smug couples - classic or dud

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

forget hoodies, i think these are one of the worst social groups in society.

its like they have lost their individual minds, but have gelled their two brains into one seamless hive mind. they agree with pretty much everything the other says, big each other up all the time, make little jokes only each other understand IN COMPANY, talk to each other in quiet voices about stuff only they know about IN COMPANY. and then they pretty much dismiss everyone who either isnt as smug as they are, or doesnt fit perfectly into their worldview of how people should be as being either inferior or just take the piss out of them a bit. and if, lets say, you dont happen to get along with one of the persons in the couple as well as the other person, dont count on that person to ever back you up. once you do one of them even slightly wrong, you can count on both of them being against you forevvvvverrrrr. and then theres the whole nauseous fulsome public displays of affection that i think they dont do so much for themselves but just to show other people they are a couple. its like a little show.

argh.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:20 (nineteen years ago)

Ooh, and I just get called a bitter old bat when I start talking like this.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:22 (nineteen years ago)

Titchy = bitter old bat.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

What an insult to hoodies to mention them in the same breath

― Tom D., Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

The problem is, that only a small subset of couples actually act like this.

But if you start criticising this behaviour, EVERY SINGLE COUPLE YOU KNOW will think you're talking about them and complain, while the actual smug couples will just sail on in their annoying smugness, totally oblivious to their irritatingness.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:26 (nineteen years ago)

Ah, but this is a different question (not saying that's right Kate) (you know what I mean)

See, couples that are not the 'same' 'brain' can hate on these without alacrity! or is that with? I dunno....

Classic, when the wiveys all get along well, but because all the hubbies like to talk about Cars, Football and Jazz (I'm not making this up to get obvious sympathy here), the 'dinner invites' are zero! (Cars? get you from A to B, and as long as there's a hifi in it, and the doors shut, and it doesn't breakdown, I'm happy! Football? I went to a match once! We won!. Jazz? You a tosser or wot?)

ah that's a different question, right?

― Mark G, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

I kind of know what you mean, but I think this kind of couple is very, very rare. I don't really know any, at least not these days. I have probably encountered one or two over the years.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

I say classic, and so does my wife :)

― onimo, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

luckily, all the couples in my social group don't act like this at all. they haven't stopped seeing their other friends, they haven't stopped going out, they don't behave in any of the ways described...

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

well then theyre not smug lex.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

"and then theres the whole nauseous fulsome public displays of affection that i think they dont do so much for themselves but just to show other people they are a couple."

That's right, mate.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:57 (nineteen years ago)

**you dont happen to get along with one of the persons in the couple as well as the other person, dont count on that person to ever back you up. once you do one of them even slightly wrong, you can count on both of them being against you forevvvvverrrrr**

I like to test this out if I think that it's the case.

― Dr.C, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

this seems like more of a college thing, this behaviour. or a post-college thing, for people who live their whole lives as "post-college".

i am incredibly smug in my couple but we don't do any of the things titchy describes in the first graf. we're so smug we don't HAVE to.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

omg couples agree with each other, cunts.

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

well im exaggerating some of it obviously, but some of it is based quite accurately on couples i know.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

if i ever started agreeing all the time with my other half she'd have me in to get my head checked.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

Ha ha, even while bitching about this, from reading old ILX posts, I'm suddenly realising that yeah, I've been incredibly guilty of this in the past.

Mostly it resulted from incredible insecurity, and also with very little experience in being in a long term couple.

My apologies to anyone who was pissed off by it. I learned better.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

"omg couples agree with each other, cunts."

precisely.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:50 (nineteen years ago)

Oh. I just thought he was calling us all cunts.

― peteR, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

"they pretty much dismiss everyone who either isnt as smug as they are, or doesnt fit perfectly into their worldview of how people should be as being either inferior or just take the piss out of them a bit."

You don't actually have to be in a couple to do this, y'know.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

Calling All Cunts, Calling All Cunts...

― Tom D., Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

― nathalie, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

being in a couple is like playing for Man U under Alex Ferguson...you enter into a siege mentality.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

i see a lot of coupled up people are getting defensive.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

Search: Howard and Hilda from "Ever Decreasing Circles". Nathalie, you're lucky; this is certainly enough of a valid social stereotype to get lampooned on a semi-regular basis.

― peteR, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

I have never ever witnessed couples acting like you mention. I think you're exaggerating a bit here. Of course there will be somewhat of a mindmelt, that's what happens when you are together for a long time, but to the point you mention? Hardly.

YEAH but if you say "omg couples aren't like that", the bitter singles will just say "OH STOP BEING SMUG YOU COUPLED UP PERSON STOP TELLING ME ABOUT HOW YOU KNOW WHAT BEING COUPLES IS LIKE"

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:58 (nineteen years ago)

haha damn, i was hoping for better xposts than this

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:59 (nineteen years ago)

Badly observed sitcom characters - classic or dud?

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

The voices in your head - classic or dud?

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not in a couple and I think titchy is being a bit bitter. Couples seem to have less of a problem with single people's lifestyles (unless they're The Lex's iconoclastic friends) than vice versa. Also I don't smoke and don't support the ban, so nerr.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:04 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe on this thread we'll finally prove the "some people are jerks" theorem. This is groundbreaking people.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:06 (nineteen years ago)

titchy's original post looks like a pitch for an article on ILX.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

i was totally guilty of this for a looong time, but it was such a novelty to be that close to somebody that i ignored my better instinct that said "you're being a cunt, charlie, please stop" and basked in the hiveminded sunshine.

Charlie OTM. Especially about the novelty thing.

Also, maybe that tiny voice in the back of your head that says "woo-hoo, now it's MY turn to be a smug bastard!"

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

Believe it or not, there can be a good side to "if you don't like them I don't like them either". There are some people who, for various social obligation reasons, I might have to be nice to. But Mister Monkey doesn't have to be nice to them. He therefore is not, and then they don't want to have us around, because they don't like him. But I get off scot free. A winner is me.

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:08 (nineteen years ago)

New thread about couples that argue all the time in 5...4...3...

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:09 (nineteen years ago)

why is this thread titled "smug couples" though, how do you know they're smug? maybe they really hate agreeing with each other, and totally resent having their own little jokes between them.

or are you saying "smug" because you assume that, to them, it must be a good thing, and they are obviously happy?

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

Smug is "gums" backwards

― Tom D., Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

Smug conjoined twins - classic or dud?

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

omg! smug is an anagram of mugs

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)

well i dont know theyre smug, i just think it. i thought that would be obvious. i doubt anyone wakes up and makes a conscious decision to act smugly. maybe they DO hate the agreeing and resent their own little jokes but er i doubt it. they seem to like staging their own parties no one else is invited to (even if potential party goers are right next to them).

i am assuming that the behaviour i deem smug IS a a good thing to them, yes, and yeah, they do seem quite happy in their little bubble.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:19 (nineteen years ago)

they seem to like staging their own parties no one else is invited to (even if potential party goers are right next to them).

And so we move closer to the bitter personal hurt at the heart of this enquiry.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

"they seem to like staging their own parties no one else is invited to (even if potential party goers are right next to them)."

What's great is you've managed to remove all trace of envy from this sentence.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

I've suddenly realised that a lot of that "smug" behaviour described in the question was down to my being so bloody... *grateful* that anyone could actually find it in their hearts to love me, let alone be in a relationship with me that I was kind of willing to "back their side" (if you hate someone, I must hate them, too) or pay the personality tithe (not to mention overlook fairly obvious assholehood). It was this kind of bubble of "me and you against the world!"

It isn't healthy for a relationship at all - because it's based on illusion, albeit a shared illusion.

It irks in the same way as reformed smokers, I guess.

Apologies for actually being serious. I'm sure this was something that seemed obvious to other people.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:25 (nineteen years ago)

TS: being happy in your little bubble vs being unhappy in your little bubble

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

can i be a smug single? (i'm not saying i am one, i'm just wondering)

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

vs bursting other people's bubbles cos you hate the shiny rainbow sparkles

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:33 (nineteen years ago)

i think you can be a smug single.

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

see buddhists (although if done properly they shouldn't really be "smug" at all)

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:37 (nineteen years ago)

That Snow Patrol song, for example.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

Smug != happy

Smug = Self Satisfied in a way that is demeaning to those who have not achieved the quality which caused their self satisfaction

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:38 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe on this thread we'll finally prove the "some people are jerks" theorem.

singles or couples?

― nathalie, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

As someone who is in a couple, here's my question. What is with all the white space at the end of some of the posts? It's pissing me off.

― accentmonkey, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, in my dictionary

Smug [i[adj[/]: self satisfied

Self-Satisfied adj: conceited

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

hoodies

what the hell is wrong with hoodies? I wear them nearly every day. great pockets.

I think smug is in the eye of the beholder.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

Hoodies is a britisher term for menacing teenager, see threads passim.

― Ed, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

I think when I have been really irked by this in the past it's been because I've known one or both of the couple in question beforehand, and their behaviour changed so much that I felt had lost a friend. Of course being with someone is great, and I really don't think there are many people that genuinely want to end up alone...but, being with someone at the expense of (a) who and what you are and (b) everyone else, is just taking things a little far in my book.

― peteR, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Don't even try, Ed, you'll just re-ignite the great American "Britishes tip like *this*!" wars.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

Constantly speaking for the other person can be incredibly irritating (especially when they are right there!) but I don't think it's a case of being smug, I think it's just being so within the bubble that you don't see what could be odd about it. It can however provoke the reaction of "yes we KNOW you know so much about person xyz already that you can answer any issue concerning them ever, we KNOW" but I ph34r I might be projecting from my own experiences as well :)

― Sarah, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

Hoodies is a britisher term for menacing teenager, see threads passim.

I know this! Don't you ever walk around with a menacing teenager on your back? Those big baggy pants have great huge pockets for stashing stuff and you never have to worry about being harrassed by crazies on the bus.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:48 (nineteen years ago)

we've never done the cooing lovebirds in-our-own-little-world thing, even when we were young and infatuated, but longtime couples can settle into a comfortable groove that you then tend to take for granted and yea it can seem insufferable and smug to people who aren't married or partnered or recently split up.

― m coleman, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:49 (nineteen years ago)

Hoodies aren't.... pants?

― Sarah, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:49 (nineteen years ago)

Of course being with someone is great, and I really don't think there are many people that genuinely want to end up alone...but, being with someone at the expense of (a) who and what you are and (b) everyone else, is just taking things a little far in my book.

And chances are, you actually end up alone anyway if you do this, as no one can really give away that much of themselves on a long term basis.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

maybe some do it on a multiple fixed term basis.

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

i pay for temps.

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

I went for interest only with a repayment vehicle, but my endowment was totally missold. :-(

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

my endowment is often under-appreciated

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

i think everybody eventually will end up, or at least have moved generally towards a state of self-satisfaction, smugness, if you like. it's an equilibrium innit. where this equilibrium is isn't the same for everyone, some like to pair up and form a strong bond with each other and become inert, some may become part of a pool of loosely connected individuals, some may not bond at all and stay inert, and there will be some free radicals. or something

― ken c, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

Don't you ever walk around with a menacing teenager on your back? Those big baggy pants have great huge pockets for stashing stuff and you never have to worry about being harrassed by crazies on the bus.

OMG I TOTALLY WANT ONE NOW

― emsk, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

you have one, not a very menacing one, but still.

― Ed, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

don't know anyone like this

― blueski, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

It's anything like having a monkey on your back?

― Tom D., Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

OG ilxors always have issues with the concept of smugness.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:28 (nineteen years ago)

no i want a MENACING one. m couldn't be menacing if she tried.

― emsk, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:39 (nineteen years ago)

"What's great is you've managed to remove all trace of envy from this sentence."

its not envy. eg - an aunt of mine does this with her husband and has done it from when i was young. i dont harbour any 'feelings' for my aunt, nor do i want to be her most favourite nephew, and its not like i even see her that often as she lives in a diff country so its not like im pissed off my new uncle has 'taken her away' from me. i just dont like being around couples that are always so engrossed in each other that forget theres other people there. i just find it rude and not very hospitable.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 20:23 (nineteen years ago)

kate is hilariously otm in her second post.

in my experience it's a new-couples thing, in that people who've been dating for a couple years and are not quite so tickled to just to be in a couple tend to be a lot less smug in company, even though they do seem much more in sync with each other than newer, gooier couples.

― Maria, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.