, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For some time now, my wife has suggested that I create this post. She also recommended that I attach the post to all future perspectives, preferably posts involving hot button issues.

I sometimes question my wife on certain ideas, which somehow comes back to bite me in the end.

According to a number of my elders, wives know best. I am beginning to understand the merit of this saying. I am not referencing this line to gain brownie points.

In fact, the brownie points tab is practically endless at this moment. I have accumulated quite a number of points, ever since the origin of our courtship.

My Wife: The people who try to complain about your point of view, are not addressing your point of view. They usually latch onto what they think you are saying, and not what you are saying.

Me: They are in the minority though. One or two comments here and there, of people who only stop by just to say I am wrong because…

My Wife: Create a post where you explain you are speaking from your opinion, and if someone chooses to oppose it, ask them only to reference what you wrote and not what they feel or think you wrote.

Me: It should be self-explanatory that I am giving my opinion, and that all replies if the idea is to say, I disagree, should only focus on what is written in the post—rejecting anything else.

My wife: Not everyone is used to removing himself or herself from what they read. Instead, they use their experience; add that to what they read, and create a response, as if they are addressing your actual words. Instead, they are addressing a topic they created, which they then argue against.

Me: (Falls in love all over again)

Whenever I address certain topics such as infidelity, the topic will always evoke a certain emotion. I get it…I understand. I may be a gentleman, but it does not mean I will let you lash out emotionally as if I cheated on you.

The perspective I share on infidelity is comprised of my assessment on relationships, along with the stories of individuals I know or knew intimately, on both sides of the infidelity fence.

I cannot speak for your story, so please, do not begin dialogue with me as if your story speaks for theirs. I am an incredibly sarcastic person.

However, I maintain composure as opposed to dismantling you personally, as it seems some cheaters do when they converse with me.

The point is this: stick to the topic, my words, and refrain from personal jabs of swapping war stories, to see whose life makes them more qualified to address a subject. Remember, it is my opinion.

My wife knows just how much I enjoy what I consider a mental exercise, with people who believe they can discredit, argue against and condemn your opinion.

However, they seem to lash out irrationally whenever you address their perspective.

One should not require profanity, or personal attacks to discuss a topic. You simply need to focus solely on one’s words.

I must apologize to regular readers that I have to set the stage in this manner, but the posts regarding cheating seems to rub some cheaters the wrong way.

They feel they somehow can engage with me, through personal jabs and irrational ideas as they do with others, without being checked appropriately on their behavior.

If you have cheated, I am not making posts to ridicule, condemn or talk specifically about you. Please, I do not know you personally; therefore, I am not speaking to you.

However, for the ones who lash out at me, what is speaking to you is your guilt perhaps. Honestly, that has nothing to do with me.

I will now present some concepts that should come to mind, if the idea is to have a mutual exchange of ideas, during a disagreement.

I learned some of these recently and I am still learning. In my personal life, I am trying to rid myself of these tactics completely.

  1. If you read my posts or any of the others online, and it immediately evokes an emotional reaction where steam is blowing through your ears—back away from what you are reading.

This is important because certain topics can easily trigger your emotions. Perhaps it involves a personal connection to you, or possibly a loved one.

The immediate reaction is to express what your emotions are telling you to say, as opposed to what you are capable of saying, in the most objective position as possible.

Kathy’s blog post: In my personal experience I am against abortion as a form of birth control, because if my parents decided to practice this action, the decision would have erased the existence of my younger sister. It may work in the lives of others, but in my opinion, I am against it for that reason.

Irrational Response: I am a victim of rape, so I take offense to your psychobabble reasoning, that I should not have the right to an abortion. Tell me, what if your younger sister was a victim, would you then believe in abortion?

Explanation: This person took their personal story and applied it to the post. Nowhere in the actual post, does it condemn the actions of others.

Instead, the blog post simply points out that within the writer’s particular family, the writer is against abortion as a form of birth control, because it would have diminished her experience of having a younger sibling.

The writer even points out that the decision may work for others, but is simply against the decision in her life. The commenter applied their feelings to discredit the blog, as opposed to actually reading with comprehension.

The commenter also took a personal jab, by bringing up rape and the younger sibling. They use this tactic, in order for you to react irrationally.