expect that a female is a great comforter because she is female.

That's true. I've known some women to be absolutely awful at comforting. Same with some men.

ANd then of course, the reverse is true.

Person_one

welshwoofs wrote: »

by the way, for my part i don't want to be equal - i am equal

:t :t :t :t

(Why do the applauding smileys never work?)

Lotus-eater

euronorris wrote: »

That's true. I've known some women to be absolutely awful at comforting. Same with some men.

ANd then of course, the reverse is true.

It's very hard when you are like me and good at everything.

Welshwoofs

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Please debate this with Taadaa, who said.
"There aren't many men married or not that would walk through hell to protect their life partner. Maybe if more men did, their wives wouldn't be off looking for something else :eek: you can't beat a bit of old fashioned lovin' "

Now you're moaning at me, for being something another woman wants.

I don't see anything in that quote which indicates that Taadaa thinks that 'walking through hell for their life partner' is mutually exclusive to the man.

I'm not moaning at you either, I'm debating with you.

euronorris

Lotus-eater wrote: »

It's very hard when you are like me and good at everything.

Well, I'm practically perfect in every way!

Except for lifting/moving heavy things, not accidentally hurting myself every ten minutes, fixing electrical appliances etc etc :rotfl:

Tigsteroonie

Person_one wrote: »

:t :t :t :t

(Why do the applauding smileys never work?)

The applauding smiley is coded as colon & capital T. If your post only consists of those applauding smileys (colon T colon T etc) then MSE sees the post as written in CAPITALS and converts it to lower case (colon t colon t), which then don't convert to smileys.

Lotus-eater

euronorris wrote: »

Well, I'm practically perfect in every way!

Except for lifting/moving heavy things, not accidentally hurting myself every ten minutes, fixing electrical appliances etc etc :rotfl:

Obviously you need a man to do these things for you. I need a woman to clean the bathrooms, cos that's about the one thing I can't do.

Lotus-eater

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I don't see anything in that quote which indicates that Taadaa thinks that 'walking through hell for their life partner' is mutually exclusive to the man.

I'm not moaning at you either, I'm debating with you.

You can twist anything around if you look at it enough. I'm sure I was right first time, but if you want to interpret it another way, that's up to you.

Welshwoofs

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You can twist anything around if you look at it enough. I'm sure I was right first time, but if you want to interpret it another way, that's up to you.

There is no need to 'twist things around' because what you thought you read simply wasn't there and you rather transparently aren't right since Taadaa also cleared up any ambiguity you may have had by posting:

"I didn't say that I wouldn't walk through fire for my partner. If you give it, you should expect it back. Everyone is equal, and there should be no expectations based on gender alone."

I'd submit that you're simply choosing to read things into a posting that categorically weren't there because that suits your argument