[9rx]

Consider me equally confused. What should be is what is. If it shouldn't be that way, it wouldn't be that way. What, exactly, is your question trying to ask?

Are you trying to ask me to invent hypotheticals of how things could be if there was some kind of parallel universe where Americans hold different relationship values? I can try to fumble around on that idea, even if it is a little silly.

A previous comment indicates that some people value autonomy in choosing where (as in physical location) to participate in a relationship, even if contrary to the desires of another party in the relationship, without reprisal. Perhaps we can work off that?

What does that mean in practice? Hard to say. I've never been to that parallel universe to truly understand it. But, perhaps, that means something like penalties for a party who chooses to leave a relationship if they are unhappy with how frequently another party is physically present in the relationship?

I'll admit I am too engrossed in the "American way" to go any deeper with that. It seems normal and expected to me that if any party wants to leave a relationship, it is their life to live and other parties should be accepting of their choice. Anything else is foreign to me. I can't offer much here as a result, but maybe someone from a different culture that sees relationships in a different light can chime in?

[senordevnyc]

Well, I assumed that your critique of “American values” meant that you had some other model of values in mind that would be superior. I guess not?

[9rx]

You must have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button originally?

The only thing that might even begin to resemble a critique that I posted was pointing out that the idea that American relationship norms in the workplace are driven by some kind of quest for economic productivity doesn't work because the same relationship culture is found across all types of relationships in America, even those without economic concern. It is not exclusive to one type of relationship as the original commenter was under the impression of.

But that's akin to noting that 1+1 equals 2 in follow up to someone stating that 1+1 must equal 666. Call that a critique if you want, but I don't see how that could possibly leap into having "some other model" in mind? Consider me even more confused than before.