Partnership Couple Quotes

No relationship is absolutely reciprocal. Sometimes, when couples try to split everything in half, they discover that the relationship is not a partnership but a bean counting exercise. Striving for reciprocity in a relationship can be unhealthy.

Never invest in any kind of relationship with anyone who is not willing to work on themselves just a little every day. A person who takes no interest in any form of self-improvement, personal development or spiritual growth will also not be inclined to make much of an effort building a truly meaningful connection with you. A relationship with only one partner willing to do the work ceases to be a relationship. And as anyone who has been there will tell you - it's pointless to try and dance the tango solo.

The most important quality in the man you decide to marry should be the ability to make you laugh. Beauty fades, careers end, money comes and goes, religions change, children grow up and move away, spouses get sick, struggles happen, family members die, senility sets in when your older, but the ability to make you giggle every day is the most precious gift God can give you to get through all of it.

No relationship is absolutely reciprocal. Sometimes, when couples try to split everything in half, they discover that the relationship is not a partnership but a bean counting exercise. Striving for reciprocity in a relationship can be unhealthy. On the other hand, striving to have a partnership in which each partner is valued equally and shares both burdens and responsibilities can be healthy.

Exposure to erotically inclined stimuli immediately activates parts of a male brain that are associated with sexual desire. Being attracted to other women, however, doesn’t mean men would betray the trust they are given and harm the partnership with the women they love.

In marriage, those who persevere are rewarded with the most precious thing this earth has to offer: Marital love--a partnership that conquers the years. It takes time, but those who persevere are rewarded with, falling in love with their spouse. pg v

marriage is an arrangement between like-minded parties. It’s a partnership, not a love affair. I never lied to you or kept anything of importance from you.”She looked at him then, almost stunned, as if she didn’t recognize him. He didn’t like it. Not at all.

All married couples should learn the art of battle as they should learn the art of making love. Good battle is objective and honest - never vicious or cruel. Good battle is healthy and constructive, and brings to a marriage the principles of equal partnership.

Analyze any failed relationship. Every estrangement had a solution. Maybe the couple lacked the tools to fix their problem, but whether they realized it or not, a solution was within reach. The luckiest partners marry a problem solver—someone empathetic, willing to lift the other side of our burden. Lamentations, Intro pg

First, strive for a solid foundation of trust, loyalty, respect, and security. Your spouse is your closest relative and is entitled to depend on you as a committed ally, supporter, and champion.   Second, cultivate the tender, loving part of your relationship: sensitivity, consideration, understanding, and demonstrations of affection and caring. Regard each other as confidante, companion, and friend.   Third, strengthen the partnership. Develop a sense of cooperation, consideration, and compromise. Sharpen your communication skills so that you can more easily make decisions about practical issues, such as division of work, preparing and implementing a family budget, and planning leisure-time activities.

A vast area of land and sea in motion together, a never-ending partnership in which each of the couple loses and gains in equal measure, but neither can exist without the other.

Trustworthy relationships are built on a foundation of goodwill. Couples with solid trust are able to give each other the benefit of the doubt in conflict, and they weather conflicts more easily because of it.

In many ways, the emotional and economic self-sufficiency of unmarried life is more demanding than the state we have long acknowledged as (married) maturity. Being on one’s own means shouldering one’s own burdens in a way that being coupled rarely demands. It means doing everything—making decisions, taking responsibility, paying bills, cleaning the refrigerator—without the benefits of formal partnership. But we’ve still got a lot of hardwired assumptions that the successful female life is measured not in professional achievements or friendships or even satisfying sexual relationships, but by whether you’re legally coupled.

I oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions but I support domestic partnership between gay and lesbian couples. I have no problem with gay and lesbian couples adopting. I support equal benefits for same-sex couples such as hospital visitation rights

Mooch? What does that word mean?” Ellie smiled. “It’s a term when you live with someone and take something freely from the person who has to work for it. It’s not a good thing. It’s hard to explain that one. I guess I could describe it as I’m a burden to him.” “How? He already had a room you could have.” Ellie struggled with her thoughts. Some words were hard to explain. “Yes. He did but usually you don’t live with someone unless you are a couple. Then it is acceptable if you share food and a home. If you aren’t, then both parties are supposed to work, similar to a partnership, be equal. I am not his girlfriend or his partner. He provides a home and food for me while I give him nothing in return. I’m a mooch.” “I think I understand.” Breeze smiled. “And you are not a mooch. He doesn’t know what one is so therefore you can’t be what he doesn’t know exists.

Licklider helped chart that course back in 1960 in his paper “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” which proclaimed: “Human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly, and the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today.

...sometimes, a couple’s home will turn into an arena of threats and coercion, where unborn children become instruments of power and negotiation—and sometimes, children are born to preserve the relationship. Despite the growing notion that female-male partnerships are equal and symmetrical, this presumed balance is not necessarily reflected in reality. This means that the different power structures—manifest, latent, or invisible—that are often formed between partners attest to an ongoing gender inequality when it comes to deliberations such as the decision to have children.

Remember, every relationship is an opportunity to either discover more of your individuality and expand as a human being or do the pretzel dance and twist yourself into a smaller version of you based on who you think your partner wants you to be. Despite what your mind tells you, your partner is attracted to the real you—the authentic you that he first met—not the twisted version you think he wants. When you commit to being yourself from the start and to communicating your truth no matter what, you’ll avoid virtually all the drama, angst, and anxiety of not knowing where things stand that many other women experience on a daily basis. Most women are afraid to be real because they mistakenly believe that they’re not enough as they are. This “I’m not enough” mind-set not only is inaccurate but also destroys your well-being and ability to have a loving and satisfying relationship. Being yourself and speaking your truth from the moment you meet is the secret to having relationships unfold naturally and authentically. It is also the key to maintaining your irresistibility. Be yourself. Communicate what works you and what doesn’t. Do it from day one and never stop. This is the most powerful step you can take at the beginning of any relationship to set it up for long-term success. Speaking of relationship success, don’t confuse relationship longevity with relationship success. Just because a relationship lasts for many years does not mean it’s a success. Many couples cling to a lifeless and miserable existence they call a relationship because they are too afraid to be alone or to face the uncertainty of the unknown. Living a life of quiet desperation devoid of true love, passion, and spiritual partnership is not my idea of success. Relationships, again, are life’s grandest opportunity for spiritual growth and evolution. They exist so that we may discover ourselves, awaken our hearts, and heal our barriers to love. Every relationship you’ve ever had, or you ever will have, is designed to bring you closer to your divinity and ability to experience and express the very best of who you are.

In regard to gay male life specifically, a number of academic studies have concluded that we’re more emotionally expressive and sexually innovative than heterosexual men, more empathic, and more altruistic (we do volunteer work far more often than our straight male counterparts), and we’re more likely to cross racial and gender borders when forming close bonds of friendship. When part of a couple, we—and this is even more true of lesbian partnerships—avoid stereotypic gender roles and instead emphasize mutuality and shared responsibilities. Gay couples have “more relationship satisfaction” than straight couples, and when we do argue, we’re better at seeing our partner’s point of view and at using humor to deflate belligerence.

I suspected that most marriages were more complicated than couples tended to let on. That summer, it seemed like every week brought news of another pair in our community who were splitting up. They were all around our age, most with little kids, trying to run their own businesses in a small economy. The evidence of those breakups directly contradicted the rosy way relationships were portrayed on Facebook, in public. I began to believe that future generations would study how we represent our long-term partnerships, and call us on our lies, in the same way we look at the way the Victorians depicted sex and know that it simply wasn't like that, not behind closed doors or in the hayloft. We hide marital conflict with the same sense of decorum. We'd do more good if we were honest and set realistic expectations for what it's like in the long run.

I am not suggesting here that a non-ADHD spouse should simply roll over and say, “She’s ignoring me because she’s eccentric [or because she has ADHD]. Oh well!” In fact, having an ADHD spouse take charge of creating a systematic approach to treatment is one of the most important elements of improving your marriage. The “symptom” is, after all, at the beginning of the symptom-response-response sequence, and not much changes until the symptoms are under control—and that task can be accomplished only by the ADHD spouse. But ADHD in relationships is like a dance. One partner leads and initiates the steps, but both must understand their role to successfully circle the floor. In an ADHD partnership, an ADHD partner can address her symptoms, but the couple will be unsuccessful if the non-ADHD partner’s response doesn’t change, too. The inverse, of course, is also true.

The crux of the problem was this: He was at once everything and nothing she needed. Seen from afar, they were picturesque, a symphony of superior genes, a study in storybook promise. But when they were alone together, they were curiously ill suited, sometimes mortifyingly lacking in secrets to share and things to talk about. But common wisdom condoned this, did it not? Was this not the basis of a great partnership: opposition, difference of opinion. Pairing up with someone as practical as she would be terribly boring, just as coupling Tom with another dreamer would result in incompetence; that pair would never make it out of the house. Both combinations would amount to deadening and impractical redundancy. But what if it was equally dangerous to pair up two people who were so different? Were they not signing up for a lifetime of silent dinners or, worse, after-dinner spats?

Having been through a real marriage, it’s hard for me not to feel like those perfect old dead couples are lying, or in denial, or maybe they just didn’t go deep enough, maybe they were always too scared. The truth is that you simply can’t make it into adulthood unscathed. And if somehow you did, you wouldn’t have the perspective and empathy to properly care for another human being for the rest of both your lives. It’s impossible. Everyone’s going to have their shit... The true work of love isn’t staying together when things are perfect; it’s staying together even when things are awful, weathering catastrophic mistakes (within reason) because, well, you decided to, and because you know the potential is as real as the now. It turns your partnership into something that grows instead of something that atrophies. You’re promising another person not just passion and love but a safety net, some degree of stability and certainty in a fucking terrible world. You’re saying, “I promise I will stay with you even if you suck for a while,” an almost narcotic comfort that we all deserve.

Buxton says that when one partner in a marriage comes out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, about a third of the couples break up right away, a third break up after about two years, and a third stay married indefinitely.3 We don’t know a whole lot about that last third—the more than 30 percent of mixed-orientation marriages that remain intact. From the research I’ve read, many of them are negotiating open relationships, but few consider themselves polyamorous or identify with or seek out a nonmonogamous community. As a result, they are left out of significant discussions about nonmonogamy. Research and writing on this topic (including Buxton’s) makes a point of distinguishing between partners who come out as gay or lesbian and partners who come out as bisexual. Those are individual identity choices; I am less concerned with how a person identifies and more interested in the relationship between the straight spouse and the nonstraight spouse, because that ultimately determines what style of open relationship will work for them. Some couples remain primary partners and continue to have a sexual relationship, while others end the sexual element of their partnership.

Obviously the most enduring way to make this commitment is through marriage. Yet because sexual liberals deny the differences between the sexes, their explanations of why there are marriages and why marriage is needed and desired ignore the central truth of marriage: that it is built on sex roles. Pressed to explain the institution, they respond vaguely that human beings want "structure" or desire "intimacy." But however desirable in marriage, these values are not essential causes or explanations of it. In many cultures, the wife and husband share very few one-to-one intimacies. Ties with others of the same sex--or even the opposite sex--often offer deeper companionship. The most intimate connections are between mothers and their children. In all societies, male groups provide men with some of their most emotionally gratifying associations. Indeed, intimacy can deter or undermine wedlock. In the kibbutz, for example, where unrelated boys and girls are brought up together and achieve a profound degree of companionate feeling, they never marry members of the same child-rearing group. In the many cultures where marriages are arranged, the desire for intimacy is subversive of marriage. Similarly, man's "innate need for structure" can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment. As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is "parenthood and above all maternity." The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, "in every known human society, is to provide for women and children." In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man "to prove his capacity to maintain the woman." Marriage is not simply a ratification of an existing love. It is the conversion of that love into a biological and social continuity. . . . Regardless of what reasons particular couples may give for getting married, the deeper evolutionary and sexual propensities explain the persistence of the institution. All sorts of superficial variations--from homosexual marriage to companionate partnership--may be played on the primal themes of human life. But the themes remain. The natural fulfillment of love is a child; the fantasies and projects of the childless couple may well be considered as surrogate children.

Buxton says that when one partner in a marriage comes out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, about a third of the couples break up right away, a third break up after about two years, and a third stay married indefinitely.3 We don’t know a whole lot about that last third—the more than 30 percent of mixed-orientation marriages that remain intact. From the research I’ve read, many of them are negotiating open relationships, but few consider themselves polyamorous or identify with or seek out a nonmonogamous community. As a result, they are left out of significant discussions about nonmonogamy. Research and writing on this topic (including Buxton’s) makes a point of distinguishing between partners who come out as gay or lesbian and partners who come out as bisexual. Those are individual identity choices; I am less concerned with how a person identifies and more interested in the relationship between the straight spouse and the nonstraight spouse, because that ultimately determines what style of open relationship will work for them. Some couples remain primary partners and continue to have a sexual relationship, while others end the sexual element of their partnership. In one of Buxton’s studies, the straight husband of a bisexual woman wrote: “I compare my wife and me to a glove with fingers that fit absolutely perfect. It’s the thumb that is just wrong. The more we struggle to make the thumb fit, the worse off we make the fingers. If we free ourselves to adjust the gloves for our thumbs, then the fingers return to their old wonderful fit.”4

La Societe D'elite 408 S. Front St. Suite 408. Memphis TN, 38103 888-335-4831 info@lasocietedelite.com CONCIERGE SERVICE, LUXURY CONCIERGE, CHARTER JET SERVICES, LUXURY CRUISE LINES, LUXURY AUTOS, FASHION SHOWS, DIAMONDS & JEWELRY, COMPLIMENTARY IN-FLIGHT WI-FI, COMPLIMENTARY LIFETIME FITNESS THE WORLD AT YOUR FINGERTIPS WE PROVIDE 24 HOUR 365 DAYS A YEAR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SUPPORT TO EACH OF OUR MEMBERS AND PARTNERS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD WE, ARE YOUR CONNECTION TO IT ALL. For your convenience, La Societe D'elite is a part of an operating network in more than 140 countries and territories. La Societe D'elite is an invite-only private and elite (Padalelux) offering our members the world’s most luxurious lifestyle experiences. From red carpet events to island getaways and every luxury in between, we aim to supply. Our corporate partnerships make available the ability to fly private, travel black car, retreat to paradise, or dine at some of the most upscale fine-dining experiences in the world, all with preferred treatment. La Societe D'elite is proud to introduce you to our Industry-Leading Global Padalelux. With our service each member is afforded a 24 hour, 7 days a week, 365 days per year global concierge service. The reason we are the industry-leader is simple. Each member receives global coverage, protections, and insurances that are unrivaled in the luxury concierge industry. Couple this with our worldwide access, global benefits, and our loyalty program then you will begin to see why many are calling us the AMEX Centurion Black Card of Concierges.

relationship? Both partners doing everything they could to keep the other satisfied? See, that was the problem with many of the married couples she knew. In any marriage, there was a fine balance between doing what you wanted and doing what your partner wanted, and as long as both the husband and the wife were doing what the other wanted, there was never any problem. The problems arose when people started doing what they wanted without regard to the other. A husband suddenly decides he needs more sex and looks for it outside of the marriage; a wife decides she needs more affection, which eventually leads to her doing exactly the same thing. A good marriage, like any partnership, meant subordinating one’s own needs to that of the other’s, in the expectation that the other will do the same. And as long as both partners keep up their end of the bargain, all is well in the world. But if you didn’t feel any passion for your husband, could you really expect that? She wasn’t sure. Doris, of course, had a ready answer. “Trust me, honey, that passes after the first couple of years,” she would say, despite the fact that, to Lexie’s mind, anyway, her grandparents had the kind of relationship that anyone would envy. Her grandfather was one of those naturally romantic men. Until the very end, he would open the car door for Doris and hold her hand when they walked through town. He had been both committed and faithful to her. He clearly adored her and would often comment on how lucky he was to have met a woman like her. After he passed on, part of Doris had begun to die as well. First the heart attack, now worsening

I began a project 25 years ago that would change my life forever. Evolution of Loving offers real life examples of diverse couples who model successful, conscious partnership over time via intimate photographs and the telling of their story. It provides an intimate glimpse into eight remarkable partnerships that have been consciously built – and in many cases, rebuilt – on a foundation of authenticity, personal responsibility, and trust. The project is a true reflection of the human condition, following births, deaths, separations and the strengthening of partnerships.

At one point when I was in the middle of the first season, I asked myself why I would want to watch a conservative Democrat destroy teachers’ unions and have joyless sex with a woman who looks like a very young teenager. I still had not answered the question when Claire pushed things to the next level in a scene so intensely creepy that it might count as the most revolting thing I have ever witnessed on television. A longtime member of the couple’s Secret Service security detail is dying of cancer, and Claire goes to visit him alone. On his deathbed, he reveals that he was always secretly in love with her and thought that Frank wasn’t good enough for her. Her response is almost incomprehensible in its cruelty—she mocks and taunts him for thinking he could ever attain a woman like her, and then puts her hand down his pants and begins to give him a handjob, all the while saying, in true perverse style, “This is what you wanted, right?” Surely Claire doesn’t have to emotionally destroy a man who is dying of cancer—and yet perhaps in a way she does, because she uses it as a way of convincing herself that Frank really is the right man for her. Not only could an average, hardworking, sentimental man never satisfy her, but she would destroy him. By contrast, Frank not only can take her abuse, but actively thrives on it, as she does on his. Few images of marriage as a true partnership of equals are as convincing as this constant power struggle between two perverse creeps. Claire is not the first wife in the “high-quality TV drama” genre to administer a humiliating handjob. In fact, she is not even the first wife to administer a humiliating handjob to a man who is dying of cancer. That distinction belongs to Skyler White of Breaking Bad, who does the honors in the show’s pilot. It is intended as a birthday treat for her husband Walt, who is presumably sexually deprived due to his wife’s advanced pregnancy, and so in contrast to Claire’s, it would count as a generous gesture if not for the fact that Skyler continues to work on her laptop the entire time, barely even acknowledging Walt’s presence in the room. In her own way, Skyler is performing her dominance just as much as Claire was with her cancer patient, but Skyler’s detachment from the act makes it somehow even creepier than Claire’s.

a declining Dow gives us our chance to shine and pile up the percentage advantages which, coupled with only an average performance during advancing markets, will give us quite satisfactory long-term results. Our target is an approximately ½% decline for each 1% decline in the Dow and if achieved, means we have a considerably more conservative vehicle for investment in stocks than practically any alternative.8 Buffett

A conscious partnership is a relationship that fosters maximum psychological and spiritual growth; it’s a relationship created by becoming conscious and cooperating with the fundamental drives of the unconscious mind: to be safe, to be healed, and to be whole.

A conscious partnership is a relationship that fosters maximum psychological and spiritual growth; it’s a relationship created by becoming conscious and cooperating with the fundamental drives of the unconscious mind: to be safe, to be healed, and to be whole.

How to Apply for the Best divorce Advocate in Chennai? When a marriage does not last for an extended period of time, couples frequently search online for information on how to apply for divorce Lawyers in Chennai. Many couples must endure the difficult process of separation that eventually results in the best divorce advocate in Chennai at some point in their lives. It is a serious truth that provides us with a second chance to start over. The lack of legal complexities and the emotional turmoil each spouse experiences while deciding to end their partnership amicably are the reasons why the proceedings are simple. This article will teach you how to file for divorce, especially if you're Indian. Frequently Mentioned Events that Ultimately Lead to Divorce As we have closely analyzed, it has been conceivable over time to list a few typical legal justifications that are adequate for one spouse to petition the family court for a divorce from the other. These factors include: The petitioner has learned that their partner is having an extra - marital or sexual relationship with someone else. when the petitioner's spouse has avoided them for a period longer than two years beginning on the date the divorce petition was filed. when the petitioner's partner repeatedly mistreats him or her, either physically or mentally, in a way that seems so grave that it could be death. Another cause for filing a divorce petition could be inability or rejection of sexual activity. Divorce proceedings may start when one partner or better half has had a terminal illness for a long time. If there is evidence of mental illness, the other party may choose to divorce lawfully. List of Paperwork Required for Divorce Filing If a married couple in India wants to end their marriage by mutual consent, they must present the following paperwork to the court: the partners' biographical information and family information. The previous two years' income tax or IT returns statement for the spouses. Types of Divorce in Chennai In Chennai, a divorce typically occurs using one of the two processes listed below: Divorce by mutual consent Contested divorce In the first scenario, the spouse's consent to divorcing one another. These divorces' maintenance obligations can be any amount of money or nothing at all. Any parent whose obligation is shared is solely responsible for child custody. Again, this depends on the cooperation and respect between the two people. The husband and wife must execute a "no-fault divorce," as permitted by Section B of the Hindu Marriage Law, under this consensual arrangement. The first motion is done on the date set by the family court, and the relevant couple's statements are electronically recorded and preserved for later use. Both parties agree to maintain the jury as a witness throughout the remaining processes. The judge gives the couple six months to reevaluate their next motion or second motion. Many couples change their minds during this time, thus the court is using this as an opportunity to prevent a negative event like divorce. Even after these six months, if there is still no change of heart, the court moves forward with its decision and issues a divorce decree, officially recognising the previously married couple's permanent separation.

Your Trusted Source for High-Quality GC Sheets in Dindigul When it comes to sourcing top-notch GC sheets in Dindigul, one name stands out prominently - Shree Sivabalaaji Steels. Renowned for its commitment to quality and excellence, this company has established itself as a reliable supplier of galvanized corrugated (GC) sheets, catering to various industries and construction needs. At Shree Sivabalaaji Steels, quality is the cornerstone of their operations. They understand the significance of using superior-grade materials for construction and industrial purposes. GC sheets offered by the company are manufactured using advanced technology, ensuring durability, strength, and resistance to environmental factors. This ensures that the sheets maintain their integrity over time, even in harsh conditions. Variety is another feather in Shree Sivabalaaji Steels' cap. The company provides a wide range of GC sheet options to meet the diverse needs of its customers. Whether you require sheets of different thicknesses, sizes, or coatings, they have it all. This extensive selection empowers customers to choose the perfect GC sheets that align with their project requirements. One of the factors that set Shree Sivabalaaji Steels apart is their unwavering commitment to customer satisfaction. Their team of experienced professionals is always ready to assist clients in selecting the right type of GC sheets based on their specific needs. Whether it's for roofing, wall cladding, or any other application, customers can rely on their expertise to make informed decisions. Time efficiency and punctuality are the driving forces behind Shree Sivabalaaji Steels' operations. They understand that in the construction industry, timely delivery is of the essence. The company has implemented streamlined processes to ensure that customers receive their GC sheet orders on schedule, minimizing project delays and interruptions. Environmental consciousness is a key aspect of Shree Sivabalaaji Steels' philosophy. They recognize their responsibility towards sustainable practices and offer GC sheets that are manufactured using eco-friendly processes. This not only reflects their commitment to the environment but also resonates with customers who prioritize green building materials. Competitive pricing is yet another advantage that customers enjoy when partnering with Shree Sivabalaaji Steels. Despite offering high-quality GC sheets, the company maintains a pricing strategy that remains accessible and competitive. This affordability, coupled with the quality of their products, makes them a preferred choice among contractors, builders, and industries. In conclusion, for those seeking top-grade GC sheets in Dindigul, Shree Sivabalaaji Steels emerges as a reliable and customer-centric option. With their focus on quality, variety, expertise, punctuality, sustainability, and affordability, they have rightfully earned their reputation as a go-to supplier for GC sheets in the region. When you choose Shree Sivabalaaji Steels, you're not just purchasing construction materials; you're investing in a partnership that prioritizes your project's success.

That’s what a partnership is. Give and take, take and give in every aspect of the relationship. When one person is fighting to maintain at twenty-five percent, the partner steps up to handle the other seventy-five. The best you can hope for is to find someone who gives as much as they take so as a couple, you’re always at one hundred percent for yourselves, your children, and each other.

This workbook is for all couples — all partners seeking a lifetime of love in a partnership of their design. It is for people from all walks of life, of all lifestyles, because everyone on this planet has the same longing for connection.

The investment was approximately 14.3% of the Partnership’s assets when he wrote to Howard Clark in June 1964. But Buffett kept buying the stock as the salad oil scandal receded from the limelight. By November, he owned approximately 90,000 shares, up from the 70,000 in June. Buffett kept buying the stock into 1966, more than tripling his stake in the company: He scooped up more than 5% of American Express’s shares, up from the 1.6% stake when he wrote to Howard Clark in 1964.277 The position became such a significant percentage of the portfolio that Buffett amended his ‘Ground Rules’ to partners in November 1965, adding a seventh rule: We diversify substantially less than most investment operations. We might invest up to 40% of our net worth in a single security under conditions coupling an extremely high probability that our facts and reasoning are correct with a very low probability that anything could drastically change the underlying value of the investment.278 American Express was the Partnership’s largest investment at the end of 1965 and 1966, and it crushed the market in each of 1964, 1965, and 1966.279 The salad oil scandal was considered over by the end of 1964 despite negotiations still ongoing; the major claims wouldn’t settle until 1967, with some minor suits outside the main case lasting until the 1970s.280,281 Table 2 shows that revenue and income exploded as the Partnership added to its stake.

When a couple is under-connected and over-committed, they begin to live their lives in crisis mode. They spin the plates of marriage, children, work, church, extended family, school activities, and so on. In the mix of everything else, they find less and less time to spin the marriage plate. The result? They end up in an unsatisfactory “business partnership” marriage. These kinds of relationships resemble what happens in our financial affairs. Deposits and withdrawals must be monitored carefully to guard against overdrafts in our bank accounts. In the same way, when we skimp on the important relationships in our lives, our emotional bank accounts run empty. If

It felt right, seeing them joined as a mated couple. A partnership that had been tested more than most, and hard-won. Lucan

love…Kim, a partnership wears you down with time. It takes lots of love, lots of imagination for a couple to survive.

Jordan—Jimmy Carter’s chief of staff. Jordan said the Clintons “are not a couple but a business partnership.” Every

What could be the utopia for the present age? To begin with, I would want all of human order to make a partnership, beginning in schools. It is atrocious that the children leave the partnership and go to be educated by a professor, just a man or a woman. This negates partnership. Classes should be taught by couples of both sexes, and children should be educated by a man and a woman... ... not necessarily a husband and wife. This is what I would do as a first political measure to improve social life: all human activities would have to be carried out in complimentary pairs.

This was too much even for Hamilton Jordan—Jimmy Carter’s chief of staff. Jordan said the Clintons “are not a couple but a business partnership.” Every move they make is “part of their grand scheme to claw their way to the very top.” Jordan dubbed the Clintons “the first grifters . . . a term used in the Great Depression to describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, always one step ahead of the law, moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-truths.

What the Western world does not understand about Islam is that its adherents’ first and foremost identity is being a Muslim, without the limitations of national boundaries or allegiances. There is no such thing called Sunni dar al-Islam and Shiite dar al-Islam. There is only one dar al-Islam and then there is the rest of the world, dar al-harb, or the house of war. Sunnis and Shiites understand this basic distinction and easily set aside internal conflict to deal with an external power. That is to say, the Sunni-Shiite conflict is secondary only to the Muslim–non-Muslim conflict. According to one author, “One of the myths of modern Islamist terrorism is that Sunni and Shi’a do not get along; but when it comes to common enemies or objectives or using force to replicate the Iranian revolution in other localities, they work together quite frequently.”18 There is no better example of such a display of unity against the Western influence, the external power, than the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The doctrine of jihad against nonbelievers coupled with the model of the Iranian Revolution has been a strong impetus for both Sunni as well as Shiite jihadist organizations.19 Iran sees the United States and Israel as such grave, existential, external threats to Islam that thwarting and ultimately destroying both the United States and Israel are important enough to temporarily put aside theological differences with heretical Sunni organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, making these some of the scariest partnerships in the unholy alliance.

Almost every major partnership in the natural world is like this. Cheats are always a problem. Betrayal lurks perpetually on the horizon. Couples might work well together but if one partner can get the same benefits without spending as much energy or effort it will do so, unless punished or policed. HG Wells wrote about this in 1930 "every symbiosis is in its degree underlain with hostility and only by proper regulation and often elaborate adjustment can the state of mutual benefits be maintained". Even human affairs the Partnerships for Mutual benefit are not so easily kept up in spite of me being endowed with intelligence and so being able to grasp the meaning of such a relation.

As an Asian American woman within black radical circles, Grace surely was anomalous, but this raised no significant concerns or barriers to her participation in various black organizations, struggles, and movements. While she never attempted to conceal her ethnic identity, Grace developed a political identity as a black movement activist—that is, an activist based in a black community and operating within black movements. Living with Jimmy in a black community in the 1950s and immersing herself in the social and political worlds of black Detroit, she solidified this political identity through her activism. By the early 1960s she was firmly situated within a network of activists building organizations, staging protests, and engaging in a range of grassroots political initiatives. By mid-decade, when the Black Power movement emerged, Grace was a fixture within black radical politics in Detroit and widely known in movement circles nationally. Together, Jimmy and Grace helped to build a vibrant local black protest community in Detroit, the city that served not only as their home and political base, but also as a catalyst for new ideas about social change. They formulated their theories through grassroots activism in the context of—and at times directly in response to—the tremendous urban transformation experienced by the Motor City during the decades following World War II. Alongside their local efforts, the couple forged an ever-widening network of activists, artists, and intellectuals across the country, engaging multiple spaces of black activist politics. A diverse group of younger black activists from Detroit and across the country visited their eastside Detroit home—“ the Boggses’ University,” as one of them labeled it. 2 Each received theoretical training, political education, and a sense of historical continuity between past and future struggles. Through their extraordinary partnership James and Grace Lee Boggs built several organizations, undertook innumerable local activist initiatives, produced an array of theoretical and political writings, and mentored a generation of activists.

At the meeting with a potential partner, it is necessary to put him at ease so that he does not perceive your information as a threat to his business, but is ready to accept your offer. This can be done by saying a couple of positive words about him. Sincerely praise him.

Laughing, I corrected the line and climbed down from the ladder, picking up the roller and finishing the wall. I headed to the kitchen to grab a drink, pausing when I overheard Hannah and her mom in her room talking quietly. “Are you sure, Hannah?” “Yes, Mom. He is just a friend. Nothing else.” “He wants more. I saw it.” “Well, he isn’t getting more. I am not ruining a good partnership for that. I like him, but I’m not interested. He’s–he’s like a brother to me. We’re friends. Nothing more.” “Is there someone else?” Hannah paused. “Yes.” I felt a wall of disappointment swamp me. I hurried to the kitchen, not wanting to hear any more. I had misread the signals. Hannah thought of me as a friend. She was affectionate and sweet. When I thought about it, she hugged and gave out cheek-kisses like they were nothing. I was the one who saw more than there was. Felt more. Unable to stay, I grabbed a bottle of water and headed outside to the deck. I looked around, thinking of how I had jumped ahead. Seen us as a couple. Entertaining. I blinked away the moisture in my eyes. What an idiot. The door opened, and Hannah stepped out onto the deck. “Hey—you okay?” “Absolutely. Just getting some fresh air. Rid my lungs of the paint.

Partnership was the great efficiency of truly being a couple.

This means that two women, whether friends, a mother-daughter dyad, sisters, or a same-sex couple, are likely to care for each other in a way that is arguably deeper and more consistent than any dyad involving a male. This may seem counterintuitive—the notion that reciprocal caring is, or at least should be, greatest in our committed romantic partnerships is a widespread one—but it is consistent with abundant research demonstrating that men reap more health benefits from marriage than women do, and that husbands report feeling understood and affirmed by their spouses far more than wives do.17

One of the most uncomplicated and straightforward ways of taking responsibility in your relationship is to implement the conclusions of research done by John Gottmann. He found that couples who are happy over the long term have a 5:1 ratio of affirming or complimentary statements to every critical one that is made.

Focusing on your own relational practice optimizes our chances of making the relationship work, which is not the same as saying we always get what we want. Digest each other's imperfections, and grieve the things you wanted in your relationship that this partnership will not afford. Embrace what you do have, and allow it to be enough, to be an occasion for joy. These are the grown-up skills of intimacy: skills potent enough not only to transform your relationship but ultimately to heal and remake yourself.

If we want our men to dance, we have to seduce them. But with what? Not with blatant sexuality. That is too common, too little. But with something more, something bigger, something that will give them a reason to want to dance. We have to inspire them.

A partnership is about who takes out the garbage. The two might take turns dumping out the can. One might dump it out every time. It doesn’t work if you both wait for the other to do it. If you can manage that problem, you can figure out the rest.

In a review of research on relationships and mental health, researchers found that “improving relationships improves mental health.” Your partner can help you get through tough times and provide stability in your life. Studies show that people in happy relationships have fewer depressive symptoms than those who are single, divorced, separated, widowed, or in troubled relationships.

And I’m thinking of marrying a couple friends of mine, see.” I had to pause for a moment there. “Plural friends?” “Yeah, good business match it would be.We’ve been close since we were kids. “Perhaps my Nuryeven isn’t as good as I thought. When you say marry, you mean joining your households together and producing hiers, yes?” It wasn’t that the concept was alien to me, it’s just that I hadn’t expected such an arrangement to be commonplace in Nuryevet. Well, no, I’ll be honest, iots that I hadn’t spent even a blink of time thinking about their practices, and if you’d asked me at that time I probably would have told you that all Nuryevens lumber along like they're made of stone. Not a drop of hot blood in their bodies and no interest whatsoever in romance, and that they acquired children by filing paperwork in quintuplicate and being assigned one by an advocate. My new friend Ilias said, “Iy that’s right, though I don't think that Anya and Micket will care to manage it themselves. Heirs are cheap though. You can scrape together half a dozen of them right off the street. So longs you've got flxible standards” I shook my head, “Is this a common thing in these parts?” “Ey? Oh, iy, common enough. I’ve seen marriages with more partners than that.” He pulled his chair to face me fully. “The Oomack only ever have two partner marriages, did you know that? And it's not about business. They don't even seem to care about their assets at all!” “Well, no, the Oomack marry for love and sex.” “Is that right? That seems messy. Lots of feelings involved if you combine sex and business.” Ilias had certain opinions, shall we say which may have not been representative of the general Nuryeven philosophy. Marriage here is a great amalgamation of every kind legal partnership. They get married when they are going into business together. They get married when they want to own property jointly. They get married when they're in love. Some of these arrangements do involve a physical element or the biological production of heirs, as they do elsewhere. Some, as Ilia mentioned before, simply involve formally adopting half a dozen heirs off the street. Some are a mere legal formality. Like many things in Nuryevet , you can do as you please so long as you’ve got your paperwork in order. I didn’t quite understand all this at the time. It took me a while to glean the intricacies of it, or rather, the lack of intricacies. At the time, I only asked Ilia if he had a separate lover. “Not right now. I hire a private contractor for that.” “A prostitute you mean??” “No, a contractor. Prostitutes are, well you’re foreign, you wouldn't know. We don't have those here. Prostitutes just stand on the street and don't have a license or pay taxes, right? They juits have sex with whoever in an ally.” “Oh… some of them, in some places. In other places.” I waved vaguely, “ higher status.” “Meaning what?” “Meaning they’re more expensive. Meaning they do other things besides the act. In some places they're priests and priestesses. In some places they're popular society figures with property and businesses, patrons of the arts and so forth.” “Here you hire one of them like you’d hire a doctor or a tailor or someone to build a house for you, and you wouldn’t graba just anybody off the street for that would you. They show you their l;icence and you sign a contract together and so on. It's a good system.” “What about those who don't have a licence?” “Arrested! Just like a doctor practicing without a license would be.

Learning to accept and move through healthy conflict is an essential component of keeping passion alive long-term in partnerships.

Learning to accept and move through healthy conflict is an essential component of keeping passion alive long-term in partnerships. Couples who honor individuality and autonomy often experience more fulfilling intimate connections because they more easily save space for fascination, independent growth, and robust personal adventures.

Look for a partner you’ll try to impress daily, and one who will try to impress you.” Over the last couple decades, I’ve noticed that the best, most enduring partnerships in business (and in life) are among people who are constantly growing together. If the person you choose to depend on is constantly striving to learn and improve, you too will push yourself to new levels of achievement, and neither of you will feel like you have settled for someone you eventually outgrow.

Over the last couple decades, I’ve noticed that the best, most enduring partnerships in business (and in life) are among people who are constantly growing together. If the person you choose to depend on is constantly striving to learn and improve, you too will push yourself to new levels of achievement, and neither of you will feel like you have settled for someone you eventually outgrow.

What I've learnt, having lived with, and lost, Jonathan, is that any relationship worth hanging on to is a partnership. It's two individuals with separate identities, likes, dislikes, views, emotions, opinions, who forge a bond that ties them together, for better and for worse. It's a couple. Two people. Not one. You don't meld into each other, like the books and films would have us believe. That's romantic crap. Love is a choice, an active decision you have to make every single day - every moment of every day. When someone falls ill and their illness becomes terminal, that choice becomes a promise.

The principle purpose of marriage is perverted as soon as one assigns ‘love’ as its ultimate end. Reasoning in an Aristotelian manner, one could say that love and sex are a component of marriage but not at all its necessary telos. Sex and love are means that have been inappropriately transformed into ends. The principle telos of marriage is the construction of a lineage by means of procreation, and not simply the union of two beings who ‘love and desire each other’, even if romantic desire may have its place. A lasting couple that forms a family, the building block of a nation, is not based on ‘love’ in the adolescent sense, nor on a passing sex fantasy, but on a partnership which evolves with time, based on ethnic, cultural and social commonality; on shared values and a family strategy.

Although he was in key positions of responsibility at the time, Phillips claims he wasn’t in the loop on a couple of the Agency’s most infamous operations. This former Chief of Cuban Operations says, for instance, that he was never told about the CIA’s relationship with the Mafia or their partnership in Castro assassination attempts.

The ordinary challenging relationship remains a strangely and unhelpfully neglected topic. It's the extremes that repeatedly grab the spotlight - the entirely blissful partnerships or the murderous catastrophes - and so it is hard to know what we should make of, and how lonely we should feel about, such things as immature rages, late-night threats of divorce, sullen silences, slammed doors and everyday acts of thoughtlessness and cruelty. Ideally, art would give us the answers that other people don't. This might even be one of the main points of literature: to tell us what society at large is too prudish to explore. The important books should be those that leave us wondering, with relief and gratitude, how the author could possibly have known so much about our lives. But too often a realistic sense of what an endurable relationship is ends up weakened by silence, societal or artistic. We hence imagine that things are far worse for us than they are for other couples. Not only are we unhappy; we misunderstand how freakish and rare our particular form of unhappiness might be. We end up believing that our struggles are indications of having made some unusual and fundamental error, rather than evidence that our marriages are essentially going entirely according to plan.

If the people who institute civil partnerships for gay couples think they sound 'just as good as marriage' - why don't they get 'civl partnershipped' then? I suppose because 'marriage' has a nicer ring to it - and that is reserved for straight people.

It used to be that women could not make a living without a man. Now that’s changed and men have to be attractive to get a woman. For many younger Japanese, the shift in power relations meant better, more equal relationships. Many married couples over fifty had a less-than-ideal setup. ‘They husband played at making money, the wife at being a mother. It’s very different from forming a real partnership.

Who knew what happened in a marriage, what bargains and compromises people struck?

When we look at love relationships in more detail, it is clear that the simple word love cannot adequately describe the wide variety of feelings two individuals can have for each other. In the first two stages of a love relationship, romantic love and the power struggle, love is reactive; it is an unconscious response to the expectation of need fulfillment. Love is best described as eros, life energy seeking union with a gratifying object. When both partners in an intimate relationship make a decision to create a more satisfying relationship, they enter a stage of transfor- mation, and love becomes infused with consciousness and will; love is best de- fined as agape, the life energy directed toward the partner in an intentional act of healing. Now, in the final stage of a conscious partnership, reality love, love takes on the quality of spontaneous oscillation, words that come from quantum physics and describe the way energy moves back and forth between particles. When part- ners learn to see each other without distortion, to value each other as highly as they value themselves, to give without expecting anything in return, to commit themselves fully to each other’s welfare, love moves freely between them without apparent effort. The word that best describes this mature kind of love is not eros, not agape, but yet another Greek word, philia,² which means “love between friends.” The partner is no longer perceived as a surrogate parent or as an enemy but as a passionate friend. It is where we experience the original connecting, when the initial rupture is repaired, and we feel fully safe, relaxed, loved, joyful, and pro- foundly connected. When couples are able to love in this selfless manner, they experience a release of energy. They cease to be consumed by the details of their relationship or to need to operate within the artificial structure of exercises; they spontaneously treat each other with love and respect. What feels unnatural to them is not their new way of relating but the self-centered, wounding interactions of the past. Love becomes automatic, much as it was in the earliest stage of the relationship, but now it is based on the truth of the partner, not on illusion. One characteristic of couples who have reached this advanced stage of con- sciousness is that they begin to turn their energy away from each other toward the woundedness of the world. They develop a greater concern for the environment, for people in need, for important causes. The capacity to love and heal that they have created within the relationship is now available for others.

remember that loving the King is only one side of the coin. Turn it over and you will see that loving the King brings love for people. The two aren’t to be separated. So if you are not loving your partner, you are not loving the King. If your partner says she needs to stop and take care of a problem, stop. Don’t tell her it’s not a problem just because you don’t think it is. Together you make one whole traveling body and if part of the whole is hurting, the entire partnership is hurting.

Many couples, even those who fall into anxious and avoidant roles, share a profound love and can successfully address and rectify challenging patterns. The attraction in such partnerships is not merely a product of turmoil caused by attachment distress; it is a disservice to suggest so. These relationships often harbor a meaningful, deep connection that should not be underestimated.