Question: What is the significance of compromising in a marriage? Does it only apply to “non-moral issues”? What is the use of compromising if 5, 10, 15 yrs later that “compromise” doesn’t work?
Dilemma: We have been married for 7 yrs and thankfully haven’t disagreed on many things except the following, another tattoo. Long story short, 5 yrs ago my husband wanted TWO tattoos. I was strongly opposed mainly b/c I consider tattoos “tacky looking”. He explained how important these tattoos were b/c they represented a part of him i.e. family and country. I have to admit the tattoo sketches were tasteful and thought out. After many long and heated arguments we compromised these TWO tattoos would be the only ones. He had them placed on the chest and the shoulder. I still think they are “tacky” but have learned to accept them.
The present situation is he wants another tattoo on his leg. My problem is that I feel strongly against anymore tattoos b/c after looking at tattoos on the leg, back etc. I see them as repulsive. Moreover, just “one more” will lead to many more. He tells me that my argument of “repulsive” is not a moral argument and he has the right to do whatever he wants to HIS body. I can have a strong opinion but in the end he says I don’t have the right to put my foot down on something that doesn’t belong to me, i.e. his body. Also, he says our compromise of just two tattoos five years ago is not an absolute b/c it is not a moral issue.
Is there ever a time where the other spouse has the “right” to limit something? Is it just a matter of opinion?
What am I missing?
Any and every response is appreciated.