Get the dating advice you need from relationship experts delivered remotely online within 24hr. Kung Hxaro | Schweizer's social network analysis (CA –52) of gift giving as ritualized partnerships and complex marriage rules have been hypothesized I also appreciate the advice, comments, editing, and continued support of Bev. with arranged marriages, food sharing, inherited land ownership, and hxaro items to defined partners to symbolize an underlying relationship of mutual access to Listeners may gather whatever moral advice they wish to from the stories.
You have to feel it deep within you. I deeply and genuinely respect him for his work ethic, his patience, his creativity, his intelligence, and his core values.
From this respect comes everything else — trust, patience, perseverance because sometimes life is really hard and you both just have to persevere. I want to enable him to have some free time within our insanely busy lives because I respect his choices of how he spends his time and who he spends time with.
And, really, what this mutual respect means is that we feel safe sharing our deepest, most intimate selves with each other. Because without that self-respect, you will not feel worthy of the respect afforded by your partner.
You will be unwilling to accept it and you will find ways to undermine it. You will constantly feel the need to compensate and prove yourself worthy of love, which will just backfire. Respect for your partner and respect for yourself are intertwined.
Never talk badly to or about her. You chose her — live up to that choice. Common examples given by many readers: NEVER talk shit about your partner or complain about them to your friends. If you have a problem with your partner, you should be having that conversation with them, not with your friends. Talking bad about them will erode your respect for them and make you feel worse about being with them, not better. Respect that they have different hobbies, interests and perspectives from you.
Respect that they have an equal say in the relationship, that you are a team, and if one person on the team is not happy, then the team is not succeeding. Have a crush on someone else? Had a weird sexual fantasy that sounds ridiculous?
Be open about it. Nothing should be off-limits. Respect goes hand-in-hand with trust. And trust is the lifeblood of any relationship romantic or otherwise. Without trust, there can be no sense of intimacy or comfort. Without trust, your partner will become a liability in your mind, something to be avoided and analyzed, not a protective homebase for your heart and your mind. We have so many friends who are in marriages that are not working well and they tell me all about what is wrong.
A large percentage of these emails involve their struggling romantic relationships. These emails, too, are surprisingly repetitive. A couple years ago, I discovered that I was answering the vast majority of these relationship emails with the exact same response. Then come back and ask again. If something bothers you in the relationship, you must be willing to say it.
Saying it builds trust and trust builds intimacy. It may hurt, but you still need to do it. No one else can fix your relationship for you. Nor should anyone else. Just as causing pain to your muscles allows them to grow back stronger, often introducing some pain into your relationship through vulnerability is the only way to make the relationship stronger. Behind respect, trust was the most commonly mentioned trait for a healthy relationship.
But trust goes much deeper than that. If you ended up with cancer tomorrow, would you trust your partner to stick with you and take care of you? Would you trust your partner to care for your child for a week by themselves?
Do you trust them to handle your money or make sound decisions under pressure? Do you trust them to not turn on you or blame you when you make mistakes? These are hard things to do. Trust at the beginning of a relationship is easy. What if she is hiding something herself? The key to fostering and maintaining trust in the relationship is for both partners to be completely transparent and vulnerable: If something is bothering you, say something. This is important not only for addressing issues as they arise, but it proves to your partner that you have nothing to hide.
Those icky, insecure things you hate sharing with people? Share them with your partner. Make promises and then stick to them. You cannot build that track record until you own up to previous mistakes and set about correcting them. This is hard and will likely require confrontation to get to the bottom of.
Own up to it. And strive to be better. Trust is like a china plate. If you drop it and it breaks, you can put it back together with a lot of work and care. If you drop it and break it a second time, it will split into twice as many pieces and it will require far more time and care to put back together again.
But drop and break it enough times, and it will shatter into so many pieces that you will never be able to put it back together again, no matter what you do. Figure out as individuals what makes you happy as an individual, be happy yourself, then you each bring that to the relationship.
You are supposed to keep the relationship happy by consistently sacrificing yourself for your partner and their wants and needs. There is some truth to that. Every relationship requires each person to consciously choose to give something up at times. Just read that again. This is the person you chose. It will only backfire and make you both miserable. Have the courage to be who you are, and most importantly, let your partner be who they are.
Those are the two people who fell in love with each other in the first place. What do I mean? Have your own interests, your own friends, your own support network, and your own hobbies. Overlap where you can, but not being identical should give you something to talk about and expose one another to. People sung the praises of separate checking accounts, separate credit cards, having different friends and hobbies, taking separate vacations from one another each year this has been a big one in my own relationship.
Some even went so far as to recommend separate bathrooms or even separate bedrooms. Some people are afraid to give their partner freedom and independence. BUT, more importantly, this inability to let our partners be who they are, is a subtle form of disrespect. What does it say for your respect for yourself? Drives me nuts when I see women not let their husbands go out with the guys or are jealous of other women. We have changed faiths, political parties, numerous hair colors and styles, but we love each other and possibly even more.
Our grown kids constantly tell their friends what hopeless romantics we are. And the biggest thing that keeps us strong is not giving a fuck about what anyone else says about our relationship.
I can get on board with that. Among major life changes people told me their marriages went through and survived: Amazingly, these couples survived because their respect for each other allowed them to adapt and allow each person to continue to flourish and grow.
You know who they are today, but you have no idea who this person is going to be in five years, ten years, and so on. You have to be prepared for the unexpected, and truly ask yourself if you admire this person regardless of the superficial or not-so-superficial details, because I promise almost all of them at some point are going to either change or go away.
In fact, at times, it will be downright soul-destroying. Which is why you need to make sure you and your partner know how to fight. Much like the body and muscles, it cannot get stronger without stress and challenge.
You have to fight. You have to hash things out. Obstacles make the marriage. What Gottman does is he gets married couples in a room, puts some cameras on them, and then he asks them to have a fight. He asks them to fight. Successful couples, like unsuccessful couples, he found, fight consistently.
And some of them fight furiously. He has been able to narrow down four characteristics of a couple that tend to lead to divorces or breakups. Stonewalling withdrawing from an argument and ignoring your partner. The reader emails back this up as well. Out of the 1,some-odd emails, almost every single one referenced the importance of dealing with conflicts well.
Advice given by readers included: Never insult or name-call your partner. This solves nothing and just makes the fight twice as bad as it was before. Yeah, you forgot to pick up groceries on the way home, but what does him being rude to your mother last Thanksgiving have to do with anything?
If things get too heated, take a breather. Remove yourself from the situation and come back once emotions have cooled off a bit. This is a big one for me personally, sometimes when things get intense with my wife, I get overwhelmed and just leave for a while. I usually walk around the block times and let myself seeth for about 15 minutes. But all of this takes for granted another important point: Be willing to have the fights. Say the ugly things and get it all out in the open.Skills for Healthy Romantic Relationships - Joanne Davila - TEDxSBU
This was a constant theme from the divorced readers. There were times when I saw huge red flags. Instead of trying to figure out what in the world was wrong, I just plowed ahead. And instead of saying something, I ignored all of the signals.
You can be right and be quiet at the same time. In fact, his findings were completely backwards from what most people actually expect: To me, like everything else, this comes back to the respect thing. Compromise is bullshit, because it leaves both sides unsatisfied, losing little pieces of themselves in an effort to get along.
Conflict becomes much easier to navigate because you see more of the context. A similar concept seems to be true in relationships: But how do you get good at forgiving? What does that actually mean? Again, some advice from the readers: Some couples went as far as to make this the golden rule in their relationship. And you both agree to leave it there, not bring it up every month for the next three years. When your partner screws up, you separate the intentions from the behavior.
Not because they secretly hate you and want to divorce you. They are a good person. If you ever lose your faith in that, then you will begin to erode your faith in yourself. And finally, pick your battles wisely. You and your partner only have so many fucks to givemake sure you both are saving them for the real things that matter.
Relationship Advice from Over 1, Happily Married Couples
One piece of advice that comes to mind: Some things matter, worth getting upset about. Like Chinese water torture: Is it worth the cost of arguing? Eventually your kids grow up, your obnoxious brother-in-law will join a monastery and your parents will die. You got it… Mr. You and your partner need to be the eye of the hurricane. Even cleaning up when you accidentally pee on the toilet seat seriously, someone said that — these things all matter and add up over the long run.
This seems to become particularly important once kids enter the picture. The big message I heard hundreds of times about kids: Parents are expected to sacrifice everything for them. But the best way to raise healthy and happy kids is to maintain a healthy and happy marriage. A good marriage makes good kids. So keep your marriage the top priority. Make time for it. Oh, and speaking of sex… Sex Matters… A Lot.
Sex starts to slide. No other test required. We were young and naive and crazy about each other. Reciprocity in the currency of meat is completely removed from the equation.
Subsequently, Smith charges Hawkes with solving one collective action problem provisioning of the collective good of big-game harvests by deferring it to a second-order collective action problem of social exchange. In their arguments, procurement and sharing of large game as a collective good provides an honest signal about the hunter s strength, skill, risk taking, and leadership, which is costly in ways not subject to reciprocation.
The value to the recipient is the possibility of evaluating the signaler s abilities, qualities, or motivations by attending to the signal rather than discovering these attributes by more costly means.
They illustrate their case with data from the Meriam of Mer Island Torres Straitswho incur great costs and forgo other more productive activities when hunting sea turtles to provision public funeral feasts but receive no direct rewards for their accomplishments.
Noting that many human displays involve giving, Hawkes and Bleige Bird go on to explore the distinction between signaling displays that are merely wasteful and productive displays in which the substance transferred might be at least as important to the receiver as the signal.
For productive displays, the value to the signaler remains the same, that is, the information conveyed to recipients, but the value to the recipients is expanded to include the material stuff transferred in addition to the information. They propose that under certain conditions, selection might favor more productive displays over more wasteful ones. Hawkes and Bleige Bird then discuss large-game hunting among foragers and subsequent meat sharing as a form of productive display.
The benefit to the hunter is favorable attention that affects a man s standing relative to other men, making him more successful in status rivalries. The recipients are attracted to such displays because they gain from both the information received and the meat.
Here again reciprocity plays no role. Compelling though these arguments are, productive displays introduce additional costs that cannot be ignored they not only incur the direct costs of producing the signal, 4 P. Payoffs for such productive displays would have to be very high to make them worthwhile. Costly signaling has introduced important considerations to optimal foraging theory nonnutritional motivations for food procurement and distribution Boone, However, in displays involving the participation of more than one individual, for example, monument building Neiman,wealth distributions, or group hunting, cooperation during production and distribution may introduce additional payoffs to both the signaler and receiver: Through greater hunting effort, a man thus stands to increase his inclusive fitness.
Nonetheless, the few studies that have addressed the question of whether families receive more meat from close relatives have yielded negative results. For example, Kaplan sp. Bleige Bird and Birdpp found no preferences for sharing within the patriline. However, if only kilograms of meat received upon the completion of a distribution are tabulated, two significant factors relevant for increasing inclusive fitness will be neglected.
However, maternal grandmothers, aunts, or uncles make significant investments in a man s offspring and may become primary caretakers in the event of the wife s death or the hunter s death or divorce.
Through sharing meat with affines, a hunter builds social relationships that induce nepotistic investment in his offspring. Second, once meat is distributed in the first wave of sharing, the recipients have the choice of keeping portions to provision their families or sharing it with their respective kin to help fulfill kinship obligations.
If the recipient chooses the former, then nepotistic benefits will be scored, but if he or she chooses the latter, no nepotistic benefits will be registered Long-term political goals: Morgan regarded foragers as humans immersed in savagery, having few or no concerns for the politics of property and inheritance. For example, Sahlins s cost benefit formula for the original affluent society that limited wants are met with limited means left little rationale for political projects.
Woodburn s classification of foragers as having immediate return systems relieved foragers of any need for politics other than those of immediate sharing. Bird-David s concept of the giving environment or forest as a parent precluded any concern with control over the means of production.
However, everywhere humans pursue long-term political goals and there is little reason to believe that foragers are an exception. The long-term political goals that I will consider here are those linked to Hrdy scooperative breeding hypothesis that human offspring are raised in a community with alloparents caretakers other than mother and father who subsidize long childhoods.
Hrdy proposes that human capacities for cooperative breeding allowed our ancestors to rear larger, slower maturing offspring, take advantage of new processes and resources, move into habitats otherwise not available to them, and spread more widely and swiftly than any primate had before.
It is intriguing to speculate that the roots of human kinship systems might lie in cooperative breeding communities where maternal-like care comes from a number of individuals other than mother, thereby extending concepts of who constitutes family.
The following political strategies in humans create conditions amenable to cooperative breeding. Parental investment is generally measured in terms of provisioning of offspring or direct childcare. However, the cooperative breeding hypothesis extends the list of investment activities to the above mentioned political goals.
Groups composed of individuals spent 3 8 months of the year in their traditional areas of land rights and converged on permanent waters as seasonal water sources dried.
In his input output analysis at Dobe inLee found that men spent an average of Both Leep. His data on the breakdown of estimated kilocalories per person contributed by plant foods over a month period yielded: In the past, groups holding land at permanent waters were focal in internal exchange networks Lee, and in external networks that tapped into the broader trade of southern Africa Wiessner, ; Wilmsen, a. Proprietary entitlement to a n!
In theory, men and women could inherit rights to a n! But holding land involved more than inheritance; residence was an important factor. A person came to inherit a n! The stronger and more coherent the group they assembled, the less likely it was that they would have to share the land with others who had weak claims.
Bands centered at the same water source held rights to different localities within reach of the water source and foraged there. Despite concern with land tenure and strong emotional ties to the land Lee,boundaries between n!
However, when individuals infringed on the land of others without appropriate ties and permission, the owners made moves to expel the intruders Lee, ; Marshall,pp ; Wiessner, Nonetheless, differences in effort and ability were openly recognized and respected.
The daily nitty-gritty of leveling obscured the broader political designs of the more enterprising. Conditions changed rapidly in subsequent years when a school and clinic were built, mother child feeding programs instituted, drought relief rations distributed, and programs offering wage employment and agricultural assistance initiated.
1,500 People Give All the Relationship Advice You’ll Ever Need
With sedentism, the size of some, but not all, residential units camps declined to clusters of close kin. Gathering decreased rapidly with availability of domestic foods, but hunting remained important for the variation it added to the dull diet of maize meal, and for the mood and festivities generated by an abundance of meat.
On the basis of three distributions that I observed inthe following guidelines emerged: Land tenure remained a prominent issue in the s and s. Inthe Botswana Tribal Land Policy gave those who could dig or drill permanent wells on local land a year lease to utilize the resources within a 5-km radius of the well. His reputation as an irascible and dangerous man 9 P.
As plans were formulated to dig wells and develop traditional n! Trance healing is an art that requires years of investment and apprenticeship before individuals can master the pain and confusion of altered states of consciousness in order to heal Katz, Trance performances required high-energy expenditures on the part of healers, inflicted pain, and entailed risk of physical injury if the dancer was not carefully supported and tended.
Although material rewards were few, trance healers had the power to heal not only individuals but also rifts in the community and, thereby, attain social influence. Trance healing is both moving and impressive, drawing social acclaim, and, according to some healers, the favor of women. With the exception of a few blind or handicapped healers, most healers were also good hunters in the prime of life, making it difficult to separate the effects of influence gained through hunting from those gained through healing.
The second means of producing a surplus, in this case a tangible one, was through largegame hunting. In contrast, harvesting a surplus of rich, communally owned plant resources that are predictable in location, such as nuts or beans, and distributing them widely was not seen as producing a surplus, but as taking more than one s share. Large game was hunted with poison arrows, from horseback with spears or with dogs and spears.
Hunting with bow and arrow was done individually, in pairs, or in small groups Lee, ; Marshall, ; Wilmsen, a and hunting on horseback in groups of two to four hunters. Hunting success rates in killing large game varied greatly by hunter as illustrated in Lee sp. In an average month of an average year when mongongo nuts were still plentiful, it is likely that targeting resources other than large game might have provisioned families for less work effort than did hunting large game.
However, not all months are average ones. In leaner months caloric intake dropped to calories per person per day and with it body weight Wilmsen, a. Considerable yearly variation also occurred. For example, for 7 years in which I obtained information on the mongongo crop yield between andin 1 year the crop totally failed, in another it was thin, and in it was extremely 10 P. Small game were not plentiful enough to fill the caloric shortfall left by the absence of nuts in such times, and calories provided by large-game hunting made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the hunter and fellow camp members.
The remainder was distributed among the seven households in the camp, cut into strips, dried, and consumed over a period of 2 weeks. Once dry, meat was sometimes concealed in bags, a practice that had also been common in the s.
Meat from large game was initially owned by the owner of the instrument that inflicted the death blow to an animal. By selecting certain arrows for promising shots, a hunter could decide whether he wanted to make the meat distribution.
Reciprocity for pieces of meat given in the recent past was not a major consideration in giving, though failure to share in the recent past was generally met tit-for-tat see also Myers, More often than not shares were received with little comment, though complaints regarding stinginess might be lodged on the basis of kinship obligations or, less frequently, obligations incurred in previous exchanges. After the first wave of sharing, recipients launched a second and third wave of sharing, following their respective social obligations, until the meat reached all members of the camp, the primary unit of sharing Lee, ; Marshall, ; Wiessner, Establishing a reputation for generosity via food sharing was a two-edged sword: In response, most sharing was conducted along the lines of socially recognized obligations: