Do What You Are to Your Mate

A woman’s deeds must be the compliment of her husband and a man’s must be in the ultimate best interest of his wife, for she is his compliment and he is her ultimate life interest.

Todd Beal


About Todd Beal

I love truth and its facts. I love thought-provoking conversations that give both the other person and me a better understanding of a particular topic. I love to find answers to life-long questions; answers that let me see things for what they are instead of what they seem to be. I truly enjoy being in the midst of a group of people where all individuals are joining in, where everybody is enjoying the company of each other. I relax in the company of individuals who are competent yet humble. I like to catch myself doing or saying something ridiculous and then laugh my head off. I enjoy my church and being involved.
This entry was posted in By Title [D], Marriage and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Do What You Are to Your Mate

  1. Todd Beal says:

    Of course, in no way does this preclude Jesus Christ as our ultimate life interest.  After all, we pattern our human marital roles after Jesus Christ’s role with believers, his church.


  2. I believe God instituted marriage to teach us many important lessons. Such an intimate partnership between two people can only result in happiness for both if pride and selfishness are eradicated. One barometer I’ve used to check myself is to ask myself when she is angry or upset: Am I willing to apologize for what happened even if I know it isn’t my fault, or am I resistant to apology because I feel the need to protect something? Am I “keeping score” or looking for fairness and calibrated compromise in this relationship, or am I willing to give up more than my share to make it work? In all the human world I should have no better friend, companion, partner, and teacher than my wife.


    • Todd Beal says:


      Unlike the majority of people with whom I have spoken throughout the years, you strike me as possessing an “in-tune” understanding of the meaning of relationships, marriage or otherwise. Your choice of words, “calibrated compromise”, is very meaningful to me. This principle applies across the board in all relationships. Some individuals find it very difficult to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Other individuals give up even their personal integrity for the sake of “keeping the peace”. However, within any relationship, calibrated compromise establishes respect and facilitates fellowship both for the other person and for our self.

      Calibrated compromise engages truth, enabling all personal faculties – reason, logic, emotions, etc – to work as a unified whole toward resolution. It is easy to give in; it is easy to be stubborn; but it is most difficult to necessarily acquiesce, or alternately stand one’s ground, when it runs counter to one’s natural disposition. This last option is the only option if one hopes for both self-growth and simultaneous benefit for the other person.  Calibrated compromise allows us to be in the right when we are right and allows us to be in the right when we are in the wrong.

      For instance, a person who always compromises, regardless of the situation, never wins the other person over, ever. In his or her mind, the compromising person is saying, “If I just let them have their way they will eventually see the lopsidedness and begin to give back.” Not so; it only tells the other person, “You are 100% in the right at all times and I am 100% in the wrong at all times, and additionally, you have my blessing to indefinitely continue with your self-destructive approach to life.” Blind compromise initially appears to work, but only for a time, after which life degrades into a lonely and depressing, self-loathsome existence.

      On the other hand, a person who always insists on being right, regardless of the situation, ironically, is never in the right, even when his or her words are factual. In his or her mind, the “always right” person is saying, “If I budge and inch I will appear wrong and weak, thus compromising my position.” Not so; it only tells the other person, “I never truly weigh the issue, therefore I really don’t care whether you are right or wrong. I only have one thing in mind; to be right and not wrong, therefore you are never in the right.” This initially appears to work, but only for a time, after which life degrades into a lonely and angering self-righteous existence.

      When we allow for the possibility of personally being in the wrong or personally being in the right, while simultaneously allowing for the same possibility in others, and then wholeheartedly reason through and authentically weigh the situation, no one ever loses and each always wins. Truth always puts us in the right, whether we are in the right and rightfully stand our ground, or in the wrong and rightfully concede. Either way, truth wins and so do we.

      Calibrated compromise then, as I understand your view of it, Michael, is knowing when to give way and when to stand firm, while being truly in the right for doing so.


  3. Todd – when I used “calibrated compromise” in the context of my comment, I actually meant it as a negative thing – that situation of making sure that you get something for everything you give. However, I understand exactly what you mean in your context as well. I manage a Quality Assurance team, and their job is to “calibrate”, or make sure that they evaluate the product or service exactly the same. So if one evaluator gives a score of 92%, we would have a goal of the entire team being “calibrated” within +-2% of that individual. Calibration can be a bad thing in relationships when it becomes a scorekeeping contest about “what you’ve done for me lately.” But it can be a great thing too, when man and wife understand one another so well that they can avoid hurtful behavior and anticipate needs. It’s a fine line, and requires the discernment spoken about in the previous post and comments.


    • Todd Beal says:

      That makes sense, Michael.  So, would you say that calibrated compromise is either good or bad depending on one’s motives?

      Positive example: (1) I will not compromise in this particular situation because it would not be in the best interest of either him/her or me.  (2) I will compromise in this particular situation because after thinking this thing through, I know it is in the best interest of both him/her and myself.

      Negative example: (1) I will not compromise in this particular situation because he/she shows no signs of cooperation.  (2) I will compromise in this particular situation because then he/she will owe me.


Comments are closed.