Hacker News Reader

Comment by didibus | Hacker News Reader

What you say sounds nice, but either I don't understand it, or I feel it just isn't true.

For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do?

Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock.

At some point, there's going to need a compromise, because you can only pick one movie and neither of you happen to like the same movie.

So best you can do is compromise by alternating, this time you watch your preferred movie, next time there's.

Or you compromise by not watching movies together, but seperately.

View on HN

Tastes are not a fixed thing, and it's not certain they are even real.

In many (most?) cases what we call "tastes" -- and especially distastes -- are a way for us to broadcast our identities to the world.

In an intimate, functioning relationship those broadcasts shouldn't be necessary because we know they are, if not fake, at least a proxy for what we want others to think who we really are. Intimacy is about shedding masks.

In a couple one should be able to appreciate, if not outright enjoy, what the other likes.

(Not to say there aren't limits; but it would be a symptom of an abusive relationship if one would insist they always watch what the other truly hates.)

This is just not true. Some people, many of them in fact, do have emotional reactions to movies and art in general. And that emotional reaction is either pleasant or not.

People get bored watching movies and it is not a mask nor identity - it is feeling. Some people genuinely feel bad watching horrrors and it is not identity, it is genuinely feeling bad. I hate cringe in comic super heroes movie and thus dislike them. It is not a mask I wear it is genuinely unpleasant and if alone I would never ever watch that.

The movies creators put a lot of work unto making you experience feelings while watching their movies in fact.

Yes - quite. I don't like gore and I think superhero movies are dumb. So if someone lived for both, there would be a problem.

But it's not just about "taste", it's about values. I strongly suspect I won't have many shared values with someone who loves gore. And conflicting values are more likely to break a relationship than incompatible movie tastes.

Of course "taste" does not exist if you define "superhero movies are dumb" as a value judgement that has nothing to do about taste. Simple calling it something else does not make it disappear, though.

One person likes superhero movies, the other does not. Is seems that by your worldview it will be an insurmountable barrier to forming a healthy relationship unless someone changes their mind, which seems to be a rather bleak attitude to me. Are you sure we couldn't find countless couples with different movie tastes (or movie values) who, despite this obstacle, are in happy and loving relationships?

I'm pretty sure my cultural tastes are not just real, but almost innate. When I was in that discovery phase in late childhood through teens I really connected with some things and really didn't like others. I wasn't told to do this by anyone - certainly not by parents or teachers or peers.

Some years later I'm more appreciative of why other people might like different things now, and I've also picked up on nuances and contexts I used to miss.

But the things I like have barely changed. I don't spend much time "broadcasting them to the world" because why would the world even care what music I listen to?

There's enough overlap with my partner that we can have conversations about certain things we have in common, but there are things and activities that work for her that I'm utterly disinterested in, and vice versa.

We don't expect to share those, and that works for us.

> I don't like gore and I think superhero movies are dumb (in your other comment in that same thread)

> I don't spend much time "broadcasting them to the world"

Yes, you do. We all do. We build a personality and then we want the world to pay attention to it.

I just don’t see that as a problem. I’m not looking to date a clone of myself. That would be boring and unhealthy as I’d re-re-inforce my worst habits without any counterbalance

That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act. In a good relationship the fact that the other one is enjoying a movie is most of the satisfaction.

Otherwise a marriage is a union of two individuals, not a project for a single joint life.

Of course the above is just a silly example but enlightening.

So in your case, you suggest that you'd simply always let your partner choose the movie, even though you never enjoy the movies they pick?

That means your partner is not self-giving.

Assuming both of you are self-giving, I just don't see a resolution that doesn't involve a compromise.

Perhaps they could simply take turns?

Exactly! That's my point, you've got to compromise like the author said:

> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns

What happens next time? In a decent relationship your spouse will want you to pick the movie next time.

And so everyone is happy half the time, and you are mutually trying to make each other happy.

That’s fair, supportive, and a good marriage basically.

The author says:

> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns

And the OP I replied to said that's not a self-giving attitude.

So in my case, taking turn counts as a compromise.

And so this is my point, I don't think compromising means that you're not in a self-giving relationship, in fact, I think it shows that you are, since both of you are considerate of the other and finding ways to please the other in turn.

I think maybe its the attitude, not the act that is different between a "self giving" turn taking, and a "compromise" turn taking.

Under a "self giving" regime, I want to spend time with my partner, enjoying her enjoying the movie she wants to watch. My partner wants to spend time with me enjoying the movie I want to watch. We can't both do that, so we each take turns letting the other one enjoy being with us while we watch the movie we want to watch.

Under the "compromise" option, we each get to watch the movie we want to watch, taking turn and turn about. That is what is important about the event: that we get to watch the movie we want to watch.

I think maybe the movie choice is a pretty trivial aspect of the relationship anyway, the GPs post around the willingness to serve your partner was a lovely insight to what makes a partnership work over the long term, far beyond how you both decide what movie to watch.

Until she accidentally bumps into someone she actually enjoys watching movies with! Whoops. Sorry!

That could of course happen. Or you might actually start to actually like what your partner liked, fail to realize your partner's taste in movies moving on and eventually end up with a weird foster taste if/when the relationship ends (for that reason or another)

(sfbsab)

I think the nit thats getting picked at is that the word ‘compromise’ might suggest sacrifice or debt in that you’re not getting something you want.

In a parent/child relationship most wouldn’t call it a compromise to watch cartoons with their kid because a) some cartoons are great and b) even when they aren’t, just being with your kids when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience.

Yes it’s possible for that to become pathological in a romantic relationship if there is no balance, but if neither partner has any personal fulfillment in letting their significant other enjoy something it’s going to get lonely quickly.

I think you nailed the nuance.

That said, I'm curious about the realism of all this. Just being with your partner when they are enjoying something is a wonderful experience. Is that true? Can this continue to be the case over many many years of a marriage?

The article mentioned a much more extreme scenario than movie watching, having someone walk you through the details of a geometry proof that they came up with. How many times can you enjoy having them walk you through a proof and still think it's a wonderful experience listening to them about this thing that you find so boring and soul crushing and might not even understand any piece of it, yet because of the passion in their voice, you enjoy the time and pretend to be excited and interested?

In my opinion, there's a bucket of how much you can do this for. Once the bucket is depleted, to refill the bucket, you need to either spend some time apart, have them spend time with you doing something of your enjoyment or spend time doing things you both enjoy together.

>> For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do?

>> Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock.

> That is the mistake: thinking of watching a movie as a personal act.

Another mistake might be conceiving of one's "taste in movies" as fixed and unchanging when it isn't. You might be able to find something to like in your partner's preferences, when you didn't before; or find some new type of movie you both like. Making that effort may be what being "self-giving" is in this case.

My guess? Have a relaxed, open attitude. Even if the movies you'll see are not what you'd watch, they are made for an audience and generally have some redeeming qualities. You try to find those and maybe even learn from them (about the actual movies or what they reveal about their target audience).

That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes.

So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise.

> That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes.

> So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise.

It kinda seems like you're setting up the scenario to force a particular result. If both your tastes are so fixed and incompatible that you can't like a movie without your partner disliking it, then maybe decide to do something else besides watch a movie?

> them maybe decide to do something else besides watch a movie?

This solution is part of the original comment; i.e.: “Or you compromise by not watching movies together, but seperately.”[1].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28659212

The author of that comment is missing the idea that the entire question is beside the point.

I mean if your SO will only watch “Minions” straight to video movies then maybe you just need to find one of the other million activities out there to do together.

I don't understand why this is so hard to accept.

I used to love watching horrors. I watched them a lot and that made me less sensitive to them - I needed more scarier and badly looking to feel scared. And it is 100% legitimate for someone else to dislike horrors. To be sensitive to pain on the screen, to not be used to the tensions and anticipation of bad these movies create.

It has nothing to do with whether that horror has redeeming qualities. It does not matter whether it has deep philosophical meaning. The experience of watching it is deeply uncomfortable for some people and that is fine. It does not says anything bad about them.

> What do you do?

You recognise that it's not about the movie, it's about the activity you do together.

Really, the lengths the threads here are going through to facilitate poor interpersonal interaction are sort of mystifying. Perhaps being a good person (or even just a good friend) is not obvious to everyone, but the information on how to be one definitely is easy to find. How come nobody is finding it?

Or you do something else together that you both enjoy. Trying to be everything to your partner is simply impossible. Do neither of you have other friends that you do things with?

In a way in a good relationship the other person knows you won't like it, so either he will find something else to share for both pleasure, or he will make it enjoyable (don't just watch the movie with someone on the side, talk about the movie, make her part of the moment). The idea is that sharing together is more important than self pleasure. (as long as its reciprocal indeed)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com