[Life] Obedient to All, Crisis Signal

Author: JEFFI CHAO HUI WU

Time: 2025-8-09 Saturday, 5:28 PM

········································

[Life] Obedient to All, Crisis Signal

"Obedience" is, for me, a derogatory term. It is not the good temper or pleasant personality that people assume on the surface, but rather a one-sided imbalance in the relationship: one party accommodates everything while the other party resists everything. Once this pattern continues, what accumulates is not affection, but an invisible crisis. The traditional understanding of obedience among the general public is often packaged as high emotional intelligence, good temper, understanding, and willingness to give. In many cultures, it is even instilled as a virtue, especially for women, subordinates, and younger generations, who are more likely to be expected to be obedient. This expectation seems gentle, but in reality, it is a form of covert PUA (Pick-Up Artist), constantly depleting the emotional resources, psychological energy, and self-worth of those who comply.

On the surface, being overly accommodating can bring short-term harmony, as conflicts are avoided and contradictions are concealed. The demanding party feels comfortable and convenient, and may even take this one-sided tolerance for granted. However, the cost of such a relationship is enormous and irreversible. The theory of "emotional debt" in psychology suggests that when one party consistently suppresses their own needs to meet all the demands of the other, it is like continually overdrawing a credit card; eventually, the repayment period will arrive, and that day will be the moment of crisis. The other side of being overly accommodating is the habitual encroachment of the demanding party, shifting from initial gratitude to later acceptance, and finally to a sense of entitlement. The balance of the relationship gradually tilts to an irretrievable point without anyone realizing it.

In real life, this pattern is widely present in intimate relationships, workplace collaborations, and family interactions. An employee who is completely compliant with their boss, afraid to refuse overtime or question unreasonable task assignments, will, over time, lead the boss to form a psychological expectation that they will always cooperate. Once the employee expresses dissent, they may be labeled as "not dedicated enough." A partner who is entirely accommodating in a relationship, tolerating the other person's emotions, lifestyle habits, and even unreasonable demands, will eventually lead the other person to believe that this is "normal." Once the accommodating partner stops yielding, they may be accused of having changed their heart or bringing up past grievances. A child who is entirely compliant in their family of origin, catering to their parents' expectations and suppressing their own interests and choices, may ultimately experience a backlash of intense conflict in adulthood.

This kind of long-term compliance and tolerance is essentially a "chronic suicide" in the relationship, consuming not only emotional reserves but also accelerating the loss of trust and respect. The underlying mechanism is that the psychological adaptation effect of the demanding party continuously raises the threshold of demands, while the psychological energy of the compliant party approaches exhaustion through continuous consumption. When the point of exhaustion is reached, the crisis will erupt in an extreme form, and this eruption is often irreversible. The breakdown of many relationships is not due to the severity of the last conflict, but rather because countless previous acts of compliance have depleted the bottom line of tolerance.

The psychological theory of "reciprocal imbalance" and the social exchange model both reveal the dangers of this pattern. Healthy relationships are built on a foundation of dynamic balance, where both parties need to set boundaries, rather than one side making endless concessions. One can use the "mirror test"—before making any decision, ask yourself if you would accept it if the other party treated you in the same way. If the answer is no, then this interaction needs to be adjusted. Those who are overly accommodating often overlook the necessity of boundary setting, mistakenly believing that yielding can lead to understanding and appreciation. However, the reality is that yielding without boundaries only leads to deeper dependence and exploitation.

On a cultural level, this crisis does not exist in isolation. The phenomenon of "karoshi" (death from overwork) in Japanese society shares a highly similar logical foundation with the "endurance is a virtue" tradition in Chinese culture—glamorizing exploitation in the name of virtue, and packaging consumption with notions of being "understanding," "cooperative," and "uncontentious." Over time, individual health, dignity, and happiness are sacrificed on the altar of maintaining superficial harmony. When this pattern becomes part of the social culture, individuals wishing to break free will face additional moral pressure and public criticism.

Obedience and compliance are not love, but a counterfeit of love; they create an illusion that seems warm but is actually fragile. When this illusion shatters, both parties may get hurt, especially the one who has been giving consistently. Recognizing the warning signs behind obedience and compliance, and setting clear boundaries early in the relationship, is the only way to avoid this "chronic suicide" type of relationship. True tolerance and understanding must be built on mutual respect and fair exchange, rather than unilateral sacrifice and indulgence.

If a person is accustomed to your compliance but has never tried to understand your difficulties, then you must realize that this is not a reflection of your good temper, but rather that the other party has become used to holding all the initiative. When you no longer comply, their discomfort is not because you have become a bad person, but because they have lost their privilege. This is precisely the moment when the crisis signal appears, and it is a key moment for you to reassess whether this relationship is worth continuing. Compliance may delay the superficial outbreak of conflicts, but it has never been a way to solve problems; it merely places the crisis timer quietly at the bottom of the relationship, waiting for a day to automatically detonate.

Source: https://www.australianwinner.com/AuWinner/viewtopic.php?t=697156