Will I ever be able to understand how to deal with Venus's daughters? The formula does not seem too complicated, they want your closeness, to feel that they have your support, in certain situations more than usual (she travels for the rest of the week, for example).
You too have this kind of desires, and if your desires were congruent with hers (I want to be with her together as she wants to be with me) then there probably was no problem. The problem begins when one of you wants the other to provide something, by being the "significant other," and the first fulfills this need more as a task, not as an independent will (not necessarily contradictory).
What is the best way to give each other what we want and need?
One way is to try and locate your partner's needs in advance, prepare yourself in advance for the purpose, and initiate it as if it were your need, all in order to satisfy the other's need.
Another way is to be attentive and get "requests" in real time and make the best efforts to satisfy the desire when it comes up.
A third way is to receive requests and respond to them rationally (it suits me right now or not).
I will immediately terminate the third way, for the simple reason that I think that how I would like to be treated, I will relate to the other. A relationship is essentially a trade-off , you give the other side without expecting a change, so I would not want to be treated with cold considerations (and as long as the effort is not significant) I would like to accept my desires.
The first way seems problematic too. As if it is the safest of all, given enough time in advance, it is possible to prepare for many situations and make two senses that his desires are satisfied. What is problematic in this approach is that there are telegrams and you also have to know how to be for the other in "real time," which sometimes requires different thinking than "long-term evaluations." Even more problematic is the fact that you become a machine satisfying the needs of the other person, If you do not feel satisfied, immediately think that you have not done enough to prevent the situation, your actions become directed at each other's desires, and you begin to get confused between what you want and what the "link" wants .
Now look at the second way. When a request arrives, you may either be in a situation where you too are in the same emotional state (for example, we want to spend the night together), then probably the application simply preceded you, because if that is your desire, you need to worry about realizing it. If you are in the same head, you have to agree and there is no problem. The thing is what happens when you are in a different emotional state (and here we got to the root of the problem) ...
When the request is primarily intended to satisfy the other's situation (otherwise you would have thought of it as well and there was no problem), there are self-considerations that the request apparently conflicts with. In this situation, one must consider whether the considerations are significant compared to the request (which can also be significant). If the considerations are not really significant, they should not be discussed at all, it is permissible to delve a bit into the subject (I think about it a second), but no more, and once the decision is made that the request is more important, you must show immediate willingness. Can wonder too much about the subject, and misjudge the considerations (which is also felt on the other side, and the sense of delay that the "insignificant considerations" are more important than the request, and "not necessary" at all). When the considerations are really significant, the request should be rejected in such a way that the other side understands the importance of the considerations, and yet the request must be treated with all due respect ("I also thought about sleeping with you,
We come to the last and most trivial section, what if there is a request, and you did not think previously in the same way, and you have your considerations, and they are substantial but not enough, which means you are expected to give up or compromise. Suppose you always give up or compromise, there is no reason that the next time someone will pay attention to your desires and in general will only stay with "serious" considerations, and among us, most considerations are half-significant. Therefore it is not right to compromise immediately or to give up, but to present your considerations and try to offer a compromise. Since the considerations are not "ultra important," nothing significant will happen or compromise will be achieved, or even if absolute concessions are made. Therefore, after an attempt or two to reach a compromise, it is better to give up and put emphasis on the concession and the desire to grant. If there is no such emphasis, the other side feels too guilty for forcing you to compromise, yet it is upset that his will is not realized. It should be noted that in some cases this situation leads to a situation in which the other side is also upset, and your principles in the end are not equal because of the situation (as today, That I wanted to sleep more, and in the bottom line I'm in my house, but I sit down and write this document, which takes me a long time). If you compromise or even give up, nothing significant will happen to you, and hopefully the other side will not use it to make you give up all the time. If you have reached this state, then there really are no complaints about yourself and then your (general) steps should be reconsidered.
