When in a relationship , whether it was past or looking to one in the future would you consider yourself to be Nice. Mean or In between in how you treated or will treat Your partner?


I was very nice to my past partner, however, he was mean in the end.

As for a future partner I would consider myself in between, nice when I am respected and not so when I am not respected.

Note:
If a person is nice you are sweet, kind, considerate, loving, lovable , and respectful of Your partner at all times.

I was the "nice" girl, the "sweet" one. Well that is what everyone said. And it is true. I would rather bite my tongue off than say something to hurt someone even if I thought it was the truth and they deserved it.

When angry or upset I now go off and think about what I am upset about and if it is valid how do I calmly make my point without bitterness.

I want to be assertive not aggressive.

I think your thought is right. When others treat me well in a relationship, I will treat well back to my partner. If my partner are cold to me, I will never warm to my partner.

I generally stay civil.

I'm an angel.

I think this would have to do with the overall way a person thinks about a mate. What I mean is, that some people (I think most go through a phase of this at least) think about a mate as a sort of cross between a customer they have to trick into "buying" them, and then maintain like a a car (changing the oil and so on).

I'm not trying to say anything rude about common dating and mating, I'm just thinking of all the usual "you need to put your best foot forward" advice people give for first dates, and the way many people talk about how we need to "show daily appreciation of our mates, so as to make them feel valuable to us."

I went through experiences when I was young, which convinced me that I at least, should NEVER do anything extra to try to get someone to like me more. Mainly, because I'm bad at it (I seem to come up with things that annoy people rather than make them feel good), and because I feel so anxious when I'm trying that technique.

After all that I saw and suffered in the past, I committed myself to accepting WHATEVER results, from just behaving as I feel best behaving. If someone ends up wanting to be with me because of that, then I'll be able to feel confident that they are with me for the right reasons, and not because I tricked them.

WHich is all a very overlong way of answering "I don't know, actually, I leave that judgment to whoever is making it."

I have always said (to anyone who would listen) that one should
be nicer to their mate than anyone else they know on earth..and
that is what I live by.

I am always nice. Even my exes who hold a grudge would tell you that.
One would say 'How do you get like that?' Like it was a curse hahaha

Raised with a great sense of politeness that anger never reaches
I think.

I would have to hire someone to get ugly for me ;-)

I'm always nice or should I say I treat people accordingly

Same here. I am only nasty in front of red traffic lights. Or if someone is bad to my cats.

Depends on how I think I need to behave in my interaction with my partner in the best interest of communication?

I mean lets say my partner doesn't express their honest emotions, or they have simply learned to naturally avoid conflict, it might be necessary to push them in a way they (or objective observers) would judge as "mean" when it's really just dragging them out of their shell or climbing the walls of the facades they hide behind when they feel insecure or emotionally threatened.
If they have a facade towards, for example, "niceness," then a reaction more towards "meanness" may force them out from behind it so they start interacting honestly.

Just depends on my partner. Depends on what's necessary.


That's not really saying much of anything relevant.
I've known more than 1 person where they've always considered themselves "nice."
But they were only "nice" to guarantee that any disagreement with them made them the victim.
Being "nice" was their attempt to manipulate emotions, even the social contract of reciprocity.
They used "niceness" as a form of currency that they then felt entitled to being catered to.
If they got what they wanted, that's the natural order, because they were "nice," niceness should be rewarded, so that's why they're nice.
If they didn't get their way or what they wanted, then by default anyone that denied them was "mean," so they deserved to have their "niceness" validated by others, and/or get special benefits to make up for someone not catering to the "nice" equation.

When in relationships whenever they got past their "comfort zone" and had to start interacting honestly, they'd instead fall back on their social facade of being "nice" and "civil," thereby erecting walls.

This leads to a lack of communication, miscommunication, regression or lack of forward progress in the relationship/communication.

A lot of people when faced with this will start responding in more extreme opposite ways in order to try and get a more honest, genuine, or known response in order to figure out what's going on.



Anyone can be one or all of those things together but motivated by the benefit they think they will achieve by adopting that behavior.
Not to mention easily rationalize that they are one or all of those things together, when it's really only from their own perspective.

@ciretom

I really like how you tore that topic apart but put real thought into it.

I tend to agree for the MOST part.