 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / January 2007Spontaneity
This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm I said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said "yes!" and 20 minutes later I was lining up for tickets while he made a quick trip to the adjacent supermarket for cheaper nibbles than the cinema complex has to offer. Our older children can babysit our six year old at the drop of a hat at the moment - their own social lives permitting - and it's a really nice phase of our lives as parents to be in! The movie isn't worth mentioning but the nice time we had is. :) Tai Good for you! It's nice to be able to find time together that wasn't planned. It's a gift. > Good for you! It's nice to be able to find time together that wasn't > planned. It's a gift. Thanks, and yes, you're right - I did feel like it was a gift. :) Tai > This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm I > said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said "yes!" and 20 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tai This post was not at all what I expected from the topic and the usual mood of many members of this NG. Actually, I was a bit disappointed. GGG  SignatureTo contact me: GGGNH@yahoo.com >> This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around >> 9 pm I said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This post was not at all what I expected from the topic and the usual > mood of many members of this NG. Actually, I was a bit disappointed. lol Sorry! >> This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm I >> said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said "yes!" and 20 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >This post was not at all what I expected from the topic and the usual >mood of many members of this NG. Actually, I was a bit disappointed. Well, i could make a post about spontaneity... Now that my husband and i both have all our kids out of the house and on their own, and it's just us two... well... let's see, over the weekend we enjoyed our kitchen, living room, entrance area (of the house, i mean), hallway and the bedroom. Being in our fifties with an empty nest definitely has its advantages!! :-) [snip] >Well, i could make a post about spontaneity... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the bedroom. Being in our fifties with an empty nest definitely has its >advantages!! :-) I agree! But I have to say, spontaneity is also about how cool it is to be able to choose to do something that pops up unexpectedly without a lot of thinking or scheduling. I'm now reading "pops up" through the ML filter and regretting my choice of words ;-)) What I was actually thinking of was plays, concerts, last-minute invitations from friends to go up to the local pub and chin-wag over a couple of beers, etc. Barb > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm now reading "pops up" through the ML filter and regretting my > choice of words ;-)) lol I think it's terrific ML is a grab the moment kind of person! > What I was actually thinking of was plays, concerts, last-minute > invitations from friends to go up to the local pub and chin-wag over a > couple of beers, etc. It's an "ages and phases" thing for me. When our kids were little it could sometimes be easy to wish away certain of the negative aspects to being parents of little kids. For a long time we've tried to enjoy the positives and just accept there will be a few negatives rather than give them too much importance and let them spoil the good stuff. I will enjoy experiencing the different kinds of freedom that we had before children again when they have all left to make their own lives but there's so much to enjoy about this time in our lives that I'm not in a huge hurry to be past it. Does that make sense, at all? Tai [snip] >For a long time we've tried to enjoy the positives and just accept there >will be a few negatives rather than give them too much importance and let >them spoil the good stuff. I will enjoy experiencing the different kinds of >freedom that we had before children again when they have all left to make >their own lives but there's so much to enjoy about this time in our lives >that I'm not in a huge hurry to be past it. Does that make sense, at all? Absolutely! I wasn't sitting around longing for freedom during my years of child-rearing, even the difficult teen years ;-)) In fact, it was quite difficult for me to let go of that part of my life when my son moved out. I think what I mean (and maybe ML as well) is how delightful I'm finding this post-kid world. I never really gave it much thought, and I know at times anticipating it made me feel sad, since it meant my full-time parenting duties would be at an end. Every age I've been has had its pluses and minuses. And I'm one of those types that tends to latch onto the pluses far more than the minuses! Barb >> I'm now reading "pops up" through the ML filter and regretting my >> choice of words ;-)) > >lol > >I think it's terrific ML is a grab the moment kind of person! i kinda like grabbing SOMEthing, anyway... ;-) >>> I'm now reading "pops up" through the ML filter and regretting my >>> choice of words ;-)) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > i kinda like grabbing SOMEthing, anyway... ;-) Hehehehe > >> This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm > >> I [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the bedroom. Being in our fifties with an empty nest definitely has its > advantages!! :-) Fifties? You guys are old! :-) GGG SignatureTo contact me: GGGNH@yahoo.com >> >> This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm >> >> I [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Fifties? You guys are old! :-) haha, yes! i just hit 50 last month. and i think i'm enjoying certain things more than i ever have before... > The movie isn't worth mentioning but the > nice time we had is. :) I am not criticizing going to the movie because my wife and I go periodically. But, was there a reason the two of you did something where you actually interacted for a few hours? SignatureSD:) >> The movie isn't worth mentioning but the >> nice time we had is. :) > >I am not criticizing going to the movie because my wife and I go >periodically. But, was there a reason the two of you did something >where you actually interacted for a few hours? I'm glad you mentioned that. I always felt this way about movies in the theater, they're great but they don't facilitate much interaction. They *do* give something to discuss afterwards, though. We prefer watching movies at home (on our giant screen tv, from our double-recliner that we picked out specifically becuz it has no divider in between). That way we're free to comment on things, and very often we both blurt out the exact same words at the same time, and then start laughing about it. Also, we're holding hands and sorta have a leg wrapped around each other or something, can't do that in the theater. Not to mention re-playing interesting parts and stopping for snack or potty breaks. > I'm glad you mentioned that. I always felt this way about movies in the > theater, they're great but they don't facilitate much interaction. They *do* > give something to discuss afterwards, though. I've shared the same feeling as well; if we have so little time to interact, what's the point of us sitting in a dark theatre. But then again, sometimes we spend too much time interacting (and not in a positive way, so seeing a movie is a good distraction!) > We prefer watching movies at home (on our giant screen tv, from our > double-recliner that we picked out specifically becuz it has no divider in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or something, can't do that in the theater. Not to mention re-playing > interesting parts and stopping for snack or potty breaks. It sounds to me as if you're feeling better ML. If that's the case, I'm really glad for you! >It sounds to me as if you're feeling better ML. If that's the case, >I'm really glad for you! Thanks. >>> The movie isn't worth mentioning but the >>> nice time we had is. :) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > or something, can't do that in the theater. Not to mention re-playing > interesting parts and stopping for snack or potty breaks. Also, you don't have to put up with all the newagers and their damn cell phones going off in the movie theaters. And all the babies that are brought into the theater, because the "parents" (do note the quotes) are too cheap to get a babysitter. Viva La Progresso. >>>> The movie isn't worth mentioning but the >>>> nice time we had is. :) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >brought into the theater, because the "parents" (do note the quotes) are too >cheap to get a babysitter. Viva La Progresso. Yeah, we can sit there and talk to one another on our cell phones or chat with each other on our laptop computers. Heck with them new-agers! We got good ol' fashioned romance! [snip] >We prefer watching movies at home (on our giant screen tv, from our >double-recliner that we picked out specifically becuz it has no divider in >between). That way we're free to comment on things, and very often we both >blurt out the exact same words at the same time, and then start laughing about >it. There's a theatre we often go to that has armrests that retract so we can snuggle. And we exchange comments during films (although in hushed voices). >Also, we're holding hands and sorta have a leg wrapped around each other >or something, can't do that in the theater. You can't? Uh oh ;-)) Barb >> [8 quoted lines suppressed] > > I'm glad you mentioned that. I always felt this way about movies in the > theater, they're great but they don't facilitate much interaction. They *do* > give something to discuss afterwards, though. In all my years as a bachelor, if I wanted to know a woman, we found other avenues that fostered interaction. Movies are great but, don't work the mind or allow real conversation that much. In actuality, I prefer "the theater", concerts, fund raisers, art galleries, and sports activities. > We prefer watching movies at home (on our giant screen TV, from our > double-recliner that we picked out specifically because it has no divider in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or something, can't do that in the theater. Not to mention re-playing > interesting parts and stopping for snack or potty breaks. We're that way as well; thanks to that big screen:) We don't have the matching chairs however. We've talked about remodeling our living room making it into more of a theater layout. But, the whole back of our home is windows overlooking a fairway and valley so we're still trying to work out sunlight issues. When we dated, I had a huge u-shaped playpen sectional facing the big screen. We use to lay next to one another either watching the big screen or listening to music into the night and talk... it was great. You wouldn't believe how often we talk of those evenings. As a result, we've decided to redecorate our living room in a like fashion. SignatureSD:) > >> [8 quoted lines suppressed] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prefer "the theater", concerts, fund raisers, art galleries, and sports > activities. Have you watched The Green Parrots of Telegraph Hill? Or 4? Or maybe Run, Lola, Run? Or What the Bleep Do You Know? Or Russian Ark (which is in an art gallery you might not have seen?) Or The Corporation? A Day Without a Mexican? Aimee and Jaguar? Amelie? Clerks? Unchained Memories? The Parable of the Christ? Walking with Cavemen? Baraka? Hotel Rwanda? 54? The Evil Dead? We found all these movies to be quite conducive to conversation - what's more, since we view at home, we can actually stop and talk - and it sometimes takes a day or two to finish a movie. I find sporting events, in particular, to be radically non-conducive to conversation, as are rock and jazz concerts. Afterwards, at least, some concerts provide lots of quality conversation material - never found that to be true for sports, but that's just us. ( I mean, if Tiger hits someone on the head with a golfball - that's interesting, but we don't go see him enough to actually find that happens enough ). You aren't actually conversing during concerts, right? Those are no different from movies at the theater (or any theater) in terms of convo. Live theater can be conducive to conversation - but again, AFTER the theater - not during. And I hate fund raisers. I'd prefer just giving money to getting pseudo-value from food or a rented room that, in my view, should simply go to the charity. > > We prefer watching movies at home (on our giant screen TV, from our > > double-recliner that we picked out specifically because it has no divider in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You wouldn't believe how often we talk of those evenings. As a result, > we've decided to redecorate our living room in a like fashio So - will you be watching movies again? Or mostly sports? WHy do you think movies don't spur meaningful conversation in your land? I'd be interested to know how sports can spur more meaningful conversations than a DVD like 500 Nations or Shotgun Freeway. Do the two of you really not find romance or history or travel to be a source of convo? I've always wondered this, so I thought I'd ask. We've been finding that old tv shows can be convo-starters as well, if we are reminiscing - or he's in the mood to learn more about mid century America. We like to learn from watch we watch, that's true - is there learning involved in sports, I wonder? A. > -- > SD:) You appear to have left out some of my words, taken others to literal and exaggerated or even misinterpreted some. All the movie's you reference are fine... except I was speaking of the circumstances surrounding my bachelor days; and now, we have an adolescent boy; which would be bored stiff watching those movies. >So - will you be watching movies again? Or mostly sports? I never said "we didn't watch movies" or "sports" on the big screen, just not that much due to the kind of lifestyle we live. SignatureSD:) > You appear to have left out some of my words, taken others to literal > and exaggerated or even misinterpreted some. All the movie's you > reference are fine... except I was speaking of the circumstances > surrounding my bachelor days; and now, we have an adolescent boy; which > would be bored stiff watching those movies. Well, gee, S.D., I thought we were discussing adult couple time - and conversation - not quality family time. If you find that sporting events work better for the THREE of you - that's fine. I was just curious how it was that fundraisers and sporting events ended up being so much more stimulating than movies, that's all. I doubt I actually snipped your post, but if I did - I'm sorry. I thought you specifically said that movie-watching did not, for you two, lead to the kind of quality time you wished for. I guess with a teenage boy in the house, merely zoning out in front of a movie isn't possible either, right? > >So - will you be watching movies again? Or mostly sports?I never said "we didn't watch movies" or "sports" on the big screen, > just not that much due to the kind of lifestyle we live. Gotcha. We happen to be movie buffs - and due to the kind of lifestyle we lead, we do watch a lot of them. A. > -- > SD:) > I was just > curious how it was that fundraisers and sporting events ended up being > so much more stimulating than movies, that's all. My life isn't all that simple by choice. Adult couple time means something different to me. Stimulating = testing myself - mental an physical activity, challenging myself - contributing, and making a difference... never been good at watching or vegging. That said, I am slowing down a bit and vegging more. SignatureSD:) > >> [8 quoted lines suppressed] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other avenues that fostered interaction. Movies are great but, don't > work the mind or allow real conversation that much. You need to watch a better class of movies! > You need to watch a better class of movies! Your comment means nothing because it's based on an assumption made from limited information. SignatureSD:) >> You need to watch a better class of movies! > > Your comment means nothing because it's based on an assumption made from > limited information. > -- > SD:) LOL. You mean, like "Insufficient Data"? >> [8 quoted lines suppressed] > > LOL. You mean, like "Insufficient Data"? You bet your bippy ... <g> SignatureSD:) >>> [8 quoted lines suppressed] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > SD:) Well, I've told Doug that in the past (this is not the first time) , but all to deaf ears.... :-) You know what they say about a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n-s (especially. those based on Insufficient Data and Stats, and ... some preconceptions). :-) > You know what they say about a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n-s (especially. those based > on Insufficient Data and Stats, and ... some preconceptions). :-) LOL SignatureSD:) > > You need to watch a better class of movies! > > Your comment means nothing because it's based on an assumption made from > limited information. What assumption? It's based on your claim that movies don't work the mind. That reflects a deficiency of the movies you watch, not anything inherent about movies. > What assumption? It's based on your claim that movies don't work the > mind. > > That reflects a deficiency of the movies you watch, not anything > inherent about movies. You said "You need to watch a better class of movies!" You're making an assumption about the types of movie's I watch, because the movies you watch are stimulating to you. Meaning, if I watched those same movies I would be stimulated... I never mentioned any movie category's. I just said movies are not that stimulating to me; doesn't mean I don't enjoy them, now and again. What it really means as well is I prefer other means of mental stimulation. Besides, many movies are based on real life happenings, however, writers and director need to be creative to make movies palatable by the masses, so they distort portions. I am into fact, not so much fiction, probably because fiction often appears factual, distorting perceptions. But, that's just one man's opinion. SignatureSD:) > > > What assumption? It's based on your claim that movies don't work the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > watch are stimulating to you. Meaning, if I watched those same movies I > would be stimulated... No, I'm making an assumption about the types of movies you watch because you claim that movies don't work the mind. I think you're just wrong about that, but I could believe you if you said "the movies I watch don't work the mind." > I never mentioned any movie category's. I just said movies are not that > stimulating to me; doesn't mean I don't enjoy them, now and again. What > it really means as well is I prefer other means of mental > stimulation. That's perfectly fine. But that _wasn't_ what you said. If that is actually what you meant, then by all means go ahead and say "Oh, I didn't really mean that movies don't work the mind, just that I prefer other things." > Besides, many movies are based on real life happenings, however, writers > and director need to be creative to make movies palatable by the masses, > so they distort portions. There are many very good movies which aren't palatable to the masses. So now we're back to my suggestion that you watch a better class of movies. > now we're back to my suggestion that We don't communicate, so it's senseless to further this exchange. SignatureSD:) > > now we're back to my suggestion that > > We don't communicate, so it's senseless to further this exchange. If you can't say what you mean, yes - you're right. >>> now we're back to my suggestion that >> >> We don't communicate, so it's senseless to further this exchange. > > If you can't say what you mean, yes - you're right. How come you always blame others, and never consider the possibility that you might be mistaken? (Or maybe that was rhetorical - LOL). >> > now we're back to my suggestion that >> >> We don't communicate, so it's senseless to further this exchange. > >If you can't say what you mean, yes - you're right. I think you're such a precise communicator that it frustrates some people, some of the time, anyway. While I am not, I generally always see your logic. And I actually appreciate the exposure to different ways of thinking -- it broadens my perspective and makes me think. Although I'd never hang in there as long as you do, trying to get my point of view across. I expect this tenacity is related to your preciseness ;-)) For what it's worth, I do believe there are movies that make you think and stimulate conversation. They are generally not the movies I see at the multiplex or even my local indie theatres (which are increasingly showing more mainstream movies). For example, I'm going to see "Army of Shadows" this week (http://www.rialtopictures.com/images_6/army_nyer.html, for those who are interested). Barb > >> > now we're back to my suggestion that > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as long as you do, trying to get my point of view across. I expect > this tenacity is related to your preciseness ;-)) Or, I'm jut pigheaded. > For what it's worth, I do believe there are movies that make you think > and stimulate conversation. They are generally not the movies I see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (http://www.rialtopictures.com/images_6/army_nyer.html, for those who > are interested). That sounds really interesting. I'd heard of the movie, but didn't realize it was so hard to actually see. It isn't on netflix, for example. I don't know if this counts as a guilty pleasure or not, but I'm currently watching (at home) the new "Battlestar Galactica." The current season is astonishing (and yes, sorry Emma Anne, astonishingly grim). It is about an occupation, and a desparate resistance movement that resorts to terrorism. Of course it is sci-fi, so while the details aren't realistic, the behavior and the human drama is all too realistic. And needless to say (like much good sci-fi), any parallels between this series and current world events are only in the minds of the viewers (well, and probably of the creators). > I don't know if this counts as a guilty pleasure or not, but I'm > currently watching (at home) the new "Battlestar Galactica." The > current season is astonishing (and yes, sorry Emma Anne, astonishingly > grim). DH adores the new Battlestar Galactica, and it's probably the only Sci-Fi series I'll sit through watching with him. It's well-written, well-directed, well-acted, and makes little reference to the whole "science" side of sci-fi. He also really liked Firefly, but I just couldn't get into the premise. > > You need to watch a better class of movies!Your comment means nothing because it's based on an assumption made from > limited information. > -- > SD:) Yet, it's the only possible assumption most people could make. BTW, I doubt very few people here have as their goal guessing the contents of your head. The fact that movies failed for you (to initiate interaction or conversation) cannot be the fault of the movies. How's that for restating it? It cannot be the fault of the movies, because not everyone has this occur with movies. Now, Doug was being a bit cheeky - but his point was clear. A. - and no, I'm not merely trying to give Doug sunshine. >>> You need to watch a better class of movies!Your comment means nothing >>> because it's based on an assumption made from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > BTW, I doubt very few people here have as their goal guessing the > contents of your head. Now, now. I can, sometimes. You just need to work a little harder on that 6th sense. Geesh, I thought women were supposed to have more of that than us guys? > The fact that movies failed for you (to initiate interaction or > conversation) cannot be the fault of the movies. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A. > - and no, I'm not merely trying to give Doug sunshine. LOL. Doug don't need no sunshine, girl! He's got enuf of that stuff within, methinks. >> The movie isn't worth mentioning but the >> nice time we had is. :) > > I am not criticizing going to the movie because my wife and I go > periodically. But, was there a reason the two of you did something > where you actually interacted for a few hours? There seems to be a missing "not" in that sentence? (I'll reply as if you're asking me why we didn't choose to do something that involved more conversation.) We both love going to the movies or watching them at home and they tend to spark some very good conversations, depending on what they are about. However, my husband doesn't go nearly as I often as I do because I tend to take our children in the school holidays and I see chick flicks with friends, as well. He's not so fond of those ;) so when we do get to the cinema together we generally see something we're both expecting to be a bit more substantial or a high-power action movie which I also tend to enjoy very much. I see the best movies with him, in general. Anyway, he'd been saying he wanted to go see The Holiday* and we've just been too busy in the evenings or weekends to get around to it. He bought a box of nice chocolates and we snuggled up and held hands... and just enjoyed the 'cinema experience' together. We have a comfortable theatre complex near us. It's fun to go, simple as that. *I'd have chosen Babel or The Queen in preference but he wanted to see a romantic comedy for a change. Unfortunately I don't think it convinced him to alter his opinion of the genre! For myself, I thought Kate Winslet charming as usual, Jack Black cute, Eli Wallach a show stealer, and Jude Law (of the unfortunate real life reputation) an expert at screen kissing. <fans face> There's not much to the movie itself, though! Also, we _don't_ lack opportunities to talk to each other day-to-day and we regularly abandon our children on the weekends for an hour or so to have a coffee date. I highly recommend those - we get to connect emotionally and intellectually and they often seem to turn into casual brainstorming sessions where we do useful planning all while we're having considerable fun. We're good friends and we like to hang out together, basically! Tai > There seems to be a missing "not" in that sentence? (I'll reply as if you're > asking me why we didn't choose to do something that involved more > conversation.) Thank you for including the "appropriate word"... sometimes my typing skills (90wpm) suck when my fingers are taking their que from a dyslexic mind. <g> I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. Sad part though, to many couples allow the movies to become their sole source of interaction, and eventually don't talk all that much about what they saw. That's when movies become nothing more the a big TV reason for dwindling interaction and mental laziness. SignatureSD:) > I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies > are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. > Sad part though, to many couples allow the movies to become their sole > source of interaction, and eventually don't talk all that much about > what they saw. That's when movies become nothing more the a big TV > reason for dwindling interaction and mental laziness. But isn't TV just the same? But worse - having a big flat screen in your living room and turning it into a theater for every day use means less interaction and more mental laziness every day, not just on occasion. jen > > I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies > > are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > less interaction and more mental laziness every day, not just on > occasion. Depends. A good movie or program can get you talking. We've had some great conversations sparked by something we watched on TV, often during the program (we like DVDs and tapes we can pause). This is such a habit for us that our kids have threatened never to watch a movie with us again because of all the damned CHATTER! - Randy >>> I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies >>> are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > threatened never to watch a movie with us again because > of all the damned CHATTER! The stuff we watch on TV sparks a lot of conversations, both during and after. He'll sit and watch Dr. Phil with me, for example, and the thoughts we exchange on one or another situation are not that different from the discussions we'll have about the "latest soap opera" on ASM. I'm fascinated by real live people and the ways they interaction, so media that allow me to peak in on real other people's lives (newsgroups, talk shows, participant-observation ethnography) provide more fodder for conversation and thought than more elevated pursuits, like the -re "theatre" or an art film. E.g., we watched "The Barbarian Invasions" the other day, an "art film" that some ASMer (I think it may have been urf) recommended at some point in the past. I think at least some people would consider watching a "film" like this a more worthwhile use of time than watching a mere TV show like Dr. Phil. I'm sure a lot of viewers got a lot of meaning out of it. But to me, it seemed a bit overwrought and not very real or immediate. So, we could talk about, in the abstract, what the meaning of the title was, but it was (ironically, given the subject matter of the film--a dying academic) somewhat of an academic exercise. >>>I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies >>>are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > watched on TV, often during the program (we like DVDs > and tapes we can pause). Yes, same with us. But I am fascinated by the idea that an activity is only worthwhile if it leads to serious conversations. Sometimes doing things together without saying a word is just what we want - and that includes occasional fluff movies with no redeeming value but mindless lazy fun! > Yes, same with us. But I am fascinated by the idea that an activity is > only worthwhile if it leads to serious conversations. Sometimes doing > things together without saying a word is just what we want - and that > includes occasional fluff movies with no redeeming value but mindless > lazy fun!- Well, I sure never said anything about serious conversations! I'm just happy for interaction on any level, even if it's my kids rolling their eyes at me... jen >>Yes, same with us. But I am fascinated by the idea that an activity is >>only worthwhile if it leads to serious conversations. Sometimes doing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, I sure never said anything about serious conversations! That's right. I wasn't referring to your post, but some of the other discussions in this thread (I think it was mostly SD who evaluated the activity based on the level of conversation, but I've lost track now!) > I'm just > happy for interaction on any level, even if it's my kids rolling their > eyes at me... Yup... >>>Yes, same with us. But I am fascinated by the idea that an activity is >>>only worthwhile if it leads to serious conversations. Sometimes doing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Yup... I like interaction, too. Although that can be simply holding hands without saying anything at all. :-) >>> I'm just happy for interaction on any level, even if it's >>> my kids rolling their eyes at me... > I like interaction, too. Although that can be simply holding > hands without saying anything at all. :-) IMO, interaction is overrated, whether it be in the form of conversation, meaningful glances, holding hands, or whatever. I 'spose my feeling that "I want to be alone" (Garbo) stems from being the dumping ground for so many other people's problems or issues (from clients or family) that I place a value on not having to deal with other people during my R+R. =R= >IMO, interaction is overrated, whether it be in the form of > conversation, meaningful glances, holding hands, or whatever. > I 'spose my feeling that "I want to be alone" (Garbo) stems > from being the dumping ground for so many other people's > problems or issues (from clients or family) that I place a value > on not having to deal with other people during my R+R. =R= My DD12 would agree with you 100%. She tells me that she is "on" all day long being a little social butterfly at school. When she gets home, the last thing she wants to do is be on. She just wants to go into her "cave" and relax and recharge, re-emerging later to interact with us. I used to be the same way, except now that I work exclusively from home, I get enough alone time so by dinner it is true that I am definetly itching for social time. The way I look at it, with the t.v. in another room, whomever wants to have alone time with the t.v. can do so... and those of us who want to interact with each other - or read or do other quiet projects - can do so without the distraction of a t.v. blaring in the background. If I'm not watching the program myself, t.v. noise really drives me crazy. But maybe i'm just getting old and crotchedy. :-) jen > If I'm not watching the program myself, t.v. noise really > drives me crazy. But maybe i'm just getting old and crotchedy. :-) Our big-TV in the LR and hooked to a sound system, so when I'm back here posting, I han hear+feel the walls vibrate. Maybe I could record the refrain "TURN IT DOWN" on my 'puter and place an icon on the desktop. The little TV in the BR has a broken on/off switch, so to turn it off late at night, one of us (me) has to get out of bed to unplug it. BTW, we're all getting old[er], but as for crotchedy, I prefer to use the term, cantankerous. :-) =R= > > If I'm not watching the program myself, t.v. noise really > > drives me crazy. But maybe i'm just getting old and crotchedy. :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > BTW, we're all getting old[er], but as for crotchedy, I prefer to > use the term, cantankerous. :-) =R= http://www.asseenontvguys.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=126&HS=1 >> The little TV in the BR has a broken on/off switch, so to turn it >> off late at night, one of us (me) has to get out of bed to unplug it. > http://tinyurl.com/t59xp [link to product] Good idea! It reminded me that my garage door opener came with a plug-in indoor lamp module that I could hook the TV to. I'd just need to bring in that remote and to push the right button. Hmmmm, perhaps "the clapper" would be simpler. :-) =R= > >>>I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies > >>>are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > includes occasional fluff movies with no redeeming value but mindless > lazy fun! That would be what I call the "boy movies": Schwarzenegger, Eastwood, or Hong Kong martial arts flicks. I watch those when she's asleep or on travel. But more often than watch stuff together, we like to do "parallel play" where we are both reading, or she's reading a book and I'm reading alt.support.marriage. Still, we can't help every once in awhile sharing something particularly good with each other. - Randy >> >>>I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies >> >>>are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >alt.support.marriage. Still, we can't help every once in awhile >sharing something particularly good with each other. That's like when my husband watches a "guy" movie and i shop on ebay from my laptop, while we're sitting next to each other. It works for us! > But isn't TV just the same? But worse - having a big flat screen in > your living room and turning it into a theater for every day use means > less interaction and more mental laziness every day, not just on > occasion. > > jen Actually no.. We have very busy lives, including leadership commitments in conjunction with our careers, and being pro-active in our adolescent son's schooling. The big screen is a "last place" mutually passive activity where my wife, son and I meet when time allows. A good example of efficient use of time - dinner takes place for the family while watching the news/current events or the educational channels. As a family, we use satellite TV to constantly learn, (with a little vegging of course :) and that's reflected in how well informed our son is on current events. He's considerably aware and growing appreciative of the value we put on advanced education, high performance professions, and meeting community commitments. He's learning by example that part of the reason we have a fortunate lifestyle is because we like to constantly learn. SignatureSD:) > > I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies > > are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > jen Not at our house. We're both writers, we share what we're working on throughout the day - and we watch a lot of DVD and video - we don't just turn the TV on. We watch local news in the morning while we get geared up to teach and write. Then, we watch a few foreign news program from the internet (on the big screen) while we cook dinner. Nothing at all stifling about learning more about world events. We discuss the drought in Australia, the Saudi Arabian cornering of the water market, educational systems in China and Russia, etc. We watch documentaries, lots of comedies (also helps with the writing, especially when the topic gets a bit grim, as it sometimes does in my field). We pause the television (TIVO or DVD) frequently and have plenty of interaction. We both use the visuals on the screen to tag what we're reading, in some way - so lots of our daily interaction is stimulated by the television, but we end up discussing all kinds of things. HBO's series, Rome, has finally enabled my guy to teach me a bit about Roman history - I was never good at the military part, much less the political part - but it's fascinating. The archaeological detail is near-perfect, I've never heard any better reconstruction of what ethnomusicologists think the music of Rome was like (always a matter of great curiousity to me. Our backlog of documentaries to watch numbers around 60 different DVD's, recommended by all manner of people over the years - and we've never been truly disappointed in any of them. Broken Rainbow is up next. We rent PBS DVD's from netflix each week. Surely spurs a lot of conversation - on everything from paleonavigation to philosophy to biochemistry, here. As well as lots of conversation about whatever else is going on with us. A. >> I agree with the rest of your reasoning behind the movie choice. Movies >> are fun, especially if they motivate serious conversation afterwards. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >less interaction and more mental laziness every day, not just on >occasion. That's where some self-control and scheduling comes in. I never turn on the tv during the day, even though i am home. We "schedule" a time in the evening to watch a particular show together. I'll prepare snacks, get the electric blanket warmed up, get into my comfy jammies (or robe w/o the jammies). The dog lies at our feet. It's "cozy". In the morning i run the roomba over the floor to pick up the snack crumbs and dog hairs. :-) > >But isn't TV just the same? But worse - having a big flat screen in > >your living room and turning it into a theater for every day use means > >less interaction and more mental laziness every day, not just on > >occasion.That's where some self-control and scheduling comes in. > I never turn on the tv during the day, even though i am home. > We "schedule" a time in the evening to watch a particular show together. Yes, we do the same. The only thing we watch during the week is Daily Show, sometimes Colbert if we don't fall asleep, and the Office & Scrubs if we are in for the night (probably catch it maybe 33% of the time). Then on Friday every other week, we rent a movie with the kids. Oh, and I guess I do have to confess we were both feeling sick the other Sunday so we watched a marathon day of Top Chef ... which means we'll probably have to catch the finale. I guess I am just puzzled on this whole trend to have a giant flat screen t.v. in the main area of the home! We only have old-fashioned t.v's, both pretty small. One is in the den - which is at the farthest back corner of the house, away from the primary living areas - and one in our bedroom. No t.v. in our main living areas. jen > I guess I am just puzzled on this whole trend to have a giant flat > screen t.v. in the main area of the home! We only have old-fashioned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one > in our bedroom. No t.v. in our main living areas. Just out of curiosity, what do you do in those main living areas most nights? Do you have family games, sit around and talk? Are you generally all gathered together, or are you each off doing your own thing? Do you read or work on crafts? Zorra > Just out of curiosity, what do you do in those main living areas most > nights? Do you have family games, sit around and talk? Are you > generally all gathered together, or are you each off doing your own Yes, as I said, our living room is for conversation. We do sit around and talk in it. And yes, play family games on occasion. For example this weekend, we lit a huge fire, played cards, talked for awhile, then all of us curled up with our books. The latter being an example of us doing our own thing while being in the same living area. That happens too. We have an open floor plan between kitchen, dining room and living room. So even when I'm cooking dinner and the kids are spread out in the dining room with their homework, we are able to interact and chat. Then we sit down and have an hour-long dinner together. Dinner time is sacred in our family. Last night, for example, we didn't sit down to eat until 7 pm, but didn't get up to clear the table until about 8:15 pm. Then after the dishes are done and lunches packed, we retire to the living room and help with homework (quizzing) before the kids' bedtime. DD14 watches very little t.v.: usually only a video on Friday night, and a little t.v. on Saturday and Sunday morning. Nothing during the week. That's her choice - she gave up t.v. for Lent years ago, and has watched t.v. rarely ever since. DD12, OTOH, does like her t.v.... and she will watch it in the afternoon while I'm still working if her homework is done and she doesn't have a friend over who's more interesting. I don't restrict her watching... I'm not a t.v. nazi, hee hee. Because of our open floor plan, if there was a t.v. in the living room, then I fear the t.v. would completely dominate our household. There would definetly be a difference to the character of the interactions and side-by-side activity. It's hard not to notice a t.v. when it is on. DH in particular has a hard time ignoring t.v.'s. For example, he HATES football. But, if we are at a restaurant that's playing a game, his eyes are automatically drawn to the t.v. and he goes into this zoned-out-mode. He hates when it happens... so we deliberately steer clear of restaurants with t.v.s, and if we go to one that has one, we arrange our seating so he's got his back to the t.v. So in our house, the decision not to have a t.v. in the main areas was an easy one to make. jen > Yes, as I said, our living room is for conversation. We do sit > around [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > happens > too. I've always found book reading to be much more isolating than TV watching actually. I can't figure out if our TV is in the main area of our house or not. It is in the living room, but then again, we call that the TV room. People are rarely in there except to watch TV or play video games. On the other hand, our kitchen is very large. Well, there's actually the kitchen itself, which is a long galley, then the dining area (there is a separate dining room too elsewhere), then the ballroom, which would have been the den in the original floorplan, but is now just sort of a big open area, and the den, which is an add-on to the plan, and completely open to the ballroom. We play cards and games at the kitchen table. We do watch some TV together, and while it's true that the TV isn't readily visible from the table, it's also true that it's very easy to turn off during dinner. We converse around the dinner table, often at bedtime, and at random other times during the day, though those random conversations are usually one-on-one and not a family discussion. And while the TV is separate from the other area, it's close enough that someone watching TV can easily talk to someone on the computer, or even in the kitchen, though one would probably get up and walk to the other. Zorra > I've always found book reading to be much more isolating than TV > watching actually. Yeah, I agree. Obviously, even if you're engaged in "parallel play," you're not reading the same thing and so if you even do want to discuss something you're reading, you have to pull your head up, interrupt the other person from their activity, and explain a big long backstory. But more than that, when reading actual books (as opposed to seed catalogs or magazines) I get pretty peevish about being interrupted. I don't like to read in a room with other people--*that* is something that I'll retreat to a cave (usually the bathtub!) to do. > I don't like to read in a room with other people--*that* is > something that I'll retreat to a cave (usually the bathtub!) to do. I usually like to read in bed. Even if it's the middle of the afternoon, I'll go up and lay across the bed to read. I guess it's because I'm much less likely to be interrupted there. Zorra > I guess I am just puzzled on this whole trend to have a giant flat > screen t.v. in the main area of the home! We only have old-fashioned > t.v's, both pretty small. One is in the den - which is at the farthest > back corner of the house, away from the primary living areas - and one > in our bedroom. No t.v. in our main living areas. I think any form of entertainment or distraction has the potential to become isolating if you shove it off into a relatively unused, closed-off, or private area of the house: TV, computer, scrapbooking, whatever. The same activity is less isolating when it's conducted in one of the "nerve centers" of the house. So, I guess I'm the opposite of you: I don't see the point of having a TV in a den or the bedroom, because that means you are shut off from the ebb and flow of family life if you want to watch something. My dream home is going to be like those cottages of yore, only a little bigger and with better storage facilities--big open floor plan where everything but sleeping takes place in a large, flexible space. > I think any form of entertainment or distraction has the potential to > become isolating if you shove it off into a relatively unused, closed-off, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are shut off from the ebb and flow of family life if you want to watch > something. I'm more the opposite. I love my wife, and we spend plenty of time with each other, but we hardly watch TV and such together. We don't like the same stuff at all (save for sports, I don't like TV much - she watches a lot more than I do.) I also like being isolated in my leisure / hobby time (gaming, movies, etc.) Luckily, so does she. > I think any form of entertainment or distraction has the potential to > become isolating if you shove it off into a relatively unused, > closed-off, or private area of the house: TV, computer, scrapbooking, > whatever. The same activity is less isolating when it's conducted in one > of the "nerve centers" of the house. I just went in the den and asked DD12 if she felt isolated when she watches t.v. And she crinkled up her nose at me, and said, "Mom, that's the point! When I get home after a long day at school, I want to get away from everyone and not have to interact for awhile!" Then I asked her, "But what if we moved the t.v. into the living room?" And she frowned and said, "Then it'd be just like at dad's house... everyone glued to the t.v., even while eating dinner, and we'd never get a chance to talk." So in OUR opinion, t.v. is very much an isolating act - even if the t.v. is smack dab in the middle of the nerve center of your house. Sure, there's a time and a place for isolating oneself.... I have nothing against t.v. for that purpose. We just make it a few extra steps to get to that place. jen >> I think any form of entertainment or distraction has the potential to >> become isolating if you shove it off into a relatively unused, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >nothing against t.v. for that purpose. We just make it a few extra >steps to get to that place. Our tv can be seen easily from livingroom, kitchen, diningroom or even the front yard. But when we eat dinner, it's off. Being just the two of us, we want to watch something in particular and then off the rest of the time. So it doesn't interfere with dinner, times we want to talk, etc. I know some households have a tv on all the time but i don't care for that. Although i'll admit to listening to a.m. talk radio during the day to keep me company and also keep informed about current events and stuff like that. He wanted the giant tv and at first i thought it was obnoxiously large, but now that i can't see real well it works out perfectly. >> The movie isn't worth mentioning but the >> nice time we had is. :) > > I am not criticizing going to the movie because my wife and I go > periodically. But, was there a reason the two of you did something > where you actually interacted for a few hours? I'm going to guess that you meant to say "was there a reason why the two of you *didn't* do something where you actually interacted for a few hours?" (that's the only reading that makes any sense to me) Not to answer for Tai, but in my case, my husband and I interact for several hours every day--we're both basically home from 5 pm to 11 pm every weekday, and about half of that time (3 hours) we're in the same space and at least sporadically interacting, and about half of that interaction takes place when the kids aren't around. So, we are not particularly hurting for chances to talk. We don't, as a matter of fact, go out on "dates" much. But, on the other hand, we have a standing half-hour "dog walking" date every darn day (and twice on the weekends). I do sometimes wish we would go out more, but not because we never get time alone or never get a chance to talk--we do that plenty--but because I just like a change of scenery sometimes! > I'm going to guess that you meant to say "was there a reason why the two > of you *didn't* do something where you actually interacted for a few > hours?" (that's the only reading that makes any sense to me) Thank you... my fingers sometimes type faster then my dyslexic inclinations:) We seldom go out on dates due to our lifestyle; which provides plenty of stimulating interaction, thanks to the small community we live in. We're both highly competitive golfers, often play together, including tournaments, and are active leaders in our club. My wife's still active monthly with sorority sisters. We also entertain and, since I am the gourmet home chef, she assists me in the kitchen. When both careers are added in with "the kid" and his schooling, we have plenty of diverse conversations. LOL sometimes to much. Makes me think about running away to Carmel for a some badly needed golf R&R. <g> SignatureSD:) > This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around 9 pm I > said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said "yes!" and 20 > minutes later I was lining up for tickets while he made a quick trip to the > adjacent supermarket for cheaper nibbles than the cinema complex has to > offer. What movie did you see? > Our older children can babysit our six year old at the drop of a hat at the > moment - their own social lives permitting - and it's a really nice phase of > our lives as parents to be in! The movie isn't worth mentioning but the > nice time we had is. :) You're lucky that the elders are still home :-) DD was 2 when DS went to college. I had two years of having his help to be able to run out to the store, etc. while he was home. I was spoiled for two years and then that was the end of that! But quite honestly, she was still so into two long naps a day, I didn't have it hard with her back then. TODAY is another story. I'd take 2 over 12 any old day of the week! > Tai >> This isn't about anything earthshattering but this evening at around >> 9 pm I said to my husband "do you want to go to the movies?" he said [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > What movie did you see? The holiday -see my other post for a sort of description. It's not very good! >> Our older children can babysit our six year old at the drop of a hat >> at the moment - their own social lives permitting - and it's a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > into two long naps a day, I didn't have it hard with her back then. > TODAY is another story. I'd take 2 over 12 any old day of the week! LOL I'm conscious that the luxury of having the older kids looking after the younger one is only temporary and there may well be a gap between the time when they leave home and DS6 becomes old enough to be left on his own occasionally when we'll need outside babysitters again. So we're enjoying it while it lasts! Tai |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.