The right to silence

Forums: Relationships
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the car the other day a mate told me that she had a friend raise the question "Why is someone's need not to talk more important than my need to talk.?" She went on to say that she didn't know what to say to him.

I am fairly clear on this.

No one has the right to say "I really need sex, lie down," or "I need to sell this encyclodaedia, so you're going to hear me out.".

I'm especially clear on this instance, where I know it was an ongoing discussion of several weeks which degenerated into nastiness every time it came up. The communication avoider would have been making her decision on her levels of frustration and her desire to avoid being hanged for his murder. At the same time, I can hear the frustration of the man who felt he was being denied his right to communicate.

But I am interested in your take on the general dilemma:-

Which takes precedence; the right to be heard, or the right to maintain your boundaries? And why?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,584 • Replies: 20

No top replies

Which one takes precedence depends on whether or not I need to talk or if I need silence.

0 Replies

When two people collide with different needs or desires the way forward must be a negotiation between those two. There are very few hard and fast rules, however I think it is generally a good idea to error on the side of too much communication rather than too little. That said, Whom ever is least willing to negotiate is the one who is most in the wrong.

0 Replies

Neither takes precedence. Every persons opinions/values and needs are equally as important as the next's - even/especially in a relationship.

It's the only way respectfully forward.

0 Replies

Re: The right to silence

spikepipsqueak wrote:

In the car the other day a mate told me that she had a friend raise the question "Why is someone's need not to talk more important than my need to talk.?" She went on to say that she didn't know what to say to him.

I am fairly clear on this.

No one has the right to say "I really need sex, lie down," or "I need to sell this encyclodaedia, so you're going to hear me out.".

I'm especially clear on this instance, where I know it was an ongoing discussion of several weeks which degenerated into nastiness every time it came up. The communication avoider would have been making her decision on her levels of frustration and her desire to avoid being hanged for his murder. At the same time, I can hear the frustration of the man who felt he was being denied his right to communicate.

But I am interested in your take on the general dilemma:-

Which takes precedence; the right to be heard, or the right to maintain your boundaries? And why?

I don't see where the issue is. If she wants to talk so be it. If she's talking I listen. I don't need to talk to listen.

0 Replies

Missed the point, I think.

The scenario is that one person doesn't want to discuss anymore because that discussion always descends into nastiness. The other person needs to talk, doesn't feel heard, and doesn't recognise the abuse as such.

The general point I wanted to discuss here was - does any Person A have the right to insist a Person B does something unwillingly in order to satisfy the needs of Person A?

Taking it to extremes, on one side I see people feeling entitled to commit child abuse, on the other I see people happily proving "no man is an island" wrong.

0 Replies

Quote:

The scenario is that one person doesn't want to discuss anymore because that discussion always descends into nastiness. The other person needs to talk, doesn't feel heard, and doesn't recognise the abuse as such.

It sounds like they need to negotiate the ground rules for talking about difficult issues first.

And what I said previously still stands Very Happy

0 Replies

spikepipsqueak wrote:

The general point I wanted to discuss here was - does any Person A have the right to insist a Person B does something unwillingly in order to satisfy the needs of Person A?

IMO, the answer is a big fat "No!".

Person A's rights end where Person B's rights begin.

I'll also mention that the concept of "need" is being stretched here. No one is going to die or become seriously injured from not being able to have a chat about some inane BS. At best it is a "want".

0 Replies

A situation like this, unresolved, invariably will result in the end of a relationship or a murder.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll also mention that the concept of "need" is being stretched here. No one is going to die or become seriously injured from not being able to have a chat about some inane BS. At best it is a "want".

Fishin - needs aren't just those things that keep us alive or free of injury, but those things that keep us healthy - that includes psychologically/mentally healthy.

Maslows heirachy of needs is an example...it starts out basic and solid, and eventually becomes airy fairy. It starts of talking about what we need to be satisfied, and talks about what we need to be happy (though I don't entirely agree with his pyramid, it is an example)

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I'll also mention that the concept of "need" is being stretched here. No one is going to die or become seriously injured from not being able to have a chat about some inane BS. At best it is a "want".

Fishin - needs aren't just those things that keep us alive or free of injury, but those things that keep us healthy - that includes psychologically/mentally healthy.

Maslows heirachy of needs is an example...it starts out basic and solid, and eventually becomes airy fairy. It starts of talking about what we need to be satisfied, and talks about what we need to be happy (though I don't entirely agree with his pyramid, it is an example)

If a single conversation with one specific person being put off for a matter of time is going to tip the balance of your psychological status then you have several more pressing "needs" than that conversation.

I won't even go into your mis-application of Maslow here...

0 Replies

Quote:

If a single conversation with one specific person being put off for a matter of time is going to tip the balance of your psychological status then you have several more pressing "needs" than that conversation.

I won't even go into your mis-application of Maslow here...

Tip the balance of someones psychological status? I was talking about mental health, not about whether or some becomes insane over one conversation.

While I didn't mention it, I was also talking about personal happiness (I didn't mention it because the first should have been all that was necessary.)

It is also about the health of the relationship - so yes, it is a need.

That you don't agree with the definition of need in this particular case does not make the use of it it any less valid. And seeing as I don't want to argue the definition with you :

Oxford Online Dictionary
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/need?view=uk

Quote:

need

verb 1 require (something) because it is essential or very important. 2 expressing necessity or obligation: need I say more?

noun 1 circumstances in which a thing or course of action is required. 2 a thing that is wanted or required. 3 a state of poverty, distress, or misfortune.

Cambridge
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53225&dict=CALD

Quote:

need
need (MUST HAVE) Show phonetics
verb [T]
1 to have to have something, or to want something very much
noun
1 [S or U] the state of having to have something that you do not have, especially something that you must have so that you can have a satisfactory life:
2 [C or U] a feeling or state of strongly wanting something:
3 in need not having enough money or food:

4 the state of being necessary:

For anyone wondering about Maslow - here's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

edit : link not working, but a cut & paste, or quick google brings it up instantly

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

While I didn't mention it, I was also talking about personal happiness (I didn't mention it because the first should have been all that was necessary.)

It is also about the health of the relationship - so yes, it is a need.

You are assuming motivations/goals here that were not in the question that was asked.

The question asked and answered (by me) was "Does any Person A have the right to insist a Person B does something unwillingly in order to satisfy the needs of Person A?"

There is nothing there about happiness or relationships. What if there is no relationship? What if Person A and Person B are total strangers that run into each other on the street and will never see each other again? It's a straight forward question which I answered on it's face. Hence the disconnect in our views. The person that asked the question made the statement "The general point I wanted to discuss here...". You've assumed a goal (happiness and/or a healthy relationship)instead of leaving it general.

Quote:

That you don't agree with the definition of need in this particular case does not make the use of it it any less valid. And seeing as I don't want to argue the definition with you :

The definition of the word isn't the issue. "Wants" become "needs" when they are applied to a goal. For example, if I have $100,000 in my bank account with no planned use for it I might want more money but I don't need more. If I set a goal/objective of buying a house that costs $250,000 then the want becomes a need for an additional $150,000 if I am to achieve the goal.

This is the same issue with bring Maslow into the discussion. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs comes from his Theory of Human Motivation. The entire concept is based on explaining what needs motivate (or block motivation of...) people when they set out to achieve a goal - what needs must be satisifed for the goal to be acheived. If there is no goal then the entire theory doesn't apply.

0 Replies

The give and take between a couple is set by negotiation and by the historical. Couples dynamic runs all the way from "If my mate wants me to do it and I can I will" to "if we don't both want to do it we don't do it".

While I and every other person has a position on what we have a right to with-in relationship, at the end of the day we don't control our mates or the relationship. There is no way to compel the other to agree to our vision of our rights nor to make them honor them. We can ask, we can negotiate, we can make an argument, we can manipulate, and we can leave if we don't get what we want, but we can not make it happen.

In the given example it does not matter what the two people think that they have a right to, what matters is whether the demand for communication is consistent with the general pattern of give and take with-in the relationship. Over the entire length of the relationship both parties are responsible for establishing a pattern of give and take they both can live with, they are also responsible for keeping their demands with-in the agreed framework.

0 Replies

Fishin wrote:

You are assuming motivations/goals here that were not in the question that was asked.

....There is nothing there about happiness or relationships

Do you think that the person would be insistent if their happiness wasn't involved? And do you think they would be insistent if they weren't in some sort of relationship?

Of course both the persons happiness, and the relationship is involved.

Fishin wrote:

The definition of the word isn't the issue....

The question asked and answered (by me) was "Does any Person A have the right to insist a Person B does something unwillingly in order to satisfy the needs of Person A?"

Fishin wrote:

I'll also mention that the concept of "need" is being stretched here. No one is going to die or become seriously injured from not being able to have a chat about some inane BS. At best it is a "want".

That is the sole reason I replied to you. The definition is the reason you and I have been having this conversation.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Fishin wrote:
You are assuming motivations/goals here that were not in the question that was asked.

....There is nothing there about happiness or relationships

Do you think that the person would be insistent if their happiness wasn't involved? And do you think they would be insistent if they weren't in some sort of relationship?

Of course both the persons happiness, and the relationship is involved.

And again, these are things you are inserting ito create a sceanrio that could possibly exist but exceed the detail of the question asked. You ignored my question about strangers meeting on a street. Why? Are you required to engage someone panhandling on the street if they approach you? If they are person A and you are person B then under your theory of all of this, you suddenly have a relationship with this panhandler and you are obliged to engage them in banter lest you deny them their happiness right?

vikorr wrote:

Fishin wrote:
The definition of the word isn't the issue....

The question asked and answered (by me) was "Does any Person A have the right to insist a Person B does something unwillingly in order to satisfy the needs of Person A?"

Not a complaint - an observation.

vikorr wrote:

Fishin wrote:
I'll also mention that the concept of "need" is being stretched here. No one is going to die or become seriously injured from not being able to have a chat about some inane BS. At best it is a "want".

That is the sole reason I replied to you. The definition is the reason you and I have been having this conversation.

And I'll stick with my contention. There is no need without a goal and no goal was ever stated in the question I addressed my comment towards.

But now that we're both here you have to stay and continue because I NEED to have this discussion. Sorry, you can't leave or end it until I I am happy. It's my right! Laughing

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

But now that we're both here you have to stay and continue because I NEED to have this discussion. Sorry, you can't leave or end it until I I am happy. It's my right!

Funnily enough, fishin, this is practically the sentence that prompted me to start the thread in the first place.

I really like your sense of the ridiculous. But you missed "and I won't be happy until you agree with me."

0 Replies

Quote:

But now that we're both here you have to stay and continue because I NEED to have this discussion. Sorry, you can't leave or end it until I I am happy. It's my right!

Go back and read my reply to the original post :wink:

0 Replies

I doubt one can sort out the "rights" to any final degree.....

Nor does that seem to me the nub, though it may be fun to speculate about.

The nub would more seem to be whether the couple named are able to sort out conflict to a degree that either, or both, find sufficient to remain in relationship.

0 Replies

With a thread title like this You have to know what this one is

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9hUy9ePyo6Q

0 Replies

The right to silence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know