A group of Tokyo economists have discovered that married couples take it in turns to win an argument, while the unmarried just trample all over each other. Couples were asked if they would rather go to the theatre or for a meal; and if they would prefer go-karting to dancing. Where the pair differed, boffins monitored the pattern of compromise. I use the word "boffin" sarcastically, since any couple agreeing to go-kart would clearly be 12. Anyway, there it is: marriage either confers or proves a more mature, even-handed attitude.
But I have a problem with the methodology, which I'm going to illustrate with this argument from within the atavistic, Lord of the Flies-fest that is my unmarried relationship. My beloved and I were arguing over who was the aggressor and who the victim, between our two offspring (this is the starter- argument). He decided that, to save time, he was going to adopt the unspoken practice of rugby, where transgression is so complicated that the referee just gives out penalties in turns. I countered that, since they were two small children and not 22 huge men, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of a moderately competent adult to see which one had started it (this is the correct argument). He said it was actually 26 huge men (this is the diversion argument) and, if I spent less time watching the children and more time watching telly, I would improve my sporting knowledge across the board (this is an attempt to argue away the opening parameters of the argument). He went on to argue that, while there were more men in rugby than we had children, they had only one ball, where we had about 7m toys (this is totally irrelevant).
From this we can abstract the following: real arguments in couples are seldom between two competing and equivalent positions; one is usually right, where the other is wrong. So, to adopt a convention of turn-taking would be random and against reason, whether you were married or not. I don't know about you, but I simply can't limit myself to being right only one time in two.
