>between that and the sweatpants argument is that wearing
>sweatpants is
>frequently, if not almost daily, done for one's own comfort.

homegirl's mistake was taking an example from her life and applying it generally. the bigger point is a good one though - it's important not to take your spouse for granted by failing to do the things your spouse likes.

>Dressing up to please your mate is a special thing to do for
>him/her when you feel like it.

yes. i agree.

>One sounds like sacrificing your daily chill routine because
>your mate wants you to.

and that's too much. i don't agree there and i doubt that was what Eva meant.

she knows what her man likes and she is willing to please him by doing what he likes. in her world that means she never wears sweatpants. that's fine w/me. i don't agree that all wives shouldn't wear sweatpants b/c there are plenty wives married to spouses who dig seeing their wife in sweats - as evidenced by the replies in here.

but her larger point is cool w/me - don't take your spouse for granted. don't forget to do the things that please your spouse and keep them interested. those things will likely change as time passes. but doing that stuff seems important. i know i would be hurt if my spouse stopped trying to please me.


>The other sounds like doing special things for your mate
>because you want to.

yes.

>If her point was that you shouldn't neglect doing things to
>seduce your mate,
>she's right.

that's what i think she's saying.

If your mate's making you happy, make them happy
>too.

right on.

>But she did a terrible job of phrasing that point if that's
>what she meant.

yup.