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.
>> 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.
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.
> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns
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.
> 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.
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.
(sfbsab)
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.
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.