Hacker News Reader

> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'

I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level.

But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.

What I noticed when reading this was just how well he's able to write realistic dialogue. I could never write a real conversation between people. It's hard enough to be one of the partners and answer with my own words let alone conceive of what the other partner would say.

> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it?

Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error.

They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal.

It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.

As I said, the practical advice wasn't the point of the story itself.

Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.

Maybe possessive isn't the right word, but she wants to be the "sole object of his desire."

I call this an irrational instinct because she continues to want this in spite of Michael's cruel confession. Frances has a right and reason to object, but she never considers the option of leaving, arguably the most rational course of action.

That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!

> That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!

Yes, indeed, that is the point. I am not asserting that I'm 'right'.

I think we are coming together on the interpretation. I see most of what you said. To me the story depicts the trade-offs made for the relationship. Is it rational to leave? Frances won't find a relationship which isn't messy and require compromise (I'm not excusing Michael at all).

Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?

There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)

> There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze.

You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?

Well, yes.

Yes. There are clearly different levels of severity and magnitude here (So no false equivalence, Jack!) but the act of averting your gaze is particularly submissive, IMO, and the act of asking it to be done is particularly aggressive.

I do not ask my wife to avert her gaze, and I would not. It's a pernicious thing to ask of a human being. I would not ask anyone to censor that level of their experience and information gathering. So long as there's no signaling and no touching, truly what is the harm? Everyone should be free to exercise their curiosity. That is, truly, a human right.

The very idea of it puts me in mind of a propaganda piece about the "male gaze" which was on Feminist Frequency. (Not the one that comes up easily in the search, but one which had no dialogue in the soundtrack.) The hate of men that comes off that thing is quite palpable!

Oooh buddy your poor wife.

Her: “Can you please not ogle every woman that walks by our table?”

You: “How dare you impose this authoritarian regime upon me you man-hating harpy!”

I hope you are just Internet philosophizing - a popular pastime - and you don't confuse it with real life and real relationships. That sort of thing is meant as an intellectual exercise and an outlet for (whatever someone is feeling), not as reality.

It's not a power struggle; it's not a fight for survival. It's not the sympathetic nervous system, but the parasympathetic: not fight/flight/freeze, but growth and nurturance, compassion and love. I love to see them happy; I'm heartbroken to see them sad, and they feel the same. I want them to have everything. That's a normal, healthy relationship.

I love to see them happy; I'm heartbroken to see them sad, and they feel the same. I want them to have everything. That's a normal, healthy relationship.

Sorry, but that sounds like a one-sided relationship. No one can have everything they want in reality. It's always subject to negotiation, game theory, and economics. If partners always talk to each other in good faith, it all works out. Good partners keep each other in line.

My wife doesn't let me have everything, and sometimes makes demands of me. I make demands of my wife, and she doesn't get everything either. It all comes down to honesty and accountability. Getting everything you want is either bribery or fantasy.

I wouldn't mention it, if it wasn't in context of relationships. Between the two of us, you are looking for problems AFAICT. You take "I want them to have everything" to some extreme and then critique it - it's finding things to critique.

Good relationships follow the HN guidelines (not coincidentally): Be curious, not judgmental and don't leap to conclusions; e.g., what did I mean by that? There are many possibilities. Be charitable in interpretations - did I really mean that my partner should have literally everything?

We end up in a debate that has nothing to do with anything I think or say, I'm just cornered - put in a spotlight to defend a position that has nothing to do with me.

Thanks for clarifying.

So "I want them to have everything," isn't an argument for just acceding to a demand to avert your gaze? Wanting your partner to have everything is as emotionally understandable and foolish as wanting your child to have everything.

I genuinely want you to have everything too, including great relationships. Good luck.

These are excerpts from a song by Lucinda Williams. I think of it sometimes in life, especially when people seem to demand that life and relationships be a lonely struggle for survival. I read that it was written for a friend of Williams who committed suicide.

  The breath from your own lips
  The touch of fingertips
  A sweet and tender kiss
  The sound of a midnight train
  Wearing someone's ring
  Someone calling your name

  Somebody so warm
  Cradled in your arm
  Didn't you think you were worth anything?

  Millions of us in love
  Promises made good
  Your own flesh and blood
  Looking for some truth
  Dancing with no shoes
  The beat, the rhythm, the blues

Life isn't simple or easy, but the love is very real and very possible.

Why don't you refer GP to a suicide hotline while you're at it? Your attitude in this thread has been repulsive.

Too late to edit the parent: I'm not suggesting the GP is somehow suicidal in any way at all; I only meant that as context for the lyrics. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Don't you want to be with a partner that "wants you to have everything" also? Even if we don't take that literally, I think a healthy relationship has both parties honestly sharing their desires with each other. If you "just do something to make your partner happy," knowing it makes you less happy, isn't that being dishonest? I just struggle to understand how you don't see the relationship as one sided if one person is making sacrifices for the other and that value isn't reciprocated. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

There's miscommunication somewhere (maybe in my writing): I agree, it would be an unhealthy relationship if it wasn't both ways.

But to pick on a specific word (perhaps not meant so specifically), I don't think reciprocation is necessary or optimal, though maybe it's sufficient. It's not a transaction or a deal; you help the other because you love them, not to get anything back. It doesn't have to be equal or balanced or 'fair', but both should see to it that their partner's needs are met - you still have needs. It's 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. And abilties and needs will shift over the long term. One may need much more than the other. Sometimes one person will be much more able than the other. It will never balance out.

> If you "just do something to make your partner happy," knowing it makes you less happy, isn't that being dishonest?

If you mean that's all you are doing, then it sure isn't healthy (I suppose it could be honest if you are open about it with yourself and your partner). But do you make sacrifices like that? All the time, of course, with joy and love, and pride to be part of that relationship, and to know they do the same.

Anyway, that's one vision of a relationship, but I think it's a healthy one and I suspect some elements are pretty universal.