I can't be alone in this.

There seems to be a few different things being discussed at once here. Regarding the idea that you* can't stand anyone who's not a dick, bewilderment. Criticism of people who are passive aggressive, that I get. And to the disbelieve of some, yes, those sort of people very much do exist. They have a mindset that problems should be obvious from their reactions and it means a lot to that sort of person that the other party can recognize it and correct things without communication, or from their point of few, intervention. It's not always about fear of confrontation. It won't seem genuine of their mate/friend/family member if they are told that something is wrong, there seems to be no motivation of actual care when others are following instructions given. This is of course a warped viewpoint and everyone I've ever known like this are damned stubborn to break the habit.

But if you're going to go ahead and link together everyone mild mannered, laid back, anyone who holds back from being an asshole, lumping them all together with the extremely passive, you've lost me. Having no preference on where to go for lunch does not make you the scum of the earth, sorry. Nor does steering clear of contradicting your hothead boss.

"Passive," the definition I usually assign to the word is a far cry from the spineless sit in the dark and cry alone many here have very freely associated it to. I think of a passive person as calm and rational. It is not to say that a passive person does not make up their mind, it's that they try to keep from knee jerk reactions and actually give a little thought to even the smallest clear cut things before they do. And when they have, they have the courtesy not to impose their will upon anyone who disagrees. I do agree, though, that it's when a person lets their strongest convictions slide, that's a quality far from admirable.

I'm suggesting that there's a happy medium in this. I'd much rather have my circle include passive people than oppressive sorts. Scratch that, the people I know ARE like that. You think nothing is said and eggshells are walked on constantly? Far from it. Everyone I know is open and honest. We can debate our differences without hating each other. That's what it means to be passive to me. Tolerant. Withholding hasty judgement. Being willing to see yourself in the situation of others. It baffles me as to how these are character flaws.

*the crowd in general

Edit: Additional thought. Again, at the far end of the curve I would agree that this is bad, but I don't believe compromise to the point of sacrifice in moderation is so horrible. As long as there's acceptance in place of silent resentment, doing things you'd really rather not for the sake of others is a part life, of civility. This is all based on personal thresholds, of course, and is not to suggest that major lines would ever be crossed for the sake of benefiting others.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Actually, if I'm addressing the main question here, an assertive person is much more desirable in a relationship setting. To be straightforward with you significant other is vital to relationship health, the trick is to never make things petty. The ideal person would maintain a balance, being as forward as a serious situation might demand and restrained over minor annoyances. I guess I view most day to day occurrences just don't hold that sort of weight on average, so I'll come out arguing that in an average setting it's better to be passive, or at least it is not a damnable quality. And, yes, from where I sit, I envision more problems within group full of leaders than a group full of followers but I wasn't attempting to claim all out chaos for that crowd.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

If the passive person doesn't say anything when there's a problem, then there's no problem from their end, which means they're okay with it, which means if you're not okay with it then there must be something wrong with you. That's not fair.

But what if there's genuinely no problem from that end? Is it so hard to believe that being alright with things isn't an act? They should be sympathetic to what troubles you, sure, but if you find this happening constantly, dunno, maybe you aren't just imagining you're too touchy. Should they force themselves to care? Must be taxing on that person having treat everything like it's something substantial. I've witnessed and had those sorts of conversations before.

"I am ALWAYS taking care of such and such and you just assume that I'll take care of it, and I'm tired of it."

I am thinking, yes, pretty much, you have a point. You sound a little bit past the point of annoyance, though, yet this is the first I'm hearing about it. So she has a point and this shit really isn't worth an argument. I'll be apologetic. I will agree, say I didn't realize such and such particular thing got to her, and tell her I will try to improve.

"No, but you don't get it, you haven't been doing whatever whatever and it's always left up to me."

She doesn't really care to resolve anything at this point. She's just pissed and wants me to know it, wants to win an argument I'm not going to participate in. I'll repeat myself, she'll repeat herself. She wants me to get mad because how in the world get anything really get done without outbursts? And I do get a little pissed. I don't ask her to do this. She doesn't ask me to do this. And if she did, I would, but she doesn't, so I don't which makes it my fault for not doing what she was thinking. My god this argument is retarded.

"You never X either."

Jesus Christ, what? X will be some tiny act of neglect I did once three weeks ago.

The decisions you keep on making that the passive never does are things you should be doing for yourself and not lumping together you both as an item. Passive people realize this and that's why they don't understand how upset someone can be over natural apathy of their personal values over inconsequential things. Personal. You know, the ones that belong to them. There should be give and take, you should both compromise as long as the issue is put out in the open, but by and large, don't try force others to care as long as they aren't the problem.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Just wait till I get going. Now where was I? Ah, yes, Australia. I have a lot to say on the subject because I have both a lot of experience with it and feel the call to counterpoint those who want to dismiss this faster than they shut the door on a Jehovah's Witness. Good on you for one lining my defense of the unpopular opinion in here only to state how you dislike people who don't do just that. Zinger to contradiction in 100 words or less. I should strive for your conciseness.

I wouldn't call the mental laziness to avoid from mulling over any subject being passive. I'd call it being vacant. Or just not being compatible enough with you to be comfortable having even a semi-serious conversation. I'm pretty sure she had talks at length with the guy she was cheating on you with, after she caught her breath from the explosive, multiple orgasms.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Were you the one who was saying that passive people tend to be more perspective, and also prefer that their significant others divine what was bothering them and fix it on their own, without being told?

No no no. I said that passive people tend to not react immediately. This does not make them more perceptive. They can still come to flawed conclusions. And I stated that the passive aggressive is the sort that wants their girl/boy friend to read minds. Similar wording but very different classifications.

Quote:

The quality of letting someone deal with their shit on their own is not in the slightest an aspect of passivity.

No smugness intended, but could you expound on this? Because it sounds as if our definitions are very far apart.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Eh, okay. I'm going to avoid going in depth about semantics. I agree with most of what people in this thread have outlined as bad qualities, particularly in a mate. I'm just not comfortable assigning the all encompassing title of "passive" to every single one of these traits. Especially when my friends describe me as, and I quote, "THE most passive person EVER." In association with this thread, ouch.

But I'm not at all like what's being described here, other than the fact that I'm not often a leader. I do stand up for myself. I'm not afraid to state my opinions. If I want to go to Taco Bell for lunch, I will be eating a goddamned burrito. I don't engage in faggotry over flaws to celebrate them. I don't hold secret grudges.

I still consider myself and I'm thought of by others as passive. Without all that ugliness attached to it, am I still doomed to be resented by the better half of mankind?

How ya doing, buddy?