River: The language of love

[mdlbear]

The day after flower_cat and I have another of our perennial arguments about the meaning of some word that we each use differently, or my interpretation of her tone of voice, or some such minor semantic quibble, along comes theferrett with this post about the language of love:

Everyone hears "love" in their own, unique language. What makes your partner feel safe and cared for can often be a bunch of phrases and habits that make absolutely no sense to you.

We've all heard the story of the wife who left her husband because he didn't pick up his socks. It sounds dumb -- but for that wife, part of the phrase "I love you" meant "I'll keep the floor clean for you." Likewise, sometimes, speaking love involves nonsensical phrases like, "I'm sorry I hurt you" when it should be perfectly apparent that nobody means to hurt anybody.

Learning what things tell your partner "I love you" is what often makes the difference between a long-term marriage and an early divorce.

It's mostly about nonverbal "language" like cleaning the kitchen; one that I learned early in our household was putting the forks into the dishwasher with the tines down. But it also applies to common phrases that we understand in different ways.

I've learned, for example, that when I introduce an offer to help with the phrase "Would you like me to...", the invariable answer is "no", sometimes followed by "I'll do that," which is always implied whether it's stated or not. Whether it's convenient or physically possible for her doesn't matter, my asking the question that way implies that it's something she should be doing, and she feels bad for not being able to. These days, if I have any damned sense, I'll just say "I'm going to..." and do it. Or, if there really is some uncertainty, "Is there any reason why I shouldn't...", in which case the expected "no" frees me to get the chore done, whatever it was.

One that I've learned quite recently is that it's very important to my Cat that we spend some time within touching distance in the evening when I get home. It doesn't have to be right next to one another; as long as she can reach out her hand for me to hold, she's happy. More about that one downstream a little.

Old bears are sometimes capable of learning new tricks.

Comments

[callibr8]

I read this and grinned, at a meta-level it sounds so much like the kind of interpersonal breakthroughs that N and I are making lately, both in terms of what things it smooths out things in the relationship and in how that's achieved. I'm so delighted for both you and the Cat!

For you, this stuff is tagged 'River'. We just coined a new tag today, "galaxy". I think we'll be using it for the things where my mastery of synthesis can be used to make things clear to my love, who has her own mastery of analysis but for whom synthesis is a complete mystery.

Trivial example: I enjoy sudoku. She finds them baffling and frustrating.

[mdlbear]

Yay!

Good luck on your galaxy quest! It sounds fascinating; I hope you'll post a few notes here along the riverbank as you go along.

[mdlbear]

I've noticed that, although N's powers of analysis are indeed formidable, she often doesn't have much patience with someone else's analysis, especially if she's already convinced that hers is the correct one.

Possibly the difference between literary and scientific analysis. As a scientist (and a programmer) I'm always keenly aware of the fact that I'm probably wrong.

As for sudoku, once I convinced myself that there was a simple algorithm for solving it I lost interest.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I never thought of sudoku in terms of being synthesis or analysis...care to elaborate?

Also, you might like a book called Tridoku (similar to sudoku, but in triangles instead of squares).