ANATOMY OF A FAILED ROMANCE
Courageous
A true, recent story from my life.
by Courageous, August 30, 1999
It was September of 1998 that I first met Amy. She and I
were both only a few months out of long term relationships --
mine, a relationship of 3 years taking me from 28 to 31,
and hers a relationship of 8 years taking her from 18 to
26. If I'd had any sense at the time, I would have known
to go very slowly then, but she and I were in relationship-
exit status, and my space was different than hers.
Amy was in the painful, still hurting, gotta-go-slow space,
and I was going through the develop-a-crush on the first
available female thing. In fact, by the time Amy and I
started hanging out, I was sure I was through with that
giddy phase of my life, and perhaps I mostly was, except
I was very ill-prepared to encounter Amy.
On October 5, 1998, Amy and I went hiking in the mountains
and, as is the way of people getting to know eachother,
shared the mutual details of our lives. This is a day that
will be forever imprinted on my memory. It was one of those
amazing, perfectly syncronous days, as we discovered that
so very many details of our lives were nearly the same. It
got to be absurd; we both each had only walked out on one
movie in our lives, _Natural Born Killers_. Towards the
end of the day, I recall asking her what her favorite movie
was, and she told me it was the _Princess Bride_. I remember
the expression on her face when I told her that was my
favorite movie, too: she had this stunned, I-can't-believe-
it's-happening-to-me look. As the day closed, Amy was
radiating happiness, and upon parting, with a big smile on
her face, she said "see you later, cutie pie." This would be,
for a long time, the last day I would see Amy.
What follows is a textbook description of how to screw up
a fledgling relationship with an otherwise perfectly
compatible and receptive woman.
While hiking on October 5, Amy had revealed to me a cute
story about a guy who had sent her poetry while she was
in college. I'll spare you the details of what followed
her meeting this man, except to say that his expectations
involved immediate sex and were hilarious. The story had
captured my heart, and I got an impetuous desire to tease
her with it.
A few days later, I sent her a poem through an anonymous
account at AOL. I didn't really know what I was doing and
was unaware at the time that I was beginning to develop
strong feelings for Amy. But I was, and in the way of
such things, I quickly got carried away.
One cute poem would have probably been okay. But instead
of stopping there and simply sharing with her a mutual
friendly joke, I sent her 3 poems in series. A few days
later, when I revealed my identity, instead of receiving
a positive response, when I asked her if she'd like to go
do something, I received the ambiguous, "let's play it
by ear." She was clearly overwhelmed, and in dating language
ambiguity is almost always the end of everything.
There's more to this story, but for the sake of brevity,
I'll leave it out. I became aware during this period in
October that I was fully in love with Amy, after only having
spent a brief 6 or 7 hours with her. For a long while I
would think that it was just a crush, but as time went by
it would become clear to me that it was not. I was truly
in love.
During the month to follow, I wrote an entire book of poems
about Amy (http://home.san.rr.com/courage), each more
progressively intense than the preceeding poem, each
detailing the feelings I was experiencing at the time.
I had never, in my entire life, felt so intensely about
a woman. I cried tears of love and joy while writing many
of those poems, and consider the event to be a defining
emotional moment in my life. It wouldn't be until over 6
months later that I would realize that the very WRITING
of all this poetry would be magnifying my emotions for
Amy and creating a bond far more powerful than a man should
have for a woman without first her loving him. But I am
getting ahead of myself.
For Christmas, 98, I sent all of the poetry to Amy. It
was printed on beautiful floral print paper, and wrapped
in a yellow ribbon. I included with the package a copy
of _The Princess Bride_, and some dried yellow roses (her
favorite). This was not intended to woo Amy. By this time,
3 months later, I simply assumed I would never see Amy
again. I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted her to know
how she affected me.
As it turned out, Amy invited me to her birthday party in
January. This was a very bad scene for me, and I had no
idea what her motivations were. In retrospect, this
particular action of hers was very naive on her behalf,
considering the intensity of some of the poetry in
_Magic Words_. I'll leave out the details of what happened
again, but suffice it to say I wouldn't see Amy again for
a long while.
Seguay to June, 1999. I had just exited a very short, 5
week relationship, and in fact, I hadn't really thought of
Amy for a while. When thinking of her, I didn't have any
of that overwhelming, feel-like-I'm-going-to-do-or-say-
something-irrational feeling that I had before, and, on
a lark, I contacted her.
She and I agreed to go to lunch. I was nervous, and, I
suspect, so was she. But lunch went well, and we caught
up on old times. We began hanging out as friends, and
the poetry was never discussed.
After several amicable meetings as friends, I asked her
out on a date, and she agreed. We went out on June 26,
1999. The evening was a chaotic one, but was capped off
auspiciously by her ordering me to take her back to my
place. She was a little bit drunk, but plainly in control
of her faculties, and was very aggressive. Early, on the
morning of June 27, we made love.
I sent her a dozen yellow roses the next day, with a
card.
Later in the week, I was sick with a cold. Amy came by
and brought me a care package containing caugh drops,
an orange, some Campbell's soup, and my favorite kind
of clear soda. It was a very thoughtful gesture, and I
thought all was going well.
Later the following week, she came by my place and hung
out. But something was wrong. She was skittish, and when
I went to kiss her, she did not long desire to be in my
passionate embrace. In retrospect, I suspect that my
earlier gift to her of Magic Words was creating incredible
pressure and making her very nervous... something which
the alcohol overcame on our first wonderful evening
together (she would later also confess that she still
had latent feelings for her prior lover of 8 years).
A few evenings later, just prior to her departing on
a 3 week trip to England, we went out for dinner, and
I took her to a nearby romantic destination on the beach.
We kissed passionately, but then she broke the kiss and
painfully said, "I don't want to hurt you," and "I don't
know what I want". In retrospect, these are signs of a
girl who's thinking far too much about the man's
expectations and not enough about her own fulfillment,
but at the time, all I could feel was vastly hurt. I
was already back in love with Amy, and even this small
setback (best handled by patience and reassurance) stung
like hell. I became very upset, and drove her straight
home.
Upon getting her to her apartment, she said, "call me
when you're not mad." I suppose I should have agreed,
cooled off, and spoke with her the next evening, but
instead I made yet another mistake. I looked at her and
said, "it's not that I am mad," she saw my face, and I
cried in her arms.
She went off to England, and when she returned, did not
return my calls for a week. I finally contacted her in
email, asking her to visit me and hang out and have a
glass of wine in the jacuzzi. She agreed, and we did.
I asked her about why should didn't return my phone calls,
and she said, "I was afraid of what you would hit me with."
Clearly, this girl was petrified of having me be in love
with her. This is, in retrospect, not all that surprising.
We as human beings very often take far too much responsibility
on our shoulders. Amy, from not really knowing me that well,
could not possibly yet know whether or not she could fall in
love with me, but was afraid to find out for fear of hurting
me. Little did she know that her being afraid to find out
was hurting me far worse.
I kept my cool. I told her that ordinarily I wouldn't date
girls who wouldn't return my phone calls; ordinarily I wouldn't
date girls who had problems kissing me. I asked her about that,
and this is where she admitted she still wasn't over her last
relationship (if I had any sense at that point, I would have
set us back to being friends, but of course, I was emotionally
unable to do that).
Amy on several occasions that evening insisted that she wanted
to keep dating me; I even had made a game out of it, seeing
how many times she would suggest it. At least 4 times. Fair
enough. "She wants this enough," it seemed to me, although of
course any objective reader can see that it was already a
mistake.
The following Sunday we went rollerblading, but things did not
go well. The day was an awkward one for me, as I already knew
things were wildly amiss. At any rate, Amy fell down while
blading, cursed at me, told me to take her home, and referred
to our relationship in the past tense. I was stunned. She
accused me of being insensitive, and offered two token
points which were so small as to seem petty (in retrospect,
these were diversions for other issues which I suppose I
was supposed to guess at, but I shall never know).
I suppose if I had been of a rational mind, I would have taken
her home, and then ignored her for a few days while she cooled
off. Instead, I sent her a supplicant email the
very next day. This made her dig her heels in further. I spoke
with her on the phone that evening, and she indicated to me
that for her, it was over. Somewhere in there, I admitted that
I was in love with her again. Such a mess.
But the mess gets worse. For two days or so I was numb; it
hadn't hit me. And then darkness descended. For five nights
straight I cried hysterically in bed. During the day, I would
go outside in the sun to get my mind off of things, and I would
cry thinking about her. The wracking sobs from the night before
left me trembling. In the two weeks that followed after the
crying spells ended, I was critically depressed. My arms were
tingling. I couldn't stay in dark rooms, nor watch movies, nor
read books. I lost 10 pounds. I had zero appetite. I couldn't
sleep, because my mind would be racing with wild thoughts. I
missed 3 weeks worth of work.
After day 3 or so of this, I compounded the last of my errors
and put the final nails in my own coffin. Being completely
unable to control myself with email, I sent her a message
telling her how bad she hurt me. And another one detailing
how thoroughly I loved her (actually, this last shouldn't
be a surprise, given the content of the book she had already
received).
Readers, you must understand, while I captured the essence of
Amy quite clearly and loved her with an intensity that few
men ever capture, I did not in fact know her for all that long
in objective time. In processing this as it is now over, I've
been puzzling myself over where all the giddy feeling as well
as where all the darkness came from.
In a sudden inspiration, I realized: It was the poetry itself.
The very act of writing _Magic Words_ was a rehearsal. In poem
after poem after poem, I rehearsed in my head the love of a
woman I only barely knew. I knew her essence, I knew her soul,
I had a list of 100 things I loved about her. But in the writing
of this poetic work, I magnified, distilled, enhanced beyond
all reason to a level of love that no man should ever allow
himself to have of a woman who does not love him back.
To allow myself to love a woman like that, and then to have her
for but a brief time, led to the singularly most negative
emotional experience of my entire life.
So, readers, when you hear me talking about poetry and romance,
and doing things naturally and not trying to speed them up or
get out of control, YOU NOW KNOW EXACTLY WHY.
To you detractors who say I don't know how to be romantic, you
are as mistaken as it is possible to be. The question is not
"how to be romantic," my friends. The question is WHEN.
All of the irrational errors I made during the course of this
entire failed romance occured because of the giant disparity
of our feelings. Had it been natural, slow, and mutual, I
might have had the romance of a lifetime. But now and forever,
there will never be a Joe & Amy.
I will never forget Amy. In fact, I will very probably take
memories of her to my grave. Likewise, I will never, ever
forget the lesson: there is an appropriate time for gifts
from the heart; choose it with great care.
Courageous
August 30, 1999
Courageous
> efforts and were in love with an imaginary, not real, person
This is both true and false. In some sense, I've been in love with
the idea of someone **LIKE** Amy my entire adult life. Having
encountered that someone, it was inevitable that I fall in love.
I could, if pressed, come up with 50 or more things that I loved
about Amy. While I didn't know her for that long, if there was any
kind of person in the entire world under any circumstance that could
make me fall truly in love in such short order, it was she.
> 2) She may not have been ready, or serious, or had someone else involved,
> or was a person entirely diferent from what you imagined her to be. Maybe
> you were sending her these poems, and she was busy in the sack with
> someone else.
She was who I imagined her to be, but the readiness is probably smack
on. She was both unready, and unable to deal with the pressures of
such intense love. There were other issues of hers that I specifically
left out here, out of privacy's sake alone. Amy had issues -- she was
carrying great emotional hurt and vulnerability -- that specifically
affected the dynamic of our relationship and made my intense emotional
needs incompatible with hers.
> In other words, had she been the person that was in your imagination,
> things would have worked out and you did everything alright. The problem
> is that she was not. So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in
> what you perceived.
I don't believe this is correct. I believe in retrospect that the
seriousness of my move was practically predestined to hurt me, even
had she been both ready and the person I imagined. Reread the section
that I repeated twice about how writing _Magic Words_ rehearsed my
love of her and bonded me to her intensely. This was a terrible error.
No man should do anything like that without first having some reason
to believe that the woman is also emotionally invested in him.
> There is some value in being sligtly weird and creative and imaginative,
> so I am not telling you to become more like everyone, not at all. Just
> make sure that you do not become bitter about these experiences. There
> is nothing wrong with the world at large, or you, but there is some
> incompatibility.
I'm not bitter, although the pain was exquisite. My only lasting
lesson is to ease into a woman's space naturally, by being yourself.
During the unfolding of time, true romance can begin.
C/
nutm...@my-deja.com
give yourself a different way of thinking. I know some are very
personal and I'm not expecting answers alright?
In article <37CAD470...@san.rr.com>,
Courageous <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> ANATOMY OF A FAILED ROMANCE
> A true, recent story from my life.
>
> by Courageous, August 30, 1999
> In fact, by the time Amy and I started hanging out, I was sure I was
>through with that giddy phase of my life, and perhaps I mostly was,
>except I was very ill-prepared to encounter Amy.
Well, I don't know if you were ill prepared, but you know.....some
people are never out of the "giddy" phase of their life, especially
where love is involved.
>It was one of those amazing, perfectly syncronous days, as we
>discovered that so very many details of our lives were nearly the same.
That is exactly what it was...synchronicity and that is what happens
when you just "click" with someone. Now, you'll probably call me all
weird but it has to do with a psychic connection also, not just plain
coincidence, if you don't believe me look it up.
> A few days later, I sent her a poem through an anonymous
> account at AOL. I didn't really know what I was doing and
> was unaware at the time that I was beginning to develop
> strong feelings for Amy. But I was, and in the way of
> such things, I quickly got carried away.
That just doesn't sound like you C, not at all. But, I know how these
things can urge people to do things they wouldn't normally do.
> She was clearly overwhelmed, and in dating language
> ambiguity is almost always the end of everything.
Do you know that for an absolute fact???
Did the poems have to do with sex?
If so, it just could have been the content.
>It wouldn't be until over 6 months later that I would realize that the
>very WRITING of all this poetry would be magnifying my emotions for
> Amy and creating a bond far more powerful than a man should
> have for a woman without first her loving him.
Magnifying?! Really? I would think that those feelings and emotions
are already there and by putting them down is just an expression.
Poetry is passionate and the good stuff makes you feel, and your poems
did that, so maybe you just took pride in the fact that you captured
that with words??
>I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted her to know how she affected me.
Did you ever say it to her like that? Just plain & simple?
>
> As it turned out, Amy invited me to her birthday party in
> January. This was a very bad scene for me,
You really shouldn't have gone, or questioned why you were invited after
you gave her those poems, it only seems natural to what to know what she
is thinking and how she views you.
>
> Seguay to June, 1999. I had just exited a very short, 5
> week relationship, and in fact, I hadn't really thought of
> Amy for a while.
Well, that's good, you worked through it.
>When thinking of her, I didn't have any of that overwhelming,
>feel-like-I'm-going-to-do-or-say-something-irrational feeling that I
>had before, and, on a lark, I contacted her.
What lark was that? Why did you do that?
In reality you pushed her aside, she was still there, you just weren't
thinking about it. I would've asked myself during this time, why she
had not contacted you.
> We began hanging out as friends, and the poetry was never discussed.
In my opinion that was the time to discuss it.
> She was a little bit drunk, but plainly in control of her faculties,
>and was very aggressive. Early, on the morning of June 27, we made
love.
Aright C, I don't want to start this big thing, but I want you to think
about it.
According to you, if a women has sex with you, it is showing you how
much she likes you and emotional attachment with you. Well, as you can
see it was not the case with Amy.
So why did she do it?
Would she have if alcohol wasn't involved?
> Later the following week, she came by my place and hung
> out. But something was wrong. She was skittish, and when
> I went to kiss her, she did not long desire to be in my
> passionate embrace.
Oh C.....she just knows that it isn't right for her and she cares about
you and doesn't want to hurt you, and doesn't know how to handle herself
either.
>In retrospect, I suspect that my earlier gift to her of Magic Words was
>creating incredible pressure and making her very nervous...
But.....you don't know that for a FACT. You should have talked it over.
>something which the alcohol overcame on our first wonderful evening
> together (she would later also confess that she still
> had latent feelings for her prior lover of 8 years).
The alcohol can make her overcome her better judgement also, you know
that.
> We kissed passionately, but then she broke the kiss and
> painfully said, "I don't want to hurt you," and "I don't
> know what I want". In retrospect, these are signs of a
> girl who's thinking far too much about the man's
> expectations and not enough about her own fulfillment,
> but at the time, all I could feel was vastly hurt.
It is a very hurtful thing, but she is being honest with you about it
and she doesn't want to string you along. She cares about you very
much, it is obvious, but knows in her heart that it isn't going to work
for her. She took it too far in my opinion.
> I asked her about why should didn't return my phone calls,
> and she said, "I was afraid of what you would hit me with."
> Clearly, this girl was petrified of having me be in love
> with her.
Because she doesn't feel the same way, that's all.
> Amy, from not really knowing me that well,
> could not possibly yet know whether or not she could fall in
> love with me,
I don't really believe that.
>but was afraid to find out for fear of hurting
> me. Little did she know that her being afraid to find out
> was hurting me far worse.
I don't know if she was afraid to find out or not, I think she already
knew.
> "She wants this enough," it seemed to me, although of
> course any objective reader can see that it was already a
> mistake.
Yeah, she was stringing you, maybe she was trying to develop deeper
feelings who knows? My way of thinking is it is either there or not.
> blading, cursed at me, told me to take her home, and referred
> to our relationship in the past tense. I was stunned.
Hmmm....past tense? That would have done it for me.
>She accused me of being insensitive,
You?!?!
> and offered two token points which were so small as to seem petty (in
>retrospect, these were diversions for other issues which I suppose I
> was supposed to guess at, but I shall never know).
Points??? I don't get it, but it sounds like you didn't either.
>
> After day 3 or so of this, I compounded the last of my errors
> and put the final nails in my own coffin. Being completely
> unable to control myself with email, I sent her a message
> telling her how bad she hurt me.
Well.....she should've had some indication of this anyway don't you
think? What did she say?
>And another one detailing how thoroughly I loved her (actually, this
>last shouldn't be a surprise, given the content of the book she had
>already received).
Well you know, love doesn't follow rules and when it hits you so hard
and strong these things happen. You aren't the only one, and I think
you are being too hard on yourself. I think you were just being direct
with her and sharing your feelings, and it really would've helped you
out if she was more direct with you.
> In processing this as it is now over, I've
> been puzzling myself over where all the giddy feeling as well
> as where all the darkness came from.
It is true love, that's all. It's been written about and recorded
throughout the ages, and now you can add yours.
> I had a list of 100 things I loved about her. But in the writing
> of this poetic work, I magnified, distilled, enhanced beyond
> all reason to a level of love that no man should ever allow
> himself to have of a woman who does not love him back.
Hmmm......so what is the alternative then?
Not to write it? Keep it all inside? Don't listen to your heart?
> All of the irrational errors I made during the course of this
> entire failed romance occured because of the giant disparity
> of our feelings.
Yes, I can see that.
>Had it been natural, slow, and mutual, I might have had the romance of
>a lifetime. But now and forever,there will never be a Joe & Amy.
Mutual is the key, some people really move fast through these kinds of
things.
>
> I will never forget Amy. In fact, I will very probably take
> memories of her to my grave.
Yeah, you will go back to your poems throughout your life, and you
should.
>Likewise, I will never, ever
> forget the lesson: there is an appropriate time for gifts
> from the heart; choose it with great care.
There is an appropriate time, and an appropriate recipient, both should
be chosen with care.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Shawn T Pickrell
Joe, I look back between May and November 1997, and I see
what you are thinking.
People see us everywhere
They think you really care
But myself I can't deceive
I know it's only make believe
My one and only prayer
Is that someday you'll care.
My hopes, my dreams come true
My one and only you
No one will ever know
How much I love you so
My only prayer will be
Someday you'll care for me
But it's only make believe
My hope, my dreams come true
My life I'd give for you
My heard, the wedding ring
My all, my everything
My heart I can't control
You rule my very soul
My only prayer will be
Someday you'll care for me
But it's only make believe.
My one and only prayer
Is that someday you'll care
My hopes, my dreams come true
My one and only you
No one will ever know
How much I love you so
You are my every dream
But it's only make believe
==========================================================================
Shawn Pickrell: Randolph-Macon '97, George Mason '03
"Well, Don Ho was in Hawaii, too, and he doesn't know about that network."
J.Anderson, technical lead on my current project
==========================================================================
Courageous
Igor wrote:
>
> Terry <wtha...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> * For Courageous:--You weren't in love with Amy-you were obsessed. Any woman
> * would see as weird a man who "loved" her totally without reason. I believe
> * she was just using you as a security blanket when her ego needed a boost.
> * Don't mean to be harsh but come on!!
I was both obssessed and in love. A nasty combination.
In some sense, I have been in love with the idea of a
girl like her my entired adult life. That was part of
it, too. She perfectly fit my mental mold of what I wanted;
this is not to say that she was perfect, this is just
to say that her strengths were those that I desired, and
her weaknesses were ones I identified with.
C/
Wayne J. Rasmussen
: x-no-archive: yes
: In article <37CAD470...@san.rr.com>, Courageous wrote:
:> ANATOMY OF A FAILED ROMANCE
:> A true, recent story from my life.
: C.:
: I have a lot of respect for what you've said here. It really captures
: the rollercoaster of emotions that occur in romance.
: While the particular events in your story are unique, I think many
: people can identify with the many feelings and phases of the
: relationship you describe.
: Now for my comments, which are many... probably should've edited this
: more, but I wanted to add my two cents to such an interesting story...
: (snip)
:> Amy was in the painful, still hurting, gotta-go-slow space,
: Understandable. Her previous relationship had taken her from practically
: childhood well into adulthood. From your post, that relationship lasted
: almost 1/3 of her life. A mightly large chunk of her life.
:> and I was going through the develop-a-crush on the first
:> available female thing.
: LOL! Been there, done that. My insecurity took me all sorts of places.
:> In fact, by the time Amy and I
:> started hanging out, I was sure I was through with that
:> giddy phase of my life, and perhaps I mostly was, except
:> I was very ill-prepared to encounter Amy.
: According to Jane Goldberg's "The Dark Side of Love," all love
: experiences, from the first (parent/child) and throughout your life, are
: one experience. As a result, all relationships are connected to each
: other. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I think (for me,
: maybe others), it's true. So the same sort of concerns as you had in
: other relationships may pop up again.
Which is why it feels so good to break those old habits and
move onto bigger and better things. Being in co-dependant relationships
really takes it toll on a person!
:> On October 5, 1998, Amy and I went hiking in the mountains
:> and, as is the way of people getting to know eachother,
:> shared the mutual details of our lives. This is a day that
:> will be forever imprinted on my memory. It was one of those
:> amazing, perfectly syncronous days, as we discovered that
:> so very many details of our lives were nearly the same.
: I think this may be what's called "limerence." It's incredible when it
: happens; I've had that too. Perfectly in synch with another. However,
: that feeling never continues. It's fun while it does, though.
Is is just me, or do this situations never seem to work out in the long
run. I love it when I click with a gal, but, everytime it happens the
relationship seems to hit a brick wall.
wayne
Courageous
> date. I can love the kind of high you talked about from your first date,
> but real love (IMHO) takes a lot longer.
I said it was real, because by the time we started dating, all
of the reasons I had for loving her in the first place turned
out to be true. OTOH, what I was really in love with was the
IDEA of A.: the IDEA of someone who I had so much syncronicity
with. It was as if all the little details were all that mattered.
And to me, it was true: I have, in some measure, been in love
with the idea of a woman like that all of my adult life.
> I think unless they were deeply involved with the other person, having
> an entire book of poetry written about yourself would be overwhelming,
> as apparently happened for her.
Well, duh. :)
> > But I am
> > getting ahead of myself.
>
> Too much, too soon. But it was fun, wasn't it?
Um, not particularly. But I have cried in particularly moving scenes
in movies ever since. It has affected me.
> I notice that you seem to be attracted to this idea of making a
> statement, then withdrawing and hoping the woman will react in such a
> way that will bring you what you want.
>
> Four examples:
>
> 1) Sending her anonymous e-mails.
> 2) Writing the book and sending that to her.
A major lifetime fluke, I tell ya. :)
> 3) In another thread, you said you don't like to ask a woman directly
> for a date, so you ask for something that's like a date, but you don't
> call it a date.
"Hey would you like to go out on a date?" isn't how
I see the other guys do it.
> 4) Another example would be how you, in other posts, have said you like
> to ask a woman something like, "Do you know what I think?" (Woman is
> supposed to ask youn what you think.) "I think we should go out
> sometime."
> I'm not saying this is good or bad, it's just a pattern I've noticed for
> you. What do you think?
Hellifino. Are you asking me to psychoanalyze myself? :)
> > As it turned out, Amy invited me to her birthday party in
> > January.
>
> A good sign. She wanted to stay in touch. That could've been a good time
> to talk and maybe clarify things between you.
I was emotionally unsuited for it. TOAST.
> > This was a very bad scene for me, and I had no
> I think she wanted to communicate with you in a friendlier, low-key way,
> with less pressure on you both. Your grand statement in the form of the
> poetry book etc. put a lot of pressure on her, as well as you, IMHO.
Yeah, both of us.
> With the luxury of hindsight and distance, I think a better approach
> would have been to follow up the first date with more dates and give her
> and you a chance to get to know each other better.
Yeah. What you said, man.
> With the grand statement gift and this experience here, I get the
> impression you're an all or nothing guy.
I seem to be unable to behave rationally when possessed
of certain feelings and being around a girl who doesn't
behave as if she really likes me.
> I think maybe it wasn't that complicated; maybe she just wasn't ready
> for a relationship now. I think it could just be that simple. The
> relationship just didn't happen because it didn't happen, despite having
> some great ingredients.
I mentioned this later, yes.
> > ordinarily I wouldn't
> > date girls who had problems kissing me. I asked her about that,
> > and this is where she admitted she still wasn't over her last
> > relationship (if I had any sense at that point, I would have
> > set us back to being friends, but of course, I was emotionally
> > unable to do that).
>
> You can reach a point where you either have to go forward or let it all
> go, and I think that's where you were at. Clearly, you wanted to pursue
> things romantically, right?
Yes. More to the point, I was emotionally unable to not to, given
even the slightest choice.
> > I would have taken
> > her home, and then ignored her for a few days while she cooled
> > off. Instead, I sent her a supplicant email the
> > very next day. This made her dig her heels in further.
>
> Lots of frustration here.
>
> I think instead of sending e-mails, you should always try to speak to
> people directly. Because that's interactive, it's real communication.
> Gives the other person a chance to speak too.
Yah.
> I'm not sure even then she could handle all that happened between you
> two. I don't think anybody could handle the stress that was on you both.
Neither one of us could. I handled it very badly.
In the end, the pressure destroyed it for the both
of us, I think.
Anyway, this has it's beginnings of October of last year,
and is the primary reason why I'm dead-set against sending
poetry in fledgling relationships. A woman will come around
on her own if you be your normal, thoughtful, sensitive
self. The poetry is icing on the cake, LATER.
C.
Courageous
> relationship seems to hit a brick wall.
Maybe it's expectations. You have this major wonderful click,
and think the rest of it will be like that, too, but it never
is. I'll have to ponder this as well as my navel for a while.
C/
Wayne J. Rasmussen
:> Is is just me, or do this situations never seem to work out in the long
:> run. I love it when I click with a gal, but, everytime it happens the
:> relationship seems to hit a brick wall.
: Maybe it's expectations. You have this major wonderful click,
: and think the rest of it will be like that, too, but it never
: is. I'll have to ponder this as well as my navel for a while.
I was thinking about that after I wrote it. I think it is the
expectations. I admit that I love it when we click and therefore want
one of these situations to work out. percentage wise few relationships
work out.
Courageous
> * and think the rest of it will be like that, too, but it never
> * is. I'll have to ponder this as well as my navel for a while.
>
> Courageous, I am of the firm opinion that you did everything alright,
> but not with the right person. I know a woman who would melt from this kind
> of treatment. She is wonderfully intelligent and imaginative and dreamy and
> beautiful.
>
> When you hear advice like "you have to go slow" and so on, the truth is that
> this advice applies to most BUT NOT ALL women.
The retrospective lesson I learned is that it would have been best
to go slow not just for her, but FOR ME.
C/
Courageous
> might've made more sense and been easier on everybody. Then you two
> would've gotten to know each other better.
Well, duh. :) That's what I've been trying to say.
> Maybe so. As I've pointed out in another post in this thread, you seem
> to have a habit of making a statement, then withdrawing and hoping
> you'll get the response you want. That doesn't always work too well,
> would you agree?
It seems to be a fine way to get phone numbers or dates from
women. But in this particular case, the emotional ride was the
disaster of a lifetime.
> I wouldn't say that. You did the best you could. It was a sincere effort
> to try to do something good. In retrospect, creating this huge monument
> to her, then withdrawing, was just confusing for both of you.
I wasn't confused, I couldn't handle the intensity of my
own emotion. It scared me spitless.
> But I think you probably would've have been more successful if you'd
> followed up on the first date with a second date, not wandered off and
> had a relationship with another woman etc.
That's what I've been trying to say, yes.
> And you seem to be focusing on your idea that everything else you did
> generally made sense, and that the only problem was the timing of the
> book. I really think if you look at the chronology of events and read my
> comments, you'll see there's much more to this matter than the timing of
> one event.
The timing of the book would have best been a year into the
relationship or more, if indeed such a relationship ever would
have happened, which isn't certain. What I've been saying is
that, given my own emotional character, the outcome was fait
accompli.
> Sending a nice card or small gift, like a piece of candy, unexpectedly
> can be quite romantic. I've done that many times. It's sweet, makes you
> memorable, but doesn't overwhelm the recipient. With the card or note or
> whatever, I'd usually just write one sentence.
Yes. I agree. Just let the other person know you are thinking
about them. A girl I just met once left for the East Coast two
weeks after I met her. She sent me 3 postcards while she was
there. I thought that was really nice.
> > My only lasting
> > lesson is to ease into a woman's space naturally, by being yourself.
> > During the unfolding of time, true romance can begin.
>
> I think that's a good plan for you. Slow and steady, show consistent
> interest, gradually escalate. Avoid this on-again, off-again behavior,
> which is confusing for everybody.
The intensity of my own emotions forced it. I don't do well
when I have intense emotions and the girl doesn't display
obvious affection to me. Actually, it makes me wildly irrational
and I do a variety of extremely stupid things. I left them
out of my editorial because they were so embarrassing.
C/
stairs to heavenly relationships
messes. If you want to find out how far off the mark you were, send
both month, day and year birthdates and I'll so a free analysis for you
Don
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
Tupac Chopra
wrote:
>One cute poem would have probably been okay. But instead
>of stopping there and simply sharing with her a mutual
>friendly joke, I sent her 3 poems in series.
You've acknowledged that when you get swept away by
strong emotions that you don't think so rationally, but I would
ask you to delve more deeply into what was motivating you
to act in such an "aggressive" manner. You've cooled down
a bit, I suspect, perhaps now you can discover what it was
you really wanted *so badly*.
>During the month to follow, I wrote an entire book of poems
>about Amy (http://home.san.rr.com/courage), each more
>progressively intense than the preceeding poem, each
>detailing the feelings I was experiencing at the time.
>I had never, in my entire life, felt so intensely about
>a woman. I cried tears of love and joy while writing many
>of those poems, and consider the event to be a defining
>emotional moment in my life.
I've been there dude, I've cried tears of joy, been spiritually
uplifted by the thought of merely holding the object of my
affection...but you know what? I was infatuated at the time.
It was all an ideal I had created in my head. And, while I know
that others have pointed out this "idealization" to you (and you
acknowledge it to an extent), I find it much more illuminating
to explore why I had invested SO MUCH in this projection
I placed on someone else.
As I've said in another post (to you actually), the subjective
experience of infatuation is almost indistinguishable from
"falling in love." For myself, I feel there is little difference,
fundamentally. As a romantic, you probably reject that...
People recognize infatuation as the perception of another as
being some sort of flawless, perfect ideal. True enough. But
what is it about so-called "real" romantic love tha makes another
individual so abso-freaking-lutlely *FANTASTIC*?!? Is this more
"real" than infatuation? Or has a better con job been pulled?
Is the woman SO special that you have to lose sleep and weight over
her? Sure, you can point out similarities in values, habits, and
temperament, but does this coldly itemized list really justify the
temporary insanity we call romantic love? I don't think so. What
to one man is a "goddess like no other", is to another man, simply
just another nice, respectable, perhaps even admirable woman, no more
no less. BUT, to the man in love, she is seen as divine.
I believe romantic love is not something that "happens", or is
something "out there" that is to be had -- I believe WE CREATE IT
FOR OUSELVES. Humans have a boundless capacity for imagination,
for symbolic construction, and we seem to have a need to employ that
imagination in the service of ourselves -- our egos, our
self-perceptions. We all want to be "special", "unique" in some
way -- we want to be "God". And what better way to convince ourselves
of that than by "creating" a "God" to be loved by?
As H.L. Mencken once said, "Love is the delusion that one woman
differs from another." That's a bit toungue-in-cheek, but Mencken was
no idiot. If one considers the phenomenon at all, it seems pretty
weird how this ONE person is SO FANTABULOUS, and yet, when the
"magic" wears off, we wonder, "What was I thinking?" Then, we trip
over ourselves into the *next* "one and only." The point is,
you were not thinking, you were *creating*, you were making "magic".
I'm not knocking romantic love , I still think there is a grain of
truth to it when there is *some* mutuality on *some* level, but those
factors will probably remain mysterious. What I *am* trying to
emphasize is that in our zeal to "make magic" to "elevate" ourselves,
we usually forget that WE are the magicians, that WE are the painters.
Then, we suffer horribly when our creations don't behave as they
"ought". If one has the belly to live with this knowledge in mind,
one can still paint pictures, build castles in the air, and then, when
circumstances change, have the flexibility and adaptability to wipe it
clean and start again. Too bad we often hypnotize ourselves with our
own melodies.
>It wouldn't be until over 6
>months later that I would realize that the very WRITING
>of all this poetry would be magnifying my emotions for
>Amy and creating a bond far more powerful than a man should
>have for a woman without first her loving him.
Yes! You see? I don't mean to imply that Amy was a nobody --
from what I can tell, you are a real level-headed kind of person,
and the kind of woman who could "catalyze" you into churning
out the massive amounts of psychic energy you did must be really
wonderful. But that's all -- wonderful. And there are many wonderful
people out there you can experience. Anything more than
"wonderful" -- the time spent thinking of her, fantasizing of
romantic gestures, writing poetry, thinking of creative ways to
interact, that was all YOU, and YOU ALONE! You do it to
yourself, for yourself.
>For Christmas, 98, I sent all of the poetry to Amy. It
>was printed on beautiful floral print paper, and wrapped
>in a yellow ribbon. I included with the package a copy
>of _The Princess Bride_, and some dried yellow roses (her
>favorite). This was not intended to woo Amy. By this time,
>3 months later, I simply assumed I would never see Amy
>again. I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted her to know
>how she affected me.
How she affected you affecting yourself. :)
Why did you want her to know? What was your motivation?
What did you hope to gain?
>Later the following week, she came by my place and hung
>out. But something was wrong. She was skittish, and when
>I went to kiss her, she did not long desire to be in my
>passionate embrace. In retrospect, I suspect that my
>earlier gift to her of Magic Words was creating incredible
>pressure and making her very nervous...
Yes, yes, yes. Who in this world could be worthy of the kind
of adoration you bestowed on her? No one! You are a poet,
and you were inspired, but you were responding to your own
internalized images and fantasies! (And this isn't a self-esteem
thing, as in, she didn't feel she was worthy of your love). Aside
from what women say, a man who can write the most beautiful words,
music, poetry, whatever... the more creative/talented he is in his
art, the more "psychic distance" exists between what actually
is/exists, and what is *possible* or can be *imagined*. As wonderful
as Amy probably is, I'm sure her perception of herself is light-years
from what you wrote about. How can a woman feel *validated*,
"visible", or "seen" by someone whose head is in the clouds?
That's why I say "romance" is a barrier to true intimacy and love.
>We kissed passionately, but then she broke the kiss and
>painfully said, "I don't want to hurt you," and "I don't
>know what I want". In retrospect, these are signs of a
>girl who's thinking far too much about the man's
>expectations and not enough about her own fulfillment,
>but at the time, all I could feel was vastly hurt. I
>was already back in love with Amy, and even this small
>setback (best handled by patience and reassurance) stung
>like hell. I became very upset, and drove her straight
>home.
Not that it's any consolation, but when I look back on my life
during moments like these, I ask myself, why did I need it so
badly? Is love something that needs to be owned? Is it
something that needs to be guaranteed? My freedom came
from realizing that nothing in life is guaranteed, people can,
and will "let you down" (read: don't behave the way you want them
to), and learning to live within that insecurity. It takes strength,
and courage. It is our unmet needs and weakness that turn us into
possessive animals when our "candy" is taken away.
>Upon getting her to her apartment, she said, "call me
>when you're not mad." I suppose I should have agreed,
>cooled off, and spoke with her the next evening, but
>instead I made yet another mistake. I looked at her and
>said, "it's not that I am mad," she saw my face, and I
>cried in her arms.
You had the courage to bare your soul. But I hope you don't
feel she should/would have any sympathy for your situation.
>I asked her about why should didn't return my phone calls,
>and she said, "I was afraid of what you would hit me with."
Wow. That's pretty straightforward.
>Clearly, this girl was petrified of having me be in love
>with her.
No no no no! She was afraid that you were in love with love,
in love with an ideal, in love with something that was *not her*.
The bullshit ideas about romance that women talk about are THEIR OWN
form of self-delusion, their own fantasies about being loved by
"Gods". But, we take them literally! We reach up in to the sky
to grab their abstract ideals and bring them down to earth, to
offer them as tokens of our love. Then, when you are back down to
earth, the illusion fades, and women can instinctively sense it.
Think of it this way: reverse your positions. What if some girl whom
you were seeing for a short time, whom you felt an actual
bond with, was comfortable with, whose presence you enjoyed, someone
whom you could *consider* as a long-term prospect, wrote you a bunch
of strange emails and a hand-carved book of flowery poetry about how
great you are and how perfect and how blah blah blah. Do you really
have the megalomaniacal ego to feel, "Well, of course! She obviously
sees the REAL ME! This girl sees right into my soul and I feel so
CONNECTED to her!" Or, would you think something fishy was going on
in HER head that had to do with something other than you?
>The following Sunday we went rollerblading, but things did not
>go well. The day was an awkward one for me, as I already knew
>things were wildly amiss. At any rate, Amy fell down while
>blading, cursed at me, told me to take her home, and referred
>to our relationship in the past tense. I was stunned.
Wow, that seems pretty abrupt. It must have been an awkward
time as you say. Was it awkward from the outset? If there was
still all this pressure and tension and unstated thoughts/feelings,
while you were both trying to mainting a casual facade as if nothing
was going on, it's no wonder she snapped. When I get a whiff of
that kind of tension, I just call it off and wait for the right wave
to come in. You may have been pushing too hard.
>I suppose if I had been of a rational mind, I would have taken
>her home, and then ignored her for a few days while she cooled
>off. Instead, I sent her a supplicant email the
>very next day. This made her dig her heels in further. I spoke
>with her on the phone that evening, and she indicated to me
>that for her, it was over. Somewhere in there, I admitted that
>I was in love with her again. Such a mess.
<Holding head in hands>
Courageous! I am so dissapointed! I've always read *your* posts here
on a.r. because they seemed the perfect balance of niceguy idealism
and jerk-realism. I can't believe you made so many "mistakes"! This
girl really DID fuck with your head!
>But the mess gets worse. For two days or so I was numb; it
>hadn't hit me. And then darkness descended. For five nights
>straight I cried hysterically in bed. During the day, I would
>go outside in the sun to get my mind off of things, and I would
>cry thinking about her. The wracking sobs from the night before
>left me trembling. In the two weeks that followed after the
>crying spells ended, I was critically depressed. My arms were
>tingling. I couldn't stay in dark rooms, nor watch movies, nor
>read books. I lost 10 pounds. I had zero appetite. I couldn't
>sleep, because my mind would be racing with wild thoughts. I
>missed 3 weeks worth of work.
One day you will look back at how this one girl -- no matter how
special she was -- "caused" you this amount of anguish and outright
torture, and you will realize that no one can "do" that to you, that
you do it to yoursel.
You will learn to love without fear. (I hope)
>Readers, you must understand, while I captured the essence of
>Amy quite clearly and loved her with an intensity that few
>men ever capture, I did not in fact know her for all that long
>in objective time. In processing this as it is now over, I've
>been puzzling myself over where all the giddy feeling as well
>as where all the darkness came from.
>
>In a sudden inspiration, I realized: It was the poetry itself.
>The very act of writing _Magic Words_ was a rehearsal. In poem
>after poem after poem, I rehearsed in my head the love of a
>woman I only barely knew. I knew her essence, I knew her soul,
>I had a list of 100 things I loved about her.
I am impressed with your insight here, very much so. But then you
say:
>But in the writing
>of this poetic work, I magnified, distilled, enhanced beyond
>all reason to a level of love that no man should ever allow
>himself to have of a woman who does not love him back.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
STOP DOING IT! It will probably never work, and if it does,
it will most likely be two people who are both creating mutually
compatible fantasies/illusions. In this respect, I liken this kind
of "romantic love" to two people in a theatre watching the same
movie, thinking they are really seeing each other, when in fact,
they never turn to see just who is *really there* right next to them.
>To allow myself to love a woman like that, and then to have her
>for but a brief time, led to the singularly most negative
>emotional experience of my entire life.
I've been rough on you here only because I can totally identify with
this kind of pain, coming from a fellow "myth-maker". I believe,
regardless of my commitment to psychological growth, that I shall
bear the scars of my "transgression" for the better part of my life.
>So, readers, when you hear me talking about poetry and romance,
>and doing things naturally and not trying to speed them up or
>get out of control, YOU NOW KNOW EXACTLY WHY.
>
>To you detractors who say I don't know how to be romantic, you
>are as mistaken as it is possible to be. The question is not
>"how to be romantic," my friends. The question is WHEN.
How about dumping the concept of romance and having people
be strong and courageous enough to live their lives as an open
book, wearing their hearts on their sleeve, making *true intimacy*
possible? "Romance" often puts up barriers to intimacy because
people are modifying their behavior to fit someone else's idealized
version of how it "should" be.
Namaste,
TC
Courageous
> strong emotions that you don't think so rationally, but I would
> ask you to delve more deeply into what was motivating you
> to act in such an "aggressive" manner. You've cooled down
> a bit, I suspect, perhaps now you can discover what it was
> you really wanted *so badly*.
Oh, I already know. In objective terms, this woman read like
a laundry list of all I ever wanted in a woman. Sure, she was
only human and had human flaws, but the "checklist" of things
I was looking for was so overwhelmingly large it swept me away.
> As I've said in another post (to you actually), the subjective
> experience of infatuation is almost indistinguishable from
> "falling in love." For myself, I feel there is little difference,
> fundamentally. As a romantic, you probably reject that...
No, I agree with it entirely. My educational background is
cogntive science.
> People recognize infatuation as the perception of another as
> being some sort of flawless, perfect ideal.
I never saw her as perfect. It's just that the good parts
so outweighed the bad parts that I opened myself to her
prematurely and with such magnitude that only a fool would
allow.
> As H.L. Mencken once said, "Love is the delusion that one woman
> differs from another." That's a bit toungue-in-cheek, but Mencken was
> no idiot. If one considers the phenomenon at all, it seems pretty
> weird how this ONE person is SO FANTABULOUS, and yet, when the
> "magic" wears off, we wonder, "What was I thinking?" Then, we trip
> over ourselves into the *next* "one and only." The point is,
> you were not thinking, you were *creating*, you were making "magic".
Quite apt.
> >For Christmas, 98, I sent all of the poetry to Amy. It
> >was printed on beautiful floral print paper, and wrapped
> >in a yellow ribbon. I included with the package a copy
> >of _The Princess Bride_, and some dried yellow roses (her
> >favorite). This was not intended to woo Amy. By this time,
> >3 months later, I simply assumed I would never see Amy
> >again. I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted her to know
> >how she affected me.
> Why did you want her to know? What was your motivation?
> What did you hope to gain?
Hard to tell what I was doing in that emotional cloud. You
must realize that on a purely rational level I (and most
anyone else, I think) would say: "no way she'll ever want
to see me again." I mean geeze, two of my poems described
love so intense that any woman would have to completely
freak out. Emotionally, I was probably hoping the book
would -- on some small hedge bet -- make her fall in
love with me. What I *was* aware of at the time was that
I was too emotionally wrapped up in her to casually date
her. That's an important lesson I've learned about myself,
actually: if I'm that emotionally involved in a girl,
casual dating is simply not an option. If I ever had a
chance to pursue under similar circumstances again, I
would probably try one of Ray's techniques.
> Think of it this way: reverse your positions. What if some girl whom
> you were seeing for a short time, whom you felt an actual
> bond with, was comfortable with, whose presence you enjoyed, someone
> whom you could *consider* as a long-term prospect, wrote you a bunch
> of strange emails and a hand-carved book of flowery poetry about how
> great you are and how perfect and how blah blah blah. Do you really
> have the megalomaniacal ego to feel, "Well, of course! She obviously
> sees the REAL ME! This girl sees right into my soul and I feel so
> CONNECTED to her!" Or, would you think something fishy was going on
> in HER head that had to do with something other than you?
If I was otherwise compatible with her, I would tell her honestly
where I stood with her emotionally "I am coming along more slowly
than you," but yes, I would probably be overwhelmed if the intensity
was as high as what I offered this other woman. But you're preaching
to the choir, as I suspect you know.
> >I suppose if I had been of a rational mind, I would have taken
> >her home, and then ignored her for a few days while she cooled
> >off. Instead, I sent her a supplicant email the
> >very next day. This made her dig her heels in further. I spoke
> >with her on the phone that evening, and she indicated to me
> >that for her, it was over. Somewhere in there, I admitted that
> >I was in love with her again. Such a mess.
>
> <Holding head in hands>
>
> Courageous! I am so dissapointed! I've always read *your* posts here
> on a.r. because they seemed the perfect balance of niceguy idealism
> and jerk-realism. I can't believe you made so many "mistakes"! This
> girl really DID fuck with your head!
Yeah. Please realize this was a level-10-bury-the-needle emotional
experience for me. It was set in stone that it would end badly, I
think. In particular, because I do *extremely poorly* when I have
intense feelings and don't get some kind of regular reassurances
from the girl to show that she really cares about me. Anything less
and I behave so erratically it turns into a giant self-destructive
mess.
> You will learn to love without fear. (I hope)
I do very well when girls want me more than I want them, but of
course that doesn't bode well for achieving a life partner.
> >But in the writing
> >of this poetic work, I magnified, distilled, enhanced beyond
> >all reason to a level of love that no man should ever allow
> >himself to have of a woman who does not love him back.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> STOP DOING IT! It will probably never work, and if it does,
> it will most likely be two people who are both creating mutually
> compatible fantasies/illusions.
It was a once-in-a-lifetime-affair, I assure you. If ever I do
something like this again, it will be with a woman who already
loves me vastly.
C/
Courageous
>
> Courageous <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> * casual dating is simply not an option. If I ever had a
> * chance to pursue under similar circumstances again, I
> * would probably try one of Ray's techniques.
>
> I'd be rather interested in hearing your experience using Ray's
> techniques.
I have "accidentally" tried elements of Ray's techniques
before I ever heard him formalize them. The trick here is
to start hanging out with a girl and making her make her
make the moves. Once a girl decides she wants you, going
to the finish line is quite easy.
Actually, that bodes well with my experience in life. Even
girls that I tend to approach in neutral settings are the
ones who've laid out a red carpet for me. IOW, it's not
me picking them, but vice versa.
C/
NeilKoomen
In article <37CD7621...@san.rr.com>, Courageous wrote:
(snip)
> But in this particular case, the emotional ride was
>the
>disaster of a lifetime.
That's what it seems like now, in the short term. I think
over time, you'll have a different perspective and value
what you can learn from this experience.
>> I wouldn't say that. You did the best you could. It was a
>>sincere effort
>> to try to do something good. In retrospect, creating this
>>huge monument
>> to her, then withdrawing, was just confusing for both of
>>you.
>
>I wasn't confused,
Well, I guess I meant all the on-again/off-again stuff, the
inconsistent behavior towards her. You weren't confused, you
were confusing. How's that?
> I couldn't handle the intensity of my
>own emotion. It scared me spitless.
Looked at that way, I see what you mean. Within the context
of fear, being inconsistent actually is what makes sense.
Panic'll do odd things to people.
(snip)
>What I've been saying is
>that, given my own emotional character, the outcome was
>fait
>accompli.
I dunno. Everybody's different, every relationships
different. Don't assume you were doomed.
I've done some wild 'n' crazy stuff that certainly could be
considered going overboard, with unpredictable results.. You
never know what'll happen.
So I think you probably did what you could, given the
circumstances.
(snip)
>> > My only lasting
>> > lesson is to ease into a woman's space naturally, by
>>>being yourself.
>> > During the unfolding of time, true romance can begin.
>>
>> I think that's a good plan for you. Slow and steady, show
>>consistent
>> interest, gradually escalate. Avoid this on-again,
>>off-again behavior,
>> which is confusing for everybody.
>
>The intensity of my own emotions forced it. I don't do well
>when I have intense emotions and the girl doesn't display
>obvious affection to me. Actually, it makes me wildly
>irrational
>and I do a variety of extremely stupid things.
Well, when you need something so much, and you're scared you
won't get it, I'm not sure what you might do is really
"extremely stupid things." You did what made sense to you at
the time. Whatever it was, you were probably just trying to
force the issues to attention.
> I left them
>out of my editorial because they were so embarrassing.
Oh man, know what you mean. Everybody does that, I think. I
can think of many examples, from myself and many people I
know. I know people who've slashed tires, all kinds of sick
stuff in the heat of a romantic problem, and I'd say that
these people are completely normal otherwise. They just got
upset and freaked out over bad relationships.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Courageous
> >disaster of a lifetime.
> That's what it seems like now, in the short term. I think
> over time, you'll have a different perspective and value
> what you can learn from this experience.
I suppose. In actuality, I thought I'd learned everything
I needed to learn before it was ever consumated. That it
*was* consumated itself was interesting information, meaning
that I in likelihood misestimated either her or the situation
before.
In any case, anything that can kicksomeone into a week's
worth of crying spells and make them miss most of a month's
worth of work is a pretty big emotional disaster. Although
I did get a pretty good tan and lose some weight over it,
in the end. Have to look at these things positively. :)
C/
Tupac Chopra
wrote:
>> You've acknowledged that when you get swept away by
>> strong emotions that you don't think so rationally, but I would
>> ask you to delve more deeply into what was motivating you
>> to act in such an "aggressive" manner. You've cooled down
>> a bit, I suspect, perhaps now you can discover what it was
>> you really wanted *so badly*.
>
>Oh, I already know. In objective terms, this woman read like
>a laundry list of all I ever wanted in a woman. Sure, she was
>only human and had human flaws, but the "checklist" of things
>I was looking for was so overwhelmingly large it swept me away.
I guess what I'm asking is: are these things on your "checklist" so
fundamental to your happiness that they justified the almost
*desperate* measures you took to "secure" them? As in many highly
passionate and charged romances, there is a quality of *starvation*
and *need* that is often romanticized in movies and fiction. I'm
asking for my sake as much as anything else. From an "objective"
viewpoint, it just strikes me that any real love that is "healthy"
wouldn't entail such a sense of *need*. As I've grown from my
experiences, I find myself more "centered", more "complete", and less
liable to tumble down that kind of road. Does that mean I've given up
on love? I dunno. YMMV.
>> People recognize infatuation as the perception of another as
>> being some sort of flawless, perfect ideal.
>
>I never saw her as perfect. It's just that the good parts
>so outweighed the bad parts that I opened myself to her
>prematurely and with such magnitude that only a fool would
>allow.
I'm getting ahead of myself here, but why do people consider it so
devastating to "open oneself"? I suffered the worst pain of my life
by "opening" to a girl I was incredibly infatuated with. I was also
very naive at the time. I went through a very dark and cynical period
where I closed off to everyone because of the pain. Looking back,
I saw it was not the "opening" that was so devastating, but rather,
the hidden wish for the other peron to somehow acknowledge me in some
way, to "approve" or be accepting of my soul. Like I wanted to be
knighted by her in some way. That wish comes from a place of weakness
and insecurity. As I grew stronger, I realized that true courage
manifested in the ability to live one's life as an open book, with no
shame, and no hiding -- NO MATTER WHOM YOU ARE WITH. Most people
aren't this strong. I'm still ironing out the kinks myself.
>> >For Christmas, 98, I sent all of the poetry to Amy. It
>> >was printed on beautiful floral print paper, and wrapped
>> >in a yellow ribbon. I included with the package a copy
>> >of _The Princess Bride_, and some dried yellow roses (her
>> >favorite). This was not intended to woo Amy. By this time,
>> >3 months later, I simply assumed I would never see Amy
>> >again. I suppose, in the end, I simply wanted her to know
>> >how she affected me.
>
>> Why did you want her to know? What was your motivation?
>> What did you hope to gain?
>
>Hard to tell what I was doing in that emotional cloud. You
>must realize that on a purely rational level I (and most
>anyone else, I think) would say: "no way she'll ever want
>to see me again." I mean geeze, two of my poems described
>love so intense that any woman would have to completely
>freak out. Emotionally, I was probably hoping the book
>would -- on some small hedge bet -- make her fall in
>love with me.
So you admit it was a strategic maneuver. You originally said you
*simply* wanted her to know how she affected you. Oh, no, no, no.
Do you think love can be "won" in such a way? Do you think love
can be "won" at all?
>What I *was* aware of at the time was that
>I was too emotionally wrapped up in her to casually date
>her. That's an important lesson I've learned about myself,
>actually: if I'm that emotionally involved in a girl,
>casual dating is simply not an option.
Oh yeah, definitely. Way too much undertow beneath the seemingly
casual facade.
>> Courageous! I am so dissapointed! I've always read *your* posts here
>> on a.r. because they seemed the perfect balance of niceguy idealism
>> and jerk-realism. I can't believe you made so many "mistakes"! This
>> girl really DID fuck with your head!
>
>Yeah. Please realize this was a level-10-bury-the-needle emotional
>experience for me. It was set in stone that it would end badly, I
>think. In particular, because I do *extremely poorly* when I have
>intense feelings and don't get some kind of regular reassurances
>from the girl to show that she really cares about me.
THIS is what you need to delve in to. Forget all the nice-guy vs.
jerk strategies, they have their place, but if you have to use them as
a front to misrepresent your true intentions, it can only end in
disaster. If you just wanted a fuck-buddy, "acting" is all fine and
good, but I gather you wanted something more. Well, intimacy is not
nourished by game playing.
If your true feelings ARE blown way out of proportion, with a -- shall
I say it -- *desperate* need to be reassured your advances won't be
rejected, you need to examine this dynamic in yourself more closely
and discover what your motivation and real goals are when you act this
way.
>> You will learn to love without fear. (I hope)
>
>I do very well when girls want me more than I want them, but of
>course that doesn't bode well for achieving a life partner.
Of course not. You're still looking for a guarantee. There are no
guarantees in life. You want things to be "safe". Life is not
"safe". Wait...strike that...when you can love freely and fearlessly,
you realize there was nothing to be "damaged" in the first place.
You have nothing to lose. If a girl doesn't love you back, you are
not diminished in any way. You are making your expression contingent
on there being a safety net. I'm sure you know this already.
TC
_______________________________________________
e v o l u t i o n N O W!
MarcoPolo
for a bit, then sent her 3 poems 'in series' as you put it.
She probably felt you were a bit over the top.
Courageous
> >course that doesn't bode well for achieving a life partner.
>
> Of course not. You're still looking for a guarantee. There are no
> guarantees in life. You want things to be "safe". Life is not
> "safe". Wait...strike that...when you can love freely and fearlessly,
> you realize there was nothing to be "damaged" in the first place.
> You have nothing to lose. If a girl doesn't love you back, you are
> not diminished in any way. You are making your expression contingent
> on there being a safety net. I'm sure you know this already.
Nothing is ever safe, but reacting spontaneously to a girl and
getting involved with her naturally allows one to get some sense
of her feelings for you before you become emotionally invested
in her.
In some of the deleted sections of your message, you recommend
introspecting on my motivations for love and all that, but I don't
find it particularly helpful to rationally examine an emotional
phenomenon. In the end, I can only shrug and observe that if there
is a great disparity in emotional investment between two people,
there is likely to be trouble.
C/
Courageous
>
> Don't you think you went slightly overboard? You knew her
> for a bit, then sent her 3 poems 'in series' as you put it.
> She probably felt you were a bit over the top.
Well, duh.
C/
John DiFool
Gregos wrote:
> joey brother,
>
>snip<
Great post! Had me rotflmao on several occasions! As an INFP I can
definitely relate...
>
>
> 2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion is.
> They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external sensation.
> Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT or
> even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
> are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may have
> feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
> herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
> have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very positivist,
> no metaphysics abides in their universe.
And this is the core of my dilemma, since I tend to follow the Golden Rule
when trying to deal with females ("do unto others..."), and lo and behold! It
almost never works, for when I am my usual romantic, emotional, intense,
symbolic,
even transcendent self >g< around a woman she usually heads screaming for
the hills! Yet these are the precise qualities which I find attractive hence
for
the longest time I could not for the life of me figure out why they weren't
enthralled and were instead freaked out by the whole thing. Figuring out that
most other people don't value the qualities and ideals that I do went a long
way towards solving that conundrum, but I am still left with the underlying
riddle-how to find a compatible ladyfriend! :-/
John DiFool
Gregos
My own little thingy, just about 3 weeks old (that's how long ago the black
day occured), although infrastructurally quite different, was in practical
terms almost a mirror image of your misadvanture. There is such a thing as a
personality clash, and those may have well been a couple of those. Romance
is a funny thing. I solemnly believe that some people simply never get any
idea of what "love" means. For some of them, it is a term that denotes
security, comfort and enjoyment of other persons physique and friendship
(like many of Myers-Briggs SJ types). Others see relationship as an
adventure, not a match of a higher importance (many MB SPs). The SJ types
are unfortunately very common, especially among women. I say unfortunately
for your writing and the whole affair sounds very much like you are an NF
(intuitive feeler), just like myself. This category numbers less than 10% of
men, while about 50% of women are SJs, and perhaps as many as 30% are SPs.
If you are what I think you are, you have to face some facts.
Among the facts are those:
1) We feel. We feel strongly. Even about ordinary things. We are more likely
to give a quarter to a homeless guy than any SJ. They will often worry about
being tricked into giving a stupid quarter away. We will generally worry
more about this guy probably being hungy and cold there and then, and more
so without our quarter.
2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion is.
They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external sensation.
Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT or
even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may have
feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very positivist,
no metaphysics abides in their universe.
3) Very funny and peculiar is the igor's "was a person entirely diferent
from what you imagined her to be." This is very typical of sensory
individuals. They believe that their senses can let them fully define the
nature of another individual, provided that they are given sufficient time.
Another positivist approach, and, know what, I bet you even she thought
exactly the same way! "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!!" - she cried. Well, no
use now. We know well that it is them who don't know who they are
themselves, and they project their doubts and insecurities onto us. But the
trick is that we fail, while they get their prophecies of failure
shamelessly simply self-fulfilled by rejecting us. Moral#1: We are more
romantic people than they can ever be. Moral#2: We therefore get hurt more
than they ever do. Moral#3 We know that Shakespeare was just one of us, so
we commonly find him light and easy reading, while base their degrees and
sometimes lives around explaining to themselves and others the mindsets of
Shakespeare's famous NF characters, and keep failing at it (the vast
majority, just like the man himself, are simply just like us, and behave so.
Very weird. And Fascinating?! LOL ;)! SUCKERS!!!!
4) "So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in what you perceived".
The truth is that both igor and you are right on this one. You perceived an
individual who was supposed to be able to understand you. She was not one of
those. And you are right, too- if we want to come close to STP and SJs while
we feel very strongly about them, we simply HAVE to cover up the intensity
of our feelings, otherwise they run for their lives.
5) "Some incompatibility", goodonya Igor! Man there were craploads of it...
let me sum this up, mate. Here is who you probably are (NFP), and here are
the implications:
(E)xtrovert vs (I)ntrovert scale: not applicable
(F)eeling vs (T)hinking
(P)erceiving vs (J)udging
I(N)tuitive vs (S)ensory
F- Stands for Feeling instead of thinking. You are a Myers-Briggs "F".
People with strong "T"'s will not understand you. They base their lives on
logic. You apparently don't. That's cool with me, I don't either. But it
wasn't cool with her maybe. Be weary when you show too much emotion to those
people. They will try to rationalise it into their own constrained little
universe, and once they invariably fail they will have no choice but to
declare you weird and potentially dangerous.
P - Stands for perception. Igor is right. You tried to perceive the whole
thing right through. We rarely judge other people, because we know they are
all good to some extent, so why put them on trial initially. They WILL judge
you initially. In the Myers-Briggs "J"-type eyes, everyone is a potential
axe-murderer. That's your default value, buddy, and you are guilty until
proven innocent. One more reason to be extremely calm, peaceful, cautious
and reserved when you try to approach a "J" you like.
N - intuition. As I said, according to what you said it is almost certain
that the babe of yours was an "S"(Sensory). They usually don't even bother
using their intuition, except maybe professionally. We do. Sometimes we
succeed in this, and sometimes we fail. But we always look for the "bigger
picture". In your bigger picture in this case may have been you and her and
the most unbelievable romance and white wedding and loads of kids and
happiness to and beyond the grave and angels and who knows what else. In
her, this may have been another potential relationship to let her recover
from the breakdown in the previous one. For example, an acquaintance of
mine, "SJ" has been in a relationship for 2 years, and broke it off after
deciding to apply for a job overseas. She said that it was such fine a
relationship, he's been so good, they never ever had a fight or something,
and he was soooooo sad when she had to leave for Aussie and he was to
emotional. So she was a bit sad, too. Why, you would ask? Well "she hasn't
been single for more than 2 years"! Don't be fooled Joey, these people, as I
said, sometimes have no bloody idea what love is.
Anyway, for all those brave and keen male NFPs (about 4-5% of the male
populace), here are some advices on who potential matches are, speaking
completely from my personal experience and understanding of Myers-Briggs,
and of course intuition as well :)
1. Other NFs. This can be a dream relationship. But the level of emotional
intensity on both sides is so great that the resonance of the effects can
and often does cause rupture in the physical sequence of events. Tragedies
are therefore common, but at least they are mutual when they do occur. Have
a look at Romeo and Juliet. Both Shakespearean NF's, both completely and
unreservedly in love with each other. There was certainly some
over-dramatisation, but the essence is there, what "S" personalities would
say, "it was too good to be true". About 15% of females are NFs of various
subtypes. If those women like you, you can afford to like them back very
strongly. They will be able to appreciate it. They will like you all that
more, as a matter of fact. A funny thing with female NFPs is that they want
not only someone to love, but also someone they can IMPROVE as a human
being. You, already beeing an NFP yourself are nearly automatically a good
person and with no immediate need for improvement. This may actually work
against you
2. NTs. Some theories say that NFs and NTs are actually supplementary. They
provide the stability with reasoning, and you provide the adventure with
emotion. I would not show them too many feelings too early. But they know
how to appreciate affection, although they are not always sure how to show
the appreciation! The trick to this is that, although NFs and NTs are quite
different, they generally respect each other's intuitive sides. We never
think that they are simply "nerds" and they never think we are simply
"loonies". The main problem is that only about 5% of women are intuitive
thinkers.
3. SPs, but only some. If she is an SFP, this can be a very good and
fulfilling relationship. I had one, maybe two, of those SFP teenage beauty
queens after me. They usually go for your looks, but if you are cautious
enough and show some reserve towards them initially, they will come so close
to you as to get to know you better and to like you even more for your
emotional and kind side. I believe that many silly SJs assume us NFs to be
SPs, and then they doubt our seriousness on the grounds that Igor has
mentioned ("you don;t love me for who I am" and that b.s.). Well, SPs can be
great people and yes, they usually can fall in love with you too, but you
have to give them some time. They love to play initially. Maybe that chick
of yours was one of those. If you come out of the closet while they are
still in the "foreplay" stage, they could get pretty scared and shy away.
But if you wait patiently enough to get under their skin, they may not be
able to shad you off easily, if at all. STPs, on the other hand, are
somewhat harder to have a meaningful relationship with. They develop
emotions with much difficulty, and they go for bodily pleasures all too
often. I would doubt the possibility of a strong relationship between an NF
and an STP. But, bear in mind, more than 30% of women are SPs of some type.
4. SJs. The worst partners for us of the whole lot. And the most common.
Nearly 50% of all. This is a truly great tragedy for us NFs, for the
majority of people are simply not compatible with our personalities
relationshipwise. SJ are the people who simply follow the rules, they play
the game and often get scared when someone else doesn't. They can sometimes
see the point of SPs sometimes, for SPs are rebels without a cause, they
rebel for the pleasure's sake. But we NFPs are rebels with a cause, a
rational, usually moral reason for our sabotage of the system, and that
makes the SJs that more confused and defensive. Our rules are our morals.
Their morals are the rules. And the rules are always theirs, because of
their democratic majority. Generally, SJs will have a lot of reserve towards
us even if we don't show a lot of emotional bias openly. It is easy to spot
alien species. To an SJ, we are weirdos, nutcases, terrorists, whatever. To
us, they are simply and scornfully - cops. We are the riot command, they are
the riot police. Do you fancy dating a police chick? Or, would a police
chick fancy dating a revolutionary? I may use a hyperbole, but I guess that
does describe it. You writing all those letters, showing all that emotion,
that was simply not on. "Normal people" would not do it. And "normal people"
are usually SJs.
I'm sure God had a pretty good reason to plant so many of those good but
narrow minded people among us. They provide the human social system with
stability, while the intensity and volatility of our emotions is treathening
that very stability directly and explicitely.
The funny thing is that some SJs are on our side, actually. If you let an
SFJ person get to know you (and that always takes time and a lot of effort,
because of the initial reserve), they will get very surprised at how good a
person that "axe-murderer" actually is, and they will apreciate you for your
positive feelings. This appreciation will eventually drive out the fear. An
SFJ therefore can make a partner, for these people CAN get to love you, but
it takes them a lot of time. And a lot of effort. And a lot of calmness
coming from you.
STJs are a lost cause for us, as far as I can see. They stand for all that
we do not, and vice versa. They fear us, while we understand and pity them.
I don't see a good relationship between an NFP and an STJ. Ever. There is no
respect possible.
The trick is to distinguish between those, and it takes a lot of practice.
There is a lot of literature on Myers-Briggs, and a lot of stuff about it on
the Web. Look around.
By the way, I discovered that my fantasy was an STJ, in all likelyhood.
Loving Shakespeare. And not understanding a lot of it. It is always easy to
mistify someone when you are 400 years away and not in the same room
broadcasting all those nasty vibes...
Good luck fratello,
Steven
runawa...@my-deja.com
devastation. I may have runaway from my intended (I broke it off), but I was
doing it to save myself.
I fell passionately in love as well. I write, so I also sent written
expressions to him. But unlike your relationship, the guy was connecting
back. He asked ME to marry him, he was in the relationship and said he
didn't want it to be a one night stand, said he loved me, blah, blah, blah.
We were a couple for a year and a half.
But somewhere along the line, it turned. We had been friends and became
lovers. It was fabulous, then it turned. He started acting weird. Did
little hurtful things too inane to recount. Just little obnoxious digs that
make you wonder: is it me or is he trying to make me feel bad? confused?
insecure? We fought, cuz I am a fighter. I blamed myself, I blamed him.
I'd beat myself up about how I could have handled it differently. Finally
after a rather transparent manipulation to make me feel bad, I broke it off.
Unlike you, I managed to stay away after the break up. Cut off all contact.
Dropped out of sight. Ran away. Thank god for great friends.
Then one day, he contacted me. Wasn't sensitive at all though about the
damage he had inflicted. Acted nonchalant, cool. I still avoided contact
but the cycle of sleepless nights resumed. I was beginning to soften. To
wonder if I'd made the right decision to break it off with him after all. I
loved him so deeply. It hurt to runaway.
Then in the darkness of my quiet room, I had a brilliant idea. The only way
I would know for sure if the guy was OK or if the guy was playing with my
head was to ask someone who'd been in my shoes. You got it...
I contacted his ex-wife. Wrote her and told her about my dilemma and some of
the stranger things I had experienced with my lover.
She was kind enough to share a bit of her 13+ years of experience with him.
What I discovered was what I really didn't want to hear but what I must have
known all along: the guy is abusive (read: emotionally abusive, verbally
abusive and eventually sexually abusive) to the woman he loves.
EEEEEEEEEEEEK.
It's his pattern, apparently. First he likes to get into your heart, then
your head and then he'll mess with you anyway he can. But to meet and talk
to the guy, you'd never know it. He seems OK. A balding, middle aged white
guy. An accountant for christ's sake. He knows the right things to say at
the right time. But there is an underlying element of anger. He focuses it
at his ex. But I now know that he's angry with her because he thought SHE
was his possession, not because he humanely loved her. Talk about your
psycho.
So C, if you're willing to take the risk, why not contact that old ex of
Amy's? Then you'll find out first hand what you've been trying to figure
out. I can tell you that since my conversations with his ex, I have decided
that it is a very good idea to do a 'background' check on anyone I plan to
give my heart to in the future.
In article <37CAD470...@san.rr.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Courageous
> can fully define reality, what does is that Courageous's idea of what that
> girl was was most likely way out of line from her true being.
I understood many facts about her, but did not understand the whole
cloth of who she was, or how the detailed facts of her life constructed
her into a real person. Some of her behaviors quite startled me in
the end, in spite of being able to list of a huge list of details
from her life. Looking back, I think I now do understand her
behaviors, and wonder in retrospect whether or not I was emotionally
compatible with her. Just possibly not. I strongly suspect that
overall she wasn't "emotionally ready" at all.
On the other points in this post, I find it interesting that someone
would be willing to conclude so much about me based on one life
experience. How do you know that I wasn't utterly overwhelmed by
a once in a lifetime emotional experience and was simply in an
emotional fugue pursuing it to its end as I best knew how at the
time? Part of the craziness of my obsession with A. was this
certain feeling of stupidity that I'd screwed up utterly right
in the very beginning with a type of move that I've actually told
people not to do on countless occasions. In fact, the error was
ironic in more than one way: I remember distinctly the day I had
a conversation with A. about the fellow who sent her poetry before.
I observed: "it's usually not a good idea to send those kinds of
romantic overatures early in a relationship, because it can create
pressure." Nasty foreshadowing. That I proceeding to go about my
own demise in a way that I had personally foretold is only evidence
of how emotionally wrapped up in it that I became. Looking back on
the whole affair makes me feel like such a child, really.
There is much more to the story and why it went the way that it
went that I have left out. There were certain of her behaviors
towards me in the beginning that I interpreted as a positive
emotional response towards me. Looking back, I may have even
been very well correct, with the caveat that in spite of spotty
positive emotional responses, she simply wasn't ready. Or the
moment was lost. Or whatever.
I think perhaps the nature of my obsession was built-up on those
small emotional responses: to see such potential and then be
denied it was worse than a simple chase. The dichotomy pushed
me into la-la land.
C/
stairs to heavenly relationships
Autumn
Good for you. Except for the details, this could be my story. Mine
focused his full attention on pursuing me and winning me over. We dated
and expressed our love for each other. Then one day he was suddenly too
busy. Just like that.
> Unlike you, I managed to stay away after the break up. Cut off
all contact.
> Dropped out of sight. Ran away. Thank god for great friends.
>
> Then one day, he contacted me. Wasn't sensitive at all though
about the
> damage he had inflicted. Acted nonchalant, cool. I still avoided
contact
> but the cycle of sleepless nights resumed. I was beginning to soften.
To
> wonder if I'd made the right decision to break it off with him after
all. I
> loved him so deeply. It hurt to runaway.
I loved mine deeply, passionately, even when he seemed insensitive,
which was most of the time. He had a way of absolving himself of all
responsibility and getting what he craved, which was keeping me
emotionally hooked with no commitment on his part. "Well, I can't really
see you anymore because I'm too busy, but I'm still in love with you"
The emotional cruelty before and after that bombshell went on and on
until I put an end to it. It wasn't easy for me, either. It took
everything I had, including the support of friends. I lost a lot of
weight and generally became a basket case. In my case, too, it was the
slap of a deliberate and transparent attempt to hurt me that gave me the
push I needed. And he continued to pursue me long after I told him to
leave me alone. Odd that he was no longer too busy.
>
> Then in the darkness of my quiet room, I had a brilliant idea.
The only way
> I would know for sure if the guy was OK or if the guy was playing with
my
> head was to ask someone who'd been in my shoes. You got it...
>
> I contacted his ex-wife. Wrote her and told her about my dilemma and
some of
> the stranger things I had experienced with my lover.
>
> She was kind enough to share a bit of her 13+ years of experience with
him.
> What I discovered was what I really didn't want to hear but what I
must have
> known all along: the guy is abusive (read: emotionally abusive,
verbally
> abusive and eventually sexually abusive) to the woman he loves.
That was a great idea you had. You DO know it all along. There are so
many red flags and if you think about it, I'm sure you can remember all
of them. Sometimes for me it was just a gut feeling and once I remember
seeing him approach and thinking that he was a sleaze. It seemed to come
out of nowhere and yet on some level I knew the truth. I ignored my
instincts and good judgment because he was good at seeming innocent and
well-meaning. In the end, he proved quite plainly that he was in fact a
sleaze. When I think back to the emotional and sexual abuse, I'm
STUNNED at what he could dish out and what I could take.
> EEEEEEEEEEEEK.
>
> It's his pattern, apparently. First he likes to get into your heart,
then
> your head and then he'll mess with you anyway he can. But to meet and
talk
> to the guy, you'd never know it. He seems OK. A balding,
middle aged white
> guy. An accountant for christ's sake.
Exactly.
He knows the right things to say at
> the right time. But there is an underlying element of anger. He
focuses it
> at his ex. But I now know that he's angry with her because he thought
SHE
> was his possession, not because he humanely loved her. Talk
about your
> psycho.
I, too, sensed the underlying anger from the beginning but couldn't
quite put my finger on it until I got the scoop on his past. Suddenly,
BLAM, all of the confusing behavior made sense and the obsessive
behavior I'd found intriguing became scary. Guys like this aren't
capable of loving women. What they really get off on is control. If you
tell them to stay away, they will stop at nothing to keep you connected.
>
> So C, if you're willing to take the risk, why not contact that old ex
of
> Amy's? Then you'll find out first hand what you've been trying
to figure
> out. I can tell you that since my conversations with his ex, I have
decided
> that it is a very good idea to do a 'background' check on anyone I
plan to
> give my heart to in the future.
A background check is a good idea but you can't always do it. Just
remember to pay attention to the signs and don't let your loneliness or
curiosity or whatever make you put yourself at risk. And forget the
baloney you hear about how your self-esteem must have been low. Anybody
can be conned. There are some excellent books on this topic. One that I
highly recommend is "Bad Guys" by Brook Hersey.
Good luck in the future,
Autumn
Zilbermann
>Date: Sun, 05 September 1999 01:15 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7qu8fg$5vi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
SNIP
>
>I contacted his ex-wife. Wrote her and told her about my dilemma and some of
>the stranger things I had experienced with my lover.
>
>She was kind enough to share a bit of her 13+ years of experience with him.
But one can't expect an ex to be objective.
Courageous
> * small emotional responses: to see such potential and then be
> * denied it was worse than a simple chase. The dichotomy pushed
> * me into la-la land.
>
> She could be one of the people who encourage this kind of behavior.
> And, YOU may be also a very confusing person. Have you ever had
> your women complain that your behavior is confusing and they cannot
> understand it?
No, actually. But then again, I've never had this intense of
an emotional response to a woman before; it made me behave
very erratically. It's a bit dismaying, really.
C/
Gregos
My conclusions are not based on hard data. God forbid. Very well observed. I
have no evidence? Surprise me with some of your own. To assume that anyone
can draw conclusions about the emotions of an individual based on any
quantifiable stuff is simply esoteric. This is personality guesswork, not
stupid and narrow-minded logical reasoning. I've done the later for too long
in my life, and besides expanding IQ it got me nowhere. To repeat again, I
am guessing your profile with a considerable chance of failure by comparing
patterns. Some of it will be done on the empirical basis, some on logical.
Trivial positivist thinking is non-applicable in the domain of feelings.
Sorry, brother. We are Fs and that is our kingdom, no logic is acceptable.
We don't issue the Ts any visas when it comes to love. And to obtain HARD
data on someone's emotions you would certainly require some of the famed KGB
interrogational methods. The only trick is that it may distort the initial
emotions considerably, and many other things besides that :)
Courageous does not have an very unique personality for a simple reason:
unique things are lone. Nothing can be very lone, by definition, as used in
english language. His personality is rare, alright. He can write letters
well, which is a trait many of us NFPs possess, as opposed to the ones that
you do. I was trying to advise him from the perspective of someone sharing
pretty much most of the PT that has had practical experiences of a similar
nature. I was also trying to warn him from making any quick conclusions, at
least in the future. Any form of logic is not applicable in those
circumstances, to repeat once again. Of course, when you are approaching
someone with something in your hand with a view on dating them, common sense
sais it better not be a holy book or something. You better act damn straight
and clean, and you don't need a lot of wit to figure that one out. Making
waves also does not help. On the other hand, ESP and prayers (christian,
islamic or others) may be useful, if you believe in those things. Or
astrology ;))
Igor wrote in message ...
>Gregos <gre...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>* joey brother,
>*
>* My own little thingy, just about 3 weeks old (that's how long ago the
black
>* day occured), although infrastructurally quite different, was in
practical
>* terms almost a mirror image of your misadvanture. There is such a thing
as a
>* personality clash, and those may have well been a couple of those.
Romance
>* is a funny thing. I solemnly believe that some people simply never get
any
>* idea of what "love" means. For some of them, it is a term that denotes
>* security, comfort and enjoyment of other persons physique and friendship
>* (like many of Myers-Briggs SJ types). Others see relationship as an
>* adventure, not a match of a higher importance (many MB SPs). The SJ types
>* are unfortunately very common, especially among women. I say
unfortunately
>* for your writing and the whole affair sounds very much like you are an NF
>* (intuitive feeler), just like myself. This category numbers less than 10%
of
>* men, while about 50% of women are SJs, and perhaps as many as 30% are
SPs.
>* If you are what I think you are, you have to face some facts.
>
>That's why I crossposted the thread to alt.psychology.personality,
>I thought that Courageous had a very unique personality.
>
>* Among the facts are those:
>*
>* 1) We feel. We feel strongly. Even about ordinary things. We are more
likely
>* to give a quarter to a homeless guy than any SJ. They will often worry
about
>* being tricked into giving a stupid quarter away. We will generally worry
>* more about this guy probably being hungy and cold there and then, and
more
>* so without our quarter.
>*
>* 2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion
is.
>* They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external
sensation.
>
>Bullshit. I have seen some Guardians be madly in love.
Igor, before you "bullshit" anyone's statements, bear in mind that the word
"often" denotes any quantity appearing within an entity of any significance,
which may not account for the majority of that entity. Using it in even
within a winning argument is pretty rude, at least in a civilised newsgroup.
And as far as winnability goes, it may not require one to utilise a lot of
logic to figure out that if many SJs cannot love, some of them may very well
be able to. Please use words less strong than "bullshit" unless you are very
sure you have read what someone has said carefully and in detail, and
analysed them afterwards.
Many Guardians can and do fall in love. Many of them loved the Fuhrer during
WW2 for instance. It was a love of obsession, protection, patriotism,
devotion and unquestioning loyalty. What a great love that was.
>* Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT
or
>* even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
>
>You are the prime example of the fallacy of overconfidently making
>conclusions from insufficient data.
>
>* are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may
have
>* feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
>* herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
>* have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very
positivist,
>* no metaphysics abides in their universe.
>*
>* 3) Very funny and peculiar is the igor's "was a person entirely diferent
>* from what you imagined her to be." This is very typical of sensory
>* individuals. They believe that their senses can let them fully define the
>* nature of another individual, provided that they are given sufficient
time.
>
>Again, there is no logic in this... It does not really matter if senses
>can fully define reality, what does is that Courageous's idea of what that
>girl was was most likely way out of line from her true being.
His idea was apparently wrong, you are right about that. I did not even
argue with that. Everyone is wrong. Even about themselves. But talking about
someone's true being, without assuming the status of a higher entity, is
very pretentious, almost blasphemous in some ways. What you call "true
being" is one's user interface. The inner self is what metaphysics is
concerned about. Are you into it? I doubt it, at least from what you are
saying.
>* Another positivist approach, and, know what, I bet you even she thought
>* exactly the same way! "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!!" - she cried. Well,
no
>* use now. We know well that it is them who don't know who they are
>* themselves, and they project their doubts and insecurities onto us. But
the
>* trick is that we fail, while they get their prophecies of failure
>* shamelessly simply self-fulfilled by rejecting us. Moral#1: We are more
>* romantic people than they can ever be. Moral#2: We therefore get hurt
more
>* than they ever do. Moral#3 We know that Shakespeare was just one of us,
so
>
>Which Shakespeare accidentqlly was not, by the way. According to one of
>the pygmalion project books, if I recall correctly, he was a rational.
You can base your knowledge on the pop-literature. I am glad the guy is dead
and unable to fill out any of the keirsey's forms, which might resolve this
little argument.
>* we commonly find him light and easy reading, while base their degrees and
>* sometimes lives around explaining to themselves and others the mindsets
of
>* Shakespeare's famous NF characters, and keep failing at it (the vast
>* majority, just like the man himself, are simply just like us, and behave
so.
>* Very weird. And Fascinating?! LOL ;)! SUCKERS!!!!
>*
>* 4) "So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in what you perceived".
>* The truth is that both igor and you are right on this one. You perceived
an
>* individual who was supposed to be able to understand you. She was not one
of
>* those. And you are right, too- if we want to come close to STP and SJs
while
>* we feel very strongly about them, we simply HAVE to cover up the
intensity
>* of our feelings, otherwise they run for their lives.
>
>You do not understand Guardians at all, dude. They can be absolutely
>madly in love (whoch I can define as their love defining most of what
>they do), they simply show it in a different way. They do a lot of stuff
>for you.
The guardians do a lot of stuff for me, admitedly! They break my heart
occasionally (Catherine, i still love you), I break their police bones
occasionally, they prevent me from getting my travelling documents and
travel freely occasionally, i prevent them from living quiet lives of good
law obiding citizens occasionally, they respectfully help elect presidents
who let the crooks run their private armies and burn down villages, murder
inhabitants & rape women, thereby laying ruin to my native country
occasionally, i come back and make some of them more aware of the
Ibn'Arabi's teachings occasionally. Of that stuff, there certainly is a lot.
They are the people that are the easiest to manipulate, obstruct and herd.
They base their opinions on the data, and will accept any data available, as
long as the conclusions arising from the data match their existing
misconceptions. And of prejudice they are sometimes full, while they
generally love using rules of tumb and stereotypes, i.e. they trade the
effectiveness for efficiency of judgment.
>* 5) "Some incompatibility", goodonya Igor! Man there were craploads of
it...
>* let me sum this up, mate. Here is who you probably are (NFP), and here
are
>* the implications:
>*
>* (E)xtrovert vs (I)ntrovert scale: not applicable
>* (F)eeling vs (T)hinking
>* (P)erceiving vs (J)udging
>* I(N)tuitive vs (S)ensory
>*
>* F- Stands for Feeling instead of thinking. You are a Myers-Briggs "F".
>* People with strong "T"'s will not understand you. They base their lives
on
>* logic. You apparently don't. That's cool with me, I don't either. But it
>* wasn't cool with her maybe. Be weary when you show too much emotion to
those
>
>The problem with F types is, that they do not make trivial logical
>conclusions from simple facts. Had Courageous been able to think back
>and reflect, he might have decided to actually get to know the girl a
>little better before overwhelming her with his very confusing behavior
>(being closer and then pushing her away, overwehelming her with poems
>of unknown quality, etc). Now, I am not picking on you F fellows, as you
>have feelings that I may never even experience and you do have a pretty
>good judgment of people -- unless your feelings get in the way of your
>perceptions -- but I belong to the school that it is always better to
>know of your weaknesses.
You don't seem to know much about the effects of strong feelings on one's
decision making process. We are well acquainted with logic, in general. We
just often choose not to use it, and sometimes simply follow our impulses.
And they are often as strong as those of the SPs, which is why they mix us
up sometimes.
>
>* people. They will try to rationalise it into their own constrained little
>* universe, and once they invariably fail they will have no choice but to
>* declare you weird and potentially dangerous.
>*
>* P - Stands for perception. Igor is right. You tried to perceive the whole
>* thing right through. We rarely judge other people, because we know they
are
>* all good to some extent, so why put them on trial initially. They WILL
judge
>* you initially. In the Myers-Briggs "J"-type eyes, everyone is a potential
>* axe-murderer. That's your default value, buddy, and you are guilty until
>* proven innocent. One more reason to be extremely calm, peaceful, cautious
>* and reserved when you try to approach a "J" you like.
>*
>* N - intuition. As I said, according to what you said it is almost certain
>* that the babe of yours was an "S"(Sensory). They usually don't even
bother
>
>There is no evidence of that whatsoever, dude. Where did you make your
>conclusion from?
The match with my personal experiences. Stop looking for evidence. This is
not criminal court, and there is simply not enough data to make any final
conclusion. Intuitive people can generally look behind the overtones
(regardless of their form), which this woman was apparently not capable of.
Since she did sleep with him, she was not sexually repulsed by the guy, so
the probable reason of her breaking up was the emotional intensity itself.
Ss are more weary of the manifestations of this emotional intensity, as they
record them as unusual sensations, and those can scare them off. Actually,
she was a bit adventurous so STP is my closest guess, and I could be slighly
wrong.
I
>
>* using their intuition, except maybe professionally. We do. Sometimes we
>* succeed in this, and sometimes we fail. But we always look for the
"bigger
>* picture". In your bigger picture in this case may have been you and her
and
>* the most unbelievable romance and white wedding and loads of kids and
>* happiness to and beyond the grave and angels and who knows what else. In
>* her, this may have been another potential relationship to let her recover
>* from the breakdown in the previous one. For example, an acquaintance of
>* mine, "SJ" has been in a relationship for 2 years, and broke it off after
>* deciding to apply for a job overseas. She said that it was such fine a
>* relationship, he's been so good, they never ever had a fight or
something,
>* and he was soooooo sad when she had to leave for Aussie and he was to
>* emotional. So she was a bit sad, too. Why, you would ask? Well "she
hasn't
>* been single for more than 2 years"! Don't be fooled Joey, these people,
as I
>* said, sometimes have no bloody idea what love is.
>
>Not all guardians. I know one ISTJ and one ISFJ and there is a world
>of difference between them. One has no feelings whatsoever, and another
>is full of love and devotion.
Again, the same thing Igor. Sometimes - does it really sound like "all".
Consider using a dictionary for a change. And it would be normal to expect
that the emotion is what differentiates ISTJs and ISFJs, hell - that's in
their definition!
>
>* Anyway, for all those brave and keen male NFPs (about 4-5% of the male
>* populace), here are some advices on who potential matches are, speaking
>* completely from my personal experience and understanding of Myers-Briggs,
>* and of course intuition as well :)
>*
>* 1. Other NFs. This can be a dream relationship. But the level of
emotional
>* intensity on both sides is so great that the resonance of the effects can
>* and often does cause rupture in the physical sequence of events.
Tragedies
>* are therefore common, but at least they are mutual when they do occur.
Have
>* a look at Romeo and Juliet. Both Shakespearean NF's, both completely and
>* unreservedly in love with each other. There was certainly some
>* over-dramatisation, but the essence is there, what "S" personalities
would
>* say, "it was too good to be true". About 15% of females are NFs of
various
>* subtypes. If those women like you, you can afford to like them back very
>
>Where are they hiding.
>
>* emotional and kind side. I believe that many silly SJs assume us NFs to
be
>
>They often do not understand nothing.
>
>* often. I would doubt the possibility of a strong relationship between an
NF
>* and an STP. But, bear in mind, more than 30% of women are SPs of some
type.
>
>I have written all SPs off. Never could have a meaningful relationhip
>with them.
Igor, you can't generalise like that.
SPs are playful, they can love you, but you have to keep intriguing them.
And they may be less loyal than others sometimes. But not necessarily. And
their Fs can often appear like Ts because of their extravagancy, which acts
as a cover-up for sometimes intense emotions inside.
Secondly, the NFs are usually the "busiest" girls around. They are very very
considerate, well natured, loyal, will do much to prevent you from being
hurt and are therefore much sought after. Consequently, their occupancy
rates are very high.
Igor, you are apparently very fond of SFJ babes. That's allright. You are a
dog person, and I am a cat person. I don't care what love comes with, but I
do dislike being judged, and judging others. And that is what SJs excell at.
They are the pillar of every society, and the repositories of all the shit.
Once you try to get rid of that shit, you have immediately started making
waves,at least as seen through their eyes. Sorry, bro but our conflict is
political. No avoiding it.
nutm...@my-deja.com
"Gregos" <gre...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>To assume that anyone can draw conclusions about the emotions of an
>individual based on any quantifiable stuff is simply esoteric. This is
>personality guesswork, not stupid and narrow-minded logical reasoning.
That's sort of what I've been saying here for a while. A way of
thinking that I've notice.....especially among men.
>I've done the later for too long
> in my life, and besides expanding IQ it got me nowhere.
But....IQ plays into it, because some just never get what you
mean....their IQ doesn't allow it.
> Courageous does not have an very unique personality for a simple
>reason:
> unique things are lone. Nothing can be very lone, by definition, as
>used in english language.
I don't get what you mean? I don't see unique things as lone.
> I was also trying to warn him from making any quick
>conclusions, at least in the future.
That is where his poems will help him, I said the same but in different
words.
>Any form of logic is not applicable in those circumstances,
That is correct, at least how I see it.
> On the other hand, ESP and prayers (christian,
> islamic or others) may be useful, if you believe in those things. Or
> astrology ;))
Meditation, and PSI dreams.
> >
> >That's why I crossposted the thread to alt.psychology.personality,
> >I thought that Courageous had a very unique personality.
I think so also.
> >You are the prime example of the fallacy of overconfidently making
> >conclusions from insufficient data.
HUH? I don't see that, the logic creeping in too much?
> His idea was apparently wrong, you are right about that. I did not
>even argue with that. Everyone is wrong. Even about themselves.
You never really know about someone, it all depends on what they decide
to show you about themselves.
>But talking about someone's true being, without assuming the status of
>a higher entity, is very pretentious, almost blasphemous in some ways.
That is just a good statement, by itself.
>What you call "true being" is one's user interface. The inner self is
>what metaphysics is concerned about.
Yes, and it is amazing what you can discover about yourself when you are
brave enough to journey into all of it.
> >Which Shakespeare accidentqlly was not, by the way. According to one
of
> >the pygmalion project books, if I recall correctly, he was a
rational.
>
> You can base your knowledge on the pop-literature. I am glad the guy
>is dead and unable to fill out any of the keirsey's forms, which might
>resolve this little argument.
That's funny!! I've found myself going back again to Shakespeare, each
time I get something different and I've also wondered about him dying on
his b-day (like Mark Twain) and how his descendants have become extinct.
His moral and social qualities are fascinating.
> You don't seem to know much about the effects of strong feelings on
>one's decision making process.
Emotional intelligence, and it has to be developed and learned to be
relied on.
>We are well acquainted with logic, in general. We
> just often choose not to use it, and sometimes simply follow our
>impulses.
And, some of us learn how to balance the two.
>Intuitive people can generally look behind the overtones
> (regardless of their form), which this woman was apparently not
>capable of.
She might not have been capable because of her emotional intelligence
level, she seemed immature about some things.
> Since she did sleep with him, she was not sexually repulsed by the
>guy, so the probable reason of her breaking up was the emotional
>intensity itself.
That is just one reason, I think there are more.
> >I have written all SPs off. Never could have a meaningful relationhip
> >with them.
>
> Igor, you can't generalise like that.
Anyone will get into trouble thinking along those lines.
> Once you try to get rid of that shit, you have immediately started
>making waves,at least as seen through their eyes.
Heh, yes that's what I've noticed!
Sorry C - we're talking about you like you don't exist!!
You've got it right, just jumbled up right now.
Courageous
> >one's decision making process.
Well, I lost track of who said this, but I was trying to point
that out. That no matter how cool and well-reasoned someone may
be, in the grip of an exceptionally emotional moment, everything
can change. Furthermore, it is quite more than possible to
*simultaneously* look at something both rationally and emotionally
and be affected differently on different levels.
That's what I was trying to say when I said that my rational self
thought that I'd never see Amy again, but my emotional self wanted
to give her the book (and did). It turned out that my rational self
was wrong, but in retrospect it wasn't a bad rational judgement.
Once something doesn't work out once, it generally won't work out
twice; "relationships which go backward seldom ever go forward,"
as they say.
> >Intuitive people can generally look behind the overtones
> > (regardless of their form), which this woman was apparently not
> >capable of.
There were no doubt things going on which I was not privy to. But
looking back with a (mostly) clear head, the final analysis still
stands: she became preoccupied with my feelings instead of seeing
to her own. This led to a bad dynamic; with her withdrawing partly
from me, it led me to be self-absorbed and sent me into a variety
of panic reactions which hastened the end of the relationship.
It may not have worked out anyway. Like I said, in spite of having
many correct perceptions about her, I didn't know her all that well.
Be that as it may, I still insist that the emotional dynamic itself
was a contributing factor... and a significant one.
While I spent a lot of time kicking myself over this, the only real
take home lesson is that love should happen naturally, as a comfortable
progression between two people. It's something that I've been saying
for a long time, actually, albeit perhaps in not those particular
words.
C/
runawa...@my-deja.com
But I wasn't asking for an objective opinion on a very subjective subject. I
wanted facts. I wanted to know what she had been through with the guy. I
sent her the details of a few experiences of my own and asked her if she had
experienced anything like that when she was with him.
The experiences she told me about about were not trivial little gripes. I
knew going in to this conversation that she could be very bitter. So I
expected a lot of bashing and anger. (He cannot even say her name he is so
angry and bitter about her, or rather as I have learned, about not being in
'possession' of her anymore.)
In fact, the woman is not angry or bitter at all. She has recently
remarried. If anything, she is disappointed. She said she was sorry to hear
that he hadn't learned anything and moved on from their experience. She had
hoped he would have figured something out and grown up. There was so much
pain involved for her in that relationship. She said that everything I had
written could have been written by her. He is still into abusing the woman
he claims to love.
The experiences she shared with me, let me know that this guy has a pattern
for abusing women. I have accepted this knowledge now. There are men out
there who get a kick or whatever out of abusing women who have committed the
crime of loving them. I have taken this further and realized that this
behavior stems from their basic insecurity and self-loathing: "How can this
woman love me? After all, I know me and I am not worthy of this love."
Yeah, screwed up and very sad indeed. I do empathize with the guy's problem.
But I love myself too much to stay involved with a guy with this kind of
problem. Obviously he needs professional help that begins with him admitting
that he has a problem.
In any case, talking to his ex was a validating experience for me and she
said it was healing for her as well.
In article <19990906051505...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
zilbe...@aol.comspamnot (Zilbermann) wrote:
> >From: runawa...@my-deja.com
> >Date: Sun, 05 September 1999 01:15 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <7qu8fg$5vi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> SNIP
> >
> >I contacted his ex-wife. Wrote her and told her about my dilemma and some of
> >the stranger things I had experienced with my lover.
> >
> >She was kind enough to share a bit of her 13+ years of experience with him.
>
> But one can't expect an ex to be objective.
>
>
Autumn
runawa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You know, you're right.
>
> But I wasn't asking for an objective opinion on a very subjective
subject. I
> wanted facts. I wanted to know what she had been through with the
guy. I
> sent her the details of a few experiences of my own and asked her if
she had
> experienced anything like that when she was with him.
>
> The experiences she told me about about were not trivial little
gripes. I
> knew going in to this conversation that she could be very bitter. So
I
> expected a lot of bashing and anger. (He cannot even say her name he
is so
> angry and bitter about her, or rather as I have learned, about not
being in
> 'possession' of her anymore.)
I don't know if you saw my other post. I also had a relationship with a
psycho who couldn't let go. Although I found it extremely difficult to
admit my stupidity in getting sucked in by such a loser, I finally had
no choice but to start talking about it with various people. In doing
so, I was conscious of what you're saying here, namely that anybody
sharing negative information about a past love runs the risk of seeming
vindictive. But the kinds of behavior these guys do is so off the wall
and at the same time so predictable that anybody with any background,
either professional or personal, with obsessiveness/stalking/emotional
abuse, etc. has no trouble believing what you tell them.
>
> In fact, the woman is not angry or bitter at all. She has recently
> remarried. If anything, she is disappointed. She said she was sorry
to hear
> that he hadn't learned anything and moved on from their experience.
She had
> hoped he would have figured something out and grown up. There was so
much
> pain involved for her in that relationship. She said that everything
I had
> written could have been written by her. He is still into abusing the
woman
> he claims to love.
This is not something that can be outgrown. It won't go away with "the
love of a good woman" or "love for a woman". Maybe therapy would help. I
don't really know. I do know that my efforts to help were about as
effective as a bilge pump on the Titanic and I spent way too much time
with the whole thing. Letting a sick person hurt you is NOT how you help
them.
> The experiences she shared with me, let me know that this guy has a
pattern
> for abusing women. I have accepted this knowledge now. There are men
out
> there who get a kick or whatever out of abusing women who have
committed the
> crime of loving them. I have taken this further and realized that
this
> behavior stems from their basic insecurity and self-loathing: "How can
this
> woman love me? After all, I know me and I am not worthy of this
love."
I agree with your assessment of what motivates abusive behavior in this
kind of situation. It's interesting that you say "committed the crime of
loving him." Isn't it odd how they can make you feel at fault? I
remember my "love" once telling me that he was a lowlife. My response
was to assure him that he wasn't. Jesus. Talk about an enabler. Ever
the supportive one and never supporting of my own need for a healthy,
mutually fulfilling relationship. It's embarrassing, I tell ya. What was
it that strange little munchkin psychic kept saying? "Step into the
liiiiiiiiiight." Yeah, step into the light, girl.
>
> Yeah, screwed up and very sad indeed. I do empathize with the guy's
problem.
> But I love myself too much to stay involved with a guy with this kind
of
> problem. Obviously he needs professional help that begins with him
admitting
> that he has a problem.
>
> In any case, talking to his ex was a validating experience for me and
she
> said it was healing for her as well.
It's powerful and healing to discover that you're not crazy.
Disappointing in the hopes that you must let go of. Fantasies, really.
Sad for the loss of the person you thought you knew. But an escape from
a dark place you happened to get trapped in for what seemed like an
endless while. The joy and optimism I feel these days are as intense as
when I first fell in love. The difference is that they stem from healthy
boundaries and real possibilities.
--
Autumn
Mark-o
Autumn <autumn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It's powerful and healing to discover that you're not crazy.
> Disappointing in the hopes that you must let go of. Fantasies, really.
> Sad for the loss of the person you thought you knew. But an escape
from a dark place you happened to get trapped in for what seemed like an
> endless while. The joy and optimism I feel these days are as intense
as when I first fell in love. The difference is that they stem from
healthy boundaries and real possibilities.
>
> --
> Autumn
That's a great encapsulation -- thanks!
I just ended a one-year relationship and am feeling a lot of that, and
am very grateful for the reflection time and discovering, "No, I'm not
crazy." I'm still hurting a bit (just happened a week or so ago, so I
have my episodes of "I'm mad. I'm sad. I'm mad. I'm sad..."), but
trying to stay objective and *honest* about what went down. It's also
helping me to do "emotional house cleaning" in other realms of my life
-- cutting away the dead wood and moving on...feels...good..
Thanks to all for sharing -- it helps reading others' perspectives --
and especial thanks to Courageous for having the...well...courage to
start this thread. Sounds like you've got a lot to give, Joe -- hope
you find someone who will honestly treasure it. Maybe I'll dredge up
some courage and share some of my own story...
Cheers!
--
Our doubts are traitors
And make us lose the good we oft might win
By fearing to attempt.
~~Measure For Measure~~
runawa...@my-deja.com
Do you think you can recognize this type in the future?
Autumn
runawa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Autumn. Glad to hear you're feeling better.
>
> Do you think you can recognize this type in the future?
>
taken better care of myself. :(
Meanwhile, I'm faced with a situation of a different sort. This weekend,
I met an interesting man. The more we talked, the more I liked him. He's
just returned to the area after traveling in foreign countries and is
looking for a place to live in a nearby city. This morning he called to
invite me to dinner. What's my hesitation? He's 15 years younger than I
am.
I accepted right away, and part of me is simply delighted. The other
part is a little unnerved because I haven't dated a man this much
younger before.
Has anyone here dated younger men/older women? Any thoughts will be
appreciated!
Autumn
Zilbermann
>Date: Mon, 13 September 1999 11:10 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7rkeaq$o2l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>Has anyone here dated younger men/older women? Any thoughts will be
>appreciated!
>
too staid for this immature wild and crazy guy.
aogi...@my-deja.com
I wouldn't date any woman who doesn't like _Natural Born Killers_.
Seriously, that was a good story. I hope you're doing OK now.
-og
Autumn
Well, I guess age isn't always chronological.
We have common interests (both studying European history,love the
outdoors and detest contemporary politics). And I like that he likes a
playful argument.:)
I'm just thinking, if we find each other attractive, why should I be
worried about the age difference? It's not like we're getting married.
--
Autumn