I have not responded on your post due to me not representing the popular opinion DBering style... like I said prob not a popular opinion on the BB but I think you have to put your food down since an agreement was made
I agree Tim, this is not the time to eat
Something to chew on: This notion of what is the "popular opinion DBering style" sometimes is a notion borne out of misunderstanding, IMO: when people think to DB is to be a doormat. Maybe it's because some of DBing has us put some of our wants and needs temporarily on the back burner, or maybe it's because trying to keep the door open has us hanging too close to the door, or maybe it's because the DB and DR aren't complete treatises directly addressing every situation we may encounter along our journey, or because "DBing" goes against some of our base instincts and so therefore "feels" wrong and "untrue to ourselves" (but that doesn't mean our instincts are the best thing to act on, and the thought that doing so is akin to being 'untrue to ourselves' is merely the way we paint it - we may be biasing it through pride or resentment or whatever), yet...
"DBing" is all about finding "solutions that work" by utilizing common psychological behaviors. That's like the prime directive.
I don't think you seeking a win-win solution (""I said I would still like to go out tonite, and I know she does to. So can we work sommething out that we both can accomplish what we want tonite") is anything less than "DBing" (though I think saying to her "I also said I need to go out and try take my mind off things, and try to stop thinking about the events of the week" falls some under venting).
So the question becomes, how do you get to that win-win? Every sitch is different and so you have to take your particular sitch in view to figure that out. For example, let's say that one of your behaviors that contributed to the breakdown in the relationship was that you had a habit of going out with the boys a bit way too much. Well, then if you insist now on your night out, it could be looked upon by the WAS as more of the same (that doesn't imply that the answer would be to agree to babysit, though it could be an answer).
In your case, you both had agreed to have alternate nights out. Now it was to be your night, but she had something come up she wanted to partake in, and she checked to see if you had established plans already, and when you indicated you weren't sure, she asked for the night. Well, that's understandable, isn't it? You, seeing her new plans as being with the OM, are understandably not too keen on the idea, and so you don't wish to afford her that opportunity, whereas, as you wrote, normally (I guess that means with OM out of the equation) you would say "yes". You feel between a rock and a hard place of sorts, because on one hand the idea of her taking the night to see the OM ticks you off, and the other, you fear being seen as "more of the same", that is, "controlling" if you don't grant her that opportunity. That's basically the situation, correct?
Some things to consider: She's going to see the OM sometimes anyway, whether it's that night or not, giving her an obstacle on one occasion isn't going to do much except "win" one battle for you (but maybe lose the war). Certainly you don't want to have this opportunity turn into an opportunity for her to see you as being "controlling" instead. It was agreed that it would be your night out. You can't get a babysitter (you were going to take the children to your friend's house to watch the game?) so one of you has to be the responsible parent and figure out how the kids will be minded.
So I'd say, if you wish to go out, then go out, that's what you both agreed to. Whether or not you have firm plans yet, that's not the issue, the agreement before you is that it's your night to do with as you please. The agreement wasn't 'it's your night only IF you figure out how to spend it'.
Either that, or give her the responsibility of coming up with a win-win situation if you're hitting a brick wall doing so, after all, she's the other parent. That's a valid negotiation technique I've espoused before; when Partner A and Partner B are parked across the great divide from each other, determine the desired outcomes of each camp, Partner A offers reasonable solutions but they are not accepted by partner B (that may not be exactly the case here but we can still apply the principle of this technique, I think). So then Partner A asks partner B to step into their shoes and have partner B come up with a win-win. If partner B offers up a win-lose, Partner A calls Partner B on it by asking Partner B to explain how that solution is a "win" for Partner A, effectively having Partner B walk in Partner A's shoes in coming up with an answer that's ultimately suitable to both partners. Whew.
Compromises in relationships are not about "win-lose", because the "losing" party will resent it. Compromises should have "win-win" as their desired outcomes so that both partners are comfortable and happy with the results.
And it's not just about attaining a win-win. It's also how you go about obtaining it, you know. As complex as the above Partner A/Partner B legalese sounds, it's not that difficult to implement calmly, and it sure trumps arguing/controlling/spite and the damage such can create.
