rethink PERFECT

If one believes in “forever” in a personal or business relationship, then surely one would have to believe in the sharing of our before’s. I mean how can you plan forever if you fail to share our befores.
For example if she was a smoker and you preferred a non smoker, then failing to share this
“before knowledge” is not going to contribute to a “forever” or long term relationship, in my view.

So simple logic would deem to me that if we were looking for forever or a very long term relationship then we would be willing to share our long term past, before. Especially what we deem as difficult to share or what is commonly called “SECRETS”.

So, it seems to me that anyone that is talking about forever and not willing to deal with (share and listen) the before’s, is living in some sort of fantasy land.

In fact, my prediction is that the sign that “forever” is only lip service, is our willingness to deal with our past’s (before), our present’s (now) and our future’s (forever) issues or secrets.

So I say share your before’s, before forever.

$$ The Goodwill Bank $$

I reckon that a lot of relationships run on the premise of a “Bank of Goodwill”.

ie That you put into their bank and they put into your’s and if, for any reason, you let the other person down, your bank of goodwill is expected to cover it.
Unfortunately how much you put into each others bank is in the eye of the beholder and of course I believe put more into your
bank than you might deem I have and vice versa.

This is the story that my mate told me last night.

I told him that is fine but I did not agree because, firstly, unless this is overtly agreed to upfront, before the bank account of goodwill is open up and transactions take place, it is so open to abuse and misinterpretation, in my view.

I think I hit on a train of thought (group of neurons) that most people seem to live by.
and what causes us to “put up with” each other’s shit, up to a point and then bam!

And then we get:

“But I listened to you for two months and now it’s your turn”
or
“But i have slaved over a hot stove and now you can’t even do that for me”
or
“I’m sick of this, I’ve had enough”

Now, one is deemed to have overdrawn the bank account of good will by the other, and is seen as their fault also. The blame game begins and now it is impossible to measure objectively so no accountability, with no way to safely resolve.

Both accounts collapse and all the goodwill market is lost and this was not so hard to predict or forecast.

In Australia the average bank of goodwill collapses every 8.7 years (the average length of a marriage before separation)

Most guys hit on girls (initiate), every day of the year in Australia.

Most girls sit back and wait (passive)

Even though women have gained equality, in principle, in most areas of their life, no one seems to be pushing for equality in the area of socializing.

The result is that these women only get to choose the chooser or the second choice.

Why is there no outrage at this imbalance?

It might even explain the high failure rates of most marriages in Australia with
the average one lasting 8.7 years before separating. So much for forever!

It could also explain the high levels of domestic violence. Maybe women get what they choose and for a lot, their choice is based on choosing the chooser, which is a poorer choice, in my view than making the first choice.

Worth considering……Choose well grasshopper.

So how fair is fair enough? I guess it in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder. And one thing that I think is “fair enough” is that we are unlikely to find a perfect fairness. So agreeing to a fair enough level is going to be very important in the scheme of getting along. Doing this before hand would also seem fair enough to me.

So how do you think we can we reduce domestic violence (DV) in Australia?

Here is my take on the question. This is my long term strategy, sorry, not a knee-jerk reaction to existing or near future bashings and murders.

1. I think we (future couples) should form agreed to, rules of engagement, upon meeting
   to help us moderate any of our future disputes.
2. Starting with the first agreement of what an “agreement” means to us.
3. Simply put we need to agree to agree.
4. My engagement proposal is: That an agreement is a promise or idea for now.
   In other words:
   “an accepted promise for now”.(“Now” only lasts a split second and is therefore
   always open to be reconsidered at any time after by either of us)
5. As opposed to society’s accepted agreement compromise which is more:
   “an accepted promise forever”,
   a fairy tale from the distant past, in my view.

• Exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement.
• An old-fashioned term for a psychological disorder characterized by conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization) or a change in self-awareness (such as a fugue state or selective amnesia).

If domestic violence was so important to women then one would expect that it would be part of one of the first conversations with a man. Yet I believe it is still one of the last conversations.

The irony is that it has been part of my first conversation with a women for years.

So I am sorry, I do not buy this concern from women generally.
I believe that the women that are now acting hysterically are the ones that are actually in a relationship with a guy that they still have not had this conversation with.

Choose well and act well grasshopper!

Example:
What is the cause of DV? (note not who)
Domestic or intimate partners, what causes the relationship to change?
What type of violence is it usually and why?
Have you previously been a victim or perpetrator or DV?
How do you handle disputes and can we have one to see how we go?
etc etc.

It is all so very topical now days to talk up domestic Violence (DV) and especially the blaming of men for it, with the statistics seemingly proving their apparent guilt as the sole cause and we know statistics don’t lie!

The talk also seems to rotate around who is responsible for women’s safety? Which, to me, is a typically polarizing and rhetorical question, implying that women should not have to fear being raped, bashed or murdered by men, especially the man that they share the same bed with. And I agree.

In an ideal world this would be so but unfortunately there are men out there that should never be in a relationship and also in an ideal world women should be able to expose these guys. But we all know or at least should know, that it is not an ideal world and the arms race of bait and switch between men and women is ongoing and has been for millennia.

Yes, in my view, as grown adults, both genders are responsible for baiting each other from the start and allowing themselves to get sucked into, what eventually becomes a toxic relationship after the switch.

If domestic violence was so important to women then one would expect that it would be part of one of the first conversations with a man. Yet I believe it is still one of the last conversations.

Ultimately I think that all adults are responsible for who we choose to have sex with and invite into our beds. Yes both genders are, as unfortunately the consequences for a bad choice can be lethal, as those damn statistics bare out.

Choose well grasshopper!

Two different takes on this subject:
Don’t play the victim blame game with family violence
By reporter Miki Perkins
The part women play in domestic violence
By psychologist Sallee McLaren

Respect is not an easy word to define as a behavior but here is my attempt:

I think respect is made up of a two parts, Content and Delivery.
ie. What we say and how we say it.

Neither are usually done perfectly and for me,
Content is broken up into two parts:
Reasoning and Evidence.

Delivery is also broken into two parts
Volume and Tone.

We end up with respect being:
Reasoning, Evidence – Volume, Tone

So, all we have to do is agree with this definition for now and anytime we hear a statement or question with a volume, tone or reasoning, evidence that we do not find acceptable, we can simply thank them for their contribution and ask them in a “respectful way” (using acceptable reasoning, evidence and volume, tone) for either better content or delivery or both.

And voilà, we now have an agreement for Respect in a Nutshell.

Every divorced relationship starts out in the same way, “successfully” or what
appears to be a “success”. That is why they get married or choose to live together.
Even relationships that end in murder started out the same way as every other marriage,
“successfully”. That is, successful enough to make an agreement to stay together for a loooong time or forever, as some couples promise.

So what went wrong? What happened from “success” to “failure”. Well I say a process
happened. That is, failure happened over a time line with certain failed behaviors. Not over night or just one incident. There would be the likelihood of an escalation process with warning signs, behavioral issues, heated disputes, and various symptoms, that would be especially obvious to professionals, and even outsiders.

Where does domestic violence (DV) fit into this?
DV does not start at the start of a relationship. I would even venture to say that DV does not occur before any promises were made. Both genders manage to keep it together at least until this agreement occurs and possibly a time after. I believe DV occurs also as an escalation process.

So, lets say we agree that the marriage started with “success”, with little anger, abuse and little if any DV. The escalation process that I am talking about would be that of annoyance, frustrations, outright anger, abuse, aggression and ultimately violence. And in some cases, finally escalating to even homicide on very rare occasions – see stats below.

What I am concerned about is that there is such a focus on the final escalation, that is homicide and the legal implications, the end of the process rather than the middle or start of this process of domestic disputes. A bit like shutting the proverbial gate after the horse has bolted.

The legal system deals with Domestic Violence, I just heard yesterday the DV term being used often in a magistrates court as both male and female accused lined up. Yes, that’s right, women can also be a perpetrator of DV. But I think we, (the general public) should be referring to DD (Domestic Disputes) more so, which is not a legal issue.

I believe that when we focus more on the start of the failing  process, DD, rather than focusing on the end of this process, DV, that we will get a decline in failed relationships, divorce, violence and homicide in intimate partnerships.
I don’t think it should be a matter of having a knee jerk reaction, to the next death that occurs, due to DV, but a long term strategy to ensure that our domestic disagreements and disputes remain moderate and respectful, with agreed to, rules of engagement.

Rethink Perfect is my contribution to this type of long term strategy.

Changing attitudes is key to stamping out domestic violence: Tasmanian Governor
“Stamping out sexual and family violence is more to do with “attitudinal change” than law changes, says Tasmanian Governor Kate Warner.”

Intimate Partner Homicide statistics in over 7 years 1989-1996
Out of 211 homicides per year, 36% or 76 murders are by intimate partners.
That is, out or a population of 24,000,000 people, .3 intimate partner homicides per 100,000 People or 1 per 300,000 people in Australia is an intimate partner murder.
More stats coming soon.

The jury has just returned with its verdict and the decision is that:
“No one deserves to be treated with anything less than perfection”

Great news! But unfortunately we and our peers don’t make the rules.
So, until further notice, it looks like we are all going to get a degree of imperfect treatment.
Please prepare for the failure (or varying degrees thereof) and complain responsibly!

Thank you.