You're viewing a single thread.
Ignoring that this is probably bullshit, I think the bigger problem is that you've had multiple bigger and even more smaller arguments in only 8 months. Just break up.
And I thought we left the "just break up over minor inconveniences" mindset behind on Reddit
Hit Facebook, delete the gym
Facebook up, hit your lawyer, delete the gym
If you consider multiple big arguments in the first 8 months of a new relationship a "minor inconvenience", then I hope you only have partners that agree with you and spare all the normal people.
"couple of big arguments and some smaller ones."
Let's do a count:
- big arguments: 2
- smaller arguments: at least 3, let's say 5
- months: 8
- Number of total arguments per month: (2+5) /8 = 0.875 arguments per month = less than 1 argument per month
Tell me, what is an acceptable frequency of arguments for you?
Since we're playing silly numbers: 0. You can, and likely will, disagree but healthy people shouldn't escalate into anything resembling an argument.
But speaking of silly numbers. All of those you used. No one says "a couple" when they have a concrete number in mind unless they're looking to downplay the number. It can be 2, it can be 3, it can be 4. It's only, definitively, more than 1.
Also, why are big arguments being weighted the same as small arguments? Although I'm not going to quibble over how many small arguments a big argument is "worth" (assuming we take 1 'small argument' as our unit).
Lastly, how often are you seeing each other in the first month that an argument, even a small one, doesn't throw up red flags. If you REALLY like them on the first date, you'd make time to see them like twice a week or something? I'll admit that there is leeway here as to what constitutes "dating" someone as some people see potential SOs for weeks (months?) before locking in. I also admit I'm abnormal as I frequently need time to not see people. My point remains that unless you've moved in with them as soon as you started dating, you are not seeing each other with enough frequency for that volume of arguments to make sense. Unless the arguments are about the (in)frequency of going on dates.
You can, and likely will, disagree but healthy people shouldn’t escalate into anything resembling an argument.
Isn't an argument what you are doing when going back and forth expressing any sort of disagreement? I realize that's not something everyone enjoys doing but personally I don't feel like I can get to know someone very well if I don't have opportunities to argue with them. Though I see what you mean if it's the sort of argument where you're getting upset with each other or it's a dispute about how your lives fit together like whose turn it is to do the dishes etc.
Hmm, that's given me pause, to reconsider.
I consider an "argument" when voices get raised and people get heated. Big or small is difference of how long people are upset and how loud participants get. I will concede I was unwittingly applying a definition other people may not share.
Note: it it gets physical, that escalates from "argument" to "fight".
Edit: to address your comment more directly. No, if people are being civil and tones are reasonable, a disagreement doesn't have to be an argument. It's just another discussion. Perhaps a debate. But an "argument" in my mind is oppositional.
Sure, using "debate" may be more accurate, but I have never seen people use the term in their daily lives. In my experience, people just lump debates and heated arguments into a collective "arguments." There may be a finer point to be made here about linguistic prescriptivism versus descriptivism, but that's beside the point.
If we were to interpret the OOP as you have (ie, heated arguments), then I will agree that that's quite unacceptable. However, based on what I've said above and based on reading between the lines of the OOP, we can generally assume that the arguments were not heated, especially since the girlfriend was stated to have been able to simply walk away to consult ChatGPT for what I assume are non-trivial moments of time
Yeah, I can admit my definition of argument might not widely applicable. Not to say my understanding of the word is the sole definition but people often use words wrong, so I shouldn't die on the hill that my interpretation is the correct one.
But, to your second point, I read the OOP as the supposed "gf" (I still assume the OOP is fake) being the main instigator for the argument while the writer is more passive. The gf is able to leave but is also the one who rejoins the argument later, after having ChatGPT corrall her talking points.
But that's getting more into the weeds of analysis than I csre to go.
healthy people shouldn't escalate into anything resembling an argument.
This is called conflict avoidance and it's toxic. Cowardly hiding from your problems makes a breakup inevitable. An honourable couple fights their relationship problems together.
Check my comment to chicken and edit this if you want.
Some people's relationships are literally built around arguments and competition and they last decades.
Not every relationship has to fit into your mold.
Idk if you saw my expansion in my comment to chicken in a different subthread.
If you have and this is still your answer, then whatever that'll be your opinion and I'll have mine. Some people smoke multiple packs a day and live to 80 but that doesn't make smoking a healthy thing to do either.
Arguments don't have to be angry, neither do competitions. Why is arguing and competing with each other unhealthy if it is friendly?
Two married Olympians both competed in women's volleyball for different countries this year. Obviously they have a competitive marriage. It apparently is working for them.
I've never said a single word about competitions in relationships.
Correct. I did:
Some people’s relationships are literally built around arguments and competition and they last decades.
Then you said in reply:
If you have and this is still your answer, then whatever that’ll be your opinion and I’ll have mine. Some people smoke multiple packs a day and live to 80 but that doesn’t make smoking a healthy thing to do either.
So no, you didn't. You just suggested that what I said was equivalent to smoking multiple packs a day.
Sorry, I didn't sanitize my output, assuming this would forestalled by the redirect to my other comment explaining I see how I was applying my implicit biases and connotations to what "argument" means.
I didn't call out the addition of competitions then because I didn't think this would sprawl as long as it did. I will do so now:
I never said a word about competitions and that, in my mind, has no inherent bearing on the healthiness of a relationship as there can be different types of competition. So we can immediately excise that from further discussion.
Addressing the sole part that is relevant now: I now agree arguments aren't necessarily angry, by everyone's definition. But that was the tone and definition with which I made the original comments up until that first reply to chicken.
You can see that segment as a revision of my first reply to you. Have a good whatever.