a friend called me very opinionated today. and the way it was uttered, it felt like it the sentence was laden with unsaid words that went along the line of "you are my friend and i felt you should be on my side". i sensed accusations of betrayal or at least a feeling of betrayal in that sentence. but i understood where he was coming from. the way the sentence "i felt you were very opinionated" was delivered and the sentence itself, when taken together, is a double edged one. cos for a person to utter that sentence, and in that manner, it also reflected the person's refusal to accept another person's opinion. and in that refusal, reflected that person's opinionatedness too. no? but that is a healthy sign. it showed how passionate we are about our believes. the only negative thing is that despite our believes, we must keep our minds open and change our stand if we are eventually convinced that our thinking is not robust and perhaps, emotional. anyway, as in all mature conversation, we agreed to disagree.
the background to this conversation was this.
my friend brought up a topic about relationships today and shared about how one of his friend decided to move on despite having "sort of" reconciling with his ex. through the conversation, i sensed that he (and his friends) felt this friend had not considered his ex's feeling and felt he should not see someone else. of cos, as i listened, i could empathize with their tensions about their friend's decision. but on the other hand, i added that they had done their parts to share their perspective and that they should respect their friend's decision. that was when his discomfort showed, and the sentence of me being opinionated came out. i was not sure about him, but that particular point, it was quite clear to me that the potential of the conversation was spiraling into dangerous zone of disagreement was very real. and i thought if i did not clarity my view points, things might probably end up rather uncomfortable, or for that matter, disastrous.
for me, frankly, i was not a stakeholder in this whole episode. and i shared my views from a rather clinical perspective of a third neutral party, a counsellor... or, ok, a life coach if you may. i offered a neutral point of view. a point of view based on values. the value called respect. and it may not necessarily be the point of view that he was seeking for. and certainly, respect was a big thing for me, especially these couple of days when my sis kept sharing with me her tensions with her kids. so... anyway, some major thoughts/ conclusions flashed through my mind throughout this conversation with this friend of mine. and these include:
- share your views and perspectives, but ultimately respect the decision. you are not the person involved in the relationship and are not in the best position to know the depth and breadth of what the couple had gone through.
- never imposed your values on another person. respect the person's decision. by trying to change a person's decision becos of long friendship reeks of the idea of "i know best", "you are blinded and thus, you do not and cannot make informed decisions"... when a person gets into this state of mind and tries to force a decision in his favour, he is directly imposing his value system on others.
- as adults, we should share our perspective and respect another person's decision. the funny thing about gay men is that much as we do not want people to judge us, we often end up judging people and imposing out values on others ourselves.
- the interesting thing about us humans is that when people say no and try to stop us, we will all the more make the effort to do it. it is our emotional self that is at play and the emotion self is often illogical. so, rather than tell an adult a decision, give your perspective and let the adult make his own decision.
- different strokes for different folks. what works for me may not work for you and vice versa. for example, an open relationship may work for some but not for others. thus, if a friend wants to try open relationships, it is their choice, who am i to interfere.
well, looks like i am repeating things. all the above center around the principal value called respect. of agreeing to disagree. that i can accept things exist, but i may not agree. that end of the day, we must let people make their decision, and respect it even if it is a decision that we may not agree with. it is their life. it is their decision. there is no right and wrong as long as it does not breach fundamental human value of respecting life. i strongly believe that all decisions made at any particular point in life is correct based on the information available and the value judgment of the person. no one in his/ her right state of mind would want to make a decision that is detrimental to what he/ she believes in. and if at a later stage, it turned out wrong, it will become a lesson for that person. after all, that is what life is about. it is about experiencing, it is about living. we don't live people's life. and certainly, we don't want to have them make decisions based on what we think. doing so and imposing this on others is not ethically correct. the correct way is that people should make decision based on what they think is correct.
it is their life afterall.
ok, i am going in circles. i go in circles when i have too much thoughts.
like now.
will stop here.
































