Recently Dumped Again -- Real Raw Right Now
Yet Another Broken Heart
I just want to cry to the winds right now, so please excuse the
plaintive blah blah blah to follow.
I'm just really sad right now. My mother had committed suicide this
summer, and then my g/f dumps me -- and it's not like I was on drugs,
had no job, slapped her around, or slept all the time or anything like
that. She wants to be married, living together, and I did not --
though I was open to discussion all along. But her thing is, what's
the use of talking, we're going to disagree....
So she's dumped me. She's found someone else, and believe it or not,
can only see fit to give me the time of day (but only to the nearest
hour, mind you) on account of this new fella urging her to show me
some consideration since he's apparently been in the same situation
himself. After four years of being together she figures we ought to
be married by now; after fours years, I figure she should show me more
sympathy than this!
It's just amazing how I'll never learn...she's got the sweetest,
baby-looking face of innocence...and she is a sweet girl...but
obviously she's tired of me...I'm just really hurt how this has
happened...I mean, it's another out-of-the-blue unilateral decision on
her part to break up, and this time she's crossed the line and gone
ahead with another guy blah blah blah wahhhhhhhhh!!
Damn, writing this out makes it sound so silly but I'm so
depressed....
Someone, please just say something to me, anything...God, the worst
thing is the total rejection, the complete disregard...I wish I can be
more of a man about this, but I feel like an orphan...she's picking up
her laptop today, she doesn't even care for her clothes --
agggrrrhhhh!
How do people just trash someone like this...we just came back from
vacation a month ago...no one's ever taken her anywhere.....
Someone please this sad sack...words of wisdom, a slap in the face...I
don't want to feel alone with this...I was actually shaking
yesterday...and I'm six-feet-two-hundred-pounds...wow...I'm just
floored...this girl's really hurt me again and she's really doesn't
care that she did...just the cost of doing business.....
God I wish I can shut up!
sumire
I can really imagine how much you hurt.
No, don't shut up, this is the ng to speak out.
Take care, wish you the best
Sumi
Little Monster
Another Broken Heart, unto whom the words are attributed:
> Hi, All:
>
> I just want to cry to the winds right now, so please excuse the
> plaintive blah blah blah to follow.
Blah blah away my friend, as Sumi says, this is what the group is here
for. Anyway, we haven't had anyone come along all broken hearted and
rejected for a while - so Welcome!
> Someone please this sad sack...words of wisdom, a slap in the face...I
Don't know about the words of wisdom. Hang on tho'... WHACK!
Better?
> don't want to feel alone with this...I was actually shaking
> yesterday...and I'm six-feet-two-hundred-pounds...wow...I'm just
> floored...this girl's really hurt me again and she's really doesn't care
> that she did...just the cost of doing business.....
Sounds to me like she disengaged her emotional attachment to you some time
ago, if it's that easy for her. She'll probably do the same to the next
guy. Not that it helps.
Now come here you great big lug, and let me hold you until the shaking
fades...
((((((((((((((((((((YABH)))))))))))))))))))))
Monster
--
I am the sexiest man in the UuuuKaaaayy
All the girls love me
And I will never grow Ooollldd
I am the sexiest man in the UuuKaaaay!
Sklenge
> Hi, All:
>
> I just want to cry to the winds right now, so please excuse the
> plaintive blah blah blah to follow.
>
> I'm just really sad right now. My mother had committed suicide this
> summer, and then my g/f dumps me -- and it's not like I was on drugs,
> had no job, slapped her around, or slept all the time or anything like
> that. She wants to be married, living together, and I did not --
> though I was open to discussion all along. But her thing is, what's
> the use of talking, we're going to disagree....
>
> So she's dumped me. She's found someone else, and believe it or not,
> can only see fit to give me the time of day (but only to the nearest
> hour, mind you) on account of this new fella urging her to show me
> some consideration since he's apparently been in the same situation
> himself. After four years of being together she figures we ought to
> be married by now; after fours years, I figure she should show me more
> sympathy than this!
Sympathy can easily turn into pity.
> It's just amazing how I'll never learn...she's got the sweetest,
> baby-looking face of innocence...and she is a sweet girl...but
> obviously she's tired of me...I'm just really hurt how this has
> happened...I mean, it's another out-of-the-blue unilateral decision on
> her part to break up, and this time she's crossed the line and gone
> ahead with another guy blah blah blah wahhhhhhhhh!!
>
> Damn, writing this out makes it sound so silly but I'm so
> depressed....
>
> Someone, please just say something to me, anything...God, the worst
> thing is the total rejection, the complete disregard...I wish I can be
> more of a man about this, but I feel like an orphan...she's picking up
> her laptop today, she doesn't even care for her clothes --
> agggrrrhhhh!
>
> How do people just trash someone like this...we just came back from
> vacation a month ago...no one's ever taken her anywhere.....
>
> Someone please this sad sack...words of wisdom, a slap in the face...I
> don't want to feel alone with this...I was actually shaking
> yesterday...and I'm six-feet-two-hundred-pounds...wow...I'm just
> floored...this girl's really hurt me again and she's really doesn't
> care that she did...just the cost of doing business.....
>
> God I wish I can shut up!
I hate that breaking up we do. All the shared things that become un-shared
in front of you. Really unpleasant to go through. You don't have to find
anywhere new to live though do you? That's one good thing.
I don't think there's much I can say to help. We've all been, or will go,
through it so you're entitled to blah blah waah as much as you need.
Especially at the messy end of a four year relationship.
Have you ever been on the other side of the rejection equation?
Otto Ramone
"Yet Another Broken Heart" <i_need_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79fe81ff.0408...@posting.google.com...
You have my complete sympathies, and I hope you recover from it as quickly
as possible. Regardless of what she said/did, in this case, it really IS her
and not you that is to blame. It took me a looooonnnggggg time to beleive
that myself. My ex-fiance annouced she'd cheated on me and begged
forgivenss, wanted to save things, go to counseling, etc...after 3 yrs with
her, I wanted to; we had been happy, I certainly had been, and it was the
best thing I'd ever experienced (other than the cheating)...so I agree to
work with her. A couple fo days later, she called me, said she was going to
a freinds house, and would call me the next morning....never heard from her
again. She had *already* moved, it turned out, and changed her number. It
destroyed me for over a year. I *thought* we had essentially the perfect
relationship, none of the typical problems were there. And I never got an
ounce of closure.
I've not found anything that felt similar since, but other than her still
occupying a small spot in my heart, I'm over her. SHE was the one that F'ed
up, not me. I really DID do things right....now, I just have to find someone
who'll appreciate that.
Eleonore Beaudoin
I there,
Sorry that Claudia made it so straight forward, while you thought there
was time to just carry on as you were, and that you are hurtign do bad
over it all....
Sounds to me like Claudia makes sense, and is the type that happens in her
own sense to want to age with someoen by her side...Not to meet them when
old, sort of thing. I can surely relate to that (or shoudl I say that
using the apst tense in my fourties?;-))
Maybe she is just waiting for you to make the proposal....?
Does it seem REALLY sertious with this guy?
I mena, you know how she is when it is brand new and she is all lovy lovy
seriously, for sure...Think it is serious then, or that you might just
ahve to ask her to marry you to make her come back, where she woudl never
have left dso much as make yous ee how you took her for granted...
As for the part about "no one ever took her nowhere"...Cheap thing to say
that, "Broken Heart". Just cause a gal had not been aroudn with all the
guys in the world tryign to buy them off for a trip does not mean you are
to consider she shoudl be there out of woing you for the great holiday!
After all, she shared that time with you, and she cared about you in a
special way that you did not...In fact yous eem to care more when some
other guy is around,w here maybe, just maybe, who knows, maybe she does
that to make you wake up before you both are 78?
Yu know, men do not emasure time in a same way women do...I donlt juyst
mean the biological clock here at all, but tyhe fact that women know they
will ahve their periods around ten years and a few, that they will be each
28th day (in general), last x days, that they will carry kids for nine
months, that after that si a fourty days, that lactation is lalala, and
that after lactation ios another x days and that at age 50 soemthign they
will enter menopause, etc, etc. In short, without their thinking fo it
consciously, they are made to be both in the "here and then" where men are
in teh "here and now" their bodies being more ipulses and stright ups and
straight "sowns" (just think of peaks, and ya know what I eman).
To a woman, ifthat woman cares for a logn term serious relationship of the
long term commitment and love type, knowignt that there is a "tomorrow"
after the next is essential. Or at least, knowign that at soem point will
be no tomorrow can be enough to make them not see where they fit ion YOUR
plan at all, and feel like an extra, and from there, a luxury oen can do
without, not valued for their esential qualities....
Abnd *some* women know that nothign makes a man measure time more than
absence, when they took you for granted. Measure how a day is, since they
coudl not measure and appreciate them for all their worth when the days
(and nights) were shared.....
So maybe just maybe Claudia wanted to make you see with her eyes and
measure her value and what she meant to YOU....Mayeb though she tried
before by talking longer term, wehre you just did not measure then....
But then again, maybe maybe maybe...Maybe all it takes is a proposal....
OPerhaps not now, perhaps not if she is madly in l;ove with that other guy....
But you woudl know, if you take time to rememebr how she was when it was
all lovy lovy new-ie with you.
But that attitude about she woudl owe you cause no oen took her to a
holiday nowhere before...?
Man, rid of that one, will ya???;-)
Insetad tell yourself that she is not the type of gal that sells for a
trip, eh;-). And see her for what she is worth to you, rather than a
think all it takes is a bunch of bucks to try and buy her love....
Then calm down, take time to rememebr and see if she really is in love
with that guy, or how long until you;d know if it is serious or not, then
see if it woudl not be time for you to make a move and more serious
proposal, and when....
Got nothign to lose, but maybe not when things woudl be all lovie nicie
with him still...
And you might also make her measure soemthing, btw, in the ehre and now,
if she elarned you;d be seing someoen else;-):)
Good luck to you and....Well, best wishes, really:)
Chloe
--
Eleonore Beaudoin
Most certainly sounds like it. The cowardice of not facing the consequences
of their own actions some poeple have......
And yet you held a soft spot foer her so maybe she was not wrogn in making
it this way in your case...Maybe toehrwise sour memopries woudl have been
the only ones....?
But are we notn all this way. When there is no closure, when no trnasition
exist, we are left to try and deal with soemthign with no answers at all,
no cause to link to effects, and not trustign our judgement much fpr a
next time...
Been there too.....
And I still think it is cowardince, and darn unfair, nah!
Hugs to you. Hope you find soemoen more decentsoon.
Chloe
>
>
>
--
sumire
Why did you reject her wish for a lifelong relationship with you? (which
is how you should have interpreted her proposal.)
If I put myself into that woman's (Claudia's?) mocassins
I just imagine a young woman having had four years with
her bf and decided she'd like to have a family with him.
I mean biologically seen, a woman in her twenties has limited time. Your
rejecting her wish to marry made her
panicky. Women have to consider their biological clock
(something Chloe has already hinted at). When in their mid-twenties (which
possibly is Claudia's age) women tend
to look for partners who are ready to raise a family.
Women in their forties can afford the luxury of mere
love interest. Which makes it easier for the more undecided
guys.
Given the fact that Claudia is in her mid or late twenties
and she learns you object to marry her she might panic.
("He does not love me so much" or: "He does not want to
commit to me, he is still waiting for a better one to marry", "In case he
dumps me later, won't I be too old to start a new relationship and have
children?" etc. etc. etc.)
Of course I don't know your age, but if you love her so much:
Why did you really reject her wish to marry?
Do you remember what you said? How you said it?
Maybe you were too definite and she could not read
the message that you maybe should still wait a little with
such a decision - I don't know.
There is another possibility: She asked you to marry her
because she knew your answer and sought a reason for a
breakup. But to find out about the truth there is just
one way:
Find out how much you really love her and how much
she really means to you. If you are sure she is the one for you then ask
her to marry you. Tell her the stars from the sky, okay?
From her reaction you can see how serious she really is
about you. Maybe the other guy she has found will not
marry her either ;-)
Women always need kinda proof how much you love them.
They are looking for signs, you know? If they don't get
the signs they start being insecure.
Guys behave differently to the women they court and to
the women they have been together with fo a while.
When the courting is not necessary for the guy as he can
be certain he has her heart ( and body ;-) there will
be a phase of blind love on the side of the girl and then
one day she she sees clearly again and interprets his changed behaviour as
kinda loss of love.
In mature relationships the woman knows that it is the time
to show him how much she loves him, to spoil him, etc.
The courting sommat turns sides, anyway.
But it should never remain a one-sided thing.
After a while there should be a balance of love approach
I would say. It is a pity that some guys do not know how to
express love in an established relationship. They take it
for granted what they have. BTW, women can be the same, anyway.
Not long ago I wrote about the challenge of
relationships, if anyone remembers.
Hm, maybe I've just written about one aspect of
that challenge ;-)
Just one thought: any partner in an established relationship
where there is little culture of tenderness may fall to the
lures of someone else being really nice and maybe court them
or flirt with them. And they might get into a conflict and
try to press their partner too much for a sign of love if
forced into a situation of choice.
I have already thought about starting a new newsgroup about
relationships. There would be interesting things to share
and discuss, wouldn't there?
Sumi
KrosRogue
savagely assaulted several billion electrons with these words:
> How do people just trash someone like this...we just came back from
> vacation a month ago...no one's ever taken her anywhere.....
>
> Someone please this sad sack...words of wisdom, a slap in the face...I
> don't want to feel alone with this...I was actually shaking
> yesterday...and I'm six-feet-two-hundred-pounds...wow...I'm just
> floored...this girl's really hurt me again and she's really doesn't
> care that she did...just the cost of doing business.....
Re-read your own post again. She waited four years to marry you,
presumeably because she loved you. Time passed and she finally gave
up. My take on this is that perhaps you two were incompatible. You
apparently thought the relationship itself was enough, so you weren't
willing to give her the marriage she wanted. Different folk express
love in different ways. She didn't express her love for you in the
manner you wished. You didn't express your love for her in the manner
she wished. She became impatient after what she considered too long of
a time to wait.
--
KrosRogue
AT SoftHome DOT Net
Your Name Here=Harvey
says...
Being dumped is a fact of life - same as moving on and getting over 'it'.
As well as rejection.
And still having wonderful feelings for that someone special, who did all
the above - is silly, but tell that to a heart and spirit that still cares.
If you are truly 'incompatible' with the one you desire to be with -
then, all such feelings of love disappears - and then, you can move on and
get over it.
But if you really don't know if you're incompatible, then the feelings
remain, and will always be there....
To move on, and get over it - is, I think is to be like everyone else
in this world, in which romance and love, does not exist anymore.
Harvey
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
>
> Being dumped is a fact of life - same as moving on and getting over 'it'.
> As well as rejection.
The thing is, she is truly special to me and I really believe in being
with her.
Put it this way: she can fart in front of me (and she does), pick her
nose, etc., and I'm ***NOT*** grossed-out. It's never been like this
with any other girl.
There isn't a place on her I wouldn't lick. I always have the hots
for her. And after sex, I'm still interested. I love falling asleep
with her, and waking up to find her next to me, turned towards me.
There isn't anyone else I would want to grow old with. Seeing her
skin sag, etc., will have barely an effect on my desire to be with
her. As a matter of fact, she's balloned in her stomach and gained
thirty to forty pounds in our four years together (and no it ain't
from depression since all this happened within the first wonderful two
months of our love!) and still I have no problems with it.
She's that special to me. Really.
> And still having wonderful feelings for that someone special, who did all
> the above - is silly, but tell that to a heart and spirit that still cares.
It's silly, except when it isn't.
It can't be "silly" if I just so believe in her, in us being together.
She makes me smile and laugh every day. 'Cept our bad days, of
course, but even then -- and this is the thing -- I cannot stay mad at
her for long. She is that winning a sweetheart.
> If you are truly 'incompatible' with the one you desire to be with -
> then, all such feelings of love disappears - and then, you can move on and
> get over it.
But that's just the thing: I know intellectually, as a matter of
theory and probability and so forth, that there are others out there,
others who are even better-suited to me. Sure.
But I don't care anymore. Ever paid more than you know you should
for, say, a puppy, or a laptop, or a house, or what have you?
Extenuating factors make it seem not all that expensive, even though
you know you're being charged above-market rates...sorry to be so,
what, "business-minded" about it, but that's the truth. I don't want
to move on. I've got my heart set on her. Etc.
> But if you really don't know if you're incompatible, then the feelings
> remain, and will always be there....
And here's the other thing: there are levels of
"compatibility"...believe me, I'm real comfortable with her -- she
makes me feel so calm and peaceful (except when she's pulling up her
stakes like this!), and I do the same for her (again, with notable but
not IMHO fatal exceptions).
> To move on, and get over it - is, I think is to be like everyone else
> in this world, in which romance and love, does not exist anymore.
>
> Harvey
Well, here I am. What now??
Yet Another Broken Heart
> I there,
>
> Sorry that Claudia made it so straight forward, while you thought there
> was time to just carry on as you were, and that you are hurtign do bad
> over it all....
Thank you...I'm sorry too, real sorry....
> Sounds to me like Claudia makes sense,
Oh, I understand the "economics" of her decision...but I'm just real
hurt that it doesn't smack of much "love"....
Not that I want us to break up, but there is a way of doing even that,
too...this way of hers...it's heart-wrenching, and makes me feel like
I want to just be bitter and cynical and cruel.
I hate what it's doing to me...I feel fooled, in a way, and also angry
at myself, for some many things....
> and is the type that happens in her
> own sense to want to age with someoen by her side...Not to meet them when
> old, sort of thing. I can surely relate to that (or shoudl I say that
> using the apst tense in my fourties?;-))
But she knows that she's the only one I've ever seen myself growing
old with!!! She knows this 'cause I tell her so often, I fall in love
with her all over again every time I wake up with her next to me, it's
really like that, I don't know why moving in together, getting
married, etc. has to be so damned important as to cause this kind of
cruelty on her part....
> Maybe she is just waiting for you to make the proposal....?
No, not at all, she wants no contact with me, she's met someone else,
didn't I note that, it's all over, and so horribly too! It's like
finding a freshly-hacked body on your bed, blood and guts all over,
and you're just shocked and horrified, and become more so when you
recognize the face...!!!
> Does it seem REALLY sertious with this guy?
> I mena, you know how she is when it is brand new and she is all lovy lovy
> seriously, for sure...Think it is serious then, or that you might just
> ahve to ask her to marry you to make her come back, where she woudl never
> have left dso much as make yous ee how you took her for granted...
But I tell you I didn't take her for granted! I mean, sure, in a
sense, one could alwasy do more, 'cause no one's perfect and so sure,
I could have, I could have done x, y, and z...but generally speaking I
don't think I've taken her for granted...certainly that's not been a
charge she's ever made....
> As for the part about "no one ever took her nowhere"...Cheap thing to say
> that, "Broken Heart". Just cause a gal had not been aroudn with all the
> guys in the world tryign to buy them off for a trip does not mean you are
> to consider she shoudl be there out of woing you for the great holiday!
Sorry, that was just to refer to the fact that I was quite a big deal
to her -- you know how it is when being with someone is not just a
good time but a life-changing experience...it's a long story, but the
short of it is that she's never been with a guy the way she has been
with me, and vice-versa...etc.....
> After all, she shared that time with you, and she cared about you in a
> special way that you did not...In fact yous eem to care more when some
> other guy is around,w here maybe, just maybe, who knows, maybe she does
> that to make you wake up before you both are 78?
No, I think you're really reading too much into this.
Matter of fact, she's cheated on me at least once -- and twice,
actually, taking into account this latest...I mean, how does she find
someone as soon as she decides we're through?
This is, of course, what I'm left to find out on my own, really...like
an "oh, by the way" kind of thing.
> Yu know, men do not emasure time in a same way women do...I donlt juyst
> mean the biological clock here at all, but tyhe fact that women know they
> will ahve their periods around ten years and a few, that they will be each
> 28th day (in general), last x days, that they will carry kids for nine
> months, that after that si a fourty days, that lactation is lalala, and
> that after lactation ios another x days and that at age 50 soemthign they
> will enter menopause, etc, etc. In short, without their thinking fo it
> consciously, they are made to be both in the "here and then" where men are
> in teh "here and now" their bodies being more ipulses and stright ups and
> straight "sowns" (just think of peaks, and ya know what I eman).
Yes, yes I realize this most viscerally now, but that's never been
very far from my mind, either.
Anyway, she's just not discussing this with me, it's bugging me that
here she is, making decisions like this again. No consideration for
me, really.
Like I said, I understand the "economics" of it...I'm not asking "how
come" in terms of psychological dynmaics, personal motivations, etc.,
but "why" as in, I guess, the kind of "why" behind "why is there
death" or something like that....
> To a woman, ifthat woman cares for a logn term serious relationship of the
> long term commitment and love type, knowignt that there is a "tomorrow"
> after the next is essential. Or at least, knowign that at soem point will
> be no tomorrow can be enough to make them not see where they fit ion YOUR
> plan at all, and feel like an extra, and from there, a luxury oen can do
> without, not valued for their esential qualities....
But I don't understand why she should feel so insecure with me, as you
explain! And certainly she should have come to me with her
reservations, etc.! I don't like it that this is playing out like
cheap country music -- "my wife left me, then my dog died"....
> Abnd *some* women know that nothign makes a man measure time more than
> absence, when they took you for granted. Measure how a day is, since they
> coudl not measure and appreciate them for all their worth when the days
> (and nights) were shared.....
No, no, no, you're reading into things here (understandable, but not
working) -- she just plain doesn't even want to have any contact with
me, even via e-mail!!!! SHE HATES ME!!!!!
> So maybe just maybe Claudia wanted to make you see with her eyes and
> measure her value and what she meant to YOU....Mayeb though she tried
> before by talking longer term, wehre you just did not measure then....
SHE HATES ME!!!!!!
> But then again, maybe maybe maybe...Maybe all it takes is a proposal....
> OPerhaps not now, perhaps not if she is madly in l;ove with that other guy....
> But you woudl know, if you take time to rememebr how she was when it was
> all lovy lovy new-ie with you.
> But that attitude about she woudl owe you cause no oen took her to a
> holiday nowhere before...?
It's not so much "owe" as in "gee, after all the things we've been
through and the places we went and things we did together, etc., I
would have thought more effort on her part might be expected"...even
if she wants to break up -- which I still don't, even now -- I don't
see how she can be so damned heartless...ow ow ow!!!
> Man, rid of that one, will ya???;-)
> Insetad tell yourself that she is not the type of gal that sells for a
> trip, eh;-).
Give me a break.
Listen, I do know her very well -- GUARANTEED that unless she's found
Mr. Close-to-Perfect, if I had a million dollars and offered to marry
her and so forth, we will reconcile within a month. GUARANTEED.
Thing is, what I have been bringing to the table no longer
suffices....
> And see her for what she is worth to you, rather than a
> think all it takes is a bunch of bucks to try and buy her love....
No, it's not about "buying" her love, but there is a sort of price for
everything...she's simply determined I'm no longer worth the prices
she's been paying (inflated in her imagination).
In any case, the point is that she should talk to me.
But she's no longer interested.
Fine, but gosh, show some damned consideration, huh? At least for old
times' sake. At least for the sake of your own "image"...I mean, it
so unbecomes the wonderful relationship we had before to behave this
way...!
> Then calm down, take time to rememebr and see if she really is in love
> with that guy, or how long until you;d know if it is serious or not, then
> see if it woudl not be time for you to make a move and more serious
> proposal, and when....
>
> Got nothign to lose, but maybe not when things woudl be all lovie nicie
> with him still...
She's just a nutty girl. Really. But I'm really into her. I'm nuts
too, I guess.
No, that won't work. It's over, this is all the end. I've lost my
mother, and now her. I was only able to cope with losing my mother
'cause I had her. Now...well, the women in my life are alwasy tossing
stuff out -- my mother my comic books, my novia, me.
You know what "novia" means in Spanish, right? We weren't just
"boyfriend/girlfriend," we were novio/novia -- like unofficial
fiances....
> And you might also make her measure soemthing, btw, in the ehre and now,
> if she elarned you;d be seing someoen else;-):)
But that's just so much game-playing...ugh!!!!!!
> Good luck to you and....Well, best wishes, really:)
>
> Chloe
Merci beaucoup.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
>
> You have my complete sympathies, and I hope you recover from it as quickly
> as possible.
Thank you, Friend. You are helping in a small but important way; it's
some comfort to know I'm not alone.
> Regardless of what she said/did, in this case, it really IS her
> and not you that is to blame. It took me a looooonnnggggg time to beleive
> that myself. My ex-fiance annouced she'd cheated on me and begged
> forgivenss, wanted to save things, go to counseling, etc...after 3 yrs with
> her, I wanted to; we had been happy, I certainly had been, and it was the
> best thing I'd ever experienced (other than the cheating)...so I agree to
> work with her. A couple fo days later, she called me, said she was going to
> a freinds house, and would call me the next morning....never heard from her
> again. She had *already* moved, it turned out, and changed her number. It
> destroyed me for over a year. I *thought* we had essentially the perfect
> relationship, none of the typical problems were there. And I never got an
> ounce of closure.
Aaaggrrrhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
That's just what I'm talking about!!!
Boy, but I ain't had it that bad, though...God, how could they????
Just flip-flop like that...and the kicker is that their kisses seemed
so real, so sincere, so special....
> I've not found anything that felt similar since, but other than her still
> occupying a small spot in my heart, I'm over her. SHE was the one that F'ed
> up, not me. I really DID do things right....now, I just have to find someone
> who'll appreciate that.
And just how did you come to this realization? How can you be sure
it's not just some kind of "sour grapes"??
That's my thing...I don't want to feel better by telling myself some
such story, either...yet it doesn't feel good to know I was, well,
what's the term, under-appreciated....
I actually feel a bit like what you feel -- and then I think that
that's how *she* feels right now and so I'm sad all over again!
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Sympathy can easily turn into pity.
And pity, says Nietzche, is a form of hate.
Is that what you have in mind?
I meant by "sympathy" a kind of "comaraderie," except of the sort
between lovers, soul-mate-kind of frienship between lovers, you know?
It was like that -- for her, too; I'm not imagining it.
But obviously that's no longer the case.
> I hate that breaking up we do. All the shared things that become un-shared
> in front of you. Really unpleasant to go through. You don't have to find
> anywhere new to live though do you? That's one good thing.
No, that's true, it's not like I was being kicked out.
That's a great way of putting it, "all the shared things that become
un-shared in front of you." Brings to mind some morbidly fascinating
thing like a bloody car accident playing out slowly before your very
eyes.
How does that happen? What internal wiring is responsible for such an
about-face reorientation? Where the switch that turns the eyes dark,
the heart cold, the mind forgetful? What evolutionary purpose crafted
such a process of imagination, and fine-tuned it for Hobbesian
efficiency?
> I don't think there's much I can say to help. We've all been, or will go,
> through it so you're entitled to blah blah waah as much as you need.
> Especially at the messy end of a four year relationship.
>
> Have you ever been on the other side of the rejection equation?
Not like this.
Not where I was hateful, even when hurt.
Ultimately, you do raise a good, sad old point: been there, done that,
repeat...different day, same shit-kind of mentality, almost.
But no, while I haven't had any "textbook-perfect" breakups, none of
them were like this, where the girl just wanted me the hell out of her
life.
I mean, geez, was it something I said? (And didn't I apologize for
it? And why won't you accept an apology, anyway?? Etc.)
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Blah blah away my friend, as Sumi says, this is what the group is here
> for. Anyway, we haven't had anyone come along all broken hearted and
> rejected for a while - so Welcome!
Really?? Hmm...so this is how it starts, huh??
> Don't know about the words of wisdom. Hang on tho'... WHACK!
>
> Better?
Just a little -- distracts from the pain inside, the pain on the
surface.
> Sounds to me like she disengaged her emotional attachment to you some time
> ago, if it's that easy for her. She'll probably do the same to the next
> guy. Not that it helps.
Right-o.
Damn, wish I could just find that switch...I feel such a fool...this
is the sort of thing that makes me feel just so stupid....
> Now come here you great big lug, and let me hold you until the shaking
> fades...
>
> ((((((((((((((((((((YABH)))))))))))))))))))))
>
> Monster
Thanks, I am better just by feeling not so alone with this.
God I miss her.
And just as much, I miss my sense of innocence and bravery, which now
leaves with her.
I don't know, I'm actually feeling scared in a way.
Oh brother....
Yet Another Broken Heart
> Just an afterthought:
>
> Why did you reject her wish for a lifelong relationship with you? (which
> is how you should have interpreted her proposal.)
What proposal? She made none.
And I've never rejected her wish for a life-long relationship. That's
why this hurts so much; it's really a misunderstanding, but she
doesn't care.
Etc.
> If I put myself into that woman's (Claudia's?) mocassins
> I just imagine a young woman having had four years with
> her bf and decided she'd like to have a family with him.
Uh, okay, I'm not against that -- matter of fact, *she* is the reason
I actually want a daughter one day; I thought daughters were too much
trouble to raise, etc., but when I met her, Claudia, I just got so
into her that I saw how lovely it would be to have a daughter in the
image of this girl I was so enchanted with....
> I mean biologically seen, a woman in her twenties has limited time. Your
> rejecting her wish to marry made her
> panicky. Women have to consider their biological clock
> (something Chloe has already hinted at). When in their mid-twenties (which
> possibly is Claudia's age) women tend
> to look for partners who are ready to raise a family.
I don't think that's the issue. There's always the stated reason, and
the subtext that's really moving things.
Anyway, I've always told her that I can't see myself growing old with
anyone else except her. She's that special to me!
> Women in their forties can afford the luxury of mere
> love interest. Which makes it easier for the more undecided
> guys.
Yes, I think I've noticed this, too. But the thing is, all this is
more or less (or, rather, more than less) a moot point.
> Given the fact that Claudia is in her mid or late twenties
> and she learns you object to marry her she might panic.
> ("He does not love me so much" or: "He does not want to
> commit to me, he is still waiting for a better one to marry", "In case he
> dumps me later, won't I be too old to start a new relationship and have
> children?" etc. etc. etc.)
Well, she obviously hears what she wants to hear, 'cause much as I've
told her I'd rather not, I've also said that I'm not againist it
outright, and that I'm really just waiting for the "right time." I
tell her we have to plan this out carefully, etc. We never even
stepped up to plate as far as planning anything was concerned. It's
just been she very occasionally raising the issue -- and just barely,
at that, as if as a momentary novelty -- and then that's that....
> Of course I don't know your age, but if you love her so much:
> Why did you really reject her wish to marry?
She has a kid. It will make things different between us. I have
nothing against the kid, but I feel like a babysitter, and I don't
want to have to feel like that 24/7 when we're all living together.
See, I enjoy her for who she is, etc. But the kid, he needs a father.
And the honest truth is I'm just not ready to be that for him. But
anything short of that is being, as I said, like a babysitter.
I mean, things will definitely change, our relationship will change.
I don't want to wind up in a horrible situation somehow where it's
mother and child against me on, well, whatever the issue is. I'd
marry her, but later, when the kid's away.
Of course, if she got pregnant now by me, then all that goes out the
door. I'd have to marry her -- and gladly (it was always only ever a
question of when, of timing). It'll still be a rough situation, but I
wouldn't feel like a babysitter then: it'll be my own kid, see.
That's the honest truth. Her kid, I'm fine with, I see him as a
little friend, like a neighbor's kid, say, but I just couldn't get
like that with him. That's just how it is; no hard feelings.
You know that old saying about fighting women and kids? I don't want
to put myself in a situation like that. She's a very permissive
mother, and I know I just couldn't stand to have that kid watch TV all
day and night like she lets him do now, etc. I don't want to have to
fight her over her kid, know what I mean? Not like I want to be his
dad, anyway. But when you live together, that kind of thing can drive
you nuts.
Etc.
> Do you remember what you said? How you said it?
Yes, much as I've outlined above. Thing is, she understands, and even
agrees -- or agreed, past tense, I should say. I don't know what's
changed, exactly, but I wish she'd "confront" me with it, give me a
"chance"...I mean, renegotiate, you know? Just pulling out like this
shows that she has no interest, no care, no consideration...good
grief...I'm feeling real sad thinking about it now...I'm always open
to discussion...I just want her to know, to think things through, to
talk to me, talk *with* me, to discuss things, make this something we
both do together, not something one wants and the other puts up
with....
> Maybe you were too definite and she could not read
> the message that you maybe should still wait a little with
> such a decision - I don't know.
Well, like I said, she hears what she wants to hear.
And for all her faults, I still want her. That's how much I want her!
> There is another possibility: She asked you to marry her
> because she knew your answer and sought a reason for a
> breakup. But to find out about the truth there is just
> one way:
>
> Find out how much you really love her and how much
> she really means to you. If you are sure she is the one for you then ask
> her to marry you. Tell her the stars from the sky, okay?
Gulp!
It's scary enough with the extenuating circumstances I outlined above!
Anyway, she'll just say it's too late. I think I know her well enough
to know this.
Besides, what kind of a marriage do you imagine that would make?? If
she rejects me -- which is what I'm sure will happen -- I'll feel just
awful. If she says she'll "think" about it -- I'll still feel pretty
bad. If she actually agrees and suddenly everyting's peachy, I'll
feel a little frustrated that this is what it takes, that no matter
what else there is to recommend about me, so to speak, it came down to
this thing.
> From her reaction you can see how serious she really is
> about you. Maybe the other guy she has found will not
> marry her either ;-)
Yeah, well...ugh!!!!
> Women always need kinda proof how much you love them.
> They are looking for signs, you know? If they don't get
> the signs they start being insecure.
But that's why I made my reference to our recent vacation together,
and how no one's ever taken her anywhere, etc.
I spent a lot of money on this girl. I put my money where my mouth
is. I also spent a lot of time with her -- at her request, my every
waking non-working hour! That went on for a year to two years...!
> Guys behave differently to the women they court and to
> the women they have been together with fo a while.
> When the courting is not necessary for the guy as he can
> be certain he has her heart ( and body ;-) there will
> be a phase of blind love on the side of the girl and then
> one day she she sees clearly again and interprets his changed behaviour as
> kinda loss of love.
While not noticing that she herself has changed, too, in her behavior.
Sheesh!
Yes yes yes, I know what you're talking about...sigh....
> In mature relationships the woman knows that it is the time
> to show him how much she loves him, to spoil him, etc.
> The courting sommat turns sides, anyway.
> But it should never remain a one-sided thing.
> After a while there should be a balance of love approach
> I would say. It is a pity that some guys do not know how to
> express love in an established relationship. They take it
> for granted what they have. BTW, women can be the same, anyway.
Yeah, I think that's the case here, I really do.
> Not long ago I wrote about the challenge of
> relationships, if anyone remembers.
> Hm, maybe I've just written about one aspect of
> that challenge ;-)
Hmm, I'll do a search. =)
> Just one thought: any partner in an established relationship
> where there is little culture of tenderness may fall to the
> lures of someone else being really nice and maybe court them
> or flirt with them. And they might get into a conflict and
> try to press their partner too much for a sign of love if
> forced into a situation of choice.
Yes, definitely.
My thing is, she's so damned unthinking. For all her "economic
calculations," I do think that that's what happened here. She thinks
the grass is greener on the other side, etc.
> I have already thought about starting a new newsgroup about
> relationships. There would be interesting things to share
> and discuss, wouldn't there?
>
> Sumi
Interesting?
The Chinese are said to have this saying: "May you live in interesting
times."
Actually, it's meant as a curse. =)
Thanks for the hand-holding...just chatting through all this has made
me feel a little angry myself...nothing like the healing power
of...hate?
Yes, I know why she hates me. Why she chooses to keep it up. It's
painful for her to break up, too, but much less so if she can feel
wronged and victimized. The hatred she nurses helps her reject me
more efficiently, even as this new guy helps her feel all
princess-like (or whatever)....
Yet Another Broken Heart
> On 12 Aug 2004, (Yet Another Broken Heart)
> savagely assaulted several billion electrons with these words:
>
> > How do people just trash someone like this...we just came back from
> > vacation a month ago...no one's ever taken her anywhere.....
> >
> > Someone please this sad sack...words of wisdom, a slap in the face...I
> > don't want to feel alone with this...I was actually shaking
> > yesterday...and I'm six-feet-two-hundred-pounds...wow...I'm just
> > floored...this girl's really hurt me again and she's really doesn't
> > care that she did...just the cost of doing business.....
>
> Re-read your own post again. She waited four years to marry you,
> presumeably because she loved you. Time passed and she finally gave
> up. My take on this is that perhaps you two were incompatible.
There are certainly folks out there with whom we'd each be more
compatible, that's true, but we were quite compatible all the same.
IOW, our differences really weren't all that much compared to our,
say, "similarities" (for lack of a better term at the moment).
> You
> apparently thought the relationship itself was enough, so you weren't
> willing to give her the marriage she wanted.
Yes, that much is true.
However, I wish we could have discussed and "negotiated" things,
instead of just her proposing and me registering reluctance and her
not following up or offering a counter-proposal and that being that to
the end of the matter.
> Different folk express
> love in different ways. She didn't express her love for you in the
> manner you wished. You didn't express your love for her in the manner
> she wished. She became impatient after what she considered too long of
> a time to wait.
True, true.
But, hell, I just don't see that as the deal-breaker she and you feel
it to be.
I mean, you love the person, damn it, and everything else is icing on
the cake. But it's the cake, the cake that's the focus!
Believe me, I've long reconciled myself to her particular ways of
expressing love.
I'm really afraid that it isn't a matter of salvaging the relationship
by making the compromises and concessions attendant to any
relationship. I'm pretty much convinced now that she just plain
doesn't care anymore -- as she says so plainly.
So all I have left is the pain.
If only...if only I could just...sleep...you know, I'm actually
athletic, but I have no desire to move anymore...I sit whenever I can,
I'm just lethargic and feeling blah....
Little Monster
Name Here=Harvey, unto whom the words are attributed:
> To move on, and get over it - is, I think is to be like everyone else
> in this world, in which romance and love, does not exist anymore.
We'd all be well advised not to move on or get over then, eh? :-)
Mosnter
Little Monster
Another Broken Heart, unto whom the words are attributed:
> Uh, okay, I'm not against that -- matter of fact, *she* is the reason
> I actually want a daughter one day; I thought daughters were too much
> trouble to raise, etc., but when I met her, Claudia, I just got so
> into her that I saw how lovely it would be to have a daughter in the
> image of this girl I was so enchanted with....
nothing but trouble and cheek. They'd be talented /and/ beautiful... As
if I could meet a woman who'd have them.. ho ho...
Monster
Little Monster
Another Broken Heart, unto whom the words are attributed:
>> Of course I don't know your age, but if you love her so much:
>> Why did you really reject her wish to marry?
>
> She has a kid. It will make things different between us. I have
> nothing against the kid, but I feel like a babysitter, and I don't
> want to have to feel like that 24/7 when we're all living together.
Uhh, the point is, marry and you become the child's father, at least by
proxy. So it's not like being a babysitter. If you feel this way, maybe
it's just as well. Like it or lump it, she wants to be with a man who she
feels can be (like) a father for her child - who can fill that role. She
definately won't be wanting someone who feels like he is a baby-sitter.
> See, I enjoy her for who she is, etc. But the kid, he needs a father.
> And the honest truth is I'm just not ready to be that for him. But
> anything short of that is being, as I said, like a babysitter.
>
> I mean, things will definitely change, our relationship will change.
> I don't want to wind up in a horrible situation somehow where it's
> mother and child against me on, well, whatever the issue is. I'd
> marry her, but later, when the kid's away.
She's picked up on all this, I'll bet. Reject the child, reject the
mother.
> Of course, if she got pregnant now by me, then all that goes out the
> door. I'd have to marry her -- and gladly (it was always only ever a
Now you are leaving her feelings out of the equation...
> question of when, of timing). It'll still be a rough situation, but I
> wouldn't feel like a babysitter then: it'll be my own kid, see.
And as to your child's half-sibling? His or her brother or sister? What
about /their/ relationship, tainted by your unequal feelings?
> That's the honest truth. Her kid, I'm fine with, I see him as a
> little friend, like a neighbor's kid, say, but I just couldn't get
> like that with him. That's just how it is; no hard feelings.
She knows this. She knows it's not good enough for her and her child.
Don't you know that to a mother, (usually) her child is the most precious
being in the universe? How could she possibly entrust half of that
being's raising to someone who sees the child as second best?
> You know that old saying about fighting women and kids? I don't want to
> put myself in a situation like that. She's a very permissive mother,
> and I know I just couldn't stand to have that kid watch TV all day and
> night like she lets him do now, etc. I don't want to have to fight her
So now you cast yourself as the hoary old teacher, the wisdom of years in
your beard...
> over her kid, know what I mean? Not like I want to be his dad, anyway.
> But when you live together, that kind of thing can drive you nuts.
>
> Etc.
Hmmm. Yes, it can. Better to accept the child and mother as an item, and
love them both in equal amounts. She see's you want one without the
other. She's telling you it's not an option. You don't want to be his
dad, therefore she doesn't want you. It's a very simple formula.
>> Do you remember what you said? How you said it?
>
> Yes, much as I've outlined above. Thing is, she understands, and even
> agrees -- or agreed, past tense, I should say. I don't know what's
> changed, exactly, but I wish she'd "confront" me with it, give me a
> "chance"...I mean, renegotiate, you know? Just pulling out like this
>> Find out how much you really love her and how much she really means to
>> you. If you are sure she is the one for you then ask her to marry you.
>> Tell her the stars from the sky, okay?
>
> Gulp!
>
> It's scary enough with the extenuating circumstances I outlined above!
Sounds to me like you are not ready, by your own account
> Anyway, she'll just say it's too late. I think I know her well enough
> to know this.
She'd be right. You'd have shown commitment to both her /and/ the child
by now otherwise. I get the impression she feels you've been stringing
her along.
> Besides, what kind of a marriage do you imagine that would make?? If
> she rejects me -- which is what I'm sure will happen -- I'll feel just
> awful. If she says she'll "think" about it -- I'll still feel pretty
> bad. If she actually agrees and suddenly everyting's peachy, I'll feel
> a little frustrated that this is what it takes, that no matter what else
> there is to recommend about me, so to speak, it came down to this thing.
Then you'd marry her out of guilt, perhaps? Increasingly, I get this
feeling of emptiness about you two. Suggest you move on, leave the dust
and rubble of this relationship to settle. Send in the archeologists when
you're wiser.
> I spent a lot of money on this girl. I put my money where my mouth is.
> I also spent a lot of time with her -- at her request, my every waking
> non-working hour! That went on for a year to two years...!
If you can quantify it like that... you're playing the wrong game...
> My thing is, she's so damned unthinking. For all her "economic
> calculations," I do think that that's what happened here. She thinks
> the grass is greener on the other side, etc.
She wouldn't be guilty of an unusual crime then :-) As to economic
calculations being a basis for marriage - whose economy?
And it doesnt' sound to me like she's "damned unthinking".
Sklenge
> Little Monster <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
You've mentioned your bravery before. I'm intrigued, what about the
relationship meant you had to be brave?
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD41869D.19BDB%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>>
>>
>> Sympathy can easily turn into pity.
>
> And pity, says Nietzche, is a form of hate.
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
And in my past the pity he felt for me was enough to snap me out of my love
for him. I'm actually very, extremely, grateful now that he told me he
pitied me. In one blinding flash that was all it took for me to drop the
receiver onto the cradle and never contact him again. Different things have
different effects but something will do this eventually, something will make
the bonds snap. Maybe it will be just one look or word from her or someone
but something may help you to disconnect. Don't expect it to happen soon
(but it can happen in an instant when it happens.)
> I meant by "sympathy" a kind of "comaraderie," except of the sort
> between lovers, soul-mate-kind of frienship between lovers, you know?
More like a symbiotic relationship?
> It was like that -- for her, too; I'm not imagining it.
>
> But obviously that's no longer the case.
Sad that. And unimaginably bleak... I'm thinking selfishly here, if my
marriage were to go the way of worms. Life would be over, well all meaning
in life; that spark that makes life worthwhile. This is why it is so
frightening when you allow someone else in. Why do we ever do it? But
something drives us on persevering with love.
>> I hate that breaking up we do. All the shared things that become un-shared
>> in front of you. Really unpleasant to go through. You don't have to find
>> anywhere new to live though do you? That's one good thing.
>
> No, that's true, it's not like I was being kicked out.
>
> That's a great way of putting it, "all the shared things that become
> un-shared in front of you." Brings to mind some morbidly fascinating
> thing like a bloody car accident playing out slowly before your very
> eyes.
>
> How does that happen? What internal wiring is responsible for such an
> about-face reorientation? Where the switch that turns the eyes dark,
> the heart cold, the mind forgetful? What evolutionary purpose crafted
> such a process of imagination, and fine-tuned it for Hobbesian
> efficiency?
I have no idea. Self preservation? Denial? Grief? Guilt?
>> I don't think there's much I can say to help. We've all been, or will go,
>> through it so you're entitled to blah blah waah as much as you need.
>> Especially at the messy end of a four year relationship.
>>
>> Have you ever been on the other side of the rejection equation?
>
> Not like this.
>
> Not where I was hateful, even when hurt.
>
> Ultimately, you do raise a good, sad old point: been there, done that,
> repeat...different day, same shit-kind of mentality, almost.
>
> But no, while I haven't had any "textbook-perfect" breakups, none of
> them were like this, where the girl just wanted me the hell out of her
> life.
>
> I mean, geez, was it something I said? (And didn't I apologize for
> it? And why won't you accept an apology, anyway?? Etc.)
It was too late, it seems. I've never found a fool-proof way of re-kindling
love that has died, not for myself and not for the object of my affection.
If anyone does know of such a method please email me with the instructions.
Can I venture a virtual hug without prejudice? ((((ABH))))
We have all been there, or will be, so you can trust that we will try to
help you with your pain. Let us know when it hurts.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> And in my past the pity he felt for me was enough to snap me out of my love
> for him. I'm actually very, extremely, grateful now that he told me he
> pitied me. In one blinding flash that was all it took for me to drop the
> receiver onto the cradle and never contact him again. Different things have
> different effects but something will do this eventually, something will make
> the bonds snap. Maybe it will be just one look or word from her or someone
> but something may help you to disconnect. Don't expect it to happen soon
> (but it can happen in an instant when it happens.)
Yes, I know about this. I've had it happen to me, too, with regards
to her. But it's always only temporary, even though it lasts weeks.
I really do "believe" in her (that is, in being with her, in us
together as a couple) and so cannot stay alienated from her for long.
Unless you'll quibble semantics (that what you're talking about *by
definition* is permanent), I'd say that I understand you now.
Nietzche was right in that odd way of his...to pity someone is to hold
them less than yourself...like how we pity cripples, say...I'm not
sure if compassion meant the same thing as pity for him,
though...anyway, this is one of the many ways I'm employing,
consciously or not, to overcome my grief, turning this whole
experience into an exercise in philosophy...as Spinoza said, thinking
about a pain decreases it (or something to that effect).
> More like a symbiotic relationship?
Well, okay, I didn't have that in mind, but I don't see how symbiosis
would be precluded.
By "sympathy" I meant, as I say, a kind of "comaraderie," all of which
sentiment is probably better represented by the notion of "recognizing
our common humanity."
> Sad that. And unimaginably bleak... I'm thinking selfishly here, if my
> marriage were to go the way of worms. Life would be over, well all meaning
> in life; that spark that makes life worthwhile. This is why it is so
> frightening when you allow someone else in. Why do we ever do it? But
> something drives us on persevering with love.
As Erich Fromm believes, it is our existential loneliness that drives
us to attempt a connection with our fellows. And though it starts
with the physical, we still need the, let's say, meta-physical, that
which is above and beyond the "merely" physical.
That's why. We're social animals.
Unfortunately, as you observe and as all can attest, this connection
we crave and just need as human beings allows us to be hurt should the
attempted connection prove unsatisfactory. It's like taking in food.
If it's good food, we're nourished and we grow and flourish. If it's
bad food, it causes us inconvenience or illness. Similarly anything
else we take inside ourselves....
> I have no idea. Self preservation? Denial? Grief? Guilt?
Yeah, all of the above. I really do think it's part of our evolution
to be able to "go on"...can you imagine being crippled by the loss of
a beloved member of the tribe in the midst of a drought, say, or trek
across the mountains?
So I think we all have this capability that's evolved to help us
forget or repress....
> It was too late, it seems. I've never found a fool-proof way of re-kindling
> love that has died, not for myself and not for the object of my affection.
> If anyone does know of such a method please email me with the instructions.
Insofar as love is defined to be an act of will (or else what kind of
love, really, can it be if it was something that's literally out of
one's control?), love *can be* rekindled. Such is the promise of
forgiveness; one forgives (not to be confused with forgetting) because
one, ideally, recognizes our common humanity, that "but for the grace
of God go I," that it could just as easily have been us on the
opposite side of the divide...forgiveness is necessarily tied to love,
it seems to me -- both are acts of will. So, unless you seriously
doubt our moral free agency (and I have my suspicions, even at the
best of times), it's never too late.
It's just a matter of will.
Of course, a relationship by definition involves at least two parties.
And it takes two to tango/tangle/wrangle.
> Can I venture a virtual hug without prejudice? ((((ABH))))
> We have all been there, or will be, so you can trust that we will try to
> help you with your pain. Let us know when it hurts.
It hurts, but -- in another one of evolution's adaptations -- I'm
consciously alienating myself from my pain by all this philosophical
analysis...I know I'll come back to actually feeling it (not that I'm
ever completely unaware of it, even in dreams), but for now, as a
pratical matter, and an intellectual curiosity, I'm treating the
matter like a sort of step-child, so to speak.
And thanks for the hugs. The time and thought behind your words
really do help. I no longer feel alone, even though I'm separated
from her. Does that make sense? When Cain killed Abel, his
punishment wasn't death; it was exile, banishment, isolation. To be
alone is worse than death, many rightly understand.
So thanks for being here. That may well sound corny, but that's how I
feel. A bit relieved, for the time being.
Thank you. =)
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
>
> You've mentioned your bravery before. I'm intrigued, what about the
> relationship meant you had to be brave?
Well, I don't say "Bravery" with a capital "B" -- and I say "bravery"
instead of "courage" because the latter words makes it sound even
nobler -- but there was an element of risk for me. Nothing which
would help you separate men from boys, but it was...well, anyway, it
was this, really, simply:
She moved in with me. I took on responsibility for her. Cooked, etc.
It was the everyday sort of bravery, you know, that thing about real
heroes being the ones who put food on the table....
I'm also, despite my athletic good-looks (ahem, really), quite a shy
guy...let's just say I'm a geek trapped in (blessed by?) a jock's
body...so it was quite a quest just wooing her...I mean, I really
proved myself...I'd been hurt so many times from the very beginning
(and this isn't to somehow discount my own inadequacies which caused
her hurt later on) and yet I stuck through, fighting the good
fight....
Like, for example, her kid's dad, who typically shows up like three
times a year at most to demand to see his son, once, at the very
beginning of our blossoming relationship (me and her, I mean)...we
were all at her mom's apartment, with whom she'd lived then, and now
lives again -- so the guy stops by out of the blue, and I'm kind of
"hushed" into the bedroom...I don't even know why they let him in the
door, 'cause they don't "officially" welcome him, but anyway, I'm like
kept out of sight for half an hour, and then I'm just like screw this,
WTF?? So I walk out, past him, past everyone, just walked out.
Another incident at the beginning: I ate her out on the stairwell of
her mother's apartment building, and somehow she wound up making the
joke, afterwards, that okay, I could leave now...I dunno what lead to
it, but I do remember that joke, and I was just like, huh...so I asked
her whether she really wanted me to...and I don't know why, but I
guess she continued the joke and said yeah, you're done now...and I
asked again, and maybe she didn't like my tone of voice, and somehow
she wound up saying if you leave I don't want you to come back...so I
left, hurt and angry...she called me that night, but she didn't
apologize, she said that *she* was upset, and when I wound up giving
her a piece of my mind she hung up on me...this happened like three
times, until I finally took the phone off the hook....
What else...just little things like this...silly things I attributed
to her ignornace, her lack of thought (she's not the sharpest pencil
in the box, honestly), whatever...but they required some kind of
"bravery" to go on...I mean, I was hurt, and soldiered on, because I
believed in the mission, I was devoted to the cause...our
relationship....
I don't know whether any of this matters...I feel like, dare I say, a
'Nam vet or something....
So that's what I had meant by my "bravery"...nothing to rings
throughout the ages, but it'll probably reverberate throughout my
life...I don't expect to be as "brave" (foolhardy?) anymore....
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD482EE9.1A772%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>>
>> And in my past the pity he felt for me was enough to snap me out of my love
>> for him. I'm actually very, extremely, grateful now that he told me he
>> pitied me. In one blinding flash that was all it took for me to drop the
>> receiver onto the cradle and never contact him again. Different things have
>> different effects but something will do this eventually, something will make
>> the bonds snap. Maybe it will be just one look or word from her or someone
>> but something may help you to disconnect. Don't expect it to happen soon
>> (but it can happen in an instant when it happens.)
>
> Yes, I know about this. I've had it happen to me, too, with regards
> to her. But it's always only temporary, even though it lasts weeks.
> I really do "believe" in her (that is, in being with her, in us
> together as a couple) and so cannot stay alienated from her for long.
I think you will know when the 'bonds snap', there is a total difference to
that and trial separations. But I think I've misunderstood you here.
> Unless you'll quibble semantics (that what you're talking about *by
> definition* is permanent), I'd say that I understand you now.
>
> Nietzche was right in that odd way of his...to pity someone is to hold
> them less than yourself...like how we pity cripples, say...I'm not
> sure if compassion meant the same thing as pity for him,
> though...anyway, this is one of the many ways I'm employing,
> consciously or not, to overcome my grief, turning this whole
> experience into an exercise in philosophy...as Spinoza said, thinking
> about a pain decreases it (or something to that effect).
>
>> More like a symbiotic relationship?
>
> Well, okay, I didn't have that in mind, but I don't see how symbiosis
> would be precluded.
>
> By "sympathy" I meant, as I say, a kind of "comaraderie," all of which
> sentiment is probably better represented by the notion of "recognizing
> our common humanity."
And as such it is a common thread running through all humans, I'm going to
suggest that she and you aren't so very special in this respect. One day,
it's possible that this camaraderie will be shared between you and someone
else.
>> Sad that. And unimaginably bleak... I'm thinking selfishly here, if my
>> marriage were to go the way of worms. Life would be over, well all meaning
>> in life; that spark that makes life worthwhile. This is why it is so
>> frightening when you allow someone else in. Why do we ever do it? But
>> something drives us on persevering with love.
>
> As Erich Fromm believes, it is our existential loneliness that drives
> us to attempt a connection with our fellows. And though it starts
> with the physical, we still need the, let's say, meta-physical, that
> which is above and beyond the "merely" physical.
>
> That's why. We're social animals.
I'm pretty unsocial, me. I was lucky in love but... very practical in what I
was looking for. No point in lying about who you want to live with.
> Unfortunately, as you observe and as all can attest, this connection
> we crave and just need as human beings allows us to be hurt should the
> attempted connection prove unsatisfactory. It's like taking in food.
> If it's good food, we're nourished and we grow and flourish. If it's
> bad food, it causes us inconvenience or illness. Similarly anything
> else we take inside ourselves....
>
>> I have no idea. Self preservation? Denial? Grief? Guilt?
>
> Yeah, all of the above. I really do think it's part of our evolution
> to be able to "go on"...can you imagine being crippled by the loss of
> a beloved member of the tribe in the midst of a drought, say, or trek
> across the mountains?
>
> So I think we all have this capability that's evolved to help us
> forget or repress....
We have short term memory problems. Which is probably for the best. I still
see his name fly past on the tv from time to time and it doesn't make my
stomach lurch any more (hasn't done for some years really) but I can't
remember when I stopped feeling that lurch, and it now seems quite 'neat'
that I used to live with some guy who does something worth mentioning at the
end of some sad act programme. I don't know what I'd do if I actually came
face to face with him. No matter how much I love my DH I've still been in
love with someone else and that's unsettling but at the same time it ought
to give us all hope. Love is inside you and not apart from you.
>> It was too late, it seems. I've never found a fool-proof way of re-kindling
>> love that has died, not for myself and not for the object of my affection.
>> If anyone does know of such a method please email me with the instructions.
>
> Insofar as love is defined to be an act of will (or else what kind of
> love, really, can it be if it was something that's literally out of
> one's control?), love *can be* rekindled. Such is the promise of
> forgiveness; one forgives (not to be confused with forgetting) because
> one, ideally, recognizes our common humanity, that "but for the grace
> of God go I," that it could just as easily have been us on the
> opposite side of the divide...forgiveness is necessarily tied to love,
> it seems to me -- both are acts of will. So, unless you seriously
> doubt our moral free agency (and I have my suspicions, even at the
> best of times), it's never too late.
>
> It's just a matter of will.
>
> Of course, a relationship by definition involves at least two parties.
> And it takes two to tango/tangle/wrangle.
I couldn't even begin to describe how love works. I think I've tried but
it's as elusive as any emotion. What drives it or kills it or initiates it?
As far as love re-kindled goes: I always remember the scene in Dangerous
Liaisons where Vicomte de Valmont believes he can win back the love of
Madame de Tourvel after destroying their trust. Of course in any physically
significant way he can't, (in the film at least) I've yet to read the book.
And when I say rekindle love that has died I don't think it is possible.
Yes, you can regain the passion in the rise and fall between episodes of
breaking up and getting back together. But once the "bonds have snapped" I
don't think it's possible. It would be like trying to make contact with the
dead.
>> Can I venture a virtual hug without prejudice? ((((ABH))))
>> We have all been there, or will be, so you can trust that we will try to
>> help you with your pain. Let us know when it hurts.
>
> It hurts, but -- in another one of evolution's adaptations -- I'm
> consciously alienating myself from my pain by all this philosophical
> analysis...I know I'll come back to actually feeling it (not that I'm
> ever completely unaware of it, even in dreams), but for now, as a
> pratical matter, and an intellectual curiosity, I'm treating the
> matter like a sort of step-child, so to speak.
This is a useful technique but crying gets that pain right out of your inner
soul. Cry it out like the human in pain that you really are. There may be
'danger' in doing either of these things (blocking it or facing it) to
excess.
> And thanks for the hugs. The time and thought behind your words
> really do help. I no longer feel alone, even though I'm separated
> from her. Does that make sense? When Cain killed Abel, his
> punishment wasn't death; it was exile, banishment, isolation. To be
> alone is worse than death, many rightly understand.
Get out and do things. To be practical, all the things you've held off
doing. Voluntary work, evening classes, sport... whatever it takes to get
out and be doing something.
To kind of recap:
A: (Activate) Get out and do things to take your mind off it, to give
yourself a break from the misery.
B: (Break it down) Sit and observe it like an objective event (as now).
C: (Cry) Get emotional and cry or scream.
Do these things in rotation and none of them to excess. FWIW/IMHO. I'm sure
others have advice that will work; we're all different and yet can respond
to similar things.
> So thanks for being here. That may well sound corny, but that's how I
> feel. A bit relieved, for the time being.
>
> Thank you. =)
I missed off your Y there earlier ((((Y))))
(But then... do any of us really know Y? Hehe)
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD482A60.1A761%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>>
>>
>>
>> You've mentioned your bravery before. I'm intrigued, what about the
>> relationship meant you had to be brave?
>
> Well, I don't say "Bravery" with a capital "B" -- and I say "bravery"
> instead of "courage" because the latter words makes it sound even
> nobler -- but there was an element of risk for me. Nothing which
> would help you separate men from boys, but it was...well, anyway, it
> was this, really, simply:
>
> She moved in with me. I took on responsibility for her. Cooked, etc.
> It was the everyday sort of bravery, you know, that thing about real
> heroes being the ones who put food on the table....
>
> I'm also, despite my athletic good-looks (ahem, really), quite a shy
> guy...let's just say I'm a geek trapped in (blessed by?) a jock's
> body...so it was quite a quest just wooing her...I mean, I really
> proved myself...I'd been hurt so many times from the very beginning
> (and this isn't to somehow discount my own inadequacies which caused
> her hurt later on) and yet I stuck through, fighting the good
> fight....
What do you do for a living?
> Like, for example, her kid's dad, who typically shows up like three
> times a year at most to demand to see his son, once, at the very
> beginning of our blossoming relationship (me and her, I mean)...we
> were all at her mom's apartment, with whom she'd lived then, and now
> lives again -- so the guy stops by out of the blue, and I'm kind of
> "hushed" into the bedroom...I don't even know why they let him in the
> door, 'cause they don't "officially" welcome him, but anyway, I'm like
> kept out of sight for half an hour, and then I'm just like screw this,
> WTF?? So I walk out, past him, past everyone, just walked out.
I would have kept walking and not looked back at that point there. So were
you brave or the flip side to brave? what is it?
> Another incident at the beginning: I ate her out on the stairwell of
> her mother's apartment building, and somehow she wound up making the
> joke, afterwards, that okay, I could leave now...I dunno what lead to
> it, but I do remember that joke, and I was just like, huh...so I asked
> her whether she really wanted me to...and I don't know why, but I
> guess she continued the joke and said yeah, you're done now...and I
> asked again, and maybe she didn't like my tone of voice, and somehow
> she wound up saying if you leave I don't want you to come back...so I
> left, hurt and angry...she called me that night, but she didn't
> apologize, she said that *she* was upset, and when I wound up giving
> her a piece of my mind she hung up on me...this happened like three
> times, until I finally took the phone off the hook....
Dare I ask what "ate her out" means in this context? I can think of three
possible alternatives, which do you mean?
> What else...just little things like this...silly things I attributed
> to her ignornace, her lack of thought (she's not the sharpest pencil
> in the box, honestly), whatever...but they required some kind of
> "bravery" to go on...I mean, I was hurt, and soldiered on, because I
> believed in the mission, I was devoted to the cause...our
> relationship....
>
> I don't know whether any of this matters...I feel like, dare I say, a
> 'Nam vet or something....
Take care with that analogy. All the same if this is how you feel then I'd
say you're better off out of it just like getting out of Vietnam.
> So that's what I had meant by my "bravery"...nothing to rings
> throughout the ages, but it'll probably reverberate throughout my
> life...I don't expect to be as "brave" (foolhardy?) anymore....
Ah yes that's the flip side right there (foolhardy)! Also pride has
something to do with this, the desperate need to not feel a failure. The
desire to be part of the circle. To fit in.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Uhh, the point is, marry and you become the child's father, at least by
> proxy. So it's not like being a babysitter. If you feel this way, maybe
> it's just as well. Like it or lump it, she wants to be with a man who she
> feels can be (like) a father for her child - who can fill that role. She
> definately won't be wanting someone who feels like he is a baby-sitter.
The thing is, we were fine with our arrangement, which was that we are
in a long-term relationship, that one day we'll marry and live
together (when the kid is grown-up, etc.).
Obviously something's changed. I only wish she had included me in her
decisions, know what I mean? As much as I regret the breakup, it's
the way it's happening that's really upsetting. I'm both mad and sad
-- extremely sad -- that after four years this girl thinks I so damned
disposable.
No letting me down easy -- I only found out we were broken up when
she's already decided it. No "let's discuss our problems" or
"something's been bugging me"...I mean, not even "look, I think you
should know"...none of that: one fine evening she just informed me not
to pick her up after class anymore. I thought it was another one of
her mood swings...a few days later I call, and I find out that, hey,
we're no longer a couple!
Do you understand how angry that makes me feel???
> She's picked up on all this, I'll bet. Reject the child, reject the
> mother.
Actually, she's never picked up on it. I had to tell her one day --
gently (relatively speaking, under the circumstances -- she apparently
had no idea; so well I'd gotten along with the kid [and why not, as I
say, I see him as a sort of neighbhor's kid]). This was during our
first year together, within the first four or five months, when, as I
say, I was feeling like a babysitter. She was really hurt by it, but
since then she's accepted it and we've worked out (de facto, that is;
not through any formal sit-down, which would be much more my M.O.) the
previous arrangement, where it would be like a long-distance
relationship -- sailor out at sea kind of situation.
Well, this girl...I mean, the lack of consideration...it continues to
hurt me....
> Now you are leaving her feelings out of the equation...
No, how do you figure? She wanted to be pregnant so that she knew we
would all be "forced" to live together. And, as I say, if things had
taken that turn, fine. But I wasn't going to ask for a situation
where I'm essentially responsible for another guy's son without my own
children, know what I mean? No offense, nothing personal -- she
herself would not desire such a situation for *her* son.
It's like this -- there's nothing wrong with being a sanitation worker
(garbageman/dustman), but you wouldn't want it, ideally if you could
help it, for your own kid, right? Likewise, she was hoping for me to
be in a situation that she wouldn't wish on her own son. Hey, nothing
personal, right?
So that's how I'd explained it to her and her mother at various
points, and they could not object when I put it that way. 'Cause they
understood. They knew.
I love her, and have sacrificed greatly for the relationship with her.
That was the one goddamned thing I tried not to do. And you know
what? I've always left open the possibility. My only thing ever was
that I wanted us to talk about it. I don't want this "yes or no" kind
of deal she's offering. I want to feel like she really really
understood what it would mean for me. I think she did understand, but
in order to not feel bad about herself (essentially taking advantage
of a "nice guy" -- getting something she wouldn't want her own son to
have to give, in effect) she didn't try to imagine it all and that
bothered me.
Not that I was like asking her to sign in blood and swear she realized
the expanse of my largesse, hrumph hrumph; I just wanted her to, well,
"be gentle with me" -- "it's my first time"....
> And as to your child's half-sibling? His or her brother or sister? What
> about /their/ relationship, tainted by your unequal feelings?
They would have formed their own relationships...you know, like the
way old folks just shake their heads and sigh, "well, that's their
generation, their world, let them deal with it"...I have a right to my
feelings, but as for what will develop between them, fine, I'm not
looking to brainwash anyone here, you know, form their opinions for
them.
Like I said, the kid was a neighbor's kid of sorts to me, and I
expected that. I would have thought of him as a sort of god-son, say,
whose parents died and therefore I had to take care of, being the
godfather. You know, something like that, no big deal.
But if I could avoid it, of course, well, that's what I would
prefer...but anyway, I never got the chance to discuss any of this
with her. It was a black-and-white, yes-or-no situation. Really
quite a pity. I do believe it could all work out, but it takes two to
tango. Instead of accepting a kind of compromise, I think she just
felt that she wasn't willing to settle...I dunno.
Seriously, what's wrong with what I'd outlined? I don't think there's
anything wrong with it. One, continue "dating" until the kid's out of
the house and then marry and move in together. If she got pregnant
before that, then fine, we all live together. What's the big deal?
How's that any different, in effect, from the situation of a sailor,
say?
> She knows this. She knows it's not good enough for her and her child.
Good enough?? Let's get real here! I'd love to see all these people
saying that go adopt some foster kids...easy to say when you don't
have to deal with them and wonder WTF their parents are....
Besides, you don't know the half of this...she's not much of a
mother...the ironic thing is that *I'm* the one who got her into being
that much of a mother, just like *I'm* the one who encouraged her to
make friends (I was her only friend for these four years,
really)...now that she feels self-confident, I guess, and has matured
more, she feels she no longer needs me...she doesn't put it this way,
but actions speak louder than words, as does her silence.
> Don't you know that to a mother, (usually) her child is the most precious
> being in the universe? How could she possibly entrust half of that
> being's raising to someone who sees the child as second best?
There's theory, and then there's actual practice.
You know the Arabs themselves have a saying: better you than my
mother, better my mother than me. That, from one of the supposedly
most honor-bound cultures, where blood and family and land and honor
all mean so much.
No doubt she has genuine affection for her child. But it's not like
how you think. And I don't see why any of that should break us up.
I'm in love with her, not her child. Just like I'm not in love with
her mother, brother, etc.
And your premise makes it seem like I was separating them or
something....
This is the problem dealing with women and children -- you can never
win. Doesn't matter what you say, they have the sympathy -- 'cause
they're women and children! They're -- gasp -- weaker! The weak
deserve our sympathy!
It's a woman's body, so if she wants an abortion, that's her decision.
But somehow if she wants the kid, the guy's got to pay child support.
Isn't that funny?
> So now you cast yourself as the hoary old teacher, the wisdom of years in
> your beard...
A kid watching TV all the time is a problem, whatever role I adopt.
I'm expected to rescue him from a burning building, but for this I'm
mocked?
This is just the upside-down values we have in this culture. And you
know something? There are still lots of these single moms out there,
for all your sympathies. (I say "your" rhetorically; don't take it
personally now.)
It's frustrating that we pay all this lip service, but that's all that
it is. Truth is, as far as people's actions are concerned, I'm not
wrong at all. In fact, I'm being generous.
Again, case in point: she herself would not want her son to have to be
with a single mom and basically take care of someone else's kid. Yet
I'm obviously good enough for just that, eh?
> Hmmm. Yes, it can. Better to accept the child and mother as an item, and
> love them both in equal amounts.
And best of all would be to have ice cream every Sunday. We'll get
closer to world peace that way.
Come on, no offense, but that's neither here nor there. Not that
that's a bad idea, but it's rather tangential to matters at hand.
I do not love the kid, though we get along fine. He's like a
neighbor's kid, or a pal's kid, that's all. I feel put upon to have
to acknowledge more. If I did so of my own volition after time and
going through things together, that comes about naturally and that's
cool. But I resent very much this notion of them as being a package,
so-called.
I am in love with the mother. I do not have to love the son.
Why is it that folks can discern between the American government and
the American people and not make this distinction between mother and
son? (In a democracy the government is elected by the people, you
know.)
Likewise.
Sheesh.
> She see's you want one without the
> other. She's telling you it's not an option. You don't want to be his
> dad, therefore she doesn't want you. It's a very simple formula.
This too is a simple formula: his father had his fun with the girl and
now I'm supposed to take care of him??
B.S.
This society is definitely prejudiced against nice guys. I don't care
what feminists say, there is definitely a bias at work culturally.
Though they want their equal whatevers, they're still operating on the
underlying belief that as the weaker sex they need to be protected,
deferred to, etc. The bad boys get away with stuff, while nice guys
like me are held to this ridiculous standard.
You know something? She doesn't even get child support from this guy.
Yet I'm supposed to now be, what did you say, a "father" for him????
For this she's breaking up with me???? And in the most dishonorable
way possible, like an out-of-wack ending to an otherwise great story?
Believe it or not, I'm even worried for her how she'll be when one day
it hits her that I was the best for her. NO ONE else appreciated her
sense of humor, no one else did anything for her, they all just fucked
her and left, and stupid "nice guy" that I am I'm left being held
responsible for her kid not attending a good school, her not living in
a good neighborhood, etc.
Yes, she actually blames me for this! 'Cause she says that oh if only
we lived together then she wouldn't have to be in a bad neighborhood
with her mother...this girl makes $17K MORE than me!!!!!
Oh, but I don't understand, I don't have a child, blah blah blah....
A woman is never satisfied. It really is true.
> Sounds to me like you are not ready, by your own account
No, I've never denied that -- when is one ever truly "ready"???
You've just got to prepare as you can and then jump in.
My thing is I really believe we need the "preparation" before we do
anything.
> She'd be right. You'd have shown commitment to both her /and/ the child
> by now otherwise. I get the impression she feels you've been stringing
> her along.
No, I can't string someone along when instead of hearing me out they
end the discussion upon an answer less than fully 100%-ly affirmative.
> Then you'd marry her out of guilt, perhaps? Increasingly, I get this
> feeling of emptiness about you two. Suggest you move on, leave the dust
> and rubble of this relationship to settle. Send in the archeologists when
> you're wiser.
Yes, precisely.
In the meantime, I need an ambulance!
> If you can quantify it like that... you're playing the wrong game...
No, just not playing by your rules, which are hers: you folks can
quantify things well enough when it comes to your pet projects -- car,
house, ring, etc. When I counter with proof of my own devotion, I'm
brushed aside.
Let's get real here.
> She wouldn't be guilty of an unusual crime then :-) As to economic
> calculations being a basis for marriage - whose economy?
Um, obviously hers, by her standards of measurement.
> And it doesnt' sound to me like she's "damned unthinking".
The damned unthinking was mostly in reference to the way she's
handling things.
Does she really believe that hating me will help her?
Does she not see that a guy who's given her four of the best years of
his life, and made for four of the best of hers (and vice-versa),
cannot be tossed aside like this without some psychic damage? You do
this too often (I'm guy number ten -- supposedly the best) and a bad
habit sets in....
Etc.
> Monster
Thank you for your thoughts, but you know, something funny happened
while exercising: I knew I could beat this, this sadness. It won't
eat me, and won't make me surrender my beliefs and values. I've tried
my best, and there's always more that's asked -- and let me tell you,
I've been in the Army, I know what that's like.
She really did walk away from the best guy she'd ever have. Thing is,
she realizes, as I long have, that she doesn't need the best.
All she needs is good enough.
And another guy, less intelligent and less athletic with kids of his
own, would fit the bill. No sense then that she wouldn't be good
enough for him -- no more insecurity. No issues with the son -- why,
he has kids of his own. No more feeling inadequate with current
events and intellectual matters; they just wouldn't ever be an issue
of conversation.
Sure this is something of a mis-casting, in that regard -- but you
know what, it worked, and worked great. Lasted four years, the
longest by far for either of us. And the reason for that is that we
did enjoy each other -- I loved her snese of humor and, frankly, the
way she sexxxed. She loved my appreciation of her, how I'd always do
the laundry and cooking, etc.
It is precisely because of all that that I feel like this ending is
just so awful. Like Pharoh's mummy dumped in the trash, you know.
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent. It's been helpful, to be sure.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> What do you do for a living?
Em, office work. Why, have we met before? =)
> I would have kept walking and not looked back at that point there. So were
> you brave or the flip side to brave? what is it?
This is the thing. What would *you* do for true love?
If love is an act of will, then by forgiving her I was practicing it,
wasn't I? I was really tempted to take the incident at face-value,
but it was at the beginning of a relationship, and I wanted to give
her a chance, so to speak.
> Dare I ask what "ate her out" means in this context? I can think of three
> possible alternatives, which do you mean?
You know what I mean. =]
> Take care with that analogy. All the same if this is how you feel then I'd
> say you're better off out of it just like getting out of Vietnam.
Agreed. Well, just like in "the 'Nam," I'm basically getting kicked
out.
Sure I could still turn this thing around if I really wanted to. But
the cost (self-esteem, time, and let's not forget money -- "no money
no honey," truth to tell, whatever people say) would be, under most
rational analyses, prohibitive. Just like -- pardon the analogy -- in
'Nam...could have won it, but increasingly the question was "why
bother?"
> Ah yes that's the flip side right there (foolhardy)! Also pride has
> something to do with this, the desperate need to not feel a failure. The
> desire to be part of the circle. To fit in.
Yes, to "fit in" in the sense of to please her...but that happens in
any relationship, and she did try to "fit in" with me, too, vis-a-vis
our then-budding relationship.
Pride, yes, of a certain curious kind -- not the obvious sort which
would have carried me out the door with the first few such incidents,
as I'd detailed, but the "desperate" kind to not fail, that *I*, with
my good-looks/winning
personality/intelligence/will/generosity/faith/etc., could not fail.
It's always hard to say -- even now, really. I did grow with her, and
learned a lot from her, and learned a lot about myself, etc.,
so...hard to say that I should have walked out at all the textbook
signs, all the textbook red flags. And frankly, that goes with her,
too. And I believe that to be the case with any relationship...a lot
of people will have issues, personal demons, etc., which invariably
become a factor in the relationship...when does one just walk out?
Hard to say.
She, at least, has seen the light.
I just think it's an oncoming train.
But I'm trying not to think in terms of her anymore -- like I said, I
used to do all the cooking, etc., so I still have this tendency to
wonder whether she'd eaten properly, etc.
We really are broken up and...gosh, that's that.
Shudder.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
>
> I think you will know when the 'bonds snap', there is a total difference to
> that and trial separations. But I think I've misunderstood you here.
Well, it was a fruitful aside, all the same. You are indeed saying
that by definition what you mean precludes any making up. It's just
my philosophy that it's almost never "too late"...of course, that does
take two parties of good will and faith....
> And as such it is a common thread running through all humans, I'm going to
> suggest that she and you aren't so very special in this respect. One day,
> it's possible that this camaraderie will be shared between you and someone
> else.
Oh, yes, I understand, I'm not claiming any "truly" special quality to
it...I only brought all this up to note, again, that I'd have expected
just this "common humanity" stuff, especially after four years
together -- that I deserve, not only as her
companion/lover/soulmate/etc. for the past four years but just as a
fellow human being/etc., more "consideration" than this
drop-like-a-hot-potato-cold-shoulder bit.
> I'm pretty unsocial, me. I was lucky in love but... very practical in what I
> was looking for. No point in lying about who you want to live with.
Yes, I'll be very practical too, now. That's part of the reason why I
said that I was sorry to see my innocence and bravery leave with her,
if you now take my meaning.
As for being unsocial...that's a descriptive comment, not a normative
one, which is the sort I was making with my observation that we human
beings are social animals and therefore cannot help but seek out
companionship at some level. (The difference between a descriptive
statement and a normative one is the difference between saying that it
is "normal" for human beings to get sick -- since everyone gets sick
throught life, more or less -- and that it isn't "normal" to get sick
-- since that's not the optimum state of the body, that's not how the
body was [dare I say?] "meant" or "designed" to be.)
> We have short term memory problems. Which is probably for the best. I still
> see his name fly past on the tv from time to time and it doesn't make my
> stomach lurch any more (hasn't done for some years really) but I can't
> remember when I stopped feeling that lurch, and it now seems quite 'neat'
> that I used to live with some guy who does something worth mentioning at the
> end of some sad act programme.
Ah, I see.
You know, I'm just skirting the boundaries of that now (not so "raw"
anymore)...I can imagine what you mean. And yes, I too can still
appreciate (or "find it cool" as you say) the ex, even now...to deny
the experience would very much be to deny oneself, to condemn in some
way one's own person at the time of the relationship...but more than
just self-esteem or self-conceit I don't think most of us truly
begrudge any ex ten years later....
> I don't know what I'd do if I actually came
> face to face with him. No matter how much I love my DH I've still been in
> love with someone else and that's unsettling but at the same time it ought
> to give us all hope. Love is inside you and not apart from you.
Yes, I've always maintained that I will love Claudia forever -- I say
I have a Claudia-shaped hole in my heart. I mean, besides the
physical stuff I just really appreciated her for who she was...and I
don't believe it when people say they had loved but no longer do, if
we define love as a state of being...she is still who she is no matter
that we're not together as a couple, and who is is part of what I love
so how could it ever end, really?
But yes, I will be able to go on and love someone else, while stowing
away my love of Claudia like an old family heirloom that belongs more
properly in the attic or basement than upon the mantlepiece.
> I couldn't even begin to describe how love works. I think I've tried but
> it's as elusive as any emotion.
But that's just the thing: Fromm defines it as not just an emotion. A
whole lot of will is involved. It is, primarily, intellectual,
rational. One chooses to love, one exercises one's faculty for it.
Unless one's an actor or actress, most don't usually "choose" to *be*
an emotion literally.
Emotions happen upon us for all sorts of cause-and-effect reasons.
Love in the highest state (which is what we aim for -- we're more
likely to hit the mark if we try to aim for it, even if we know
beforehand the odds) is "free" in the sense that it isn't tied down to
some laundry list of variables.
Sorry to sound quarrelous; I'm merely being my anal-ytical self here.
=)
> What drives it or kills it or initiates it?
Well, since you are talking about loving feelings, as opposed to love
itself (the difference between a thing and its shadow, I imagine),
there are all sorts of reasons for what causes them or kills them.
It's often very complicated, but ultimately definable -- had we the
time and interest, say, to sort it all out.
I mean, the curve of a woman's chest or hips will bring a
correspondingly proportional curve to many men's lips...that's a
typical genesis for many a tale of love...!
> As far as love re-kindled goes: I always remember the scene in Dangerous
> Liaisons where Vicomte de Valmont believes he can win back the love of
> Madame de Tourvel after destroying their trust. Of course in any physically
> significant way he can't, (in the film at least) I've yet to read the book.
I don't know about the book either, but I've always imagined that such
a pious woman could have been able to forgive him. Actually, I
suspect that a certain "pain" for a woman in the midst of all that
preceeding happiness would serve to better cement her to a
relationship! Not too much, of course -- everyone's got a breaking
point, to be practical about this -- but, again, especially given her
Christian piety and newfound carnality (we're talking about the
Michelle Pfeiffer character, right?), and that the Vicomte is quite
the charmer and was sincerely, for once, contrite, etc., I really
think he could have successfully wooed her again.
As the saying goes, a man gets and forgets, a woman gives and
forgives. =)
Really, I'd always imagined that, had this been real life (instead of
fiction -- 'cause we know that in real life it's guys like the Vicomte
that get the "best" girls), he would have been able to make it up to
her.
> And when I say rekindle love that has died I don't think it is possible.
> Yes, you can regain the passion in the rise and fall between episodes of
> breaking up and getting back together. But once the "bonds have snapped" I
> don't think it's possible. It would be like trying to make contact with the
> dead.
Now that's a great analogy for purposes of my proposed perspective on
love (which, I note again, isn't mine but distilled Erich Fromm).
Love is the triumph of imagination over intellect. That's a joke, but
quite true in its way. Folks who try to contact the dead are
obviously believers. Lovers are also believers -- how does anyone
ever *know* except through their senses? But senses are fallible,
perspectives are fallible. We can't go through life analytically,
fine as logic and analysis is. For the most part, we take things for
granted -- we go on faith, in other words.
We believe. In something like love, which is created by two people,
it's enough that both believe love can be rekindled.
Of course, we're playing semantics here -- for you, by definition love
can't be rekindled, and for me, it can. We're talking about two
different things, though, using the same word, like using x to
represent any value we care to plug into it to make the equation --
relationship -- work.
If it works for you that love can't be rekindled, that there is, in
this sense, no love that lives beyond death, then that's what you
believe and what gets you through in life and loss.
For me -- since it is all, in the end, quite a matter of faith, for
all our words and protests -- I believe (I choose to believe) that
love is indeed forever, or can be, if folks make it that way. Like a
path that will return to the wilds if not constantly tread, and which
can be blazed anew even after eons of neglect, I believe love can be
rekindled if we desire that it can.
> This is a useful technique but crying gets that pain right out of your inner
> soul. Cry it out like the human in pain that you really are. There may be
> 'danger' in doing either of these things (blocking it or facing it) to
> excess.
You know, I haven't cried since I was 21, ten years ago. That was, if
I may risk appearing melodramatic, in the Army. I don't know what
happened, 'cause I used cry a lot as a youth (I'm embarassed to say
that I thought myself romantic for it, too), but I can't anymore.
Except for that one time last year when Claudia had broken up with me
again. I watched "The Princess Bride" and just had to cry when the
end credits rolled with that song..."he said/don't you know/how much I
love you/I lay my heart at the foot of your dress/she said/don't you
know/that storybook-loves/always have a happy ending"...ugh!
I've got another technique I've been employing to cope, and it seems
to work! In addition to family and friends and here on the internet,
I've also been -- excuse me if this grosses you out --
masturbating...I've been entertaining fantasies of her returning,
after the other guy fucks her like a whore (you know how it is; girls
getting out of a relationship are easy targets for sex)...and I find
that after I come, I don't know why but I actually don't care anymore
whether *she* comes...back...to me....
And I truly don't think that this means, oh, I was only interested in
sex with her, or that once I was able to visualize her with another
man so viscerally that I just got turned off...it's more like that I
realized how pointless it was to pine after her...and I'm still unsure
why, but it's probably as close to your notion of "snapping bonds" as
I can imagine -- though it's also something that I've returned to time
and again with each episode of masturbation...I imagine this is all
very hilarious, but it does seem to work for me...maybe it's that the
sheer absurdity of it all only sinks in when I go masturbate
about/over (and just what *is* the proper preposition here,
anyway???)...and why it should take that as opposed to anything else
is another curiosity....
> Get out and do things. To be practical, all the things you've held off
> doing. Voluntary work, evening classes, sport... whatever it takes to get
> out and be doing something.
Yes, I have. Your time and help has been a big part of all that.
Truly I thank you!
> To kind of recap:
>
> A: (Activate) Get out and do things to take your mind off it, to give
> yourself a break from the misery.
Check!
> B: (Break it down) Sit and observe it like an objective event (as now).
Check!
> C: (Cry) Get emotional and cry or scream.
Um...does masturbation count???
> Do these things in rotation and none of them to excess. FWIW/IMHO. I'm sure
> others have advice that will work; we're all different and yet can respond
> to similar things.
Yeah, but those are general guidelines which apply to all. It's also
a matter of timing, of course...I'm coming out of this so quickly
compared to some others I've read on boards like those at
hopecircle.com because I've been here before -- with the same girl....
> I missed off your Y there earlier ((((Y))))
>
> (But then... do any of us really know Y? Hehe)
As in, "why not?"
Don't you just love God's reply to Job's lament -- "but why *me*?"
The very portrait of a non sequitur!
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD493B0D.1AB20%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>>
>>
>> What do you do for a living?
>
> Em, office work. Why, have we met before? =)
No. We've never 'met'. Unless you've been posting to other newsgroups under
a different name. I was just curious because of some of the warfare imagery
you use to describe your situation.
>> I would have kept walking and not looked back at that point there. So were
>> you brave or the flip side to brave? what is it?
>
> This is the thing. What would *you* do for true love?
>
> If love is an act of will, then by forgiving her I was practicing it,
> wasn't I? I was really tempted to take the incident at face-value,
> but it was at the beginning of a relationship, and I wanted to give
> her a chance, so to speak.
No for me it is a simple fact. If someone has a child I'm just not going to
be interested in a ltr because they have proven themselves to have different
standards to me. I'm not saying that mine are better in the least, just that
we'd be incompatible. I'd be capable of being civil at least but boffing
would be out.
>> Dare I ask what "ate her out" means in this context? I can think of three
>> possible alternatives, which do you mean?
>
> You know what I mean. =]
It wasn't a typo then. Sounds a bit immature if you don't mind me making a
judgement on that.
> Sure I could still turn this thing around if I really wanted to.
Could you? Could you really? Do you really want all that?
> But
> the cost (self-esteem, time, and let's not forget money -- "no money
> no honey," truth to tell, whatever people say) would be, under most
> rational analyses, prohibitive. Just like -- pardon the analogy -- in
> 'Nam...could have won it, but increasingly the question was "why
> bother?"
So why bother? You know you have plenty of qualities that someone else can
easily benefit from. Obviously you need to indulge yourself in your own
misery for a while but grieve it and move on. PS: this is all just advice
you can tell me to shove it.
>
>> Ah yes that's the flip side right there (foolhardy)! Also pride has
>> something to do with this, the desperate need to not feel a failure. The
>> desire to be part of the circle. To fit in.
>
> Yes, to "fit in" in the sense of to please her...but that happens in
> any relationship, and she did try to "fit in" with me, too, vis-a-vis
> our then-budding relationship.
And the need to 'fit in' to society and your role as a husband or father
(bleh) or whatever you're expected to be. The pride of succeeding at no
matter what cost is what I mean, the fear of failure in everyone's eyes when
it all goes wrong.
> Pride, yes, of a certain curious kind -- not the obvious sort which
> would have carried me out the door with the first few such incidents,
> as I'd detailed, but the "desperate" kind to not fail, that *I*, with
> my good-looks/winning personality/intelligence/will/generosity/
> faith/etc., could not fail.
>
> It's always hard to say -- even now, really. I did grow with her, and
> learned a lot from her, and learned a lot about myself, etc.,
> so...hard to say that I should have walked out at all the textbook
> signs, all the textbook red flags. And frankly, that goes with her,
> too. And I believe that to be the case with any relationship...a lot
> of people will have issues, personal demons, etc., which invariably
> become a factor in the relationship...when does one just walk out?
> Hard to say.
When it's not working out, if it's really that much hard work it really
isn't going to ever be anything else. When someone hurts someone else
physically or emotionally or psychologically. When one of the 'participants'
is having way more fun than the other and possibly even at the other's
expense (and I'm including financial here). For instance the red flag *for
me* would have been that the other person had a child I wouldn't have got
involved at the very outset.
> She, at least, has seen the light.
>
> I just think it's an oncoming train.
>
> But I'm trying not to think in terms of her anymore -- like I said, I
> used to do all the cooking, etc., so I still have this tendency to
> wonder whether she'd eaten properly, etc.
Don't worry about her, she's an adult.
> We really are broken up and...gosh, that's that.
>
> Shudder.
Now go and take yourself off for a 8 mile run, or sit down with a nice cup
of tea and watch some mindless comedy.
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> I think you will know when the 'bonds snap', there is a total difference to
>> that and trial separations. But I think I've misunderstood you here.
>>
> Well, it was a fruitful aside, all the same. You are indeed saying that by
> definition what you mean precludes any making up. It's just my philosophy
> that it's almost never "too late"...of course, that does take two parties of
> good will and faith....
>
>> And as such it is a common thread running through all humans, I'm going to
>> suggest that she and you aren't so very special in this respect. One day,
>> it's possible that this camaraderie will be shared between you and someone
>> else.
>>
> Oh, yes, I understand, I'm not claiming any "truly" special quality to it...I
> only brought all this up to note, again, that I'd have expected just this
> "common humanity" stuff, especially after four years together -- that I
> deserve, not only as her companion/lover/soulmate/etc. for the past four years
> but just as a fellow human being/etc., more "consideration" than this
> drop-like-a-hot-potato-cold-shoulder bit.
If you have been through break-ups before then got back together and have
both wavered over where you stand, then this 'drop-like-a-hot-potato-
cold-shoulder bit' may be the only way she can get her message across. A bit
like him telling me he only felt pity, she's using whatever she can to let
you know it's well and truly over. Whatever she knows will work on you. It's
her way, you've got to accept it for what it is if you love her.
You have to love the ending of your relationship too, then. This is how it
ends with Claudia.
> But yes, I will be able to go on and love someone else, while stowing away my
> love of Claudia like an old family heirloom that belongs more properly in the
> attic or basement than upon the mantlepiece.
>
>> I couldn't even begin to describe how love works. I think I've tried but it's
>> as elusive as any emotion.
>>
> But that's just the thing: Fromm defines it as not just an emotion. A whole
> lot of will is involved. It is, primarily, intellectual, rational. One
> chooses to love, one exercises one's faculty for it. Unless one's an actor or
> actress, most don't usually "choose" to *be* an emotion literally.
>
> Emotions happen upon us for all sorts of cause-and-effect reasons. Love in the
> highest state (which is what we aim for -- we're more likely to hit the mark
> if we try to aim for it, even if we know beforehand the odds) is "free" in the
> sense that it isn't tied down to some laundry list of variables.
>
> Sorry to sound quarrelous; I'm merely being my anal-ytical self here. =)
You anal eyes away. I'm not following you all the way through; I'm not a
deep thinker.
>> What drives it or kills it or initiates it?
>>
> Well, since you are talking about loving feelings, as opposed to love itself
> (the difference between a thing and its shadow, I imagine), there are all
> sorts of reasons for what causes them or kills them. It's often very
> complicated, but ultimately definable -- had we the time and interest, say, to
> sort it all out.
>
> I mean, the curve of a woman's chest or hips will bring a correspondingly
> proportional curve to many men's lips...that's a typical genesis for many a
> tale of love...!
His hands resting on the steering wheel, in charge of our direction when
they could be in charge of me.
>> As far as love re-kindled goes: I always remember the scene in Dangerous
>> Liaisons where Vicomte de Valmont believes he can win back the love of Madame
>> de Tourvel after destroying their trust. Of course in any physically
>> significant way he can't, (in the film at least) I've yet to read the book.
>>
> I don't know about the book either, but I've always imagined that such a pious
> woman could have been able to forgive him.
I think she did, but not in any physically significant way; it was too late.
She got his message after he'd died and as she was dying. I think she would
have forgiven him, she did love him, but it would still have been over.
> Actually, I suspect that a certain "pain" for a woman in the midst of all that
> preceeding happiness would serve to better cement her to a relationship! Not
> too much, of course -- everyone's got a breaking point, to be practical about
> this -- but, again, especially given her Christian piety and newfound
> carnality (we're talking about the Michelle Pfeiffer character, right?), and
> that the Vicomte is quite the charmer and was sincerely, for once, contrite,
> etc., I really think he could have successfully wooed her again.
I don't think so, I think she would have taken the veil. I would expect that
more is revealed in the book.
> As the saying goes, a man gets and forgets, a woman gives and forgives. =)
Sweet saying, not always the case though.
> Really, I'd always imagined that, had this been real life (instead of fiction
> -- 'cause we know that in real life it's guys like the Vicomte that get the
> "best" girls), he would have been able to make it up to her.
"best"?
I think he did but it was still too late. She would always love him.
Yes I think we're playing with semantics and I'm not very good with this,
we're all working from our own perspective which in itself is precariously
balanced within learned behaviour (some of it hardwired at birth).
You can rekindle the passion and, if love is constant, that should be enough
to make the whole thing return to the original settings. But we're just not
like that. We're not set with factory defaults... we're not machines; we're
alchemy.
>
>> This is a useful technique but crying gets that pain right out of your inner
>> soul. Cry it out like the human in pain that you really are. There may be
>> 'danger' in doing either of these things (blocking it or facing it) to
>> excess.
>>
> You know, I haven't cried since I was 21, ten years ago. That was, if I may
> risk appearing melodramatic, in the Army. I don't know what happened, 'cause
> I used cry a lot as a youth (I'm embarassed to say that I thought myself
> romantic for it, too), but I can't anymore.
Sounds like you ought to think about acting as an outlet.
> Except for that one time last year when Claudia had broken up with me again.
> I watched "The Princess Bride" and just had to cry when the end credits rolled
> with that song..."he said/don't you know/how much I love you/I lay my heart at
> the foot of your dress/she said/don't you know/that storybook-loves/always
> have a happy ending"...ugh!
Don't know that film. I cry at films, they know what they're doing so why
not just 'go with it'.
> I've got another technique I've been employing to cope, and it seems to work!
> In addition to family and friends and here on the internet, I've also been --
> excuse me if this grosses you out -- masturbating...I've been entertaining
> fantasies of her returning, after the other guy fucks her like a whore (you
> know how it is; girls getting out of a relationship are easy targets for
> sex)...and I find that after I come, I don't know why but I actually don't
> care anymore whether *she* comes...back...to me....
>
> And I truly don't think that this means, oh, I was only interested in sex with
> her, or that once I was able to visualize her with another man so viscerally
> that I just got turned off...it's more like that I realized how pointless it
> was to pine after her...and I'm still unsure why, but it's probably as close
> to your notion of "snapping bonds" as I can imagine -- though it's also
> something that I've returned to time and again with each episode of
> masturbation...I imagine this is all very hilarious, but it does seem to work
> for me...maybe it's that the sheer absurdity of it all only sinks in when I go
> masturbate about/over (and just what *is* the proper preposition here,
> anyway???)...and why it should take that as opposed to anything else is
> another curiosity....
I'd be more surprised if you weren't masturbating and thinking of her.
>> Get out and do things. To be practical, all the things you've held off doing.
>> Voluntary work, evening classes, sport... whatever it takes to get out and be
>> doing something.
>>
> Yes, I have. Your time and help has been a big part of all that. Truly I
> thank you!
>
's okay.
>> To kind of recap:
>>
>> A: (Activate) Get out and do things to take your mind off it, to give
>> yourself a break from the misery.
>>
> Check!
>
>> B: (Break it down) Sit and observe it like an objective event (as now).
>>
> Check!
>
>> C: (Cry) Get emotional and cry or scream.
>>
> Um...does masturbation count???
I'd put that under A, B and C. Don't just think of Claudia all the time
though, think of whoever the latest sex symbol is: Gloria Hunniford or Katy
Boyle for instance.
>> Do these things in rotation and none of them to excess. FWIW/IMHO. I'm sure
>> others have advice that will work; we're all different and yet can respond to
>> similar things.
>>
> Yeah, but those are general guidelines which apply to all. It's also a matter
> of timing, of course...I'm coming out of this so quickly compared to some
> others I've read on boards like those at hopecircle.com because I've been here
> before -- with the same girl....
What you're suffering from is RSI then! I've found a support bandage is the
best cure, and rest the affected part.
>
>> I missed off your Y there earlier ((((Y))))
>>
>> (But then... do any of us really know Y? Hehe)
>>
> As in, "why not?"
>
> Don't you just love God's reply to Job's lament -- "but why *me*?" The very
> portrait of a non sequitur!
I have no idea what God's reply to Job was... "Why not you" ? Or perhaps
"You'd rather I picked on someone my own size." ?
Take care YABH.
Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent
news:BD4A9076.1AE20%skl...@yahoo.co.uk:
> I have no idea what God's reply to Job was...
"Bite me."
Sklenge
lol
And did he?
Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent
news:BD4A98EA.1AE31%skl...@yahoo.co.uk:
That's another story...
>
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> No. We've never 'met'. Unless you've been posting to other newsgroups under
> a different name. I was just curious because of some of the warfare imagery
> you use to describe your situation.
All's fair in love and war, goes the trite cliche.
It's just so hard...I guess I only know how to react to challenges in
two ways: either attack it, or sit with it and blink dumbly.
> No for me it is a simple fact. If someone has a child I'm just not going to
> be interested in a ltr because they have proven themselves to have different
> standards to me. I'm not saying that mine are better in the least, just that
> we'd be incompatible. I'd be capable of being civil at least but boffing
> would be out.
Oh, I used to think that too, but she was just so...cute!
Besides...I was a virgin until 25 'cause of my "standards"...this is
with two years of the Army behind me, mind you...so I just kinda
figured that life really is too short for me to expect to find my
ideal girl...so settled for her shadow, as it were....
> It wasn't a typo then. Sounds a bit immature if you don't mind me making a
> judgement on that.
?
Cunninlingus (sp?) is a bit immature??
> Could you? Could you really? Do you really want all that?
Yes I could, I know how to "get to her"...for example, offer marriage
and prove it (the wooing bit all over again, as well as the
follow-through with a ring, etc.)...but, as you ask and as I
previously noted, I'm not sure it's "wise" to do that, given that
she's so callous about this....
> So why bother? You know you have plenty of qualities that someone else can
> easily benefit from. Obviously you need to indulge yourself in your own
> misery for a while but grieve it and move on. PS: this is all just advice
> you can tell me to shove it.
Not at all; your advice bears reiteration. I need to hear this,
mantra-like, and not just from myself. It helps. Because it's sound.
Funny thing is, I just bet that's what she's been hearing all along,
too! Likely from her mother, most of all...then from the friends *I*
encouraged her to make! As well as, I believe, from our mutual
colleagues at work....
I've always wondered...what do you do when both sides take this
universal advice to heart? There'd never be any make-ups, then!
> And the need to 'fit in' to society and your role as a husband or father
> (bleh) or whatever you're expected to be. The pride of succeeding at no
> matter what cost is what I mean, the fear of failure in everyone's eyes when
> it all goes wrong.
Yes, I do think there was an element of this for us both. For me, it
was my first time living with someone, my first LTR, first date with a
single mom, with a latina, everything...for her, she was been there,
done that...so from opposite angles, both of us wanted a return on our
investment in time and energy....
> When it's not working out, if it's really that much hard work it really
> isn't going to ever be anything else. When someone hurts someone else
> physically or emotionally or psychologically. When one of the 'participants'
> is having way more fun than the other and possibly even at the other's
> expense (and I'm including financial here). For instance the red flag *for
> me* would have been that the other person had a child I wouldn't have got
> involved at the very outset.
I know, but she was, as I say, just so cute! And lovely! I don't
mean "sexy"...she is that to me, now -- even now -- but back then, it
was just this sense of, wow, what a sweet girl....
Anyway, I think I'll pay attention to these red flags from now on.
And yes, avoid the single moms. It takes a special kind of man to
love them and their kids....
> Don't worry about her, she's an adult.
Indeed. Just a habit, that...knowing her, she's just repeating her
pattern of being someone's sex toy....
> Now go and take yourself off for a 8 mile run, or sit down with a nice cup
> of tea and watch some mindless comedy.
Have done all that, and all that's done me good. Believe me, I
couldn't have been typing legible sentences two weeks ago.
Again, all my thanks. I know this thread is getting long in the
tooth, and is winding down of its own accord, but I'm just curious
what your situation is, why you're here on an loneliness support NG,
and why you thought to share so much of yourself with me by consoling
me.
Otherwise, I thank you again -- I can't thank you, and all the others
here, enough. Just having that ear helps.
Eleonore Beaudoin
Dunno the context. But anyway. God promised Job that never again he would
test humans like he had him. But that story supposes that Satan would have
influenced God himself into giving Job a hard time, tellign God that he
might seem like he is praising God and adoring him in good times, but that
if God gave him bad time,s he woudl see that woudl nto last, sort of
thing. Where supposedly (Old Testament, where it was a God they thought
for winnign over your ennemies and so on, nothign like the new testament),
--where supposedly then God was tempted by the devil and woudl have
decided to take everythign away from Job one thing after a nother. His
wife. Every single one of his kids, one after the other. His health. His
income. You name it, it was all taken away and Job kept praising
God....Until one day he had enough and stated how completely unfair it
was, how that was puttign more on man than God made man able to endure,
where then God promised that never again he would test man.
Yet even the fanatics that read the Old testament for the letter and want
to apply it to the letter (yet as suits them anyway, of course;-)),
keep talking to this day about being tested by God. Churches included.
Perhaps they oughta read the book;-)
C
--
KrosRogue
> However, I wish we could have discussed and "negotiated" things,
> instead of just her proposing and me registering reluctance and her
> not following up or offering a counter-proposal and that being that
> to the end of the matter.
I suppose she wanted more of a commitment than you were willing to
give. I think she realized that and considered it pointless to
continue a relationship that presumeably wouldn't give her what she
wanted.
>> Different folk express love in different ways. She didn't express
>> her love for you in the manner you wished. You didn't express your
>> love for her in the manner she wished. She became impatient after
>> what she considered too long of a time to wait.
> True, true.
> But, hell, I just don't see that as the deal-breaker she and you
> feel it to be.
I would guess the reason for that is because you apparently can't see
her point of view.
> I'm really afraid that it isn't a matter of salvaging the relationship
> by making the compromises and concessions attendant to any
> relationship. I'm pretty much convinced now that she just plain
> doesn't care anymore -- as she says so plainly.
When one doesn't get the desired fulfilment from a relationship, its
importance begins to fade.
> So all I have left is the pain.
>
> If only...if only I could just...sleep...you know, I'm actually
> athletic, but I have no desire to move anymore...I sit whenever I can,
> I'm just lethargic and feeling blah....
Hindsight seldom offers much comfort, but considering the way you feel
now, would marrying her have been all that bad?
--
KrosRogue
AT SoftHome DOT Net
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> I was just curious because of some of the warfare imagery you
>> use to describe your situation.
>>
> All's fair in love and war, goes the trite cliche.
>
> It's just so hard...I guess I only know how to react to challenges in two
> ways: either attack it, or sit with it and blink dumbly.
>
>> It wasn't a typo then. Sounds a bit immature if you don't mind me making a
>> judgement on that.
>>
> ?
>
> Cunninlingus (sp?) is a bit immature??
>
>>> Another incident at the beginning: I ate her out on the stairwell of her
>>> mother's apartment building....
It was the context. Not the 'what', more the 'where'. Like I say, I bring my
own prejudices into this forum. Public sex isn't something I'm equipped to
do, certainly not on my mother's doorstep. What you do is your own business,
of course.
>> So why bother? You know you have plenty of qualities that someone else can
>> easily benefit from. Obviously you need to indulge yourself in your own
>> misery for a while but grieve it and move on. PS: this is all just advice you
>> can tell me to shove it.
>>
> Not at all; your advice bears reiteration. I need to hear this, mantra-like,
> and not just from myself. It helps. Because it's sound.
>
> Funny thing is, I just bet that's what she's been hearing all along, too!
> Likely from her mother, most of all...then from the friends *I* encouraged her
> to make! As well as, I believe, from our mutual colleagues at work....
Oh, that's hard. You work together. That's difficult and reminds me of what
we said about how this looks to other people around you (the fear of public
failure).
> I've always wondered...what do you do when both sides take this universal
> advice to heart? There'd never be any make-ups, then!
You know what to do in your heart *and* your head though.
Jane Austen's 'Persuasion' deals with this issue. Working on how others'
prejudices can sway someone to make a decision. :::SPOILER FOLLOWS:::
The heroine seems to conclude that it was okay to be persuaded to let her
lover go years previously, even though it turned out to be bad advice. She
is just so happy to be with her lover again that she can forgive the advice;
it was meant kindly. The fact that she and he got back together was proof of
their devotion. Have I just ruined the ending?
Ah, I sympathize. Hope it all continues towards peace.
> Again, all my thanks. I know this thread is getting long in the tooth, and is
> winding down of its own accord, but I'm just curious what your situation is,
> why you're here on an loneliness support NG, and why you thought to share so
> much of yourself with me by consoling me.
> Otherwise, I thank you again -- I can't thank you, and all the others here,
> enough. Just having that ear helps.
Hope it works out for you. And for her + son.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> I suppose she wanted more of a commitment than you were willing to
> give. I think she realized that and considered it pointless to
> continue a relationship that presumeably wouldn't give her what she
> wanted.
This is the issue I have..."pointless"??
At the risk of sounding egotistical, let me just respond: but hey,
it's *me*...!
That's exactly how I feel towards her...I've never dated a single mom
before, and tried to put her out of my mind when I first found out
(before even "talking" to her -- I like to do "recon" first for just
about anything in life), but she's just so cute! I mean, really
lovely, and then I found out how sexxxy she was (you'd never guess),
then...as I say, cute!
So despite her negatives -- doesn't communicate, keeps things to
herself, doesn't care for my interests but presumes my tolerance of if
not interest in whatever *she's* got to say (complaining about work,
gossip about her family, etc.), dumping me out of the blue
periodically, etc., I still love *her*. Not so much what she does,
much less does for me -- though naturally that's always appreciated --
but who she is: her sense of humor, her habits (muffins and coffee
every day, etc.), blah blah blah.
I'm just hurt by her "mercantile" attitude towards me, as you surmise.
And again, I understand it from an "economics" POV, but I remain
disappointed that four years hasn't convinced her of something more
than that. I mean, "economics" is where you start out, and it's
always an underlying foundation, to be sure...but after four years, it
comes down back to this kind of basics????
I mean, geez, what if I wound up in a wheelchair and disfigured for
life after an auto accident?? Blah blah blah.
Anyway, she's dumped me, and I'm sure this is the absolute end; she's
been testing the waters previously with "trial dumps" I think, and now
she's really found her nerve.
Sigh.
> I would guess the reason for that is because you apparently can't see
> her point of view.
For some reason, people confuse "seeing" with "agreeing"...I do "see"
but that doesn't imply (as in a logical implication) that I therefore
"agree" if I did....
If this is what it comes down to, different POVs, different
ideologies, then that's really sad -- sadder than it is now --
and...it truly is a good thing that we part our ways...I mean, when
the basis for "love" becomes a matter of "ideology," of POV...I
realize I'm asking a lot, but to me love is above and beyond the
capitalist instincts of the marketplace....
Again, that stuff is a point of departure, not the engine that should
drive a relationship...icing on the cake, not the cake itself...I
dunno...boiling it all down to this different POV stuff makes it seem
so cheap, and I guess I'm just trying to make it appear more noble an
affair than it really ever had been -- or could be....
> When one doesn't get the desired fulfilment from a relationship, its
> importance begins to fade.
Yeah, well, it's my misfortune, then, to have fallen in love wiht a
laboratory rat, huh? Just like a whore -- and don't imagine I'm
bitter; I'm too sad for bitterness, and am trying to make a point.
> Hindsight seldom offers much comfort, but considering the way you feel
> now, would marrying her have been all that bad?
I know, I know: pick your poison.
What you and her seem to fail to appreciate is -- while we're at it --
*my* POV: I'm open to discussion. I WANT DISCUSSION! If I'm a part
of this dynamic duo we should discuss things...discussion isn't
predicated on yes-or-no preconditions.
Anyway, if all this is the way her thoughts have been turning, then
I'm very much disgusted -- you should see the lovey-dovey stuff she'd
wrote me earlier this year, talking about eternity, etc. No mention
of marriage. How this ghost keeps cropping up I don't
know...someone's been putting a worm in her ear, I bet.
Anyway, whatever. This is approaching the existentially absurd.
Reminds me of how folks want to go to heaven but aren't willing to die
to get there. She wants marriage with me, but will just dump me like
this if all I do is register my reluctance given all the issues
involved while maintaining that we should discuss these issues.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
>
> If you have been through break-ups before then got back together and have
> both wavered over where you stand, then this 'drop-like-a-hot-potato-
> cold-shoulder bit' may be the only way she can get her message across.
No, she's not trying to communicate anything here. She's told me she
doesn't care for me anymore, doesn't want to have anything to do with
me. She's not even offering me a choice, as hard a heart as that
would suggest. I don't think she's trying to play hard to get...we're
not talking about mind games here. She means to have nothing to do
with me.
And because she wants to be married. Obviously it doesn't matter all
that much to whom, I take it. It wasn't the unique aspects of me that
she wanted to spend the rest of her life with -- that was icing on the
cake -- it's a man she can get along with adequately enough to make
for an arrangement called marriage.
> A bit
> like him telling me he only felt pity, she's using whatever she can to let
> you know it's well and truly over. Whatever she knows will work on you. It's
> her way, you've got to accept it for what it is if you love her.
Oh, I do accept it, I'm not contacting her or anything, pleading, etc.
Used to, but not this time. I do get it, I do know...I'm just
horrified that I've been with such a person for the past four years,
that's all...like finding you have an axe-murderer for a tenant or
neighbor all along...you know, that kind of shock....
BTW, it definitely is cathartic to be here expressing all
this...ironic that total strangers should take more interest than "the
love of my life"....
> You have to love the ending of your relationship too, then. This is how it
> ends with Claudia.
That is true...with ten guys now she's never had an amicable
separation...I must confess that I always did know this was how it
would end, too, with me and her, if it did end -- which I didn't think
it would, but it certainly has....
I'm not sure how to "love" the ending of this relationship, as you
advise...how do I "love" it? Just because I say I love Claudi doesn't
mean I love everything she does, everything about her...this is one of
those things which reflects badly on her. Just because it's the most
convenient way of doing things doesn't excuse what appears to me to be
the immorality of it.
Yes, I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I say that there's an
element of immorality involved here, insofar as that she's essentially
denying me my humanity by her cold shoulder, tossing me aside like a
used napkin.
Yes, that's who she is, that's most people, that's just life, etc.
I'm just so horrified and disgusted in-between feeling terribly sad.
I mean, my mother had just died, too, you know?? What kind of crap is
this that she just dumps me now??? It's all quite fitting, though,
for some soap opera.
> You anal eyes away. I'm not following you all the way through; I'm not a
> deep thinker.
Ah, well.
> His hands resting on the steering wheel, in charge of our direction when
> they could be in charge of me.
?
Hmmm....
> I think she did, but not in any physically significant way; it was too late.
> She got his message after he'd died and as she was dying. I think she would
> have forgiven him, she did love him, but it would still have been over.
Um, "if A and B then C"...how do you accept A and B and imagine NOT
C??
> I don't think so, I think she would have taken the veil. I would expect that
> more is revealed in the book.
Yes, she definitely could have become a nun. I'm willing to allow for
possibilities like that. As for probabilities, I live in the real
world and do believe that the Vicomte would have brought all his, ah,
seductive powers to bear on her -- only that this time, it's "for a
good cause"...as much as females love "bad boys" no female could
resist a bad boy who turned good because of her!
> Sweet saying, not always the case though.
The saying presumes the presence of love on the woman's part.
> "best"?
Well, it's like the ol' joke of a parable about two pious people, one
rich and one poor, showing up at the gates of Heaven. The rich guy
St. Peter himself welcomed in with great fanfare, whereas the poor guy
stood on line with everyone else. His sad suspicion that in Heaven
things are just as they are on Earth was received by St. Peter with
the explanation that Heaven sees many poor, pious people all the time
but a rich pious person is an exception ("camel through the eye of a
needle" and "prodigal son" and all that).
Likewise, the "best" girls.
> I think he did but it was still too late. She would always love him.
And love isn't just a sate of being and an emotional one at that but
thoughtful, conscious action. One loves in thought as well as deed.
(This debate is akin to what caused church schisms which lead to
protestantism -- is it enough merely to believe, or must one do as
well?)
Thus, because she "would always love him," I conclude that she would
also go back to him and be his wife, etc. -- we're talking about a
woman of quality here, who, Pygmalion-like, has in effect sculpted her
perfect man to life.
> Yes I think we're playing with semantics and I'm not very good with this,
> we're all working from our own perspective which in itself is precariously
> balanced within learned behaviour (some of it hardwired at birth).
But that's not an excuse to not think deeply -- folks often bring in
semantics as a way of dropping an issue. Differences go without
saying -- the task is to explore them, etc.
Anyway, love isn't possible with animals, obviously. What separates
us from animals is self-reflective thought. Love therefore is
possible only because of thought. It involves, however, action as
well, because thoughts are expressed in action (speaking or doing,
etc.).
One cannot love deeply without thinking deeply. One can feel deeply
without thinking deeply, but that is not the same thing as loving
deeply.
And of course there are different kinds of love, and some forms which
resemble love but which may be more properly named affection or even
emotional attachment, force of habit....
> You can rekindle the passion and, if love is constant, that should be enough
> to make the whole thing return to the original settings. But we're just not
> like that. We're not set with factory defaults... we're not machines; we're
> alchemy.
I agree with your first statement (though I wish to note that that is
not the only way to "return to love"), but do not understand how the
third is linked to it in your POV.
You speak of factory defaults, and our not having them...while I
haven't any determined opinions on the matter, I want to observe that
that belief contradicts your previous one about "hard wiring" some
paragraphs above.
Also, you use "alchemy" in a way that may be more suggestive than
informative, by which I mean that it conjures up a whole smorsgasbord
of romantic notions of the human being without actually adding much to
the question at hand about whether and how love is rekindled,
revisited, remembered....
Again, unless you deny our free moral agency (if you seriously,
literally believe in that "chick logic" fatalism behind "if it's meant
to be it will be"), you have to allow for love's return. It's
definitely possible, however improbable in most folks' experiences.
It is, remember, an act of will, an act of thought, an act, a deed,
something that is done, as well as a state of being, a state of mind,
a belief and a feeling.
How could all that truly die? One can bury it, hide it, ignore it,
suppress it, but it never truly dies. Unless one's never been loved
at all (and I don't mean "truly loved" either), we always remember.
Unless one has some kind of biochemical condition which precludes the
imagination, unless one means to deny it (which suggests that it has
to be around for one to deny), it's there, and always will be,
awaiting the return.
(Sorry, now it's me getting all "romantic" about this!)
> Sounds like you ought to think about acting as an outlet.
Acting, newsgroup trolling (LOL), it's all the same: expressing
oneself. What's unfortunate for me is that I am not able to express
all this to her because she doesn't want to hear it.
So thank you again, my surrogate. (Hell, you women are all the same,
and stick together! LOL)
> Don't know that film. I cry at films, they know what they're doing so why
> not just 'go with it'.
You don't know "The Princess Bride"????? That's every lil' girl's
fantasy!
Oh you've got to see it...it's fantasy, to be sure, but of course
symbolic and full of "life lessons"....
> I'd be more surprised if you weren't masturbating and thinking of her.
Really! Oh wow, and there I was, thinking this was some unusual
behavior on my part...see, this is what happens when you're 31, was a
virgin until 25, and spent 4 years in an LTR...I guess I...wow....
Hmm...what else "should" I be doing???? I mean, what else is a
typical reaction to being dumped?
> 's okay.
Cool. Great.
> I'd put that under A, B and C. Don't just think of Claudia all the time
> though, think of whoever the latest sex symbol is: Gloria Hunniford or Katy
> Boyle for instance.
Who???
Truth to tell, Claudi was overweight...she's the sort that would be
pretty if they lost weight, you know? Anyway, she's beautiful in a
"cute" way...no other way to describe it....
Ugh, right, don't think of her....
> What you're suffering from is RSI then! I've found a support bandage is the
> best cure, and rest the affected part.
LOL -- and what brand of bandage are you??
I'm trying to rest the affected part, but how does one turn off the
brain and heart??
> Take care YABH.
?
Thank you. Well-met, and Godspeed!
Yet Another Broken Heart
> "Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" (a...@at.org) writes:
> > Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > news:BD4A9076.1AE20%skl...@yahoo.co.uk:
> >
> >> I have no idea what God's reply to Job was...
> >
> > "Bite me."
>
> Dunno the context. But anyway. God promised Job that never again he would
> test humans like he had him.
Hmm, is that true? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up the
Flood with Job.
Certainly bad things have continued to happen to good people, even in
the Bible, so I doubt God -- even an imagined one -- could be, in
addition to being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring,
all-rash.
> But that story supposes that Satan would have
> influenced God himself into giving Job a hard time, tellign God that he
> might seem like he is praising God and adoring him in good times, but that
> if God gave him bad time,s he woudl see that woudl nto last, sort of
> thing.
That's the thing with analogies and morality plays -- it's all a
set-up to begin with, what phsyicists call a "thought experiment," and
not something which can be taken to be literally true. Else it all
falls apart, as you observe. It's like taking offense at being called
a rose because, hell, you ain't a rose, some dumb plant, etc.
> Where supposedly (Old Testament, where it was a God they thought
> for winnign over your ennemies and so on, nothign like the new testament),
> --where supposedly then God was tempted by the devil and woudl have
> decided to take everythign away from Job one thing after a nother. His
> wife. Every single one of his kids, one after the other. His health. His
> income. You name it, it was all taken away and Job kept praising
> God....Until one day he had enough and stated how completely unfair it
> was, how that was puttign more on man than God made man able to endure,
> where then God promised that never again he would test man.
Huh?? God promised that???
The whole thing about God's reply was that it was a total
non-sequitur. IOW, you can't argue with life. There is no fair or
not fair. Why did that tree fall on you? Etc.
After allowing all manner of misfortune on Job, his response was
essentially "who are *you* to ask why I allowed it? Did you create
the stars, blah blah blah...." IOW, when you laugh, the world laughs
with you, but when you cry, you cry alone (you know, more or less -- I
mean, no one can ever really know).
I mean, wow, what an answer!
That's why it resonates with me in my current situation...I'm like
Job, saying "but I did this, I did that" when the truth of the matter
is that there is no answer. It's like why is the sky blue (not "why"
as in "how come" in terms of optics and such) -- there is no why.
> Yet even the fanatics that read the Old testament for the letter and want
> to apply it to the letter (yet as suits them anyway, of course;-)),
> keep talking to this day about being tested by God. Churches included.
> Perhaps they oughta read the book;-)
I will again tonight and see if God had really promised not to test
people anymore...sounds incredibly benign. =)
> C
> --
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> It was the context. Not the 'what', more the 'where'. Like I say, I bring my
> own prejudices into this forum. Public sex isn't something I'm equipped to
> do, certainly not on my mother's doorstep. What you do is your own business,
> of course.
?
Sure, but how is it "immature"?? What philosophy of maturity do you
come from that you see that as being "immature"? What does immaturity
mean in that context??
Not to your taste is one thing...but you're saying, in effect, that
the taste is tied to a certainl level of personal development, whereas
I obviously don't see it that way. I'm really curious (not at all
offended) -- I know kids love candy more than adults, typically...but
public sex?? I guess, what, more mature people eschew public sex???
> Oh, that's hard. You work together. That's difficult and reminds me of what
> we said about how this looks to other people around you (the fear of public
> failure).
Actually, we work for the same company, but at different locations.
She actually has my old spot; that's how it all began.
But that "public failure" bit definitely applies, especially since we
were quite an item. A weird sort of "gold couple" -- I say weird
because we are so different, yet looked so "together" and in love as
well...different heights (as in I'm tall and she's short), different
body types (she's chubby/fat, I'm athletic), different facial "feel"
(she looks like a big smiley face and simple, I look like a cross
between a hawk and a deer-buck and intellectual), boo hoo hoo....
Ah, well.
> You know what to do in your heart *and* your head though.
>
> Jane Austen's 'Persuasion' deals with this issue. Working on how others'
> prejudices can sway someone to make a decision. :::SPOILER FOLLOWS:::
> The heroine seems to conclude that it was okay to be persuaded to let her
> lover go years previously, even though it turned out to be bad advice. She
> is just so happy to be with her lover again that she can forgive the advice;
> it was meant kindly. The fact that she and he got back together was proof of
> their devotion. Have I just ruined the ending?
Ah, whose ending -- mine or Austen's? =)
Stories like that give us all hope...that's just how it works in life,
too, which is why I still puzzle how that universal one-size-fits-all
advice about "just let them go, if they love you they'll come back, or
else they were never yours anyway" gets proffered all-around...perhaps
this is why folks usually don't wind up making up!
> Ah, I sympathize. Hope it all continues towards peace.
Ironically, only when I'm blabbing away about this...! Or is that an
illusion? Is it just short-term relief in exchange for a longer
period of general depression?
It's terrible...if I try to forget her, I immediately wonder whether
she's trying to forget me, or indeed really has -- and I feel awful!
> Hope it works out for you. And for her + son.
I can't believe the kid's got to be an issue...I'm still in shock....
Sure it'll "work out"...we'll all live fruitful years. I just wish I
could adopt this long-range "Ultimate Scheme of Things" view more
fully and more frequently....
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Keep going it won't last for ever.
> I mean, my mother had just died, too, you know?? What kind of crap is this
> that she just dumps me now??? It's all quite fitting, though, for some soap
> opera.
>
How long ago did your mother die? Was it expected? Are you close to your
family? I read you are being supported by them with this, so I suppose you
are close enough. You really are grieving aren't you!?
>
>> I think she did, but not in any physically significant way; it was too late.
>> She got his message after he'd died and as she was dying. I think she would
>> have forgiven him, she did love him, but it would still have been over.
>>
> Um, "if A and B then C"...how do you accept A and B and imagine NOT C??
>
>> I don't think so, I think she would have taken the veil. I would expect that
>> more is revealed in the book.
>>
> Yes, she definitely could have become a nun. I'm willing to allow for
> possibilities like that. As for probabilities, I live in the real world and
> do believe that the Vicomte would have brought all his, ah, seductive powers
> to bear on her -- only that this time, it's "for a good cause"...as much as
> females love "bad boys" no female could resist a bad boy who turned good
> because of her!
>
>> Sweet saying, not always the case though.
>>
> The saying presumes the presence of love on the woman's part.
>
and self interest on the man's.
>> I think he did but it was still too late. She would always love him.
>>
> And love isn't just a sate of being and an emotional one at that but
> thoughtful, conscious action. One loves in thought as well as deed.
>
> (This debate is akin to what caused church schisms which lead to protestantism
> -- is it enough merely to believe, or must one do as well?)
>
> Thus, because she "would always love him," I conclude that she would also go
> back to him and be his wife, etc. -- we're talking about a woman of quality
> here, who, Pygmalion-like, has in effect sculpted her perfect man to life.
>
>> Yes I think we're playing with semantics and I'm not very good with this,
>> we're all working from our own perspective which in itself is precariously
>> balanced within learned behaviour (some of it hardwired at birth).
>>
> But that's not an excuse to not think deeply -- folks often bring in semantics
> as a way of dropping an issue. Differences go without saying -- the task is
> to explore them, etc.
>
But it makes my brain ache (whine). Lol.
> Anyway, love isn't possible with animals, obviously. What separates us from
> animals is self-reflective thought. Love therefore is possible only because
> of thought. It involves, however, action as well, because thoughts are
> expressed in action (speaking or doing, etc.).
>
> One cannot love deeply without thinking deeply. One can feel deeply without
> thinking deeply, but that is not the same thing as loving deeply.
>
> And of course there are different kinds of love, and some forms which resemble
> love but which may be more properly named affection or even emotional
> attachment, force of habit....
>
Ah, you're thinking of mutual love. One can love in many ways beyond mutual.
It's possible to love a pet, or God, or chocolate but you don't have to
expect that love to be reciprocated. Perhaps instead of talking about
romantic love we should consider brotherly love how the love is shared
between family members or friends. In an effort to separate out the lust,
reproductive urge, and sexual angles which can cloud the issue.
>> You can rekindle the passion and, if love is constant, that should be enough
>> to make the whole thing return to the original settings. But we're just not
>> like that. We're not set with factory defaults... we're not machines; we're
>> alchemy.
>>
> I agree with your first statement (though I wish to note that that is not the
> only way to "return to love"), but do not understand how the third is linked
> to it in your POV.
>
We're constantly in a state of flux (possibly a learning process). Perhaps
this is more a female thing as fickle as we're painted. So you can approach
someone one day and they can be friendly, the next day they could spit in
your face. I've had an example of this a fair few times, with people who
can't control their emotions/humours. So if love is constant you may press
all the right buttons, the ones you used before, but because humans' moods
change it's not always going to work, or take you to the same place.
And when you're talking about the emotions you can't talk simply of using
your intelligence/logic to control what's happeing in a relationship. Would
be useful though.
> You speak of factory defaults, and our not having them...while I haven't any
> determined opinions on the matter, I want to observe that that belief
> contradicts your previous one about "hard wiring" some paragraphs above.
>
The factory defaults? Some are hard wired at birth but we're also learning,
intuitive creatures. Some stuff will stick from birth or early years: basic
sexuality; basic responses to certain stimuli (for me a picture of a kitten
will make me say "Aah"). Not everything is that solidly set though and the
default to Claudia, say when you met her, will be so different from the user
defaults you left her with, and that she and others are now tampering with
since being apart from you.
Perhaps this analogy can be reworked but it's an attempt to say that the
human is motivated by strange influences beyond anyone's logical control.
Self-harm is a powerful urge for many, it's not logical and probably not in
our factory defaults at birth.
> Also, you use "alchemy" in a way that may be more suggestive than informative,
> by which I mean that it conjures up a whole smorsgasbord of romantic notions
> of the human being without actually adding much to the question at hand about
> whether and how love is rekindled, revisited, remembered....
>
I did try to think of the correct word but 'alchemy' was something that
seemed to pop into my mind and I looked it up to make sure I meant it and I
really thought it was what I meant. Sorry if it isn't putting my thoughts
across clearly.
Alchemy: A seemingly magical power or process of transmuting: ³He wondered
by what alchemy it was changed, so that what sickened him one hour, maddened
him with hunger the next² (Marjorie K. Rawlings).
Perhaps I should have left it at 'we're not machines'.
> Again, unless you deny our free moral agency (if you seriously, literally
> believe in that "chick logic" fatalism behind "if it's meant to be it will
> be"), you have to allow for love's return. It's definitely possible, however
> improbable in most folks' experiences. It is, remember, an act of will, an act
> of thought, an act, a deed, something that is done, as well as a state of
> being, a state of mind, a belief and a feeling.
>
> How could all that truly die? One can bury it, hide it, ignore it, suppress
> it, but it never truly dies. Unless one's never been loved at all (and I
> don't mean "truly loved" either), we always remember. Unless one has some kind
> of biochemical condition which precludes the imagination, unless one means to
> deny it (which suggests that it has to be around for one to deny), it's there,
> and always will be, awaiting the return.
>
> (Sorry, now it's me getting all "romantic" about this!)
>
We were talking specifically about Dangerous Liaisons (the film) and the
final scenes. He genuinely repented and genuinely wanted her forgiveness, he
genuinely killed himself for love of her knowing that it was hopeless. He
knew he could never have her and that he couldn't live without her, knowing
she was with someone else. When being told of his dying words of repentance
and true love for her, the audience are given the feeling that she accepts
and forgives him at her death. The fact that he finds it necessary to kill
himself is proof that even he, with all his logic and self-confidence, knows
that he could never regain her. (In a way he killed her when he left her on
the floor in tears).
What do you think?
However. For real people in real situations in this day and age... yes of
course it's possible to rekindle something that looks like it's dead.
Personally I wouldn't, unless I could see some kind of warm glow in the
heart of the ash. Better to build a new fire in a more suitable spot.
>> Sounds like you ought to think about acting as an outlet.
>>
> Acting, newsgroup trolling (LOL), it's all the same: expressing oneself.
> What's unfortunate for me is that I am not able to express all this to her
> because she doesn't want to hear it.
>
Hey, if you're some kind of troll I'm not playing any more... Oh, well why
not?
> So thank you again, my surrogate. (Hell, you women are all the same, and
> stick together! LOL)
>
I know I'm all the same.
>> Don't know that film. I cry at films, they know what they're doing so why not
>> just 'go with it'.
>>
> You don't know "The Princess Bride"????? That's every lil' girl's fantasy!
>
Does it have a bondage scene?
> Hmm...what else "should" I be doing???? I mean, what else is a typical
> reaction to being dumped?
>
You name it. One thing I wanted was revenge and would plot up all kinds of
scenarios - I was quite good at it, I had a lot of background information,
obviously, on the love-of-my-then-life so I could have made his career go
down the toilet. Luckily for him, and me, I'm just not that nasty a human.
>> Don't just think of Claudia all the time though, think of whoever the latest
>> sex symbol is: Gloria Hunniford or Katy Boyle for instance.
>>
> Who???
>
They're both kind of joke suggestions. I'm not certain what celebrity young
men wank to/over/thinking of nowadays but I'm sure you'll manage, you're not
*that* much of a virgin.
> I'm trying to rest the affected part, but how does one turn off the brain and
> heart??
>
What's your hobby?
>
> Thank you. Well-met, and Godspeed!
>
Cheers YABH.
Sklenge
>> own prejudices into this forum. Public sex isn't something I'm equipped to
>> do, certainly not on my mother's doorstep. What you do is your own business,
>> of course.
>>
>
>
> Sure, but how is it "immature"?? What philosophy of maturity do you come from
> that you see that as being "immature"? What does immaturity mean in that
> context??
>
> Not to your taste is one thing...but you're saying, in effect, that the taste
> is tied to a certainl level of personal development, whereas I obviously don't
> see it that way. I'm really curious (not at all offended) -- I know kids love
> candy more than adults, typically...but public sex?? I guess, what, more
> mature people eschew public sex???
>
Right, here goes.
PUBLIC SEX CRAMPS YOUR STYLE - NOTHING PERSONAL
I was definitely thinking of my own case when I said 'immature' and you
mustn't read an insult into it. Having sex 'in public' is something young
people are forced to do due to having no access to their own accommodation.
They're obviously not the only group who indulge but they were the ones I
was thinking of at the time I used the word 'immature'.
I was also thinking about a friend who, along with her bf at the time, left
my house after dinner to go home, but their car remained stationary outside
the house for quite some time. It seemed a bit tacky that they couldn't wait
to drive back to their flat in order to indulge in some extremely heavy
petting. I would have offered them the use of our couch if they'd've been
that desperate. Even at the tender age of 23 I thought they were being
'immature' perhaps 'tacky' was more the word I would use.
Actually, staying with that friend, she never really 'grew up' or 'matured'
because she managed to have sex with another man whilst her bf was upstairs
asleep, until a noise woke him and he investigated its source. She also
managed to 'get off with' another girlfriend's bf at a party where she'd
arrived with her own bf. It's this kind of behaviour that I tie in with
immaturity and 'show off sex'.
All of the cases where I think about public sex, in my own remembrance, have
been when the participants have been 'immature' (in youthful circumstances).
ie: living with parents, having to do sex in the car or the park. Even when
I and my friends were in this situation it would have been pointlessly risky
to give someone a blow job on one's parents front doorstep. Unless the whole
point of the performance is to enjoy the risk. Then I can understand it, but
as with the example of my friend, it's still pretty immature *in my book*.
Again, personally, I enjoy sex far too much to put in an unnecessary
inhibitor and 'doing it' in my neighbourhood would basically mean waking the
whole street up if I were 'doing it' to my level of satisfaction. So that's
why, for me public sex is off the agenda. There are other reasons, that are
pretty obvious, as one ages one has 'more to lose' and it's just plain more
comfortable at home. Why make life difficult for yourself?
So, yes, public sex cramps your style and there is a factor of maturity
involved. As one matures one has more resources to avoid the need for public
sex and one has more to lose from indulging in public sex.
OTOH if my personal circumstances were less risky it could be interesting to
indulge in some car sex... Why do images of Hugh Grant and Gillian Taylforth
immediately pop into my head at this point?
Btw. I'm happy to answer most questions even if they only include one
question mark. Lol.
Little Monster
Another Broken Heart, unto whom the words are attributed:
[much snippage]
>
> It is precisely because of all that that I feel like this ending is
> just so awful. Like Pharoh's mummy dumped in the trash, you know.
>
> Anyway, thanks for letting me vent. It's been helpful, to be sure.
Didn't mean to sound like I was taking her side, or putting you down -
don't know enough for that! So no offence intended, okay? Just hoped to
get you thinking from a slightly different angle...
Anyway, it's good to vent :-)
Mosnter
Eleonore Beaudoin
Yet Another Broken Heart (i_need_...@yahoo.com) writes:
> bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message news:<cg3fua$i30$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> "Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" (a...@at.org) writes:
>> > Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> > news:BD4A9076.1AE20%skl...@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >
>> >> I have no idea what God's reply to Job was...
>> >
>> > "Bite me."
>>
>> Dunno the context. But anyway. God promised Job that never again he would
>> test humans like he had him.
>
> Hmm, is that true? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up the
> Flood with Job.
No, with Noah, it was that he would not destroy mankind with floods of
that amplitude ever again, was it not.
I guess in those days they needed a promise from God that this and that
would never happen again:)
>
> Certainly bad things have continued to happen to good people, even in
> the Bible, so I doubt God -- even an imagined one -- could be, in
> addition to being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring,
> all-rash.
The entire thing is not about power nor having. It is about a way of seing
life.
The entire Bible is soemthign and the New T is something else.
I remember reading about who was it, that gal who's husband to be had to
work seven yars for his father that then did not initially keep his end of
the bargain, where in the end when she left with her husband, she robbed
her father.
He went to ask her to get up from her camel to see if she was not hiding
what she stole under her. But she flatly lied and was shown as admirable
for it, sayign she was having what women know once a month. I remmber
being horrified at the theft, at the e, and most of all at it bneing shown
as soemthign to praise.
Man's cocnept of God is one that changed through times. Before we knew how
thunder and lightenming occured, "we" believed there was a god thatw as
mad at us and throwing us fire arrows and growling at us, threatening us.
This threatening gd of cataclysms and natural seisms and so on was then
said to be "feared" which they equalled to respect then, as the respected
men were men of ower and that scared the life out of others.
In tiem even the concept of respect evolved, where one can respect another
without beign afraid of them to death;-).
So I see the Old Testament as the history of man's cocnept of God.
The new testament as the story of some guy that came along that soemhow
had a different approach to it all, if the story yet is told by guys that
up t their end of life alomost (they died young in those days, where 30
alreadyw as pretty old for hard workign people havign to survive)--by guys
that grew up in various religions in their time that were all proning the
fear of God, and threatenign poeple with God, abusing their naivete and
free loading on them.
Take divorce. Used to be that they coudl never divorce, where they coudl
only remarry iof one of the two died. So thehigh priests charged a tax to
have the wofe murdered when the guy wanted to remarry, cause only if death
occured coud they remarry....They charged heavily for renting a murderer
for the job, planned alibis for the hubby (sending him to work in another
town for the church, to look all respectable;-)), etc.
That was one fo th things known and yet never spoken out to them, cause
the priests woudl ahve had them killed too. The big maffia alwas tended to
live in the city where religion had its biggest place. Jerusalem was no
different in power abuse by relious elders.
We are milleniae later and the concept of God seems to have barely evolved
as far as freligion and dogma goes...
The New testament is used to justify the ways of the old instead of the
opposite, for instance.
But reading about man's concepts and how they evolved is really neat.
I donlt care much for the old testament and its vengeance god and its
spreadign the blood of those you donlt like all over the palce and raping
their virgins and yadee yada and stealing from your folks and lyign to
them making all women apss for thieves if they have periods, nah;-):):)
Or "impure", for that much.
The NT on the other hand makes one see how the reactions to the old ways,
facing new teachings, were received and hwo that shocked mentalities and
poeple in power, but also how it affected the small and every day poeple
and the ones of the middle class. In that ot gives you a feel of the day
and age, and helps in tryign to see how they meant this and that image...
Just take the eye of the needle thing.
We grew up for some thinking fo a rela needle and a real needle eye. That
yetw as the name of oneof the doors into Jerusalem. Poeple that did
commerce had to arrive early to use the large doors where the loaded
camels fittted. But after a certain hourtl, they woudl close the larger
door and they then had only narrower doors to use. The narrowest one was
called the needle eye...
So making a clean skate of your baggae was the image, and they did notmean
material possessions by that image. But all the old knowledge and the odl
fear and etc, etc, i.e. openign your mind to spiritual things, that
differed from material ones.
I.e. if one looked to trade things and to make money with spirituality,
they were religious maybe but not spiritual. Like the pahrisees and al
that bunch that was taxing poeple like mad.
Peter still adopted the old way after Christ was killed. The forst thign
he did against all he was ever told by Christ that said to not carry two
robes even, no money, no "purse" and not even a stick either, he demanded
that people sold their land and gave him everything. A couple was known to
have kept ten percent for their kids in case of emergency, to see to them.
But Peter learnign of it had each one of them killed on the spot.
What si also interestign is that peter himself tells that story three
tiems and never says the same facts about it.
He also describes how Judas woudl ahve sold Jesus and hwo Judas woudl ahve
died. One time he says he hanged himself. One time he says he fell in his
field on soemthign that opened his entrails. One tiem he says that his
belly spit open and he died with his entrails fallign to the ground before
him.
As far as I am cocnerned, reading the book many many times and prlly a few
more to come through the eyars, for the NT anyway, has taught me this.
Peter was said by Chrost to eb a liar. A man of no faith,he was the only
disciple Jesus said he would vetray him and even three tiems before the
night ended.
It is reported that a rooster woudl ahve sang where peter was alone in
front of wher jesus was brought, and said that he had been asked if he did
not know Jesus three tiems and said he did not. I do not think that was
what jesus was sayign at all.
Peter was also said to be the biggest chicken one arth. What woudl he ahve
been doing in front of soldiers when all other apostles hid? Nah. Me
thinks Peter sold Jesus and had Judas hung to make the others belive it
was Judas that sold him.
Jesus sent two men ahead ofg him to Jerusalem to go find a place for easter.
Peter and Judas. Thiung is, while everyoen thinks Judas was the one
dealing the money for the bunch, so was Peter.
Both he and Judas had the opportunity of warnignthe pharisees and romans.
Oddly enough, later Jesus is said to have asked who was armed... Peter and
a few were among... Peter was scared? Why? Cause eh was one scaredy cat!!
He was a major chicken!
And he killed poeple for money which tells me he had it in him to kill
judas to get in power. Peter was such a chiken that he kept havign John
ask Jesus hs nosy ugly questions.
Such as "ask him who will be first next to him in ehaven". He was wanting
to be a President Dirtector General of sorts.
It is said that even before John coud ask Jesus he had replied "the oen
that will be the forst will be last...". And who was first in hiewrarchy
after him? Peter. The oen foretold to be the last cause he woudl be the
forst then...and for cause.
The other question Peter asked John to ask Jesus, among many he did nto
want to reveal his real face by asking himself directly, this one.
Jesus said he woudl be betrayed and curcified. That a traitor is among them.
Immediatel;y, whiel all others are consterned and lookign aroundappalled,
PETER asked John "ask him if he knows who it is". Peter was shaking in his
stupid boots fearign Jesus knew it was him. Peter leaned towards John to
ask. Jesus overheard, as John woudl lie on Jesus to eat, as they dfid
then, and replied: "The next one that will dip his bread after me". Peter
is said to be abot to dip it, but so hearign, he waits, heh, like a
hypocrit. and Judas is then the one that dips his bread, not having
oeverheard a thing. Jesus was not duoed though. He knows Pweter and knows
that Judas is in dnager of beign blamed. The other disciples woudl believe
it was him easly in Peter's minbd cause Peter built him a bad reputation,
cause Judas was from a RICH filthy family which macde him nto be lied much
by the others (yet he was in no need for a buck, let alone 30 pieces ofg
gold, eh). Jesus sends Judas to go buy a place for his dead body maybe, or
sends him to some errand he told him of before, in an effort to save Judas...
Judas is aware of nothign and leaves...
then later, Jesus asks Peter and two others to pray with him before he is
captured and killed.
But Peter, the chicken, sleeps like a log. Three tiems Jesus asks him
"won't you pray with me?" and he falls asleep again instead.
Then when the romans come, suddenly Peter plays the courageous. The
undercover that hides and tries to look on Jesus side, rather as he is a
chicken.
And he gets his sword out and cuts the ear of a roman. But Jesus knowign
which of the two is the worse man puts the roamn's ears back where it
belongs, it is said. Whatever that meant, it sure does not eman he wanted
peter to act this way.
Then when Jesus apears or when Mary Magdalen runs to tell thems he saw him
alove again.
Me thinks she suspected Peter and tried to test his reaction.
All were scared of the romans yet did nto want to beleive it cause it
woudl be too wonderful. Save Peter that denies it can be but that is
scared out of his witts.
He even hides behind two women to go check if it is true....Why him?
Eh.
As well, soem words of John are very important. At soem point he talks
about when Peter saud that God said he wpudl be the leader of his chhurch
and adds the words "X says he was there. Y says he was there too. But *I
was not there and I have not ehard that*. If one knows how humble John is
where he never even says his own name and prefers to just say "the oen
Jesus loived", but in humilty for his name to not be the veneered one,
for him to say those words is huge!!
And who on the cross did Jesus tell his mom he left her in that man;s
hands to take care of her till she died? "Mother, this is your son",
meanignt he oen taking over nwo to make the fgamily live? Not peter. But John.
John was the oen Jesus said of he understood the teachigns the nbest, was
the puerest heart. peter was the only oen he ever called Satan or any bad
name like names to mean chicken, traitor by three times, liar, power
minded, etc, etc. Oh eyahm, stubborn too.
Anyway. Just one fo the perspectives one can think of when they read the
book:)
>
>> But that story supposes that Satan would have
>> influenced God himself into giving Job a hard time, tellign God that he
>> might seem like he is praising God and adoring him in good times, but that
>> if God gave him bad time,s he woudl see that woudl nto last, sort of
>> thing.
>
> That's the thing with analogies and morality plays -- it's all a
> set-up to begin with, what phsyicists call a "thought experiment," and
> not something which can be taken to be literally true. Else it all
> falls apart, as you observe. It's like taking offense at being called
> a rose because, hell, you ain't a rose, some dumb plant, etc.
It is the stpry of the CONCEPTS and notions of those concepts as they
change and evolved, said without the words concepts or even the
understanding of "concepts" and "notions" and "mentality" in those days.
All they had for communicatiosn where stories around camp fure or that
visitors brought from ano0ther village. That was hwo they communicated
news too andevents and so on.
What is behind it all is notthe events in the odl testament in the story
of that woman stealing, etc, but the way of seing that good and gad were
not so clear suddenly to man. Stealing coudl be justofied as good if
provoked for instance, in that story. Then later comes someoen that says
if theytake your robe, offer them your coat too...
Imagine how that must ahve sounded to them??? The robbed oens being the
provoked ones and yet havign to give more to thieves???
The idea behind it was the concept/notions of revenge. Shicking them out
of their old ways of thinking. Not easy to get accross brainwashed zombies:)
Just like one woudl nto attract a corwd of youth today playing flute, say,
and woudl be better wiht heavy duty visuals and techno sounds and all
that, in those days there wqere ways set that needed to differ to get
through the centuries of brainwashing.
The parables had the advantage of not being like any stpry they heard
before. It was a way not as known to them to communicate.
And the moral was not about material nor power gain....
BNoew that set them off the old mentality, tilted therm the time to try
and get somethign through to them after.
;-)
>
>> Where supposedly (Old Testament, where it was a God they thought
>> for winnign over your ennemies and so on, nothign like the new testament),
>> --where supposedly then God was tempted by the devil and woudl have
>> decided to take everythign away from Job one thing after a nother. His
>> wife. Every single one of his kids, one after the other. His health. His
>> income. You name it, it was all taken away and Job kept praising
>> God....Until one day he had enough and stated how completely unfair it
>> was, how that was puttign more on man than God made man able to endure,
>> where then God promised that never again he would test man.
>
> Huh?? God promised that???
Yes. In the Old testament, again, man seeemed to ahve this need to ahve
God;s word to fel secure with the elements.
After all, Zeus and Jupiter were also around, so he who gave the better
story about a word about that weather god gained adepts;=)
> > The whole
thing about God's reply was that it was a total
> non-sequitur. IOW, you can't argue with life. There is no fair or
> not fair. Why did that tree fall on you? Etc.
Exacltly, But again the idea is about the evolution of concept of God and
spirituality and religion and so on...
Through milleniae! Imagien that!
No other book did that about those subjects taken live in these days and
times in that fashion.
Imagien the ipact of that as a story on them all...?:)
s soemthign to talk abotu aroudn the fore that opened to zillions more
communications in that form they had? An excange and even debates I am
sure about old and new conceppts.
After all thatw as why Jesus waskilled. For letting them see pharisees and
old beliefs were not all they claimed to be. There was not one religion he
did not put down. Save John the baptist's. Not only the one he ba[tized in
but the oen he wa from.
Some believe that Jesus himself studied eith John the Baptist at Quoumram.
>
> After allowing all manner of misfortune on Job, his response was
> essentially "who are *you* to ask why I allowed it? Did you create
> the stars, blah blah blah...."
????
Not at all. The answer was said that God had mercy and stopped that
torture to test him case he saw that h was pushed beyond any possible
limits for a man, sort of thing,w here God todl him that never again he
woudl do that to Man, and where Job is said to ahve been blessed with
havign back all he had lost in his beign tested, and lvign happily.
Again, look at the concept behind it all, the change in the concepts, as
small as it is from ne story to the other....Then kaboom. Jesus arrives...;-)
Concepts do not change radically cause of that much. We saw what
cathlicism did followign in peter's tracks....
Eh.
The very pope we ave now was said by many rpedictiosn to be the
last...Woudl eh be forst...?;-)
Dunno. That is a completely other book, nostradamus:)
IOW, when you laugh, the world laughs
> with you, but when you cry, you cry alone (you know, more or less -- I
> mean, no one can ever really know).
That was what Jesus was about. Sayign exactly that and adjoining people to
care for each other rather than for priests and "righteousness" f that
kind and precepts a la 2,876 a day and lalala. Eatign with people that
were supposedly impure he did. Talking to whores. Freing them form death
by confrontign their killers, etc, etc.
He shwoed in all he coudl another way of actign and being than all that
hatred and fear and pwoer trip they ahd been livign under and with.
> > I mean, wow, what an answer! >
> That's why it resonates with me in my current situation...I'm like
> Job, saying "but I did this, I did that" when the truth of the matter
> is that there is no answer. It's like why is the sky blue (not "why"
> as in "how come" in terms of optics and such) -- there is no why.
Yeah, I know, same here. But I learned through a long enough life already
that later whatever event comes is like a continuation of a series of
events where the good that comes, even if unrelated with the same thing,
i.e. even if not about love at all or friendship at all, would yet not
have occured had the series of events not been there to bring it about.
So yep. Life is unfair. And in its unfairness ist is fair cause it is
unfair to everyone too, both with good stuff and bad stuff:)
Good stuff sometimes happen unfairly too.
Soem win the lottery while others dezserve it more, woudl do more good
with it, say. Just oen example.
The bad guy ends with the sweet gal, and vice versa,. etc, etc.
But some undeservign oens get some good too, us among, here and there.
And that good is a continuation of the events that occured before, say.
>
>> Yet even the fanatics that read the Old testament for the letter and want
>> to apply it to the letter (yet as suits them anyway, of course;-)),
>> keep talking to this day about being tested by God. Churches included.
>> Perhaps they oughta read the book;-)
>
> I will again tonight and see if God had really promised not to test
> people anymore...sounds incredibly benign. =)
Old Testament. Concepts and notiosn shown as they were then through the
writings.
Just look at genesis with how the earth was said to have been created.
They did nto even know the planet was round or anyting. How thunder
occured....They tried yet to show that life had to start somehwere and to
cmmunicate it while no notiosn were there to understand it yet in any
other way.
C
>
>> C
>> --
--
Eleonore Beaudoin
Sklenge (skl...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
>>> It was the context. Not the 'what', more the 'where'. Like I say, I bring my
>>> own prejudices into this forum. Public sex isn't something I'm equipped to
>>> do, certainly not on my mother's doorstep. What you do is your own business,
>>> of course.
>>>
>> Yet Another Broken Heart's post:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Sure, but how is it "immature"?? What philosophy of maturity do you come from
>> that you see that as being "immature"? What does immaturity mean in that
>> context??
>>
>> Not to your taste is one thing...but you're saying, in effect, that the taste
>> is tied to a certainl level of personal development, whereas I obviously don't
>> see it that way. I'm really curious (not at all offended) -- I know kids love
>> candy more than adults, typically...but public sex?? I guess, what, more
>> mature people eschew public sex???
>>
>
> Right, here goes.
>
> PUBLIC SEX CRAMPS
Huh...?;-)
YOUR STYLE
You mean I can chose my public sex cramps??????:)
- NOTHING PERSONAL
Oh. So you eman I can chose any public sex cramps that are anyone else's?
Okay. How about yours? LOL:)
Heheheeheheh:)
--
Sklenge
You little tinker you.
Obviously I meant "PUBIC SEX CLAMPS IN YOUR SIZE". I don't know, That's
going to have to be proof checked before it hits the presses.
Sometimes a.s.lers can be *so* immature!
(ascii smiley thing)
KrosRogue
>> give. I think she realized that and considered it pointless to
>> continue a relationship that presumeably wouldn't give her what she
>> wanted.
> This is the issue I have..."pointless"??
I think that quite aptly describes the efforts at striving for an
unattainable goal, don't you?
> At the risk of sounding egotistical, let me just respond: but hey,
> it's *me*...!
I don't think it's strictly about you. I think this situation results
from a seemingly unresolvable conflict between your desires and hers.
> lovely, and then I found out how sexxxy she was (you'd never guess),
> then...as I say, cute!
I know lots of cute chicks. Some of them are good friends. None of
them meet my core emotional needs. The fact that they are cute is
totally meaningless to me.
> I'm just hurt by her "mercantile" attitude towards me, as you
> surmise. And again, I understand it from an "economics" POV, but I
> remain disappointed that four years hasn't convinced her of
> something more than that. I mean, "economics" is where you start
> out, and it's always an underlying foundation, to be sure...but
> after four years, it comes down back to this kind of basics????
I think, deep down, in most relationships it does. In intimate
relationships, folk "feed" off each other emotionally. If one or both
feel "starved", the relationship "shrivels" and "dies".
> I mean, geez, what if I wound up in a wheelchair and disfigured for
> life after an auto accident?? Blah blah blah.
Some relationships can handle that while others can't. I have seen
marriages that lasted for a decade or two break up for reasons far
more trivial than one being bound in a wheelchair.
> Anyway, she's dumped me, and I'm sure this is the absolute end;
> she's been testing the waters previously with "trial dumps" I think,
> and now she's really found her nerve.
Time to move on. Easy to say, hard to do, but life goes on.
> For some reason, people confuse "seeing" with "agreeing"...I do "see"
> but that doesn't imply (as in a logical implication) that I therefore
> "agree" if I did....
Sorry for the slippery semantics. I meant "have the same desire",
which the both of you obviously didn't have.
> If this is what it comes down to, different POVs, different
> ideologies, then that's really sad -- sadder than it is now --
> and...it truly is a good thing that we part our ways...I mean, when
> the basis for "love" becomes a matter of "ideology," of POV...I
> realize I'm asking a lot, but to me love is above and beyond the
> capitalist instincts of the marketplace....
Unconditional love is what you are describing, such as the love a
mother has for her child. Romantic love is rarely unconditional. You
think *her* standards are too high? In my own personal life I have
conditions that a woman must meet before I even consider starting a
romantic relationship with her that perhaps seem astronomically
insurmountable for the average woman. Yet, the *right* woman could
meet those conditions with little or no effort.
> Again, that stuff is a point of departure, not the engine that should
> drive a relationship...icing on the cake, not the cake itself...I
> dunno...boiling it all down to this different POV stuff makes it seem
> so cheap, and I guess I'm just trying to make it appear more noble an
> affair than it really ever had been -- or could be....
I suppose that is your POV. I see nothing cheap about a relationship
in which both parties "feed" off each other. I think it is quite noble
when both do all they can to support each other's emotional
well-being.
>> When one doesn't get the desired fulfilment from a relationship, its
>> importance begins to fade.
> Yeah, well, it's my misfortune, then, to have fallen in love wiht a
> laboratory rat, huh? Just like a whore -- and don't imagine I'm
> bitter; I'm too sad for bitterness, and am trying to make a point.
Just for the sake of curiosity let me pose this question: if she
*never* met your needs during the past four years, would the
relationship have lasted that long?
> What you and her seem to fail to appreciate is -- while we're at it --
> *my* POV: I'm open to discussion. I WANT DISCUSSION! If I'm a part
> of this dynamic duo we should discuss things...discussion isn't
> predicated on yes-or-no preconditions.
I happen to be a very demanding person. There are certain things I
refuse to tolerate in a romantic relationship. The only discussion I
allow regarding them is the termination of the relationship. Not to
sound as your adversary, she was far more lenient with you than I
would have been under similar circumstances. I certainly wouldn't have
let it go for more than a year, let alone four.
> Anyway, if all this is the way her thoughts have been turning, then
> I'm very much disgusted -- you should see the lovey-dovey stuff she'd
> wrote me earlier this year, talking about eternity, etc. No mention
> of marriage. How this ghost keeps cropping up I don't
> know...someone's been putting a worm in her ear, I bet.
To many folk, talk of eternity implies marriage.
> Anyway, whatever. This is approaching the existentially absurd.
> Reminds me of how folks want to go to heaven but aren't willing to die
> to get there. She wants marriage with me, but will just dump me like
> this if all I do is register my reluctance given all the issues
> involved while maintaining that we should discuss these issues.
What can I say? To me this appears as classic incompatibility. Search
for someone with views closer to yours. That is what I am trying to
do. It is a long and lonely battle.
Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent
news:79fe81ff.04082...@posting.google.com:
>> Dunno the context. But anyway. God promised Job that never again he
>> would test humans like he had him.
>
> Hmm, is that true? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up the
> Flood with Job.
>
I don't recall any such passage, either.
--
"Shopping for coffins is like shopping for prostitutes: If you look around
long enough, you'll find one that does what you want at a price you can
afford." (Last night's Penn & Tellers' "Bullshit!")
Little Monster
Another Broken Heart, unto whom the words are attributed:
> the sort of thing that makes me feel just so stupid....
It's not easy. We do have a switch, but for most of us, either it's too
deeply buried, or we're scared or unwilling to switch it. I'm of the
opinion that we place too much value in our emotions.
>> Now come here you great big lug, and let me hold you until the shaking
>> fades...
>>
>> ((((((((((((((((((((YABH)))))))))))))))))))))
> Thanks, I am better just by feeling not so alone with this.
Well, just don't forget it, okay?
> God I miss her.
>
> And just as much, I miss my sense of innocence and bravery, which now
> leaves with her.
That sounds backwards to me. Surely, now is the time you need to find
bravery within yourself, to face the changing tide, where with her, you
were safe, no need to be brave there. You were /in there/ rather than
/out there/. As to innocence - isn't there a newly discovered innocence in
you? A kind you never thought of? Think of this as a time of renewal, a
renewal of your own core, rather than a time of loss. Hard, I know - you
need time to come to terms with her leaving.
> I don't know, I'm actually feeling scared in a way.
>
> Oh brother....
We're here, around the world as we are. Just think of that, the sheer
wonder of it, around this great big planet Earth, people are supporting
you...
Monster
Eleonore Beaudoin
> news:79fe81ff.04082...@posting.google.com:
>
>>> Dunno the context. But anyway. God promised Job that never again he
>>> would test humans like he had him.
>>
>> Hmm, is that true? I don't think so. I think you're mixing up the
>> Flood with Job.
>>
>
> I don't recall any such passage, either.
Lessee...
Story is that the devil tempted God into testing Job as I said. Where Job
prayed and praised God for ages, after his wife was killed, his kids died,
etc, etc, etc, and after ""his ennemies all mocked him", etc, etc.Where he
ended up feelign abanadoned and being upset at god, finding him unfair and
unwise and all that.
There is also Sodome and Gomorrhe where the "angels" were said to say to
Abraham that woudl they find even one person devoted to God, the citie(s)
would be spared.
Yet they found some, a man and his wife and daughters, and sent them out
of town while they destroyed the town (the oen with the salt statue and lot
and all that).
In any case...
Everywhere in the Old Testament are stories about Man needing a certainty
about this and
that thing they had no understanding nor control of, floods, cities being
destroyed, wars, even rain and so on with the Egyptian King, etc, etc,
where here or there in soem of them the promise was given and yet...asked
again. Or not completely followed up on (eg: destroying a city even if the
"angels" found four good poeple in it).
Let me check on the Job thing. Wish I had a concordance table, but I don't...
Job 1; 6 to 13 says of the "the lord" telling th adversary about hwo Job,
his "servant", is uncomparably God fearing. A rigtheous man of integrity
that "stays away from sin/wrongdoing". And of hwo the adversary answered
that if the lord only stretched his hand and "touched" all Job owned, he
bet he would curse "the lord". in 1:12, "The lord" answers "So nbe it.All
his possessions youc na do as you please with, but you shall not raise
your hand on him" (my transaltion here, and this bible I happened to have
near the puter is a Jerusalem version, wth words soemtimes a bit different
in their transaltion. But all versions I have say a smiliar thing.Then up
to 19 is the description of all at once his sons and daughters (ten of
them) all dying; all his cattle killed all at the same time, all his
household, servants and domestics and all. But in 1:20, Job is said to say
"Naked I came on this earth, naked I will depart. The lord giveht and the
lord taketh back. Blessed be the name of the Lord". In other words he
still praised "God".
then 2; 1 to 10 describes the second round of tests.
Again the lord is said to say the same words: have you seen how Job is a
righeous man, etc, etc, and it was in vain that you got me toput him to
the test". The 'adversary" answers : (...) but if you reached your hand
and "touched" his bones and flesh, I vbetcha he will curse you to your face!"
(2:5). To which the Lord says "Then go ahead and do as you will with his
flesh and bones, but to his life you will not touch". And so Job was
covered with leprosis. He still praised God and his wife started to tell
him he had to be out of his mind. That he shoudl curse God and die. But he
answers that well, we have no problem sayign God creates happiness and so
sadness and woes we shoudl also praise his name for sicnehe created
everything. And so Job still praised God.
Finally in 3; 1, Job opens his mouth and curses his own "day", i.e. his
own life.The Job lanments and so on for pages and pages and pages..in 31,
he asks for God's justice; Then in 38 is a dialogue between "God" and Job.
And in 42;10, it is said that God reestablishd Job's situation, i.e.
brought it back to what it was before, and even doubled all his possessions.
In other scriptures taking this as example it is said that God promised to
never again test humans. Unfortunately, in this bible, I do not have the
slightest little concordance or glossary of words and ames with references
to them throughout the bible.
I wish I knew where one of my boibles was that has a few pages of
concordance to it....
Hanmg on, will go look, but have not foudn that Bible in a while. Yet is a
huge one I donlt tend to move much anymore:). Go figure where I put it:)
Woops. Wrong green Bible, found the Jerusalem green one looking for the
big beige one ith the glossary. Which means the previous one was a TOB
Oecumenical version. Let's see if this oen (Jerusalem Bible) ahs a
Concordance...Interesting, they have just about every major name listed
with the places they are refered to throughout the bible, but nothing on Job.
Can not say for sure if it was elsewhere some other part of the bible wiht
someone writing that God had then told the "bad guy" that he ever would
tempt man again, or if I read some other book with that in it.
But anyway. It was God supposedly :tempted into testing man" by the "devil".
So in Man's concept, while they saw God as almighty and Perfect, their
concept of the unchangelable nature of perfection was not too keen at the
time.
Pefection coudl not be tempted, cause pefr]=fection being perfect,
whatever way it chnages it would no longer be nor have been perfect.
So man's concept of "a perfect God" was far from harmonious and was quite
contradictive in many ways.
Note that I did not read all lamentarions nor the entire dialogue between
God and Job that os rather long. But in the part I skimmed through, while
God is said to ask Job to touch ground and bow his head and let go of
pride, God acts exactly as he says not to to Job;-).
There too our concept has evolved enough that that just hits us many
of us with its two weights, two measures (dpuble standard way) that again,
perfection could not have.
Again, to me, the Old testament is simply the story of Man's concept of God
through *some* milleniae.
Until someoen somehow able of more refined cncepts came to roack their
boat...Where the apostles certainly did not change overnight, nor in their
entire lifetime. Took way more generations and milleniae before *some*
could stop readfing it as "it is written, therefore do not eat pork" or
"it is written that women are evil", etc.
It is already stuning that Genesis said that God created man and woman
equal, if it is not lo0ng before men writign the text blame women for
their owes: to try and make them be equal, they :lowered" them, so
tospeak: in those days they had not a clue how babies came to be. They
knew it came when a woman "knew" a man, but sort of ignored that it wa
snot just "riding" her that did that, but that some part of them was
essential to it too. To then, women were creators. God was made then a
"male" figure that creates. There Freud could take a step back about all
women wantign penises;-).
Besides, one just had to look nowadays at how many prostitues are male vs
females to see who wants a penis or a vagina;-) L:)
But kidding aside....
Given how they thought then that woman was a creator, and given how other
religions often had females for gods, to make a genesis where men and
women are said to have been created equal, even if then the book goes on
to call them any name on earth, both the nocest and the ugliest, alrady
was a stretch of their concepts and imagination;-).
As I read parts of Job writign this, I fell on a note among many others
explainign that to them, the sky was a solid "arched roof" over their heads.
With that in mind, tryign to figure out the origin of Man, and to put it
in a cocet of a God, wow....Quite a stretch of imagination and of the
notions in place then.
Now, man thinks he reaches the summum at times for making it that "extra
terrestrials created earth and mankind". Oddly enough, that was somethign
that Genesis already saiid. God was said to eb from outside the planet,
since he created it and lived in another place.
"Terra" meanign "earth", he then was an extraterrestrial in thats ense.
Man today often just tags new words they did not have then and thinks they
discovered a new reality or explanation or set of beliefs.
Just look at all those sects like the Raelians, the Order of the Solar
Temple, saying that ehaven was on was it Saturn or Uranus or that the
transit line was there anyway:).
They sure made it "extraterrestrial" too, i.e. outside of the planet earth.
Anyway.
This and that and whatever else and so be it:):)
C
> > --
> "Shopping for coffins is like shopping for prostitutes: If you look around
> long enough, you'll find one that does what you want at a price you can
> afford." (Last night's Penn & Tellers' "Bullshit!")
--
Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent
> Then in 38 is a dialogue between "God" and Job.
> And in 42;10, it is said that God reestablishd Job's situation, i.e.
> brought it back to what it was before, and even doubled all his
> possessions.
My high school english teacher--one of them--said textual analysis
indicated that Job's happy ending was written by another author. Well I
assume that was inferred from textual analysis, don't know how else one
would come to that conclusion, other than pure speculation.
Eleonore Beaudoin
Actually, I wondered about that myself reading the two versions of bibles
about it, where oen ends many paragraphs before the other and is not
missing pages....
The other goes on some few paragraphs further about how nice his life was
after for longer and giving more lines about it.
Let me check the footnotes in the oen that cuts it shorter to see if it
mentions anythign about various versions that woudl be shorter and longer...
Nope, says nothing. Now where did I put that huge white bible! That one
has a presentation of each book and talks about who wrote them when known,
etc.
Ha-ha. A little footnote in the Jerusalem bible mentiosn this: "42: the
narrative style is again that of the prologue". This woudl then mean that
the prologue and epilogue (I woudl bet 1, 2 for the prologue, and part of
3) and 5 are not from the same writer then. In other words, the parts in
the intro where God is tempted by the devil into testign Job in two times,
and the final part where God blames the three elders, and restores Job's
fortune and health.
Note that this is only a footnote among many and that it can just mean
that the narrative style being "again the same" can be referring rather to
the fact this is the narrative style used in Job when "God" talks to someone.
But yesterday I was a bit surprised too at 1 and 2 sounding different than
the rest, where a switch seemed to take place in style after a few lines
in 3.
C
--
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> I think that quite aptly describes the efforts at striving for an
> unattainable goal, don't you?
Depends on what you've defined the goal to be. Unfortunately, she has
defined it to mean things like marriage, a house, etc. The American
Dream. So someone who isn't going to provide that is therefore not
deserving of her love. Not that I hindered her in those goals
(unless, of course, you look at things from a
GWB-you're-either-with-us-or-against-us POV), mind you.
What happened to just enjoying the person for who the person is?
That's the problem, when we get far afield from simple enjoyment --
love -- and become corrupted by "ambitions"....
> I don't think it's strictly about you. I think this situation results
> from a seemingly unresolvable conflict between your desires and hers.
Yes, naturally. What I have a hard time reconciling in the emotional
mess of this break-up is the dissonance between how good she can be
and how bad she is being.
To simply enjoy our time together, that's not a problem. But in terms
of "plans"..."goals"...all these "ambitions," as I say, which corrupt
the relationship from one of just being into one another, with one
another, to a situation where the mind starts scanning for what could
be had out of such a situation...that's just awful....
> I know lots of cute chicks. Some of them are good friends. None of
> them meet my core emotional needs. The fact that they are cute is
> totally meaningless to me.
Well, we probably mean by "cute" very different things (I know I do at
different times within different contexts).
> I think, deep down, in most relationships it does.
Again, that's a descriptive statement, but not a normative one --
which is the sort of ethos within which we're discussing things.
"Normal" can mean something like "it's normal to be sick" (since
everyone gets sick in life at some point) or "it isn't normal to be
sick" (since the optimum condition of the human organism is to be
healthy, not sick [we weren't "designed" to be sick, if you will]).
The first is a descriptive use of the word normal, the second is a
normative use of the word normal.
Likewise, responding that most relationships boil down to what I've
called "mercantilist" or "capitalist" considerations is a bit besides
the point I was making...a bit like saying, "well, those things do
happen all the time" in response to a victim of drunk driving.
(Not finding fault with you personally, you understand; we're
discussing ideas here.)
> In intimate
> relationships, folk "feed" off each other emotionally. If one or both
> feel "starved", the relationship "shrivels" and "dies".
True enough -- but one must consider the criteria. If I make her
happy, except when it comes to her ambitions in life -- well, that's
really a pretty lame excuse for breaking up, isn't it? Not to mention
*the way* she did it...!
It's like a girl who can't marry someone whose company she enjoys
simply because he isn't from the same class, race, religion,
what-have-you...those things are external (and yes, marriage as an
institution is mere external trapping too, however invested with
meaning people choose to make it) to the act of spending time with a
person and enjoying the company.
> Some relationships can handle that while others can't. I have seen
> marriages that lasted for a decade or two break up for reasons far
> more trivial than one being bound in a wheelchair.
Yes, very sad...funny how people want to get married, huh?
This girl is breaking up with me 'cause we ain't married ('cause I
want to wait 'til her son is out on his own)...by today's culture of
the marketplace, of commodities where even feelings are mere goods to
be exchanged, that's an acceptable enough reason to split...but I
mourn that, I truly do...can I marry in good faith such a person,
then? She certainly has all the romantic feelings towards marriage
most females do (in their heart of hearts, anyway) -- but, ha, so much
for being realistic, eh?
She can get "realistic" enough, obviously, when it comes to such
considerations...but as to that institution itself she maintains a
willing suspension of disbelief....
> Time to move on. Easy to say, hard to do, but life goes on.
Yes, and thank you for the continued encouragement...I'm doing a lot
better now that I'm working out again, and have had a chance to find
my closure with strangers like you, arguing the points I wish I could
have articulated with her to her but which y'all probably understand,
even if you don't agree with them.
> Sorry for the slippery semantics. I meant "have the same desire",
> which the both of you obviously didn't have.
Sophistry often leads astray...the simple fact of the matter is that I
found her physically attractive, she found me gentle and kind -- and
then physically attractive (the muscles and grin were all there to
begin with, but somehow she didn't notice).
On the basis of that, we spent lots of time together. I loved the
sex, and she was glad for it, too, and then what really cemented us
was my appreciation of her sense of humor, which is lame by most
folks' estimations ("cute," as I'd said) but which I'm just really
taken by. Really, the way she acts, the things she sees, thinks, the
jokes she makes...she sees things in really funny way to me, but not
stand-up comedy funny, funny as in cute-funny, like something in a
Pixar animation that makes you laugh though it's kinda corny, too, and
really for kids...it's hard to describe without messing it up (like
trying to explain a joke, you know), so all I can say is that we had
that connection...after nine guys, I was the only one to truly
appreciate this (about which fact I found out only much later), this
aspect of her personality...so we definitely had it going....
But then darkness set in, I think she was getting corrupted partially
by her mother, partially by what she sees on TV (her whole family
should be doing Nielsen ratings the amount of TV they imbibe), her
biological clock, etc. Maybe even some religion...she honestly felt
that she was going to go to hell for having been with so many guys
without marriage! So my appreciation of her paled...it was no longer
enough that we enjoyed one another....
> Unconditional love is what you are describing, such as the love a
> mother has for her child. Romantic love is rarely unconditional.
Romantic love is where it starts, but -- ha, talk about "not going
anywhere," as she puts it -- things should progress beyond that! I
don't say that we reach unconditional, mother/God-like love,
necessarily, but things definitely should have gone beyond such a
calculus "after four years" (another favorite phrase of hers).
> You
> think *her* standards are too high? In my own personal life I have
> conditions that a woman must meet before I even consider starting a
> romantic relationship with her that perhaps seem astronomically
> insurmountable for the average woman. Yet, the *right* woman could
> meet those conditions with little or no effort.
I used to think like that...and while I think that's a helpful P.O.V.,
I don't think it works as the M.O. P.O.V. I mean, such considerations
-- matters of "standards," as if one were shopping for a commodity
(again this unfortunate marketplace-mentality which reduces human
relationships to inhuman mechanics [a useful enough P.O.V., again, but
only like sunglasses -- not something to be worn all the time, if you
know what I mean]) -- they miss the true point of a relationship, and
our humanity.
What's so tricky -- this is the proverbial razor's edge balance-act --
is that there is a time and place for the "checklist" or "marketplace"
P.O.V., too. It's just that most people get sucked up by that, and
expand their checklists or otherwise amend them and become so wrapped
up in what they don't have...they are focused more on *having* than on
*being*, being with the other person...they get the cart before the
horse, and focus too much on having things in or qualities to a
relationship, and not enough on *being* with the other person...like
you know, how when we're depressed, we tend to try to run from it --
alcohol, etc. -- than just sit with it, be with it, own it, accept
it....
> I suppose that is your POV. I see nothing cheap about a relationship
> in which both parties "feed" off each other. I think it is quite noble
> when both do all they can to support each other's emotional
> well-being.
But that's by-product, that's the result of the process, the
destination of the journey. It's like the old joke about someone
praying to God all the time to hit the lotto, and finally one day God
says to him, "well, how about you meet me half-way and buy a ticket
first?"
Again, people want to get to Heaven (goal, destination) wihtout having
to die first (process, journey).
Sigh.
> Just for the sake of curiosity let me pose this question: if she
> *never* met your needs during the past four years, would the
> relationship have lasted that long?
But you're losing the thread of the discussion here: our needs *were*
met. The issue is that she's allowed this need for "external
trappings" to get the better of her views. Sure, people change, etc.
And, despite my reservations as to the "validity" (for example,
whether such a change is "good") of her resurfaced ambitions, as I
call them, she's dropping me like shit in a toilet, and that's just
very hard to bear. Again, it's like finding out your best friend is
an axe-murdering cannibal or something...!!!
> I happen to be a very demanding person. There are certain things I
> refuse to tolerate in a romantic relationship. The only discussion I
> allow regarding them is the termination of the relationship. Not to
> sound as your adversary, she was far more lenient with you than I
> would have been under similar circumstances. I certainly wouldn't have
> let it go for more than a year, let alone four.
She was "lenient" because I made it easy to be, if I don't say so
myself...no one else treated her so good -- though now that she knows
better, I expect that she will "demand" better of her new lover(s).
BTW, all this talk of "standards" and whatnot...it's all a very
unfortunate sign of the times, really. I mean, the Checklist is where
it all starts, for cryin' out loud...it's like after four years of
marriage some guy decides that his wife is too thin for him after all,
you know?
> To many folk, talk of eternity implies marriage.
And as I said, I'm always open to discussion.
It's too bad that folks aren't "lenient" enough to respect another's
POV by entertaining it in good faith. As I've noted all along, it's
bitterly ironic that you strangers here in Netland have given me more
credence and love in this situation than she has. Whether we agree or
disagree, we're engaged and interacting -- you're showing me a kind of
care she isn't even allowing a minimum of!
> What can I say? To me this appears as classic incompatibility. Search
> for someone with views closer to yours. That is what I am trying to
> do. It is a long and lonely battle.
Yes, of course.
Problem is, views change just like people.
People are on their best behavior at first, anyway.
Plus, people often do not know themselves beforehand.
Not that they might even tell you, in any case!
And then there's the issue of semantics...could actually agree, but
use different words/grammar/etc. and therefore imagine different
things....
Ow ow ow....
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Keep going it won't last for ever.
Yes, thank you. Already it's getting better, mostly due to working
out.
> How long ago did your mother die? Was it expected? Are you close to your
> family? I read you are being supported by them with this, so I suppose you
> are close enough. You really are grieving aren't you!?
Yeah, this is really the most incredible summer ever...I thought Basic
Combat Training was a real trip...I thought overseas travel on my own
was a real trip...wow, now I'm starting to get superstitious and
wonder whether summer will always be life-changing for me....
The thing with Claudia and my mother is this: they are both so alike!
They both like to clean house, be housewives (with a P/T job on the
side for boredom's sake), love their coffee and pastries in the
morning, love to sleep, don't like thinking too deep or reading too
much, don't like pets, shy girls, yadda yadda yadda....
So all the unsaid things to my mom, all the unresolved issues, will
now in a sense stay unresolved....
And Claudia just quitting me like this, at this time -- it's like it's
no simple coincidence!! Also unsaid things, unexplained things,
unresolved things....
No closure possible with either person, really...not the "optimum"
sort, anyway....
> We're constantly in a state of flux (possibly a learning process). Perhaps
> this is more a female thing as fickle as we're painted. So you can approach
> someone one day and they can be friendly, the next day they could spit in
> your face. I've had an example of this a fair few times, with people who
> can't control their emotions/humours. So if love is constant you may press
> all the right buttons, the ones you used before, but because humans' moods
> change it's not always going to work, or take you to the same place.
>
> And when you're talking about the emotions you can't talk simply of using
> your intelligence/logic to control what's happeing in a relationship. Would
> be useful though.
Yes we can, through practice. And, of course, we've got to first
accept -- belive -- that we can.
Really, putting off gratification -- anger, cookies, whatever -- is
one of the first things kids learn. Some of us really haven't been
practicing, that's all.
Read "E.Q"...that's another great book on this topic.
The problem is that people accept this kind of behavior way too much.
Not that one can pass laws against it, either...not sure what the
solution is, society-wide, exactly, but it is clear that we really do
need to get a handle on our emotions.
(Yes, including me with my depression here!)
> The factory defaults? Some are hard wired at birth but we're also learning,
> intuitive creatures. Some stuff will stick from birth or early years: basic
> sexuality; basic responses to certain stimuli (for me a picture of a kitten
> will make me say "Aah"). Not everything is that solidly set though and the
> default to Claudia, say when you met her, will be so different from the user
> defaults you left her with, and that she and others are now tampering with
> since being apart from you.
Yes...ouch, that kinda hurt...oh, who am I kidding' -- that did
hurt...it's hard to let go...I'm sure it's a lot of simple
ego...but...ow...all those "I love you" and "Honey" and so forth...I
thought it was meant for me, for real, for good....
> Perhaps this analogy can be reworked but it's an attempt to say that the
> human is motivated by strange influences beyond anyone's logical control.
> Self-harm is a powerful urge for many, it's not logical and probably not in
> our factory defaults at birth.
Not so, according to Freud -- we have a "death drive" in addition to
our instinct for life (the thanatos/eros symbiosis)....
Anyway, your point is well taken, though I would still quibble that
one day all will be known...in the here and now, I still "fault" her a
bit for not exercising more love (remember, I don't mean love as a
feeling or passion), more care, more consideration....
> I did try to think of the correct word but 'alchemy' was something that
> seemed to pop into my mind and I looked it up to make sure I meant it and I
> really thought it was what I meant. Sorry if it isn't putting my thoughts
> across clearly.
I'm just very leery of ambiguous words like "alchemy" (or "love" for
that matter) when discussing emotional, irrational topics...there's a
time and place for that, certainly, but insofar as we're talking
"logically" here -- which we do when we "philosophize" like we've been
doing -- it's a delicate balancing act to speak so that more "light"
may be shed on the matter instead of further ambiguity.
But all that notwithstanding, I do agree with your choice of alchemy.
Sums it up quite succinctly.
> Alchemy: A seemingly magical power or process of transmuting: ³He wondered
> by what alchemy it was changed, so that what sickened him one hour, maddened
> him with hunger the next² (Marjorie K. Rawlings).
>
> Perhaps I should have left it at 'we're not machines'.
Again, forgive me for being such a stickler about these sorts of
details...I guess my real goal here is to so pick apart my feelings --
through this kind of analysis of the words that represent them -- that
I do not feel these awful feelings any more...and it is working some,
actually....
> We were talking specifically about Dangerous Liaisons (the film) and the
> final scenes. He genuinely repented and genuinely wanted her forgiveness, he
> genuinely killed himself for love of her knowing that it was hopeless.
Did he *know* it was "hopeless"? I just don't recall. I suppose I am
reading into things given my own agenda.
> He
> knew he could never have her and that he couldn't live without her, knowing
> she was with someone else. When being told of his dying words of repentance
> and true love for her, the audience are given the feeling that she accepts
> and forgives him at her death. The fact that he finds it necessary to kill
> himself is proof that even he, with all his logic and self-confidence, knows
> that he could never regain her. (In a way he killed her when he left her on
> the floor in tears).
>
> What do you think?
That's an interesting reading. I'm not near my copy of the movie, so
I can't go and check on my feelings as I recall. I suppose this is
just another example of art's universal applicability -- universal as
in one-size-fits-all (interpretations)...the glass being half-full or
half-empty.
> However. For real people in real situations in this day and age... yes of
> course it's possible to rekindle something that looks like it's dead.
> Personally I wouldn't, unless I could see some kind of warm glow in the
> heart of the ash. Better to build a new fire in a more suitable spot.
Why would it be better?
Remember that -- in my case, which is what we're talking about -- she
does enjoy being with me. I think the problem is that she's trying to
"posess" me, by way of marriage (as well as that arrangement
dove-tailing nicely with her long-standing childhood marital
ambitions). But "left alone," without all that "external trappings,"
we do get along and enjoy each other's company.
Ah, well, what am I saying...she obviously doesn't anymore,
whatever....
Sorry, just thinking aloud....
> Hey, if you're some kind of troll I'm not playing any more... Oh, well why
> not?
Indeed, who cares!
> Does it have a bondage scene?
Yes! See, you must see it! It's one of those obscure '80s classics.
> You name it. One thing I wanted was revenge and would plot up all kinds of
> scenarios - I was quite good at it, I had a lot of background information,
> obviously, on the love-of-my-then-life so I could have made his career go
> down the toilet. Luckily for him, and me, I'm just not that nasty a human.
Um, I guess he broke it off, then, huh?
Gosh...how do people give it up? And how did you finally "get over
it"??
> They're both kind of joke suggestions. I'm not certain what celebrity young
> men wank to/over/thinking of nowadays but I'm sure you'll manage, you're not
> *that* much of a virgin.
Well, I'm certainly taking it like one...I really feel like a big ol'
sissy...disgusting!
> What's your hobby?
Being deprssed.
=)
> Cheers YABH.
Many thanks.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Right, here goes.
>
> PUBLIC SEX CRAMPS YOUR STYLE - NOTHING PERSONAL
>
> I was definitely thinking of my own case when I said 'immature' and you
> mustn't read an insult into it. Having sex 'in public' is something young
> people are forced to do due to having no access to their own accommodation.
>
> They're obviously not the only group who indulge but they were the ones I
> was thinking of at the time I used the word 'immature'.
OIC
> I was also thinking about a friend who, along with her bf at the time, left
> my house after dinner to go home, but their car remained stationary outside
> the house for quite some time. It seemed a bit tacky that they couldn't wait
> to drive back to their flat in order to indulge in some extremely heavy
> petting. I would have offered them the use of our couch if they'd've been
> that desperate. Even at the tender age of 23 I thought they were being
> 'immature' perhaps 'tacky' was more the word I would use.
Tacky...hmm...in the abstract, I could well agree, but I guess I don't
care, really, anymore, what folks think...I'd really enjoy it -- I
have on the few occasions we did it...classrooms, offices,
stairwells....
> Actually, staying with that friend, she never really 'grew up' or 'matured'
> because she managed to have sex with another man whilst her bf was upstairs
> asleep, until a noise woke him and he investigated its source. She also
> managed to 'get off with' another girlfriend's bf at a party where she'd
> arrived with her own bf. It's this kind of behaviour that I tie in with
> immaturity and 'show off sex'.
Kinky!
> All of the cases where I think about public sex, in my own remembrance, have
> been when the participants have been 'immature' (in youthful circumstances).
> ie: living with parents, having to do sex in the car or the park. Even when
> I and my friends were in this situation it would have been pointlessly risky
> to give someone a blow job on one's parents front doorstep. Unless the whole
> point of the performance is to enjoy the risk. Then I can understand it, but
> as with the example of my friend, it's still pretty immature *in my book*.
LOL -- well, as a virgin until age 25 (and no girl believed that, that
was what was so funny; they thought it was some line I used!), I guess
I never had those problems!
> Again, personally, I enjoy sex far too much to put in an unnecessary
> inhibitor and 'doing it' in my neighbourhood would basically mean waking the
> whole street up if I were 'doing it' to my level of satisfaction. So that's
> why, for me public sex is off the agenda. There are other reasons, that are
> pretty obvious, as one ages one has 'more to lose' and it's just plain more
> comfortable at home. Why make life difficult for yourself?
You're right in what you say...but I really do believe in it. I could
live without it, but I so much would rather have it...in the woods, at
work, etc. I do understand where you're coming from, and such
considerations have passed my mind as well, but at the end of the day,
if I could, I would.
Different tastes, I guess. In a sense, consuming really spicy fare is
making life difficult, too (nose starts watering, as well as eyes,
etc.), but I really do enjoy spicy foods!
> So, yes, public sex cramps your style and there is a factor of maturity
> involved. As one matures one has more resources to avoid the need for public
> sex and one has more to lose from indulging in public sex.
Hmm, what a funny way of putting things.
For me, it's simply the excitement factor, the sense that this is
forbidden and we could get caught and severely sanctioned somehow....
Then there is just the "freedom" of it all, and the novelty
factor...etc.
> OTOH if my personal circumstances were less risky it could be interesting to
> indulge in some car sex... Why do images of Hugh Grant and Gillian Taylforth
> immediately pop into my head at this point?
I was supposed to have done that with her...we did it at work, school,
her mother's, the roof, only missed the beach, the car, and outer
space!
> Btw. I'm happy to answer most questions even if they only include one
> question mark. Lol.
?
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> It's not easy. We do have a switch, but for most of us, either it's too
> deeply buried, or we're scared or unwilling to switch it. I'm of the
> opinion that we place too much value in our emotions.
Yeah, true...I wonder if this has to do with my sense that at 31 I
really am finally getting...older??
Oh, I dunno.
> Well, just don't forget it, okay?
LOL -- never!
> That sounds backwards to me. Surely, now is the time you need to find
> bravery within yourself, to face the changing tide, where with her, you
> were safe, no need to be brave there. You were /in there/ rather than
> /out there/. As to innocence - isn't there a newly discovered innocence in
> you? A kind you never thought of? Think of this as a time of renewal, a
> renewal of your own core, rather than a time of loss. Hard, I know - you
> need time to come to terms with her leaving.
It's true, you're right. But, as I said, my bravery's gone...my
will...new semester, so many girls, all a whole lot better looking
than Claudia, etc. -- but, you know what, I almost don't care...my
appetite's really nose-dived, you know....
> We're here, around the world as we are. Just think of that, the sheer
> wonder of it, around this great big planet Earth, people are supporting
> you...
>
> Monster
Yes, believe it or not I haven't ever lost sight of that -- but I do
thank you for making it explicit. It really has been a great help
just to banter back and forth...all this activity has helped me
dissipate a lot of the emotional energy, for lack of a better phrase,
that keep building up inside....
Thanks again, really. As we used to say in the Army: PAIN IS
TEMPORARY! PRIDES IS FOREVER!! BLOOD MAKES THE GRASS GROW GREEN!!!
KrosRogue
>> I think that quite aptly describes the efforts at striving for an
>> unattainable goal, don't you?
> Depends on what you've defined the goal to be. Unfortunately, she has
> defined it to mean things like marriage, a house, etc. The American
And, it's quite possible she may achieve that goal.
> Dream. So someone who isn't going to provide that is therefore not
> deserving of her love. Not that I hindered her in those goals
That's quite possible, but don't take it personally.
> (unless, of course, you look at things from a
> GWB-you're-either-with-us-or-against-us POV), mind you.
You may not have hindered her goals ultimately, but apparently you
hindered them regarding you.
> What happened to just enjoying the person for who the person is?
Nothing at all, for those who choose that kind of a relationship.
> That's the problem, when we get far afield from simple enjoyment --
> love -- and become corrupted by "ambitions"....
All I see is that you two disagree on the type of relationship you
should have. Disagreement does not of itself become corruption.
>> I don't think it's strictly about you. I think this situation results
>> from a seemingly unresolvable conflict between your desires and hers.
> Yes, naturally. What I have a hard time reconciling in the emotional
> mess of this break-up is the dissonance between how good she can be
> and how bad she is being.
That's probably because you may be taking it personally. You set
yourself up for unnecessary emotional stress if you do that.
> To simply enjoy our time together, that's not a problem. But in terms
> of "plans"..."goals"...all these "ambitions," as I say, which corrupt
> the relationship from one of just being into one another, with one
> another, to a situation where the mind starts scanning for what could
> be had out of such a situation...that's just awful....
Defining "just awful" for each of you seems to be your mutual
disagreement on how things "ought to be".
>> I know lots of cute chicks. Some of them are good friends. None of
>> them meet my core emotional needs. The fact that they are cute is
>> totally meaningless to me.
> Well, we probably mean by "cute" very different things (I know I do
> at different times within different contexts).
That may be true, but I think we both agree that it does not mean
"that which fulfills one's needs", wouldn't you say?
>> I think, deep down, in most relationships it does.
> Again, that's a descriptive statement, but not a normative one --
> which is the sort of ethos within which we're discussing things.
>
> "Normal" can mean something like "it's normal to be sick" (since
> everyone gets sick in life at some point) or "it isn't normal to be
> sick" (since the optimum condition of the human organism is to be
> healthy, not sick [we weren't "designed" to be sick, if you will]).
> The first is a descriptive use of the word normal, the second is a
> normative use of the word normal.
I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but in the sense that I
use it, I think it's normative. My relationships are economic in
nature, and from what I've observed, all of the ones I've seen are
that way. It's basically from how one derives pleasure from another's
company. Would you pursue the company of someone you couldn't stand to
be around? I know I wouldn't. I get no benefit from someone who's
company I loathe. At best I would maintain an aloof and painstakingly
neutral behavior in the presence of such a person. At worst, I would
probably be openly and possibly physically hostile. In short, I would
suffer an economic loss in that person's presence, as would that
person in my presence. Neither one of us could gain anything from the
other, no pleasantries of any kind. Such encounters would be totally
unprofitable for the both of us.
> Likewise, responding that most relationships boil down to what I've
> called "mercantilist" or "capitalist" considerations is a bit besides
> the point I was making...a bit like saying, "well, those things do
> happen all the time" in response to a victim of drunk driving.
>
> (Not finding fault with you personally, you understand; we're
> discussing ideas here.)
I understand. I view it as an economic exchange and you don't. We seem
to disagree on that issue.
>> In intimate relationships, folk "feed" off each other emotionally.
>> If one or both feel "starved", the relationship "shrivels" and
>> "dies".
> True enough -- but one must consider the criteria. If I make her
> happy, except when it comes to her ambitions in life -- well, that's
> really a pretty lame excuse for breaking up, isn't it? Not to mention
> *the way* she did it...!
That ambition may have been the one criterion that over-rode all else.
She may have decided to find someone else to fulfill that criterion.
> It's like a girl who can't marry someone whose company she enjoys
> simply because he isn't from the same class, race, religion,
> what-have-you...those things are external (and yes, marriage as an
> institution is mere external trapping too, however invested with
> meaning people choose to make it) to the act of spending time with a
> person and enjoying the company.
Marriage is the central sore spot here. Some place a high value on it
and others regard it as next to worthless. Differing opinions abound.
>> Some relationships can handle that while others can't. I have seen
>> marriages that lasted for a decade or two break up for reasons far
>> more trivial than one being bound in a wheelchair.
> Yes, very sad...funny how people want to get married, huh?
As I said, high value to some, low value to others.
> She can get "realistic" enough, obviously, when it comes to such
> considerations...but as to that institution itself she maintains a
> willing suspension of disbelief....
Just out of curiosity, does she want a marriage, or does she just want
a huge wedding? I have seen some women that go all out for the wedding
but don't give a hoot at all about the marriage it represents. Then,
there are others that truly understand and want the marriage.
>> Time to move on. Easy to say, hard to do, but life goes on.
> Yes, and thank you for the continued encouragement...I'm doing a lot
> better now that I'm working out again, and have had a chance to find
> my closure with strangers like you, arguing the points I wish I could
> have articulated with her to her but which y'all probably understand,
> even if you don't agree with them.
What I think means nothing regarding your relationship with her. What
is paramount in importance is that, for your own sake, you shouldn't
take her rejection of you personally. I know that by now I probably
sound like a broken record, but she wants something from you that you
are unwilling to give, so now she looks for someone who is willing.
She is looking out for her happiness. You were looking out for yours
when you refused to marry her. Now you need to find someone whose
views are a bit more harmonious with yours.
> On the basis of that, we spent lots of time together. I loved the
> sex, and she was glad for it, too, and then what really cemented us
> was my appreciation of her sense of humor, which is lame by most
> folks' estimations ("cute," as I'd said) but which I'm just really
> taken by. Really, the way she acts, the things she sees, thinks, the
> jokes she makes...she sees things in really funny way to me, but not
> stand-up comedy funny, funny as in cute-funny, like something in a
> Pixar animation that makes you laugh though it's kinda corny, too, and
> really for kids...it's hard to describe without messing it up (like
> trying to explain a joke, you know), so all I can say is that we had
> that connection...after nine guys, I was the only one to truly
> appreciate this (about which fact I found out only much later), this
> aspect of her personality...so we definitely had it going....
This may sound trite, but just be grateful for what you did share,
realize that it has ended, and move on.
> But then darkness set in, I think she was getting corrupted partially
> by her mother, partially by what she sees on TV (her whole family
> should be doing Nielsen ratings the amount of TV they imbibe), her
> biological clock, etc. Maybe even some religion...she honestly felt
> that she was going to go to hell for having been with so many guys
> without marriage! So my appreciation of her paled...it was no longer
> enough that we enjoyed one another....
Unfortunately there is nothing you can do about what she thinks and
feels. All you can control at the moment is how you feel. Grieve if
you must, because it probably does feel like the death of a loved one.
Feel the pain, cry, and do whatever else is necessary to make the
closure. Then get on with the business of living and enjoying life.
Easy to say, I know well enough, and hard to do.
>> You think *her* standards are too high? In my own personal life I
>> have conditions that a woman must meet before I even consider
>> starting a romantic relationship with her that perhaps seem
>> astronomically insurmountable for the average woman. Yet, the
>> *right* woman could meet those conditions with little or no effort.
> I used to think like that...and while I think that's a helpful P.O.V.,
> I don't think it works as the M.O. P.O.V. I mean, such considerations
> -- matters of "standards," as if one were shopping for a commodity
> (again this unfortunate marketplace-mentality which reduces human
> relationships to inhuman mechanics [a useful enough P.O.V., again, but
> only like sunglasses -- not something to be worn all the time, if you
> know what I mean]) -- they miss the true point of a relationship, and
> our humanity.
Wow, talk about a radical switch! I used to think as you do now, and
you used to think as I do now. This is bizarre! ;-)
> What's so tricky -- this is the proverbial razor's edge balance-act --
> is that there is a time and place for the "checklist" or "marketplace"
> P.O.V., too. It's just that most people get sucked up by that, and
> expand their checklists or otherwise amend them and become so wrapped
> up in what they don't have...they are focused more on *having* than on
> *being*, being with the other person...they get the cart before the
> horse, and focus too much on having things in or qualities to a
> relationship, and not enough on *being* with the other person...like
> you know, how when we're depressed, we tend to try to run from it --
> alcohol, etc. -- than just sit with it, be with it, own it, accept
> it....
I think my attitude is a protection mechanism more than anything else.
My "checklist", if you can call it that, is a list of "red flags" that
I have found detrimental in previous relationships. If I see any of
them in a current relationship that I may have, I slam on the brakes
and put full throttle to the retro-rockets. ;-)
>> I suppose that is your POV. I see nothing cheap about a relationship
>> in which both parties "feed" off each other. I think it is quite noble
>> when both do all they can to support each other's emotional
>> well-being.
> But that's by-product, that's the result of the process, the
> destination of the journey. It's like the old joke about someone
I think it's all part of the journey. Life is the journey.
> praying to God all the time to hit the lotto, and finally one day God
> says to him, "well, how about you meet me half-way and buy a ticket
> first?"
I think buying the ticket and hitting the lotto are all part of the
same process.
> Again, people want to get to Heaven (goal, destination) wihtout
> having to die first (process, journey).
I can relate to that. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of the
process of dying.
>> Just for the sake of curiosity let me pose this question: if she
>> *never* met your needs during the past four years, would the
>> relationship have lasted that long?
> But you're losing the thread of the discussion here: our needs *were*
> met. The issue is that she's allowed this need for "external
> trappings" to get the better of her views. Sure, people change, etc.
Apparently it meant more than an "external trapping" to her. She
probably viewed it as a "need" that was "unfulfilled".
> And, despite my reservations as to the "validity" (for example,
> whether such a change is "good") of her resurfaced ambitions, as I
> call them, she's dropping me like shit in a toilet, and that's just
> very hard to bear. Again, it's like finding out your best friend is
> an axe-murdering cannibal or something...!!!
It doesn't make sense because you don't understand it. My guess is
that she doesn't understand your reluctance.
>> I happen to be a very demanding person. There are certain things I
>> refuse to tolerate in a romantic relationship. The only discussion I
>> allow regarding them is the termination of the relationship. Not to
>> sound as your adversary, she was far more lenient with you than I
>> would have been under similar circumstances. I certainly wouldn't have
>> let it go for more than a year, let alone four.
> She was "lenient" because I made it easy to be, if I don't say so
> myself...no one else treated her so good -- though now that she knows
> better, I expect that she will "demand" better of her new lover(s).
That's probably true. ;-)
> BTW, all this talk of "standards" and whatnot...it's all a very
> unfortunate sign of the times, really. I mean, the Checklist is where
> it all starts, for cryin' out loud...it's like after four years of
> marriage some guy decides that his wife is too thin for him after all,
> you know?
Unfortunately, that's the sort of risk everyone assumes when entering
a relationship. It's one of the cold facts of life.
>> To many folk, talk of eternity implies marriage.
> And as I said, I'm always open to discussion.
>
> It's too bad that folks aren't "lenient" enough to respect another's
> POV by entertaining it in good faith. As I've noted all along, it's
> bitterly ironic that you strangers here in Netland have given me more
> credence and love in this situation than she has. Whether we agree or
> disagree, we're engaged and interacting -- you're showing me a kind of
> care she isn't even allowing a minimum of!
Face-to-face interaction is much more difficult than bouncing messages
through a computer network. Perhaps she broke off with you simply
because you met all her needs save one -- marriage. Perhaps the reason
for the break was that she feared any further interaction with you
would cause her to sacrifice that one need so she could continue with
you; a need she may have regarded as more important than anything
else.
>> What can I say? To me this appears as classic incompatibility.
>> Search for someone with views closer to yours. That is what I am
>> trying to do. It is a long and lonely battle.
> Yes, of course.
>
> Problem is, views change just like people.
Perhaps yours will change as well. Or, perhaps hers will. Or, perhaps
you will meet someone who will deem such views as inconsequential and
just go with the flow.
> People are on their best behavior at first, anyway.
True. And that is usually when they are the most dangerous.
> Plus, people often do not know themselves beforehand.
This does happen a bit too often.
> Not that they might even tell you, in any case!
Sometimes you may need to be the one to tell them. I have had such
occasions.
> And then there's the issue of semantics...could actually agree, but
> use different words/grammar/etc. and therefore imagine different
> things....
>
> Ow ow ow....
Semantics and innuendoes have often been my undoing. I remember a long
time ago I had a long and very distressing argument with someone. The
argument was resolved simply because a third person happened to
recognize that we were both saying the same thing. We agreed with each
other without realizing it. Language is so cumbersome.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> And, it's quite possible she may achieve that goal.
Yeah, and I really do believe that she *deserves* a house -- she's
soooo into all those homey things like gardens and furnishings and
decor, etc., and, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, she loves to
clean, to be a housewife. It aches me that I could not provide her
with all this...her thing is, I guess, that she doesn't see me moving
in that direction at all. Not that I'm against it; it's just that she
feels I'm not helping towards that, and some measure of resentment
seems to result.
> That's quite possible, but don't take it personally.
Uh, after a four-year relationship, I'm not sure how anything's not to
be taken "personally," especially when someone just decides to call it
quits but leaves it up to the other person to find out...?!?!
> You may not have hindered her goals ultimately, but apparently you
> hindered them regarding you.
?!
Again, we're really missing the point of a relationship...unless
you're going back to the notions of a marriage as a strategic
alliance.
I'm not on drugs, don't drink or smoke, have a decent job, am in
school, am young, really am athletic and look it, blah blah blah...and
she's dumping me so callously and casually over...these materialistic
goals?!?!
You know, someone had observed that most serious relationships end
around four years ("not serious" relationships last about a year,
"more serious" ones like two)...four years, give or take a few months,
seems to be the proverbial Moment of Truth in most relationships...so
I guess this really is It...this really is who she is! After four
years...it's nice to know...finally...I guess....
> Nothing at all, for those who choose that kind of a relationship.
My other "fear" is that she's the sort who really doesn't know what
she's doing...I mean, of course she's an adult, legally, but...she
often makes bad decisions (as trivial as getting a two-year cell phone
plan just 'cause everyone else had a cell phone so she had to have one
too to moving in with guys -- I'm "hubby" number three, guy number
ten)...now I know all this probably makes her look bad, but...I do
care, still...more than mere jealousy (and I'm very liberal when it
comes to stuff which would cause jealousy in most other people,
believe me), I really am afraid that she's simply casted herself with
whatever's available -- though she does have her pick; she's really
pretty....
Anyway, I know what you're saying, and though I believe in what I say,
I do recognize how moot a point it all is.
> All I see is that you two disagree on the type of relationship you
> should have. Disagreement does not of itself become corruption.
You're right -- corruption involves change, but not all change is
corruption. However, I'm not agonizing over the fact that things have
changed; I remain aghast at the nature of the change. Remember, it's
gone from enjoying one another's company, simply, to, on the one hand,
abstractions like marriage to materialism like a house, a car.
Again, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I started finding her
too fat (in the wrong places), too needy, too
whatever-it-is-that-guys-complain-about-after-some-time, I think most
would rightly shake their head and frown at how silly the fellow's
become....
Anyway, moot point...I just keep revisiting it, not sure why...Freud's
Repetitive Complusion? Yeah, I suppose.
> That's probably because you may be taking it personally. You set
> yourself up for unnecessary emotional stress if you do that.
Um, a relationship is by definition personal...how do you not take the
decision to break it off impersonally? I mean, I recognize the
possibility as an intellectual exercise, as a psychological defense
mechanism...but truth to tell, it *is* personal. Not that she wishes
me ill, mind you; indeed, she doesn't care. And that's just so hard a
fact to digest. She doesn't care -- yeah, it isn't "personal," 'cause
that would imply care. But, wow, after four-years....
(Which number I keep repeating because that's actually something I
picked up from her: "after four years...," "it's been four years...,"
"for four years....")
> Defining "just awful" for each of you seems to be your mutual
> disagreement on how things "ought to be".
Right...so let's talk...I mean, geez, we can work it out! But no,
she's not into talking, there's no point in talking about something if
we disagree about it.
She doesn't care. I just have to remember that first and foremost.
> That may be true, but I think we both agree that it does not mean
> "that which fulfills one's needs", wouldn't you say?
No, sorry, it does fulfill a need of mine! For joy in
life...seriously -- and sorry if this just gets more bizzare and...um,
sick -- but she's cute like Hello Kitty or Pooh Bear! It's a weird
thing to describe -- and really, this isn't a sexual fetish -- I just
find her sense of humor "cute!" It's funny, but in a cute way...kinda
like the grade-school knock-knock jokes, you know...clean good ol'
fashioned fun! The sort of thing just just makes you feel calm and
yet excited with joy at the same time...so strange, this feeling, but
it does exist, and only with her! Only she brings it out in me...I
can't really explain it, except to say that somewhere between this
cuteness of hers and what I perceive of her sexuality I'm caught in
mournful yearning.
> I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but in the sense that I
> use it, I think it's normative. My relationships are economic in
> nature, and from what I've observed, all of the ones I've seen are
> that way. It's basically from how one derives pleasure from another's
> company.
And that's just the thing...I'm not convinced that she derives no
pleasure from being with me any longer -- I mean, what, do I beat her,
berate her, find fault with her? But in as much as she is viewing and
*experiencing* the relationship through this "ideology" that we're
supposed to "get somewhere" more "materialistically," she's actually
creating her own sense of ill-ease and dissatisfaction!
Sure, let her be, do I need this...but that's the thing: I care! For
myself, and for her.
> Would you pursue the company of someone you couldn't stand to
> be around? I know I wouldn't. I get no benefit from someone who's
> company I loathe. At best I would maintain an aloof and painstakingly
> neutral behavior in the presence of such a person. At worst, I would
> probably be openly and possibly physically hostile. In short, I would
> suffer an economic loss in that person's presence, as would that
> person in my presence. Neither one of us could gain anything from the
> other, no pleasantries of any kind. Such encounters would be totally
> unprofitable for the both of us.
Right. That's certainly not the case here, though. It's not even a
matter of semantics here; we're talking about totally different
things!
> I understand. I view it as an economic exchange and you don't. We seem
> to disagree on that issue.
Mais non! Not at all! I do believe it to be "economic," but I only
believe that it is more than that.
Now that's just theory, in the abstract. In the here and now of this
particular case of mine, she's getting the goods, insofar as she does
enjoy my company, I know she does. It really is other issues at work,
personal demons and such, I know now (all this talk helps bring to the
surface my own gut feelings, and I thank you for helping with that
process, however unwittingly).
Yes, that's what it is...it's not just me, it's her as well. The
thing is, she doesn't *care* to put any more effort into the
enterprise. That's what I've got to realize -- not just "know"
intellectually but realize viscerally in the guts (funny movement
there, from gut feelings being articulated to intellectual theories
being made more concrete in the gut).
She has a different model of how things should be. She doesn't
realize that it's just a conception, one to which she needn't be
wedded or chained. The '50s-ish wifey thing. We can create something
just for ourselves...no need to use the standard. She doesn't realize
this.
Now obviously the "old way" of doing things suit her at some emotional
level. But we can investigate that and identify exactly what needs
are being fulfilled by that old model of relationships, and whether
something "functionally equivalent" may be created within a new
framework....
Well, anyway, she definitely isn't a deep thinker, that's for sure.
This is all too much to ask of her. Like most people, she just wants
to boot up the computer and log in, so to speak. She doesn't want to
bother tweaking things in Linux, say.
I know, I know...I've just got to get it into my heart, my guts, my
blood. So far, it still mainly resides in the head, as it were.
Hence the aching chasm between "what the swift mind perceives at every
turn" and what "the heart is slow to learn," as Edna St. Vincent
Millay had put it.
> That ambition may have been the one criterion that over-rode all else.
> She may have decided to find someone else to fulfill that criterion.
Well, yeah, that's just the kicker: I never realized this! She never
articulated it! It's like finding out one day that your best buddy
had been such a good buddy 'cause he's gay and had been in love with
you all along!
> Marriage is the central sore spot here. Some place a high value on it
> and others regard it as next to worthless. Differing opinions abound.
Uh, yeah, and that's my point: it really ought to be about more than
that. That's just missing the point, really, like the old Medeval
debates about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or how
Christ could have been both human and divine or whether icons
constitute idolatry or whether grace is more important that
works...like a Talmud full of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots,
ditching me (and like this! At the altar!) is just...ugh!
> As I said, high value to some, low value to others.
Yeah, and I'm just shocked that I'd been with the Manchurian Candidate
for these past four years!
> Just out of curiosity, does she want a marriage, or does she just want
> a huge wedding? I have seen some women that go all out for the wedding
> but don't give a hoot at all about the marriage it represents. Then,
> there are others that truly understand and want the marriage.
She wants us to live together...marriage, and a big one at that, yes
-- but the thing is to live together, build a life together, save for
a house, a car, vactions....
I am reluctant to at this time because of many reasons:
1) I've got a pretty good deal on the apartment I'm at now (rent vs.
location vs. space) and she wants to move into a new one.
2) Her son, of course -- I'm leery of being a babysitter, which is
what I felt like (you know, a Big Brother sort, a camp counselor or
something), 24/7.
2) In addition, she's *very* permissive with her son...making up for
past guilt (long story)...so he's just watching TV all day when he's
not playing video games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can live so
close to a "social statistic" without comment or action -- but that
might be a new source of contention between us ("that's *my* son,
don't tell him what to do!").
2) Furthermore, the kid views me as his friend and therefore really
throws a fit when I'm romancing Claudia, whether it's as simple as
holding hands to kissing on the lips.
3) Her behavior (okay, so we're finally on point number three now)
when it comes to difficult matters, emotional or intellectual, gives
me pause; namely, her not being open to prolonged, in-depth dialogue.
4) Finances -- she wants to save for a house and a car but hasn't been
able to do so since first embarking on these ambitions two years ago.
Mind you, I've paid for everything during our time together, so
obviously all her money's gone to her family, her son and her mother
(with whom she lives).
5) Sex (of course) -- I'd want it everyday, or at least every other
day...I've done her up to six times in a 24-hr. period, as recently as
earlier this summer, that's how much I am into her (despite her being
40-lbs. overweight, and 90% of that being on her stomach!!)...for her,
it's a real, um, pain more than once a week....
LOL -- this helps me reconsider my yearning for her....
> What I think means nothing regarding your relationship with her.
Um...sure it does. No, really, it helps put things into perspective.
> What
> is paramount in importance is that, for your own sake, you shouldn't
> take her rejection of you personally.
I do understand what you're saying, but there's no way to not take
this personally when you're on the receiving end of a four-year
relationship where I met her after class every day, went to school
with her on the weekends, spent all my free time with her -- all at
her request -- that's suddenly just dropped.
Of course, that's just her m.o., that's all s.o.p. for her...it's
always been like that with the other guys, too, with her, so in that
sense it wasn't meant personally...but you know, there is a concept in
tort law where, even though something wasn't intended, it's still
found illegal for its effect -- like when a company should have known
or taken measures against something which turns out to be
dangerous....
But, as we all know, she, just, doesn't, care, any, more, period.
> I know that by now I probably
> sound like a broken record, but she wants something from you that you
> are unwilling to give, so now she looks for someone who is willing.
Right, and she really is making a big mistake with that. Though not
ugly, she's fat and short like some cartoon character ("cute," as I
often put it) and isn't a very clear-thinking gal. I know that sounds
vindictive of me, mean and all, but it really is the truth. I know
what the meat market's like, just the singles scene in general,
and....
Whoops, wait a minute, I did forget -- just about anybody would do for
her, as long as he isn't ugly, old, or handicapped. I still don't
think she's going to find better (than me), but, you know, not every
one needs to drive a fancy car.
Shit, I just remembered: if I'm going to get my heart broken, let it
be by a drop-dead gorgeous girl at least! What am I doing, pining for
just-another-face-in-the-crowd....
> She is looking out for her happiness. You were looking out for yours
> when you refused to marry her.
I really believe I had both our interests in mind, though certainly my
own dominated. But that's the difference between me and most folks --
and I say that not proudly, but sadly.
> Now you need to find someone whose
> views are a bit more harmonious with yours.
Um, yeah, that would help! =)
> This may sound trite, but just be grateful for what you did share,
> realize that it has ended, and move on.
You're right, it's trite.
But yeah, I'm moving on. Thanks for the push.
> Unfortunately there is nothing you can do about what she thinks and
> feels.
That's really not the case. But I don't believe it worth the "cost."
I really know her, and know her buttons. Believe me, most people are
easily figured out. You play along, etc. (For example, don't say
stuff like "most people are easily figured out," that smacks of
arrogance, whatever truth it may suggest.) But do I really want to
revisit all that? Reminding her why she's better off with me....
Anyway, as we say in the Army, "suck it up and drive on!"
> All you can control at the moment is how you feel. Grieve if
> you must, because it probably does feel like the death of a loved one.
Myself, moreover.
> Feel the pain, cry, and do whatever else is necessary to make the
> closure. Then get on with the business of living and enjoying life.
> Easy to say, I know well enough, and hard to do.
It's the funniest thing, possible only in a post-industrialized
society, I suppose: I really, honestly do feel bad, but it has not
stopped me from enjoying life.
The only noticeable effect it's had, besides loss of sleep and
appetite that first week, is that I remain "uninterested" in women!
> Wow, talk about a radical switch! I used to think as you do now, and
> you used to think as I do now. This is bizarre! ;-)
Two ships passing in the night, strewing wreckage and refuse along....
=)
> I think my attitude is a protection mechanism more than anything else.
That's the thing: protecting what? The old? No pain, no gain!
But when is that the case? That's what's so hard...how does one
know??
That's why most of us just fall back on our feelings...yet those
feelings are suspect...yet logic itself can only adjudicate process,
it cannot guarantee result (leaving aside the achievements of
scientific inquiry for the moment)....
It's a vicious circle...but there is an escape route...so to speak....
It's funny, but for all the Sturm und Drang of all this, I'm more or
less at peace in my heart...when I quite down my mind, which I'm not
doing here because it helps get things out of my system to vent and
rage....
> My "checklist", if you can call it that, is a list of "red flags" that
> I have found detrimental in previous relationships. If I see any of
> them in a current relationship that I may have, I slam on the brakes
> and put full throttle to the retro-rockets. ;-)
Yes, and we all have our own which serve us pretty well, given who we
are...the difference is that I question mine constantly, whereas most
people just presume theirs. That's what keeps bugging me about
Claudia. I just know that we could...if only she would...we could
really spin a wonderful tale worthy of fireside chats with grandkids
if only she would open up her heart and talk!
> I think it's all part of the journey. Life is the journey.
Uh, well, yeah, we were talking about this case in particular, and my
suspicion that she's too focused on the destination...which is indeed
part of the journey...but to focus on one part is to lose sight of the
whole, and that's what I do believe she is doing here.
Anyway, I'm sad that she turns out to be just some girl I'd fucked,
only for four years. Really, that's what she seems to be thinking of
me, that I was just another one of these guys....
> I think buying the ticket and hitting the lotto are all part of the
> same process.
All right, I see; you wanna get all Zen on me?
Fine: how can there be process when there is no movement?
> I can relate to that. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of the
> process of dying.
But it's the same process! Life, death, rebirth, oblivion, processes
and results, causes and effects.
> Apparently it meant more than an "external trapping" to her. She
> probably viewed it as a "need" that was "unfulfilled".
And so I say again, to you as I did to her: what need(s) does marriage
fulfill? Maybe there's another way of fulfilling it/them -- provided
that they turn out to be "legitimiate."
For example, maybe she's just insecure? So the external trapping of
marriage would only seem to placate that issue...why not deal with the
insecurity instead of papering over it?
Anyway, living together/marriage now would have set her back from her
goals, I believe. But I never got my day in court to make my case.
And that's reflects negatively on her supposed love for me.
Anyway, I'm listening to Garth Brooks' "Unanswered Prayers" a
lot...great, great song, with an O. Henry-like twist. I try to keep
this in mind (though I'm an atheist)...someone better will come along.
I just hate to think that way, though, like we're talking cars or
computers.
> It doesn't make sense because you don't understand it. My guess is
> that she doesn't understand your reluctance.
Um, so let's talk! That's my biggest frustration of all...the
near-complete lack of dialogue...never a good time to talk -- during
bad times, there's no need, we're breaking up anyway; during good
times, we can't, don't want to cause a break up....
> That's probably true. ;-)
Uh, yeah...sorry, dudes!
> Unfortunately, that's the sort of risk everyone assumes when entering
> a relationship. It's one of the cold facts of life.
Yes, right...I guess I'm just crying out to Aphrodite, Job-like.
> Face-to-face interaction is much more difficult than bouncing messages
> through a computer network.
Hey, we could have talked over the phone, or corresponded via
e-mail...the point is to communicate! It's sooooo ironic that I'm the
guy and yet she's the silent one.
> Perhaps she broke off with you simply
> because you met all her needs save one -- marriage.
Yeah, and as I've put it to her, why not accept 95%, or 90%, or 80%??
Gosh, I mean, I'm in love with her, but aside from a great smile most
people would just call her short and fat and brainless too! I know my
family did.
> Perhaps the reason
> for the break was that she feared any further interaction with you
> would cause her to sacrifice that one need so she could continue with
> you; a need she may have regarded as more important than anything
> else.
Yes, that's possible...but I wonder...I...aw, what the hell.
> Perhaps yours will change as well. Or, perhaps hers will. Or, perhaps
> you will meet someone who will deem such views as inconsequential and
> just go with the flow.
Sigh.
You know what it really is? I'm afraid to move on -- not 'cause I
don't think I'll "get some," but because, I think, I don't want to
admit to myself that we're all really that replaceable == "expendable"
-- and that I'm really like any other person, that all this hurt is
just like a kid crying over dropped ice cream, no big deal and not the
high-falutin' melodrama of "love" I'm taking/making it....
There's no such thing as "love"...there is only ever a set of needs
and a checklist of wants that interact like variables in an equation.
Hmmm...well, that's just the mechanics of it all...hmm...the parts
make up the whole....
It would have been nice to explore these things with her.
> True. And that is usually when they are the most dangerous.
Ha, yeah. What am I saying...danger makes for excitement! Yes, I had
sensed the dangers...if I'm gonna be truthful about all this, then
part of the attraction was how dangerous this all seemed -- red flags
out the wazoo (nine guys [before me] in eleven years, with no more
than a month between each, and sex by the second week of dating, etc.
Yeah, truth to tell, I liked the whole challenge of it...for some
reason, that didn't turn me off, though it gave me pause....
Sigh....
> This does happen a bit too often.
Yeah, and insofar as we're all always changing, evolving, it's not
like there's something there *to* know beforehand...like how do you
know whether the taste suits you if it's a completely new thing unless
you try....
> Sometimes you may need to be the one to tell them. I have had such
> occasions.
Hmm...ugh....
> Semantics and innuendoes have often been my undoing. I remember a long
> time ago I had a long and very distressing argument with someone. The
> argument was resolved simply because a third person happened to
> recognize that we were both saying the same thing. We agreed with each
> other without realizing it. Language is so cumbersome.
Yeah...why do females insist on it? Let's just get down to sex,
godamit!
There, there...I think I'm regaining my soldierly pride now...I'm just
getting old, that's it....
KrosRogue
> Yeah, and I really do believe that she *deserves* a house -- she's
From what you say of her when you were together, she probably does.
> soooo into all those homey things like gardens and furnishings and
> decor, etc., and, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, she loves to
> clean, to be a housewife. It aches me that I could not provide her
> with all this...her thing is, I guess, that she doesn't see me moving
> in that direction at all. Not that I'm against it; it's just that she
> feels I'm not helping towards that, and some measure of resentment
> seems to result.
You two were probably not on the same wavelength.
> Uh, after a four-year relationship, I'm not sure how anything's not to
> be taken "personally," especially when someone just decides to call it
> quits but leaves it up to the other person to find out...?!?!
Different folk deal with unpleasantness in a variety of ways. I was
married for ten years before my ex-wife decided that she didn't want
to be married anymore; not to me or anyone else. I later found out
that she lived her entire life that way; jumping from one whimsical
decision to another without any specific goal to guide those
decisions. At least the woman you were with has some idea what she
wants.
>> You may not have hindered her goals ultimately, but apparently you
>> hindered them regarding you.
> ?!
OK, not very clear, eh? Her goal is to get married. Her immediate goal
was to marry you, which was thwarted by your reluctance to comply.
> Again, we're really missing the point of a relationship...unless
> you're going back to the notions of a marriage as a strategic
> alliance.
Marriage can be a strategic alliance in some cases, but I don't
believe that applies to her. As for my notions, IMHO, restated,
relationships are economic in nature, which doesn't necessarily mean
"strategic". I personally have never knowingly involved myself in an
intimate relationship which was motivated by strategy. That is truly a
cold-hearted maneuver, one which could only be instigated by a
soulless ghoul.
> I'm not on drugs, don't drink or smoke, have a decent job, am in
> school, am young, really am athletic and look it, blah blah blah...and
> she's dumping me so callously and casually over...these materialistic
> goals?!?!
Again, your attitude is thus because you two can't agree. There are
materialistic reasons why one would choose not to marry, especially
for a man, considering the misandrist laws in effect regarding the
subject. She could be viewing your stance in that light.
> You know, someone had observed that most serious relationships end
> around four years ("not serious" relationships last about a year,
> "more serious" ones like two)...four years, give or take a few months,
> seems to be the proverbial Moment of Truth in most relationships...so
> I guess this really is It...this really is who she is! After four
> years...it's nice to know...finally...I guess....
For you it was four years and for me it was ten. I really don't think
numbers have anything to do with it.
> My other "fear" is that she's the sort who really doesn't know what
> she's doing...I mean, of course she's an adult, legally, but...she
> often makes bad decisions (as trivial as getting a two-year cell phone
> plan just 'cause everyone else had a cell phone so she had to have one
> too to moving in with guys -- I'm "hubby" number three, guy number
> ten)...now I know all this probably makes her look bad, but...I do
> care, still...more than mere jealousy (and I'm very liberal when it
> comes to stuff which would cause jealousy in most other people,
> believe me), I really am afraid that she's simply casted herself with
> whatever's available -- though she does have her pick; she's really
> pretty....
As a personal preference, I don't care much for a woman with a flighty
personality, no matter how good she may look.
> You're right -- corruption involves change, but not all change is
> corruption. However, I'm not agonizing over the fact that things have
> changed; I remain aghast at the nature of the change. Remember, it's
> gone from enjoying one another's company, simply, to, on the one hand,
> abstractions like marriage to materialism like a house, a car.
From what I've seen, any time someone sets roots in a situation and
allows all things meaningful to be tethered to it, if and when that
situation changes that person's life seems to collapse. I have seen it
too many times and experienced it far more often than I cared to.
> Anyway, moot point...I just keep revisiting it, not sure why...Freud's
> Repetitive Complusion? Yeah, I suppose.
You lost a treasure and you keep digging in the same ground over and
over hoping to find it again. Guess what? You're human. That's what we
do when we suffer a loss that we don't understand.
> She doesn't care. I just have to remember that first and foremost.
If that's what it takes to help yourself through this, then perhaps
you need to embrace that concept.
>> That may be true, but I think we both agree that it does not mean
>> "that which fulfills one's needs", wouldn't you say?
> No, sorry, it does fulfill a need of mine! For joy in
OK, differing points of view. ;-)
> life...seriously -- and sorry if this just gets more bizzare and...um,
> sick -- but she's cute like Hello Kitty or Pooh Bear! It's a weird
> thing to describe -- and really, this isn't a sexual fetish -- I just
> find her sense of humor "cute!" It's funny, but in a cute way...kinda
> like the grade-school knock-knock jokes, you know...clean good ol'
> fashioned fun! The sort of thing just just makes you feel calm and
> yet excited with joy at the same time...so strange, this feeling, but
> it does exist, and only with her! Only she brings it out in me...I
> can't really explain it, except to say that somewhere between this
> cuteness of hers and what I perceive of her sexuality I'm caught in
> mournful yearning.
I can relate to that kind of feeling. Unfortunately I can't offer any
solace for that. All I can say is the pain will fade over time. It has
for me, anyway. It hasn't disappeared, but it isn't as intense as it
was.
>> I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but in the sense that I
>> use it, I think it's normative. My relationships are economic in
>> nature, and from what I've observed, all of the ones I've seen are
>> that way. It's basically from how one derives pleasure from another's
>> company.
> And that's just the thing...I'm not convinced that she derives no
> pleasure from being with me any longer -- I mean, what, do I beat her,
I didn't say there wasn't pleasure there. I say the pleasure would
have been much better without the disagreement.
> berate her, find fault with her? But in as much as she is viewing and
> *experiencing* the relationship through this "ideology" that we're
> supposed to "get somewhere" more "materialistically," she's actually
> creating her own sense of ill-ease and dissatisfaction!
That is your view. My view is that the *disagreement* between the both
of you is creating the dissatisfaction. Don't search for blame in
this. There isn't any. A difference of opinion or divergence of
desires doesn't assign blame.
> Now that's just theory, in the abstract. In the here and now of this
> particular case of mine, she's getting the goods, insofar as she does
> enjoy my company, I know she does. It really is other issues at work,
> personal demons and such, I know now (all this talk helps bring to the
> surface my own gut feelings, and I thank you for helping with that
> process, however unwittingly).
I'm glad I'm doing some good other than beating you about the head and
shoulders concerning what you should and shouldn't do. ;-)
> She has a different model of how things should be. She doesn't
> realize that it's just a conception, one to which she needn't be
> wedded or chained. The '50s-ish wifey thing. We can create something
> just for ourselves...no need to use the standard. She doesn't realize
> this.
>
> Now obviously the "old way" of doing things suit her at some emotional
> level. But we can investigate that and identify exactly what needs
> are being fulfilled by that old model of relationships, and whether
> something "functionally equivalent" may be created within a new
> framework....
Is she in any way religious? That may have a strong bearing on the
reason for your disagreement.
> Well, anyway, she definitely isn't a deep thinker, that's for sure.
> This is all too much to ask of her. Like most people, she just wants
> to boot up the computer and log in, so to speak. She doesn't want to
> bother tweaking things in Linux, say.
Hmm, a "Windows" girl, eh? Likes the pretty pictures and mousey-clicks
but can't handle scripts and command-lines? ;-)
> I know, I know...I've just got to get it into my heart, my guts, my
> blood. So far, it still mainly resides in the head, as it were.
> Hence the aching chasm between "what the swift mind perceives at every
> turn" and what "the heart is slow to learn," as Edna St. Vincent
> Millay had put it.
My mind knows almost all there is to know about getting and keeping a
good relationship. My heart knows absolutely nothing. There must be a
way to get the two to communicate, wouldn't you say?
>> That ambition may have been the one criterion that over-rode all else.
>> She may have decided to find someone else to fulfill that criterion.
> Well, yeah, that's just the kicker: I never realized this! She never
> articulated it! It's like finding out one day that your best buddy
> had been such a good buddy 'cause he's gay and had been in love with
> you all along!
Most folk have difficulty expressing their desires. Oddly enough, the
more intense the desire, the more difficult it is to express it. This
factor alone has plagued almost every relationship I have had.
> I am reluctant to at this time because of many reasons:
>
> 1) I've got a pretty good deal on the apartment I'm at now (rent vs.
> location vs. space) and she wants to move into a new one.
That may or may not be good, depending on the alternative.
> 2) Her son, of course -- I'm leery of being a babysitter, which is
> what I felt like (you know, a Big Brother sort, a camp counselor or
> something), 24/7.
That could be cause for concern.
> 2) In addition, she's *very* permissive with her son...making up for
> past guilt (long story)...so he's just watching TV all day when he's
> not playing video games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can live so
> close to a "social statistic" without comment or action -- but that
> might be a new source of contention between us ("that's *my* son,
> don't tell him what to do!").
An undisciplined child is definitely a red flag. That would have been
a deal-breaker for me.
> 2) Furthermore, the kid views me as his friend and therefore really
> throws a fit when I'm romancing Claudia, whether it's as simple as
> holding hands to kissing on the lips.
A second red flag, another deal-breaker.
> 3) Her behavior (okay, so we're finally on point number three now)
> when it comes to difficult matters, emotional or intellectual, gives
> me pause; namely, her not being open to prolonged, in-depth dialogue.
That is another cause for concern.
> 4) Finances -- she wants to save for a house and a car but hasn't been
> able to do so since first embarking on these ambitions two years ago.
> Mind you, I've paid for everything during our time together, so
> obviously all her money's gone to her family, her son and her mother
> (with whom she lives).
Financial concerns can be a thorn in the side.
> 5) Sex (of course) -- I'd want it everyday, or at least every other
> day...I've done her up to six times in a 24-hr. period, as recently as
> earlier this summer, that's how much I am into her (despite her being
> 40-lbs. overweight, and 90% of that being on her stomach!!)...for her,
> it's a real, um, pain more than once a week....
Radical differences in sexual desire is another red flag.
> LOL -- this helps me reconsider my yearning for her....
I guess so. Three red flags should make you reconsider.
> But, as we all know, she, just, doesn't, care, any, more, period.
Then begin your recovery and look for greener pastures.
> Whoops, wait a minute, I did forget -- just about anybody would do for
> her, as long as he isn't ugly, old, or handicapped. I still don't
> think she's going to find better (than me), but, you know, not every
> one needs to drive a fancy car.
Not everyone even *wants* a fancy car. Too expensive to buy, too
expensive to keep, and the damned thing won't do what I want anyway. ;-)
> Shit, I just remembered: if I'm going to get my heart broken, let it
> be by a drop-dead gorgeous girl at least! What am I doing, pining for
> just-another-face-in-the-crowd....
Sour grapes. I've done that too.
>> She is looking out for her happiness. You were looking out for yours
>> when you refused to marry her.
> I really believe I had both our interests in mind, though certainly my
> own dominated. But that's the difference between me and most folks --
> and I say that not proudly, but sadly.
It's honest.
>> Now you need to find someone whose views are a bit more harmonious
>> with yours.
> Um, yeah, that would help! =)
And the search rages on. ;-)
> But yeah, I'm moving on. Thanks for the push.
Just be careful of the cliff. ;-)
> Anyway, as we say in the Army, "suck it up and drive on!"
I have subscribed to that viewpoint quite a bit as of late.
> It's the funniest thing, possible only in a post-industrialized
> society, I suppose: I really, honestly do feel bad, but it has not
> stopped me from enjoying life.
That's a good thing.
> The only noticeable effect it's had, besides loss of sleep and
> appetite that first week, is that I remain "uninterested" in women!
For ten years after my divorce I remained uninterested in anything,
women or otherwise. It was like a living death, existence in name
only. I am still recovering from it.
>> Wow, talk about a radical switch! I used to think as you do now, and
>> you used to think as I do now. This is bizarre! ;-)
> Two ships passing in the night, strewing wreckage and refuse along....
> =)
Oh, the stench!!! ;-)
>> I think my attitude is a protection mechanism more than anything else.
> That's the thing: protecting what? The old? No pain, no gain!
I suppose that's why I haven't gained much of anything. I have lived
pretty much in a vacuum until recently. I am striving to make myself
more willing to risk the pain.
> But when is that the case? That's what's so hard...how does one
> know??
I don't think there is really any "knowing", except in a few rare
examples.
> That's why most of us just fall back on our feelings...yet those
> feelings are suspect...yet logic itself can only adjudicate process,
> it cannot guarantee result (leaving aside the achievements of
> scientific inquiry for the moment)....
I don't believe anything can guarantee an emotional result, especially
long-term.
>> My "checklist", if you can call it that, is a list of "red flags" that
> Yes, and we all have our own which serve us pretty well, given who we
> are...the difference is that I question mine constantly, whereas most
> people just presume theirs. That's what keeps bugging me about
Mine are presumed and remain constant as a result of past experience.
I may question them later, but for now I haven't found a reason to do
so.
>> I think buying the ticket and hitting the lotto are all part of the
>> same process.
> All right, I see; you wanna get all Zen on me?
Oriental take-out. Sounds good. Who's buying? ;-)
> Fine: how can there be process when there is no movement?
If you start without buying the ticket, then yes, there is no
movement. The purchase begins the flow, and the hit or non-hit ends
it. I view it all as one event, where you split it in two.
>> I can relate to that. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of the
>> process of dying.
> But it's the same process! Life, death, rebirth, oblivion, processes
> and results, causes and effects.
That's true, and rationally I see it that way. But emotionally it
seems different.
>> Apparently it meant more than an "external trapping" to her. She
>> probably viewed it as a "need" that was "unfulfilled".
> And so I say again, to you as I did to her: what need(s) does marriage
> fulfill? Maybe there's another way of fulfilling it/them -- provided
> that they turn out to be "legitimiate."
I have no way of knowing. The desire for marriage usually stems from
a religious background, and it's possible that may be the reason she
wants it.
> this in mind (though I'm an atheist)...someone better will come along.
>
> I just hate to think that way, though, like we're talking cars or
> computers.
Sometimes thinking that way helps with the coping process.
>> It doesn't make sense because you don't understand it. My guess is
>> that she doesn't understand your reluctance.
> Um, so let's talk! That's my biggest frustration of all...the
> near-complete lack of dialogue...never a good time to talk -- during
> bad times, there's no need, we're breaking up anyway; during good
> times, we can't, don't want to cause a break up....
So goes many a disfunctional relationship.
>> Face-to-face interaction is much more difficult than bouncing messages
>> through a computer network.
> Hey, we could have talked over the phone, or corresponded via
> e-mail...the point is to communicate! It's sooooo ironic that I'm the
> guy and yet she's the silent one.
Guys don't have the market cornered on stoicism.
>> Perhaps she broke off with you simply
>> because you met all her needs save one -- marriage.
> Yeah, and as I've put it to her, why not accept 95%, or 90%, or 80%??
> Gosh, I mean, I'm in love with her, but aside from a great smile most
> people would just call her short and fat and brainless too! I know my
> family did.
"Yeah, but I want the *whole* enchilada!!"
>> Perhaps the reason for the break was that she feared any further
>> interaction with you would cause her to sacrifice that one need so
>> she could continue with you; a need she may have regarded as more
>> important than anything else.
> Yes, that's possible...but I wonder...I...aw, what the hell.
The horse is dead. Stop whipping it and bury the damned thing. ;-)
> You know what it really is? I'm afraid to move on -- not 'cause I
> don't think I'll "get some," but because, I think, I don't want to
> admit to myself that we're all really that replaceable == "expendable"
> -- and that I'm really like any other person, that all this hurt is
> just like a kid crying over dropped ice cream, no big deal and not the
> high-falutin' melodrama of "love" I'm taking/making it....
>
> There's no such thing as "love"...there is only ever a set of needs
> and a checklist of wants that interact like variables in an equation.
>
> Hmmm...well, that's just the mechanics of it all...hmm...the parts
> make up the whole....
>
> It would have been nice to explore these things with her.
I know. I used to feel like that. The dazzle of a special romance.
Then reality hit me across the face with a 2x4. The way it is seldom
is the way we want it. I have a vague memory of a song with one line
in it that sums it all up: "If you can't be with the one you love,
love the one you're with". How's that for parts interchangeability? ;-)
>> True. And that is usually when they are the most dangerous.
> Ha, yeah. What am I saying...danger makes for excitement! Yes, I had
> sensed the dangers...if I'm gonna be truthful about all this, then
> part of the attraction was how dangerous this all seemed -- red flags
> out the wazoo (nine guys [before me] in eleven years, with no more
> than a month between each, and sex by the second week of dating, etc.
>
> Yeah, truth to tell, I liked the whole challenge of it...for some
> reason, that didn't turn me off, though it gave me pause....
You have more guts than I. That information would definitely been a
deal-killer for me. Four red flags and counting. ;-)
>> Sometimes you may need to be the one to tell them. I have had such
>> occasions.
> Hmm...ugh....
"Hello, Reality. My name is Dreamer. I should say it's a pleasure to
meet you, but..." ;-)
>> Semantics and innuendoes have often been my undoing. I remember a long
>> time ago I had a long and very distressing argument with someone. The
>> argument was resolved simply because a third person happened to
>> recognize that we were both saying the same thing. We agreed with each
>> other without realizing it. Language is so cumbersome.
> Yeah...why do females insist on it? Let's just get down to sex,
> godamit!
That would make it too simple. Complication and strife seem to make it
all the more worthwhile. ;-)
> There, there...I think I'm regaining my soldierly pride now...I'm
> just getting old, that's it....
Is that you in the bulldozer? I have one foot in the grave, the other
on a banana peel, and you've got that thing full-throttle bearing down
on me. Umm, tell me this; will I be part of the peel or will my neck
be broken from the six-foot drop? ;-)
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> From what you say of her when you were together, she probably does.
I'd say most females do. I mean, they take so much joy in picking
things out, imagining what goes where, they really do deserve a space
-- a Woolfian room of their own -- a whole house of hopes met and
faith in the future with which to play out their ambitions, like how a
sculptor deserves his chisel and his chisel its hard rock, or how a
bird deserves its flight and earth her heaven.
Damn, it would have been great to have been her chisel, her heaven,
her flight. I mean, I'm one of those adjustable tools...you just need
to outfit me with the right drill, the right bit, the right head, is
all...you gotta talk to me, damn it!!
> You two were probably not on the same wavelength.
Yes, we werent', but we could have been, and still can be. It's just
a matter of adjustment....
> Different folk deal with unpleasantness in a variety of ways. I was
> married for ten years before my ex-wife decided that she didn't want
> to be married anymore; not to me or anyone else. I later found out
> that she lived her entire life that way; jumping from one whimsical
> decision to another without any specific goal to guide those
> decisions. At least the woman you were with has some idea what she
> wants.
Hardly a better case if those ideas are unexamined (Socrates: "the
unexamined life is not worth living"). Whatever the intent, the
effect is the same: bar-hopping, bed-hopping, bargain-hunting,
window-shopping....
I guess she was just trying things out, really....
But, wow, ten years...!! Do you, um, keep in touch?
> OK, not very clear, eh? Her goal is to get married. Her immediate goal
> was to marry you, which was thwarted by your reluctance to comply.
Geez, and the unions want more money all the time, and management
doesn't want to pay more. But you go back and negotiate, you keep
engaging, interacting....
Of course, the presumption here is interest -- she ain't interested in
negotiation. I'm only wondering if it's a matter of pain, or
sloth...it's not like we didn't have our great times together in all
of four years! I guess it really is a matter of her biological clock
(that kinda thing), where she has no faith in the negotiations, no
faith that we'll meet somewhere...I guess she really believes that I'd
abandon her, and she's fast running out of time at 27 (with a kid in
tow) to continue finding out or to bother negotiating....
Thing is, she doesn't explain anything...I'm just left scratching my
head.
> Marriage can be a strategic alliance in some cases, but I don't
> believe that applies to her. As for my notions, IMHO, restated,
> relationships are economic in nature, which doesn't necessarily mean
> "strategic". I personally have never knowingly involved myself in an
> intimate relationship which was motivated by strategy. That is truly a
> cold-hearted maneuver, one which could only be instigated by a
> soulless ghoul.
Um, that's a connotation of the word you're bringing to the table, as
opposed to its denotation as given in a dictionary. "Strategic"
simply means, usually, long-range plans (of that quality; "-ic").
Well, anyway...whatever the semantics, it's a piss-poor missing of the
point of a relationship to let that kind of consideration dominate
perceptions.
> Again, your attitude is thus because you two can't agree. There are
> materialistic reasons why one would choose not to marry, especially
> for a man, considering the misandrist laws in effect regarding the
> subject. She could be viewing your stance in that light.
Um, if she is, why not talk to me about it, allay my fears, etc.?
That's my reigning frustration...so hard to get through to this girl!
Her only real flaw, actually...but I chalk it up to her childhood
traumas of extreme poverty (as in, near-death), sexual abuse, etc.
Poor darling!!! What horrors she faced, such that this habit of
silence is the only good response she's developed....
> For you it was four years and for me it was ten. I really don't think
> numbers have anything to do with it.
Um, it's not just "numbers" in an absolute, Platonic sense -- they're
numbers of years, numbers of numbers, each one a mask for an event, an
incident, a smile, a laugh, a tear, a meeting of minds, a melting of
hearts, a frost on the tongue, a squeeze of the eyes...the world
exists in time, and numbers measure it....
But, golly, ten years!
> As a personal preference, I don't care much for a woman with a flighty
> personality, no matter how good she may look.
But it's not just looks -- and, as I said, she's overweight by
forty-fifty pounds, etc. It's also her winning sense of humor, her
style, her spirit, her simple soul, etc.
> From what I've seen, any time someone sets roots in a situation and
> allows all things meaningful to be tethered to it, if and when that
> situation changes that person's life seems to collapse. I have seen it
> too many times and experienced it far more often than I cared to.
And that's called committment, and all life involves it. It's ironic
she wants to be "married" and all that without realizing that she's
got committment from me already...like missing the forest for the
trees (or, more precisely, the trees for the forest).
> You lost a treasure and you keep digging in the same ground over and
> over hoping to find it again. Guess what? You're human. That's what we
> do when we suffer a loss that we don't understand.
That's a great illustration, that analogy.
> If that's what it takes to help yourself through this, then perhaps
> you need to embrace that concept.
It's hard to, because I'd have to become one with it -- with apathy.
Do I really want to be apathetic? In mourning, I think I also am
"honoring" myself, as much pain as that involves. It just doesn't
seem like an end becoming an affair like this.
> I can relate to that kind of feeling. Unfortunately I can't offer any
> solace for that. All I can say is the pain will fade over time. It has
> for me, anyway. It hasn't disappeared, but it isn't as intense as it
> was.
It's not the pain I'm worried about, it's the cause for the pain, the
knowledge that that "cuteness" is gone from my life forever! It's
like my mother dying...the finality of it all, of something so
unique...it really shakes me, literally, like a fear, though I'm not
afraid of the pain, inconvenient as it is, uncomfortable as it is --
hell, heart-wrenching and gut-busting as it is! No, I could live with
pain, if only pleasure compensated for it...and the focus of my trauma
isn't the pain, but that I won't see her anymore, I won't enjoy her
company anymore (and of course her sexual favors).
> I didn't say there wasn't pleasure there. I say the pleasure would
> have been much better without the disagreement.
Right-o. So, you can't have 100% so you just do totally without?
Of course, her "focus" is obviously different...as much as she may
have enjoyed me, it seems that her "prime directive" was to get
*things* done (marriage, etc.) as opposed to *loving* a
person...she'll love a person -- enjoy the person, etc. -- *within*
the context of getting business done, to put it bluntly....
> That is your view. My view is that the *disagreement* between the both
> of you is creating the dissatisfaction. Don't search for blame in
> this. There isn't any. A difference of opinion or divergence of
> desires doesn't assign blame.
Not "blame" as such -- "explanations." It helps a bit -- and any lil'
bit helps -- to *know*...my heart may still ache for her smile, her
touch, but at least my brain can stopping spinning for a reason, a
why, a how come, a what-if....
> I'm glad I'm doing some good other than beating you about the head and
> shoulders concerning what you should and shouldn't do. ;-)
Oh, that helps too...if two heads are better than one, and mine can
only spin in the mud of this disaster, then yours is the front-wheel
drive doing its share. =)
> > She has a different model of how things should be. She doesn't
> > realize that it's just a conception, one to which she needn't be
> > wedded or chained. The '50s-ish wifey thing. We can create something
> > just for ourselves...no need to use the standard. She doesn't realize
> > this.
> >
> > Now obviously the "old way" of doing things suit her at some emotional
> > level. But we can investigate that and identify exactly what needs
> > are being fulfilled by that old model of relationships, and whether
> > something "functionally equivalent" may be created within a new
> > framework....
>
> Is she in any way religious? That may have a strong bearing on the
> reason for your disagreement.
Naw, except, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, she thinks she's
going to hell for having slept with so many guys outside of wedlock.
Thing is, though, she doesn't *do* anything different, actually live
her life any different, so....
Anyway, it's all those things, sure -- the bio clock, the "keeping up
with the Joneses," the bit of superstition thrown in, her mother's
advice (damn in-laws!)...I was just hoping -- and continue to hope --
that our love was better than that, bigger than that, above all
that....
> Hmm, a "Windows" girl, eh? Likes the pretty pictures and mousey-clicks
> but can't handle scripts and command-lines? ;-)
Yup! That's really one way of looking at things. She wants to pop in
her CD and play the game -- no driver configurations, etc. She'll
tolerate an installation process, but that's basically about all.
> My mind knows almost all there is to know about getting and keeping a
> good relationship. My heart knows absolutely nothing. There must be a
> way to get the two to communicate, wouldn't you say?
I'm afraid it's called "practice." =\
> Most folk have difficulty expressing their desires. Oddly enough, the
> more intense the desire, the more difficult it is to express it. This
> factor alone has plagued almost every relationship I have had.
Yeah, "if you love me you would know"...well, if I were a Jedi I
would, too, but outside of that, what's wrong with your mouth and
tongue? Your heart, your head? Did God give you all that to have me
read it??
> That may or may not be good, depending on the alternative.
?
> That could be cause for concern.
Indeed! So let's TALK...sigh!
> An undisciplined child is definitely a red flag. That would have been
> a deal-breaker for me.
But it's *her* I love! We're not talking a business transaction...aw,
hell, whatever's clever...like I said, my innoncence and bravery is
leaving with this one....
> A second red flag, another deal-breaker.
Well, like I said...I do love her, I'm crazy about her! You're saying
to control my feelings for her, in essence...but I can only control
them by mentally distancing myself from them, enough to view them not
as my own but as someone else's, to have this split in my
consciousness between what I want and what I want to do about that
want, to become alienated from myself....
Anyway, it's done all the time in daily life -- but this is "love"
we're talking about here...I suppose that it requires the same
quotidian discipline, too...sigh...I'd imagined it would be an Eden on
earth...uh....
> That is another cause for concern.
But, as I have said, the sex was that good, and outside of that she
had me laughing so much, such that, Scheherazade-like, she lead me
past all these "red flags"....
Hell, I too would opt for Sissyphus' fate were I to enjoy futility as
much as he. Likewise, despite all these red flags, which caused such
inconvenience, to put it charitably, I still loved being with
her...those things, all those red flags, I considered not really *of*
her....
> Financial concerns can be a thorn in the side.
Yeah. Even among the best couples, it's finances -- and not sex --
over which they most quarrel.
> Radical differences in sexual desire is another red flag.
But she was for the most part very accomodating, so I can't fault her.
She did try, at least -- and she fucks like a champ.
> I guess so. Three red flags should make you reconsider.
But at the end of the day, between her "cutenss" and her "sexiness,"
I'm willing to put up with all that!
> Then begin your recovery and look for greener pastures.
It's begun...just a rumbling, rambling, rough-and-tumble start, is
all....
> Not everyone even *wants* a fancy car. Too expensive to buy, too
> expensive to keep, and the damned thing won't do what I want anyway. ;-)
Yeah, exactly. The things she liked about me she really did not need,
it now turns out. I still say she should reexamine her "needs,"
but...oh well....
> Sour grapes. I've done that too.
That's why love is the triumph of the imagination over the intellect,
why the brain is the only real sex organ. I just don't want to think
differently of her...that would indeed make a "hypocrite" of me and my
words of four years....
> It's honest.
Yeah, well, like I say, my innocence and bravery is leaving with
her....
> And the search rages on. ;-)
And I thought search engines sucked!
> Just be careful of the cliff. ;-)
Hell, I can swim!
> I have subscribed to that viewpoint quite a bit as of late.
As I have left it of late. Time to be a man again!
> That's a good thing.
But it makes me sad, too: so there is life after love?
> For ten years after my divorce I remained uninterested in anything,
> women or otherwise. It was like a living death, existence in name
> only. I am still recovering from it.
But what a state! Better to be a fool about things and feel alive,
eh, then live the detached existence of one who's seen too much.
No, no, actually, I can't believe that...I too would have chosen
Knowledge over Eden....
> Oh, the stench!!! ;-)
Flies come out of nowhere to buzz open wounds....
> I suppose that's why I haven't gained much of anything. I have lived
> pretty much in a vacuum until recently. I am striving to make myself
> more willing to risk the pain.
Damn it, yes! Don't you quit on yourself! We fear the night, until
we make a friend of it.
> I don't think there is really any "knowing", except in a few rare
> examples.
Yeah, well, that's the thing...it boils down to some kind of faith.
> I don't believe anything can guarantee an emotional result, especially
> long-term.
Um, no, well, if we live in a world of cause-and-effect, then there
are, well, if not "pure" guarantees, then at least extremely likely
probabilities, such that knowing all the factors involved will,
through their proper manipulation, return a desired result....
> Mine are presumed and remain constant as a result of past experience.
> I may question them later, but for now I haven't found a reason to do
> so.
Yeah, well, I always question mine...I guess I like to tinker with
things, and I bring that same curiosity to bear on my beliefs as
well....
> Oriental take-out. Sounds good. Who's buying? ;-)
Kung-Pao Heartbreak. Curry Heartache. Heart in Wailing Tears Sauce.
Chopped Sauteed Heart. Grilled Nerves. Beliefs Brisque Soup.
Roasted Foot in Mouth. Lemon Eyeball Pudding. Butterflies in Stomach
Pie.
> If you start without buying the ticket, then yes, there is no
> movement. The purchase begins the flow, and the hit or non-hit ends
> it. I view it all as one event, where you split it in two.
To speak of one is to imply two and assume duality. It is all
illusion.
> That's true, and rationally I see it that way. But emotionally it
> seems different.
Hmm, seems like "emotionally" it would all feel as one,
"intellectually" we can split infinite hairs.
> I have no way of knowing. The desire for marriage usually stems from
> a religious background, and it's possible that may be the reason she
> wants it.
No, not really, though a bit, yes...some sort of security, I think,
and just that stubbornness some have towards a childhood ambition no
matter what the adult circumstances....
> Sometimes thinking that way helps with the coping process.
Yeah, true.
That bitch! That whore had someone all along!
Ach...but I still want her, love her.
> So goes many a disfunctional relationship.
Yeah, part of the horror is that I'd anything to do with it.
> Guys don't have the market cornered on stoicism.
I doubt it's real Marcus-Aurealian stoicism. She's running away.
> "Yeah, but I want the *whole* enchilada!!"
Yeah, this is like a cat chasing its tail.
> The horse is dead. Stop whipping it and bury the damned thing. ;-)
That's just what I mean. I wish she'd attended our funeral, know what
I mean? Like a ghost looking for its head....
> I know. I used to feel like that. The dazzle of a special romance.
> Then reality hit me across the face with a 2x4. The way it is seldom
> is the way we want it. I have a vague memory of a song with one line
> in it that sums it all up: "If you can't be with the one you love,
> love the one you're with". How's that for parts interchangeability? ;-)
Yeah, I dig that, 'cause it's referring to process, the action of
love, the journey of care and understanding, as opposed to the
destination, the goal, the particular object of love.
> You have more guts than I. That information would definitely been a
> deal-killer for me. Four red flags and counting. ;-)
I used to be Army Infantry. And, truth to tell, we were always
getting the shaft by girls back home, etc. I'm just getting old and
soft about all this.
> "Hello, Reality. My name is Dreamer. I should say it's a pleasure to
> meet you, but..." ;-)
Rather like playing chess with oneself, no? A harder opponent than
Death.
> That would make it too simple. Complication and strife seem to make it
> all the more worthwhile. ;-)
Damn civilization! Sometimes I think I really could endure mosquito
bites and such for a convenient romp with any village girl any time
any day any how.
I look forward to some Star Trek-future where sex is as easy as coffee
and where no one is starved anymore for the whole breakfast to follow.
> Is that you in the bulldozer? I have one foot in the grave, the other
> on a banana peel, and you've got that thing full-throttle bearing down
> on me. Umm, tell me this; will I be part of the peel or will my neck
> be broken from the six-foot drop? ;-)
"Well, hullo! What do you mean you don't know of any highway
overpass? The plans have been in the basement cabinet room of Town
Hall for the past three days!"
I swear, that was exactly what she pulled on me this time...we'd
always broken up and made up, but this is definitely new...so of
course she had been cheating one me!
But I do love her. I'd still take her back. I believe in her.
KrosRogue
> Damn, it would have been great to have been her chisel, her heaven,
> her flight. I mean, I'm one of those adjustable tools...you just need
> to outfit me with the right drill, the right bit, the right head, is
> all...you gotta talk to me, damn it!!
I used to be that way, too. I am nowhere near as malleable these days.
> But, wow, ten years...!! Do you, um, keep in touch?
I saw her one time a few days after the divorce was final for the
financial arrangements. I never saw her or communicated with her in
any way after that. What followed was a blur of meaningless events for
the following ten years.
>> OK, not very clear, eh? Her goal is to get married. Her immediate goal
>> was to marry you, which was thwarted by your reluctance to comply.
> Geez, and the unions want more money all the time, and management
> doesn't want to pay more. But you go back and negotiate, you keep
> engaging, interacting....
>
> Of course, the presumption here is interest -- she ain't interested in
> negotiation. I'm only wondering if it's a matter of pain, or
> sloth...it's not like we didn't have our great times together in all
> of four years! I guess it really is a matter of her biological clock
Bingo! I think you are beginning to understand. The interest must be
there. You apparently made it very clear to her that marriage was not
an option. From what I understand of what you told me, when she
realized that there was no way you would ever marry her, it was over.
I think that's why she kept harping on the "four years", because
that's how long it took her to realize that you really meant what you
said.
> Thing is, she doesn't explain anything...I'm just left scratching my
> head.
I suppose she thought you did enough explaining for her. How many
times did she bring up the subject of marriage during your four years
together?
>> Marriage can be a strategic alliance in some cases, but I don't
>> believe that applies to her. As for my notions, IMHO, restated,
>> relationships are economic in nature, which doesn't necessarily mean
>> "strategic". I personally have never knowingly involved myself in an
>> intimate relationship which was motivated by strategy. That is truly a
>> cold-hearted maneuver, one which could only be instigated by a
>> soulless ghoul.
> Um, that's a connotation of the word you're bringing to the table, as
> opposed to its denotation as given in a dictionary. "Strategic"
> simply means, usually, long-range plans (of that quality; "-ic").
My apologies. The emotional impact of some words occasionally tends to
drown out the factual impact. The connotation I derive from that word
is "stealthful manipulation and trickery". My initial response to that
term was more of rage than of analysis.
> Um, it's not just "numbers" in an absolute, Platonic sense -- they're
> numbers of years, numbers of numbers, each one a mask for an event, an
> incident, a smile, a laugh, a tear, a meeting of minds, a melting of
> hearts, a frost on the tongue, a squeeze of the eyes...the world
> exists in time, and numbers measure it....
>
> But, golly, ten years!
That just shows that no one knows for sure about anything. Longevity
in many relationships sometimes demonstrate nothing more than
exceptional skill in deception.
> And that's called committment, and all life involves it. It's ironic
> she wants to be "married" and all that without realizing that she's
> got committment from me already...like missing the forest for the
> trees (or, more precisely, the trees for the forest).
Apparently, in her case, anything other than marriage does not mean
"commitment" by her standards.
> It's hard to, because I'd have to become one with it -- with apathy.
> Do I really want to be apathetic? In mourning, I think I also am
> "honoring" myself, as much pain as that involves. It just doesn't
> seem like an end becoming an affair like this.
I had to become apathetic in order to cope with my stressful feelings.
That may or may not be helpful for you.
> It's not the pain I'm worried about, it's the cause for the pain, the
> knowledge that that "cuteness" is gone from my life forever! It's
> like my mother dying...the finality of it all, of something so
> unique...it really shakes me, literally, like a fear, though I'm not
> afraid of the pain, inconvenient as it is, uncomfortable as it is --
> hell, heart-wrenching and gut-busting as it is! No, I could live with
> pain, if only pleasure compensated for it...and the focus of my trauma
> isn't the pain, but that I won't see her anymore, I won't enjoy her
> company anymore (and of course her sexual favors).
I think the pain is all of what you describe; the loss, the feeling of
hopelessness.
> Not "blame" as such -- "explanations." It helps a bit -- and any lil'
> bit helps -- to *know*...my heart may still ache for her smile, her
> touch, but at least my brain can stopping spinning for a reason, a
> why, a how come, a what-if....
That's a harsh punishment to inflict upon yourself. You may have to
accept the fact that you may not get an explanation that you find
satisfactory. Then move on.
>> I'm glad I'm doing some good other than beating you about the head and
>> shoulders concerning what you should and shouldn't do. ;-)
> Oh, that helps too...if two heads are better than one, and mine can
> only spin in the mud of this disaster, then yours is the front-wheel
> drive doing its share. =)
We'll get a laugh or two as we muddle through. ;-)
>> Is she in any way religious? That may have a strong bearing on the
>> reason for your disagreement.
> Anyway, it's all those things, sure -- the bio clock, the "keeping up
> with the Joneses," the bit of superstition thrown in, her mother's
> advice (damn in-laws!)...I was just hoping -- and continue to hope --
> that our love was better than that, bigger than that, above all
> that....
Only time will tell. Sheesh, how cliche is that? ;-)
>> Hmm, a "Windows" girl, eh? Likes the pretty pictures and mousey-clicks
>> but can't handle scripts and command-lines? ;-)
> Yup! That's really one way of looking at things. She wants to pop in
> her CD and play the game -- no driver configurations, etc. She'll
> tolerate an installation process, but that's basically about all.
OUCH!! No matter what your heart tells you, you've got to know that
ain't right! ;-)
>> My mind knows almost all there is to know about getting and keeping a
>> good relationship. My heart knows absolutely nothing. There must be a
>> way to get the two to communicate, wouldn't you say?
> I'm afraid it's called "practice." =\
And they say it's supposed to "make perfect". I'm still searching for
the proof. ;-)
>> Most folk have difficulty expressing their desires. Oddly enough, the
>> more intense the desire, the more difficult it is to express it. This
>> factor alone has plagued almost every relationship I have had.
> Yeah, "if you love me you would know"...well, if I were a Jedi I
SH*T!!! The next B*TCH that says THAT to me will get dumped just for
saying it!!! I am not a telepath, though I dearly wish I were.
> would, too, but outside of that, what's wrong with your mouth and
> tongue? Your heart, your head? Did God give you all that to have me
> read it??
Amen. ;-)
>> That may or may not be good, depending on the alternative.
> ?
Umm, yeah, cryptic again. "Alternative" meaning how beneficial the
other residence may be compared to the one you have.
>> A second red flag, another deal-breaker.
> Well, like I said...I do love her, I'm crazy about her! You're saying
> to control my feelings for her, in essence...but I can only control
> them by mentally distancing myself from them, enough to view them not
> as my own but as someone else's, to have this split in my
> consciousness between what I want and what I want to do about that
> want, to become alienated from myself....
My red flag, which may or may not be yours. The control required to
distance oneself is difficult. I try to instill such things in myself
as a reflex so I don't have to think so hard about defending myself
against dangerous situations.
> Anyway, it's done all the time in daily life -- but this is "love"
> we're talking about here...I suppose that it requires the same
> quotidian discipline, too...sigh...I'd imagined it would be an Eden on
> earth...uh....
IMHO discipline is required in love.
> Hell, I too would opt for Sissyphus' fate were I to enjoy futility as
> much as he. Likewise, despite all these red flags, which caused such
> inconvenience, to put it charitably, I still loved being with
> her...those things, all those red flags, I considered not really *of*
> her....
I think it's all part of the package. One doesn't come without the
other.
>> I guess so. Three red flags should make you reconsider.
> But at the end of the day, between her "cutenss" and her "sexiness,"
> I'm willing to put up with all that!
I don't think I could allow that to happen to me again.
>> Then begin your recovery and look for greener pastures.
> It's begun...just a rumbling, rambling, rough-and-tumble start, is
> all....
That is the customary starting procedure. ;-)
> That's why love is the triumph of the imagination over the intellect,
> why the brain is the only real sex organ. I just don't want to think
> differently of her...that would indeed make a "hypocrite" of me and my
> words of four years....
I prefer to keep my intellect in proper control and battle-ready for
any rude surprises.
>> And the search rages on. ;-)
> And I thought search engines sucked!
They do. But one needs to rely on the available resources. ;-)
>> Just be careful of the cliff. ;-)
> Hell, I can swim!
Through rocks? There's an interesting trick! Teach me how! ;-)
>> That's a good thing.
> But it makes me sad, too: so there is life after love?
And there is love too. But it's the passing time that seems the most
agonizing.
>> Oh, the stench!!! ;-)
> Flies come out of nowhere to buzz open wounds....
I don't intend to make that trip again any time soon. ;-)
>> I suppose that's why I haven't gained much of anything. I have lived
>> pretty much in a vacuum until recently. I am striving to make myself
>> more willing to risk the pain.
> Damn it, yes! Don't you quit on yourself! We fear the night, until
> we make a friend of it.
Another example of what my mind sees but my heart has yet to dare to
open it's eyes.
>> I don't think there is really any "knowing", except in a few rare
>> examples.
> Yeah, well, that's the thing...it boils down to some kind of faith.
Isn't that really why we keep trying?
>> I don't believe anything can guarantee an emotional result, especially
>> long-term.
> Um, no, well, if we live in a world of cause-and-effect, then there
> are, well, if not "pure" guarantees, then at least extremely likely
> probabilities, such that knowing all the factors involved will,
> through their proper manipulation, return a desired result....
The trick seems to be matching a desired result with the proper
catalyst. That which we fail to understand is what we call magic. ;-)
>> Oriental take-out. Sounds good. Who's buying? ;-)
> Kung-Pao Heartbreak. Curry Heartache. Heart in Wailing Tears Sauce.
> Chopped Sauteed Heart. Grilled Nerves. Beliefs Brisque Soup.
> Roasted Foot in Mouth. Lemon Eyeball Pudding. Butterflies in Stomach
> Pie.
Yuck! I had all those. Not a good selection from the whole mess. Any
plans on adding anything pleasant to the menu? ;-)
>> That's true, and rationally I see it that way. But emotionally it
>> seems different.
> Hmm, seems like "emotionally" it would all feel as one,
> "intellectually" we can split infinite hairs.
"Intellectually", one could get quite acrobatic with mental
gymnastics. ;-)
>> "Hello, Reality. My name is Dreamer. I should say it's a pleasure to
>> meet you, but..." ;-)
> Rather like playing chess with oneself, no? A harder opponent than
> Death.
One has to admit it is a rather sick joke, eh? ;-)
> I look forward to some Star Trek-future where sex is as easy as coffee
> and where no one is starved anymore for the whole breakfast to follow.
I thoroughly enjoyed most of John Norman's books of Gor. That's the
stuff *real* fantasies are made of!! ;-)
> I swear, that was exactly what she pulled on me this time...we'd
> always broken up and made up, but this is definitely new...so of
> course she had been cheating one me!
>
> But I do love her. I'd still take her back. I believe in her.
I never have gone back to one with whom I had a bad relationship. I
don't think I ever will. I think that once the damage has been
elevated to that level it becomes irreparable. Many disagree, but I
can't think of a valid counter-argument regarding my past
relationships.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> I used to be that way, too. I am nowhere near as malleable these days.
I'm just really, deeply hurt...but I know -- though I don't often feel
it -- that I will get through this vale of tears...this is just quite
a personal set-back: four years' in the making, and all come to
naught, and quite a terrible collapse, too.
Sometimes I think we're really truly just the way we are, if you know
what I mean...there aren't really any "life-changing experiences,"
there are only events and incidents which bring out what was always
within us, somewhere...it's just that, with the way memory and
self-identity works in conjunction, we perceive it as a change, when
it fact it was just an un-covering, a discovery.....
> I saw her one time a few days after the divorce was final for the
> financial arrangements. I never saw her or communicated with her in
> any way after that. What followed was a blur of meaningless events for
> the following ten years.
Has the decade truly been so meaningless? I can't honestly imagine
that anyone could have "zoned out" or "tuned out" for all that
time...again, it may just be one of "conscious perception" (that bit
above about the way memory works with notions of
self-identity)...that's just the horror I fear, that living death...I
mourn the loss of myself, of some of the best I had to offer; I'm
afraid that I won't be so "brave" and "innocent" anymore...and I hope
I'm wrong -- I hope *you're* wrong, wrong about your ten meaningless
years...for that implicates me; anything that happens to anyone could
theoretically happen to anyone else....
> Bingo! I think you are beginning to understand. The interest must be
> there. You apparently made it very clear to her that marriage was not
> an option. From what I understand of what you told me, when she
> realized that there was no way you would ever marry her, it was over.
> I think that's why she kept harping on the "four years", because
> that's how long it took her to realize that you really meant what you
> said.
BUT I NEVER SAID MY NO WAS ABSOLUTE! I'VE ONLY REGISTERED MY
***RELUCTANCE***, MY RELUCTANCE ***AT THIS TIME*** -- THAT WE SHOULD
DEFINITELY PLAN THINGS OUT!!!
That's a whole galaxy away from "never"!!
> I suppose she thought you did enough explaining for her. How many
> times did she bring up the subject of marriage during your four years
> together?
Never "brought it up" as such...she'd mention it, and I'd agree, and
then it was all just fantasy...it was almost a way of saying "I'm
really having a good time, wow let's do this again" more than
anything....
Then there were those times when she sounded more anxious, when it was
more by way of asking "you're not going to leave me, are you?" than
anything else...and unfortunately I do recall that sometimes I took
the question literally (that is, "why don't we get married?" as
opposed to "you're not going to leave me, are you?") and got
business-like...you know, like how she might ask whether some dress
looked good on her, and she's not asking for my honest opinion, she's
asking for me to affirm her tastes....
Fucking women, god damn! Sigh.
> My apologies. The emotional impact of some words occasionally tends to
> drown out the factual impact. The connotation I derive from that word
> is "stealthful manipulation and trickery". My initial response to that
> term was more of rage than of analysis.
Right, just like a woman! =)
That's my problem of late (the past decade, really): I'm taking people
literally, because I expect them to be adults and say what they mean
and mean what they say -- I'm not expecting them to be like
Shakespeare, where I have to gauge the subtext and all that...looking
back on Claudia, I guess part of where I got sloppy was in expecting
so much of her in this regard...I really didn't want to play
"emotional masseur" when it came to weighty questions like marriage
and so forth -- and as any player knows, when women talk about stuff
like that, you've got to string 'em along, feed them whatever they
want! Much as they ask *you*, what they're "really" interested in is
hearing you "mirror" *them*!
> That just shows that no one knows for sure about anything. Longevity
> in many relationships sometimes demonstrate nothing more than
> exceptional skill in deception.
Yup, there you go. I don't think we disagree...not really...but
there's this funny thing, where, just like with Claudia, it's like, we
don't really disagree, but for some reason we get lost in the
details....
I mean, we really wanted each other! I thought that was a common
denominator...I don't see why, given that, we couldn't have worked
something out...I mean, I think I know why, as in what happened, more
or less, but in theory, there shouldn't have been a break-up, it was
just a matter of determination, of time, when things got tough (as
happens in any relationship)....
> Apparently, in her case, anything other than marriage does not mean
> "commitment" by her standards.
You know, she could have let me know?
You know how there are limits to the laws of physics that
microprocessor designers keep bumping into? This is the case
here...she's got her limits as a human being...communication is just
not her "thang"...matter of fact, bad times just aren't things she's
capable of handling...she's the brush-under-the-carpet type...in my
hurt, I guess this is the only way to look at things: that I'm just
trying to squeeze water out of a stone, like...if I bleed, that's
really my fault....
Only thing is that I never figured her for a stone, a block-head...I
hate to say this -- and I've never denied (even accepted) that she
wasn't the proverbial sharpest pencil in the box -- but above and
beyond that I feel like the only way to "explain" things is to just
chalk it up to the limits of her imagination....
> I had to become apathetic in order to cope with my stressful feelings.
> That may or may not be helpful for you.
I know, I know -- that's a time-honored psychological defense
mechanism...but is that something I would choose, encourage, seek
out?? I do believe that part of, um, how shall I put this, of...um,
"what's wrong with her," is that as a young child she's learned just
that kind of behavior in dealing with trauma (starvation poverty, sex
abuse, etc.) so that that's just her modus operandi...but...hell,
she's an adult, and I'm here for her, why won't she work with me --
for us????
Ugh...I'm a cat chasing its own tail...I hope I get dizzy and pass out
soon....
> I think the pain is all of what you describe; the loss, the feeling of
> hopelessness.
Yeah, it is...I only wish I could *believe* in something which made
the pain worthwhile...it isn't *just* the pain, the actual sense of
irreplaceable, irrevocable loss -- it's the knowledge, moreover, that
there's no "cause," no good reason for it...no higher good, no better
future -- this doesn't feel like a sacrifice, it feels like being
mugged...it doesn't feel noble, like the pain of defending home and
hearth, even if against overwhelming odds; it feels alternately
shameful and just plain stupid, like that dog with the bone in its
mouth who chanced upon his reflection in a river and, mistakening that
for another dog, opened his mouth to bark and perhaps win another bone
through intimidation, only to lose his bone to the river's waves....
> That's a harsh punishment to inflict upon yourself. You may have to
> accept the fact that you may not get an explanation that you find
> satisfactory. Then move on.
But I'm telling you that it's like a hunger, a physical need -- how do
you say to the starving to just "move on," etc.?
Again, I know in my *head* that it isn't so, like an actual physical
urge, but insofar as it's an actual physical pang I feel, physical
sensations...how do I move on? It's not like I could just rip my
heart out and leave it in the fridge for a while til it chills out
about this break-up....
Anyway, I must suffer. This is the price. It will have been worth
it, whatever "it" turns out to be. I must believe that. And normally
I do. Just very hard right now to *feel* that, whatwith all the
interference from an aching heart pumping out S.O.S. signals.
> We'll get a laugh or two as we muddle through. ;-)
Is there a "broken hearts" joke book? I must find out...you know how
there are ethnic jokes, dirty jokes, lawyer jokes, there must be a
compendium somewhere of jokes to cheer a broken heart some....
> Only time will tell. Sheesh, how cliche is that? ;-)
But the hour's already struck! And I am late for my funeral.
> OUCH!! No matter what your heart tells you, you've got to know that
> ain't right! ;-)
Well, I honestly believe it is, it just makes so much sense.
And all of us are that way instinctively. I was just hoping, really,
that we've risen above that as a couple after four years.
> And they say it's supposed to "make perfect". I'm still searching for
> the proof. ;-)
Well, there are happy couples, don't you know? I mean, look at Paul
Newman...he and his wife have been together for the longest -- him a
big-time Hollywood babe-magnet....
> SH*T!!! The next B*TCH that says THAT to me will get dumped just for
> saying it!!! I am not a telepath, though I dearly wish I were.
God damn that! The really obnoxious thing about that sentiment is
that they never seem to apply the statement to themselves -- "if I
really loved you ***I*** would...!"
> My red flag, which may or may not be yours. The control required to
> distance oneself is difficult. I try to instill such things in myself
> as a reflex so I don't have to think so hard about defending myself
> against dangerous situations.
But that's just the thing about reflexes -- we've evolved this
reflex/instinct-override called "self-reflective consciousness"
precisely because our instincts are found wanting! So to take an
approach which may have worked once or twice and install it as a
reflex leaves us vulnerable to a changed environment where that reflex
becomes counterproductive....
> IMHO discipline is required in love.
Yes, that's just what I'm saying, it's determination and will! I
really don't think she "patroled" or "shepherded" her feelings well
enough...after all, feelings change, especially with women, you know!
> I think it's all part of the package. One doesn't come without the
> other.
Yes, they come together, though they are not *her*, what makes her
*unique* (which is what makes her *her*)...all those foibles, flaws,
pet peeves...not very unique, we all have them to one degree or
another...put her sense of humor? Her smile? Etc.
(And no, it's not just another pretty smile -- she's the only adult
you'll ever meet with a baby face who actually looks *good* with a
baby face! You know, all the other adults with a baby face
look...silly...almost deformed, if you know what I mean -- like an
adult who basically thinks like a kid...you kind of cringe at that,
like at an actual deformity...nothing personal -- just an instinctual
response...well, Claudia's really telegenic in that regard, and I've
often encouraged her to do modeling work: she ain't got the kind of
looks to be a "babe," sexy as I find her myself, but she's definitely
got the "baby" look...concommittant with that is the unique, G-rated
sense of humor....)
> I don't think I could allow that to happen to me again.
And neither did I, and neither have I in the past...but she is just so
different, she's really captured my imagination! Like I'd said
elsewhere: I never even wanted daughters before her, thinking them a
pain to raise and all that (anorexia, etc.)...but after falling in
love with Claudia, I was just like, wow, it'd be great to have a
little miniature version of her!!!
I mean, c'mon, what wouldn't you do for true love???
> That is the customary starting procedure. ;-)
Yeah...problem is, you've really got to have your heart in it...you
either don't care -- you're a player and they're just pieces of meat,
really, spooge receptacles -- or you care 100% and are in
love...anything half-way will get half-assed results....
> I prefer to keep my intellect in proper control and battle-ready for
> any rude surprises.
Yes, but again -- I'd meant what I said, and I find it hard to go back
on my "words of four years" simply in response to *her* hypocrisy....
> They do. But one needs to rely on the available resources. ;-)
Um, they are the available resources.
> Through rocks? There's an interesting trick! Teach me how! ;-)
OIC...well, there's always the after-life.
> And there is love too. But it's the passing time that seems the most
> agonizing.
Sounds like a bad Cher song (one of her favorite singers!).
> I don't intend to make that trip again any time soon. ;-)
Fine, well, if you're comfy there by your lonesome...! Me, I feel
compelled to this....
> Another example of what my mind sees but my heart has yet to dare to
> open it's eyes.
Well, I can't imagine what you're afraid of...me, I'm not afraid --
I'm more properly described as frustrated, fed-up, not afraid...if the
pain had a meaning to it, a purpose, I'd eat it gladly, as I once did
in my youth when it was all new and I felt I was learning from it....
I mean, what's the disconnect for you between how easily you carry on
here, with me, and someone else in real life??
> Isn't that really why we keep trying?
I think we're compelled to try, we're really driven to it by our
hard-wiring...faith is what makes the effort pleasurable in the face
of set-backs.
> The trick seems to be matching a desired result with the proper
> catalyst. That which we fail to understand is what we call magic. ;-)
Or what women call "love"...doh!
Can't stand how everything just happens for them..."if it's meant to
be, it will be" -- and of course, *guys* make it so, right, we're
doing most of the work, since they're convinced that if it was meant
to be, there's not much they can/should do....
> Yuck! I had all those. Not a good selection from the whole mess. Any
> plans on adding anything pleasant to the menu? ;-)
Can't get the supplies for "Breast-Milk of Human Kindness" or
"Love-Juice from the Cavern of Joy"....
> "Intellectually", one could get quite acrobatic with mental
> gymnastics. ;-)
I really do think it requires a certain intellect and level of
intelligence to love truly...else it's just instinct, codependency,
force of habit....
> One has to admit it is a rather sick joke, eh? ;-)
Yeah, with this kind of a punchline right in the gut.
> I thoroughly enjoyed most of John Norman's books of Gor. That's the
> stuff *real* fantasies are made of!! ;-)
Hm.
> I never have gone back to one with whom I had a bad relationship. I
> don't think I ever will. I think that once the damage has been
> elevated to that level it becomes irreparable. Many disagree, but I
> can't think of a valid counter-argument regarding my past
> relationships.
Well, it depends on your personal thesis regarding human nature.
The short story, I think, is that a relationship is not some static
state, whatever our (mis)perceptions, so even if the last state of
affairs had been bad, it can still be salvaged with the determination
on the part of the two parties involved that comes from genuine love.
What is love? It, like the self, doesn't really exist -- in the sense
that it doesn't exist as a separate entity...it is a by-product of
process: like steam, it doesn't exist of itself, but is born as a
result of a process....
It's like with the, um, experience of a good meal. The having *had* a
good meal is "love"...but before that there the cooking (before which
is the marinating, the chopping, etc.).
We really have got things ass-backwards in our culture (like I always
say, I was born 500 years too early)...we want to get to Heaven, but
don't want to die first -- much less have lived a saintly life. We
want love, without wanting the work, the effort, the constant care and
thought. Sure we all get lazy, and some really slack off...but is it
any reason to call it quits? Outside of violence and stuff like that,
there's no reason why two people ***have to*** break up.
I mean, remember that poor Iraqi nuclear scientist who'd been kept
from his wife for like three decades...Saddam himself had pressured
him to divorce her (long story -- the gist is that he sent them
abroad, to Germany, in order that they may come to no harm on account
of politics), but he would not, and she kept faith with him...thirty
years! And, what happens? The day they were supposed to finally
reunite, at UN HQ in Baghdad, insurgents blow up the builing, with him
inside....
How heartbroken she must be! Yet that was love, don't you think?
Sure they didn't get in each other's hair for the better part of
thirty years...but you know, they really could have "moved on," as the
expression goes...but it was love, it was faith, it was faith in the
future, a belief in themselves and each other...something is terribly
wrong when, instead of that, the standards folks use to guage their
relationship are essentially the same with which they choose their
hamburgers....
Sklenge
> KrosRogue <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:<KrosRogue20040830082734@KrosRogue>...
>>
> Right, just like a woman! =)
>
> That's my problem of late (the past decade, really): I'm taking people
> literally, because I expect them to be adults and say what they mean and mean
> what they say -- I'm not expecting them to be like Shakespeare, where I have
> to gauge the subtext and all that...looking back on Claudia, I guess part of
> where I got sloppy was in expecting so much of her in this regard...I really
> didn't want to play "emotional masseur" when it came to weighty questions like
> marriage and so forth -- and as any player knows, when women talk about stuff
> like that, you've got to string 'em along, feed them whatever they want! Much
> as they ask *you*, what they're "really" interested in is hearing you "mirror"
> *them*!
Erm. I'm not following you on this. Would you re-phrase it for me?
>> We'll get a laugh or two as we muddle through. ;-)
>>
> Is there a "broken hearts" joke book? I must find out...you know how there
> are ethnic jokes, dirty jokes, lawyer jokes, there must be a compendium
> somewhere of jokes to cheer a broken heart some....
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/h--w-men.html
http://www.bandersnatch.com/guideto.htm
http://www.dombescoby.741.com/wbotbh.htm
http://www.butlerwebs.com/jokes/divorce.htm
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> Erm. I'm not following you on this. Would you re-phrase it for me?
Merely that there's this "chick logic" which is really aggravating,
and which makes up for so much of the "game playing" involved...crap
like "if you loved me you would {know, do it, understand, etc.]" or
answering affirmatively when she's really not sure, or saying "maybe"
when she really means "yes," stuff like that...crap like "I love you
always, please don't ever leave me" one month and the next it's "I
don't care for you any more"...constantly (LOL -- except *this* time,
when it's for real! Guess I should have enjoyed those ups and downs
more while they lasted...)....
> http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/h--w-men.html
> http://www.bandersnatch.com/guideto.htm
> http://www.dombescoby.741.com/wbotbh.htm
> http://www.butlerwebs.com/jokes/divorce.htm
Gosh, thanks! See, even search engines don't like me...I'm glad they
work for somebody! (Yes, I'm talking about google!)
KrosRogue
> Sometimes I think we're really truly just the way we are, if you know
> what I mean...there aren't really any "life-changing experiences,"
> there are only events and incidents which bring out what was always
> within us, somewhere...it's just that, with the way memory and
> self-identity works in conjunction, we perceive it as a change, when
> it fact it was just an un-covering, a discovery.....
When everything else is stripped away, that is in fact a life-changing
experience. You discover something new about yourself and hopefully
how to deal with it.
> > I saw her one time a few days after the divorce was final for the
> > financial arrangements. I never saw her or communicated with her in
> > any way after that. What followed was a blur of meaningless events for
> > the following ten years.
>
> Has the decade truly been so meaningless? I can't honestly imagine
Yes and no, much like a thick scab over a deep wound. The scab itself
feels nothing when it is touched, so in that sense it was meaningless.
However, beneath the scab, healing was in progress, so that was
beneficial.
> that anyone could have "zoned out" or "tuned out" for all that
> time...again, it may just be one of "conscious perception" (that bit
> above about the way memory works with notions of
> self-identity)...that's just the horror I fear, that living
> death...I mourn the loss of myself, of some of the best I had to
It was a living death. Folk respond to pain in different ways and feel
it with differing intensities. My pain was unbearably intense and I
responded accordingly.
> offer; I'm afraid that I won't be so "brave" and "innocent"
> anymore...and I hope I'm wrong -- I hope *you're* wrong, wrong about
> your ten meaningless years...for that implicates me; anything that
> happens to anyone could theoretically happen to anyone else....
You are an individual. You will deal with your pain in your own way.
My healing process is nearly complete, even though there is much work
to be done. My death-like "sleep" is ended. My life is a shambles and
I need to rebuild myself again.
> BUT I NEVER SAID MY NO WAS ABSOLUTE! I'VE ONLY REGISTERED MY
> ***RELUCTANCE***, MY RELUCTANCE ***AT THIS TIME*** -- THAT WE SHOULD
> DEFINITELY PLAN THINGS OUT!!!
>
> That's a whole galaxy away from "never"!!
That may very well be true, but it seems the end of your reluctance
may have been outside her time frame and surpassed her patience.
> Never "brought it up" as such...she'd mention it, and I'd agree, and
> then it was all just fantasy...it was almost a way of saying "I'm
> really having a good time, wow let's do this again" more than
> anything....
A fantasy she wanted fulfilled.
> Then there were those times when she sounded more anxious, when it was
> more by way of asking "you're not going to leave me, are you?" than
> anything else...and unfortunately I do recall that sometimes I took
> the question literally (that is, "why don't we get married?" as
> opposed to "you're not going to leave me, are you?") and got
> business-like...you know, like how she might ask whether some dress
> looked good on her, and she's not asking for my honest opinion, she's
> asking for me to affirm her tastes....
If you don't mind my saying so, that's another of my red flags.
> Fucking women, god damn! Sigh.
They can be frustrating when they choose to be.
>> My apologies. The emotional impact of some words occasionally tends to
>> drown out the factual impact. The connotation I derive from that word
>> is "stealthful manipulation and trickery". My initial response to that
>> term was more of rage than of analysis.
> Right, just like a woman! =)
Or a man who has been "strategized" right down the toilet. ;-)
> That's my problem of late (the past decade, really): I'm taking people
> literally, because I expect them to be adults and say what they mean
> and mean what they say -- I'm not expecting them to be like
> Shakespeare, where I have to gauge the subtext and all that...looking
> back on Claudia, I guess part of where I got sloppy was in expecting
> so much of her in this regard...I really didn't want to play
> "emotional masseur" when it came to weighty questions like marriage
Wow! You may wish to rethink that attitude before you start another
relationship. Women seem to require "emotional massaging". ;-)
> and so forth -- and as any player knows, when women talk about stuff
> like that, you've got to string 'em along, feed them whatever they
> want! Much as they ask *you*, what they're "really" interested in is
> hearing you "mirror" *them*!
You don't need to "string along" a woman if she's the right one for
you. If you have to be a performer or a stage prop to keep a woman,
you've got one that will give you all pain and no joy.
>> That just shows that no one knows for sure about anything. Longevity
>> in many relationships sometimes demonstrate nothing more than
>> exceptional skill in deception.
> Yup, there you go. I don't think we disagree...not really...but
> there's this funny thing, where, just like with Claudia, it's like, we
> don't really disagree, but for some reason we get lost in the
> details....
Sometimes insignificant details are far more important than one would
wish them to be. ;-)
> I mean, we really wanted each other! I thought that was a common
> denominator...I don't see why, given that, we couldn't have worked
> something out...I mean, I think I know why, as in what happened, more
> or less, but in theory, there shouldn't have been a break-up, it was
> just a matter of determination, of time, when things got tough (as
> happens in any relationship)....
A "Life-Changing Event"?
>> Apparently, in her case, anything other than marriage does not mean
>> "commitment" by her standards.
> You know, she could have let me know?
Chalk that one up to a communications interface mismatch. ;-)
> Only thing is that I never figured her for a stone, a block-head...I
> hate to say this -- and I've never denied (even accepted) that she
> wasn't the proverbial sharpest pencil in the box -- but above and
> beyond that I feel like the only way to "explain" things is to just
> chalk it up to the limits of her imagination....
Like I said, "interface mismatch".
>> I had to become apathetic in order to cope with my stressful feelings.
>> That may or may not be helpful for you.
> I know, I know -- that's a time-honored psychological defense
> mechanism...but is that something I would choose, encourage, seek
I really didn't choose it. I just allowed it to happen. It was like a
slow-motion emotional collapse. I simply didn't know what else to do.
> out?? I do believe that part of, um, how shall I put this, of...um,
> "what's wrong with her," is that as a young child she's learned just
> that kind of behavior in dealing with trauma (starvation poverty, sex
> abuse, etc.) so that that's just her modus operandi...but...hell,
> she's an adult, and I'm here for her, why won't she work with me --
> for us????
Sorry, I can only offer conjecture, which may only serve to assign
blame.
> Ugh...I'm a cat chasing its own tail...I hope I get dizzy and pass out
> soon....
That's an old and familiar road.
> Yeah, it is...I only wish I could *believe* in something which made
> the pain worthwhile...it isn't *just* the pain, the actual sense of
> irreplaceable, irrevocable loss -- it's the knowledge, moreover, that
> there's no "cause," no good reason for it...no higher good, no better
> future -- this doesn't feel like a sacrifice, it feels like being
> mugged...it doesn't feel noble, like the pain of defending home and
> hearth, even if against overwhelming odds; it feels alternately
> shameful and just plain stupid, like that dog with the bone in its
> mouth who chanced upon his reflection in a river and, mistakening that
> for another dog, opened his mouth to bark and perhaps win another bone
> through intimidation, only to lose his bone to the river's waves....
If nothing else, you seem to understand it quite well. The pain
doesn't go away, either, until that void is filled. Sometimes the
effort to fill that void becomes a bit over-zealous. Folk call this
"on the rebound". You don't want to make that mistake.
>> That's a harsh punishment to inflict upon yourself. You may have to
>> accept the fact that you may not get an explanation that you find
>> satisfactory. Then move on.
> But I'm telling you that it's like a hunger, a physical need -- how do
> you say to the starving to just "move on," etc.?
Oh, I know that all too painfully well. I didn't say it was easy. But
you need to do it.
> Again, I know in my *head* that it isn't so, like an actual physical
> urge, but insofar as it's an actual physical pang I feel, physical
> sensations...how do I move on? It's not like I could just rip my
> heart out and leave it in the fridge for a while til it chills out
> about this break-up....
That's basically what I did. Not intentionally, you understand, but
that is pretty much what happened. Now, how do *you* do it? I don't
know. All I can say is what happened to me and how I dealt with it.
> Anyway, I must suffer. This is the price. It will have been worth
> it, whatever "it" turns out to be. I must believe that. And normally
> I do. Just very hard right now to *feel* that, whatwith all the
> interference from an aching heart pumping out S.O.S. signals.
And it feels so much like a steel claw ripping the heart out. Whether
it is worth it or not remains to be seen. One day you will know, as
will I.
>> We'll get a laugh or two as we muddle through. ;-)
> Is there a "broken hearts" joke book? I must find out...you know how
> there are ethnic jokes, dirty jokes, lawyer jokes, there must be a
> compendium somewhere of jokes to cheer a broken heart some....
There may be. I don't know. If not, we can just laugh at ourselves
after the pain goes away. ;-)
>> Only time will tell. Sheesh, how cliche is that? ;-)
> But the hour's already struck! And I am late for my funeral.
Me too. Oh, well, I'll just have to catch the next one! ;-)
>> OUCH!! No matter what your heart tells you, you've got to know that
>> ain't right! ;-)
> Well, I honestly believe it is, it just makes so much sense.
That's why it sounds so *wrong*.
> And all of us are that way instinctively. I was just hoping, really,
> that we've risen above that as a couple after four years.
Never expect anything unless you can do it yourself. You can never
presume the capacity of another person.
>> SH*T!!! The next B*TCH that says THAT to me will get dumped just for
>> saying it!!! I am not a telepath, though I dearly wish I were.
> God damn that! The really obnoxious thing about that sentiment is
> that they never seem to apply the statement to themselves -- "if I
> really loved you ***I*** would...!"
Really, I said that half-jokingly, but I'm serious. That's another red
flag. If she says "If you love me, then...", it's time to flush the
toilet, because what spews forth after that is raw sewage.
>> My red flag, which may or may not be yours. The control required to
>> distance oneself is difficult. I try to instill such things in myself
>> as a reflex so I don't have to think so hard about defending myself
>> against dangerous situations.
> But that's just the thing about reflexes -- we've evolved this
> reflex/instinct-override called "self-reflective consciousness"
> precisely because our instincts are found wanting! So to take an
> approach which may have worked once or twice and install it as a
> reflex leaves us vulnerable to a changed environment where that reflex
> becomes counterproductive....
That may be true. But until I have a better balance that's the way I
choose to deal with my problem.
>> IMHO discipline is required in love.
> Yes, that's just what I'm saying, it's determination and will! I
> really don't think she "patroled" or "shepherded" her feelings well
> enough...after all, feelings change, especially with women, you know!
Men and women need to learn this before they embark on LTRs.
> I mean, c'mon, what wouldn't you do for true love???
At this point I don't really know. I'm too busy recovering.
>> I prefer to keep my intellect in proper control and battle-ready for
>> any rude surprises.
> Yes, but again -- I'd meant what I said, and I find it hard to go back
> on my "words of four years" simply in response to *her* hypocrisy....
Not to sound crude, but it seems that decision has been removed from
your control.
>> I don't intend to make that trip again any time soon. ;-)
> Fine, well, if you're comfy there by your lonesome...! Me, I feel
> compelled to this....
It's not a question of being comfy. It's a question of presently not
being ready.
> I mean, what's the disconnect for you between how easily you carry on
> here, with me, and someone else in real life??
One word: anonymity. If things go foul for me on one of these
discussion groups I can just disappear. One can't do that in real
life.
>> Isn't that really why we keep trying?
> I think we're compelled to try, we're really driven to it by our
> hard-wiring...faith is what makes the effort pleasurable in the face
> of set-backs.
I can't find a plausible argument against that. ;-)
>> The trick seems to be matching a desired result with the proper
>> catalyst. That which we fail to understand is what we call magic. ;-)
> Or what women call "love"...doh!
In that sense, "love" is another word for "magic". OTOH, real *love*,
the selfless giving kind, is a totally different thing, enacted by
only a few who happen to understand what it means.
> Can't stand how everything just happens for them..."if it's meant to
> be, it will be" -- and of course, *guys* make it so, right, we're
> doing most of the work, since they're convinced that if it was meant
> to be, there's not much they can/should do....
I don't bother with much effort like that anymore. I'll strike up a
conversation if it feels right and if I feel like it, and if it goes
awry I just blow it off. I don't have the emotional stamina to even
bother to care one way or the other.
>> Yuck! I had all those. Not a good selection from the whole mess. Any
>> plans on adding anything pleasant to the menu? ;-)
> Can't get the supplies for "Breast-Milk of Human Kindness" or
> "Love-Juice from the Cavern of Joy"....
Reminds me of the apathetic supply clerk with a huge backlog of
orders. Someone complains "but I need it now!". He says "If you need
it, we ain't got it, and we ain't fixin' to get it!". ;-)
>> "Intellectually", one could get quite acrobatic with mental
>> gymnastics. ;-)
> I really do think it requires a certain intellect and level of
> intelligence to love truly...else it's just instinct, codependency,
> force of habit....
I don't know about that. I have seen some intellectually deficient
folk who are far more capable of showing genuine love than many
geniuses I've met. I think it's a trait one has or doesn't. It can be
learned, of course, but few exert the effort to do so.
>> I thoroughly enjoyed most of John Norman's books of Gor. That's the
>> stuff *real* fantasies are made of!! ;-)
> Hm.
Not quite it for you? Oh, well. ;-)
> We really have got things ass-backwards in our culture (like I always
> say, I was born 500 years too early)...we want to get to Heaven, but
> don't want to die first -- much less have lived a saintly life. We
> want love, without wanting the work, the effort, the constant care and
> thought. Sure we all get lazy, and some really slack off...but is it
> any reason to call it quits? Outside of violence and stuff like that,
> there's no reason why two people ***have to*** break up.
That depends on the willingness of both parties to persevere in the
relationship. When one chooses to end it, there isn't much the other
can do.
> I mean, remember that poor Iraqi nuclear scientist who'd been kept
> from his wife for like three decades...Saddam himself had pressured
> him to divorce her (long story -- the gist is that he sent them
> abroad, to Germany, in order that they may come to no harm on account
> of politics), but he would not, and she kept faith with him...thirty
> years! And, what happens? The day they were supposed to finally
> reunite, at UN HQ in Baghdad, insurgents blow up the builing, with him
> inside....
True love, for sure. A rarity these days.
> How heartbroken she must be! Yet that was love, don't you think?
> Sure they didn't get in each other's hair for the better part of
> thirty years...but you know, they really could have "moved on," as the
> expression goes...but it was love, it was faith, it was faith in the
> future, a belief in themselves and each other...something is terribly
> wrong when, instead of that, the standards folks use to guage their
> relationship are essentially the same with which they choose their
> hamburgers....
I'm very picky about my hamburgers. ;-)
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> When everything else is stripped away, that is in fact a life-changing
> experience. You discover something new about yourself and hopefully
> how to deal with it.
Again, semantics. YOur point is well-taken, though.
I already know, really, how to deal with this. I'm just stubborn, I
guess, in so many ways....
> Yes and no, much like a thick scab over a deep wound. The scab itself
> feels nothing when it is touched, so in that sense it was meaningless.
> However, beneath the scab, healing was in progress, so that was
> beneficial.
Well, what did you learn from it all? Are you totally healed now?
> It was a living death. Folk respond to pain in different ways and feel
> it with differing intensities. My pain was unbearably intense and I
> responded accordingly.
Damn...no medication? Just an act of will, a willing apathy,
numbness?
Truth to tell, I'm getting sick of crying (so to speak) over her....
> You are an individual. You will deal with your pain in your own way.
Well, insofar as we're both human beings, and that at this level, that
of the gut, of the heart, we can find some common ground suggests
that, as I say, what happened to you could well happen to me -- "but
for the Grace of God go I" and all that.
> My healing process is nearly complete, even though there is much work
> to be done. My death-like "sleep" is ended. My life is a shambles and
> I need to rebuild myself again.
DAMN!! How could it have been so? Care to share? Was it "necessary"
or "inevitable" in any way for your life to have become a shambles as
a result of your marriage?
How has your sleep ended, how came it to finally end? Did you decide
to awake, decide from the midst of your dream (this has happened to me
on a few occasions now, where in the midst of a dream I realize that
I'm actually just dreaming and somehow *will* myself awake), this
death-like sleep, or did someone shake you awake?
> That may very well be true, but it seems the end of your reluctance
> may have been outside her time frame and surpassed her patience.
She's just impulsive, really. I'm afraid it's as banal as that.
She's now moving in with this new dude, whom she appeared to have
found a mere two weeks after our surprise break-up...sigh....
> A fantasy she wanted fulfilled.
As did I! And I love so, honest I do, I'd even take her back still.
It isn't what she does for me so much as simply who she is, at her
best...I do wish a life with her, I've told her many times that she's
the only woman I can imagine growing old with, the only woman whose
wrinkles and flaccid fat would hold no horror for my heart -- damn it
but I've told her many times!!
> If you don't mind my saying so, that's another of my red flags.
Well, yeah, all these red flags belong in my signals handbook, too,
but still...I was in love with her, honest I was -- and I don't mean
lust, either, though it started off as that, surely. Had it remained
in lust, then none of this would have ensued...but it was love,
imperfect and groping, treading slowly towards perfection of care and
sacrifice...I was in love -- what wouldn't you do for true love? I've
told her many times too to communicate with me, to not expect me to
read her mind, etc.
> They can be frustrating when they choose to be.
Sigh!
> Or a man who has been "strategized" right down the toilet. ;-)
Ah...oh why can't I just enjoy my youth? Why speak of love? Why do I
remain stuck in this Average Frustrated Chump mentality where a woman
scorns my best efforts?
> Wow! You may wish to rethink that attitude before you start another
> relationship. Women seem to require "emotional massaging". ;-)
Hmm, I think I'll just rethink the phrase: by emotional masseur I had
meant something "artificial", the simple going-along-with, as in "no
you're not fat" or "yes that looks nice, dear" kind of stuff, but writ
large with regards to the big issues in a relationship like marriage,
etc. As I said, if I were just a player looking to keep her as a sex
toy then I certainly could have done that and gone along with the yes
let's get married stuff, then found some last-minute hitch all the
time, thus guaranteeing another four years of sex, right?
But I told the truth, I was civilized and adult about it -- and this
is what happens. Truly a case for Plato's "Noble Lie" if there ever
was one. I treated the matter with the greatest import, thus
necessitating some serious discussion...I guess I should have just
shuffled my feet and gone through the motions and manufactured one
sudden excuse after another to put off the actual thing....
> You don't need to "string along" a woman if she's the right one for
> you.
So she's not *the* "right" one...big deal -- she's unique and I love
her, I care about her, I really do. I enjoy her company, she enjoys
my devotion...ah, well....
> If you have to be a performer or a stage prop to keep a woman,
> you've got one that will give you all pain and no joy.
No, she gave me plenty of joy all right. As for being a performer, I
don't doubt that there is the matter of role-playing, always, so I
don't take that as a negative.
> Sometimes insignificant details are far more important than one would
> wish them to be. ;-)
Yes, but as I said, that's not the case with me and her, nor with me
and you, I think....
> A "Life-Changing Event"?
Eh, no, unless one wants to force such a thing into existence by
concoting mysterious little fights that snowball into avalanches of
grief and resentment.
> Chalk that one up to a communications interface mismatch. ;-)
Check.
> Like I said, "interface mismatch".
Ditto; check.
> I really didn't choose it. I just allowed it to happen.
You chose to let it happen.
> It was like a
> slow-motion emotional collapse. I simply didn't know what else to do.
Okay, right, you didn't perceive it as a choice, you were in a passive
state of mind.
> Sorry, I can only offer conjecture, which may only serve to assign
> blame.
Now this is all just a hill of conjecture, some of which will bear an
amazing coincidence to fact were we omniscient, but of course we're
just supposing, after all.
> If nothing else, you seem to understand it quite well. The pain
> doesn't go away, either, until that void is filled. Sometimes the
> effort to fill that void becomes a bit over-zealous. Folk call this
> "on the rebound". You don't want to make that mistake.
And I do believe that that's what she's up to! And because I do care,
and of course have my own interests in her, it's all very frustrating,
on top of the hurt by her callousness, to see....
No, no more mistakes, no more adventures...a quiet life, with a good
wife.
> Oh, I know that all too painfully well. I didn't say it was easy. But
> you need to do it.
Okay, how?
Anyway, I *am* doing it, moving on, treating the pain -- by chatting
compulsively about it, so that my mind is too preoccuppied with
hair-splitting to have time to register any pain...also by working
out, lifting weights, jogging tracks, riding bikes...I also socialize,
just go up to pretty women and chit-chat, not giving a damn whether
she jerks away or humors me...I watch movies, I read the news, I blow
things up on the computer (games)...lots of activities....
Yet, in the still of the night, right before sleep, I still think of
her.
> That's basically what I did. Not intentionally, you understand, but
> that is pretty much what happened. Now, how do *you* do it? I don't
> know. All I can say is what happened to me and how I dealt with it.
Well, I don't want to become a zombie, I really don't, so I'm afraid I
have to settle for the hurt.
> And it feels so much like a steel claw ripping the heart out. Whether
> it is worth it or not remains to be seen. One day you will know, as
> will I.
Sure it will be worth it...would you have chosen the blissful
ignorance of Eden or this melancholia which attends Knowledge? For we
are at least wiser and generally speaking better-equipped now.
> There may be. I don't know. If not, we can just laugh at ourselves
> after the pain goes away. ;-)
Yeah, I've always had a dark, ruminating disposition...not conducive
to merriment...humor's efforts would result only in scorn's bounty
given my temperament.
> Me too. Oh, well, I'll just have to catch the next one! ;-)
The fun never stops, as they say.
I've got to learn the humor of it all...ever taken a foreign language?
And one day, it clicks for you, and you get not just the grammar, but
the very heart and soul, such that idioms make sense, and you're able
to make up a figures of speech all your own which do not betray your
English tongue!
Likewise, there is a "core grammar" here to all this love madness
which I believe I'm approaching....
> Never expect anything unless you can do it yourself. You can never
> presume the capacity of another person.
I'd have to; she's my wife, my soulmate, my significant other, my
life-partner...I'd have to, or she'd have to rise to the occasion.
Now, how to win her back??
> Really, I said that half-jokingly, but I'm serious. That's another red
> flag. If she says "If you love me, then...", it's time to flush the
> toilet, because what spews forth after that is raw sewage.
Well, it's a natural enough sentiment -- I can't begrudge a woman the
faults of her sex, her upbringing, her temperament, etc. I mean,
whatever, you know? What's important is that which makes her uniquely
her, as opposed to like other women, you know? That's where my focus
has been.
> That may be true. But until I have a better balance that's the way I
> choose to deal with my problem.
God damn, well that's just her attitude! And that sucks so bad.
Because none of this grief, on her part and mine, need be if only
she'd recognize that her "instincts" aren't infallible!
> Men and women need to learn this before they embark on LTRs.
Yes they do. That's the thing with "feelings" and
"instincts"...they're most valid as tie-breakers when all else are
equal -- otherwise, they merely texture the situation as opposed to
informing it....
> At this point I don't really know. I'm too busy recovering.
Right, well, "don't you know/that storybook loves/always have a happy
ending"....
> Not to sound crude, but it seems that decision has been removed from
> your control.
There are a few things going on here in this situation.
One is her attitude. Another is mine. I don't see why they need to
coincide.
What may be beyond my control (for how do we ever truly know without
trying when it comes to such matters?) is actually gettin her back.
What isn't beyond my control is my perspective on all this.
> It's not a question of being comfy. It's a question of presently not
> being ready.
Okay, fine, but then again, when is one ever ready, really?
> One word: anonymity. If things go foul for me on one of these
> discussion groups I can just disappear. One can't do that in real
> life.
Yes yes yes, that's very true.
> In that sense, "love" is another word for "magic". OTOH, real *love*,
> the selfless giving kind, is a totally different thing, enacted by
> only a few who happen to understand what it means.
Yeah, but here's the rub -- the doing it, the actual practice of it.
Many know what true love is in theory, but find it too bothersome to
attempt in practice.
> I don't bother with much effort like that anymore. I'll strike up a
> conversation if it feels right and if I feel like it, and if it goes
> awry I just blow it off. I don't have the emotional stamina to even
> bother to care one way or the other.
Well, I still do, but I'm pretty much there too, all things
considered. I keep getting phone numbers -- real ones, too, mind you
-- but that's all at this point.
> Reminds me of the apathetic supply clerk with a huge backlog of
> orders. Someone complains "but I need it now!". He says "If you need
> it, we ain't got it, and we ain't fixin' to get it!". ;-)
Heh -- 'minds me of customers who want steak for the price of ground
beef!
> I don't know about that. I have seen some intellectually deficient
> folk who are far more capable of showing genuine love than many
> geniuses I've met.
Okay, I suppose in a limitless universe anything is, by definition,
possible. But note that while intelligence doesn't guarantee love, it
greatly helps the practice of love.
Love is about choice, isn't it? Choice implies freedom. Choice and
freedom are only possbile with intelligence. Everything else is habit
and instinct. Not love.
> I think it's a trait one has or doesn't.
No, really? I mean, really -- you can't be serious. I think we're on
one of those slippery semantic slopes agian....
> It can be
> learned, of course, but few exert the effort to do so.
Aha! But didn't you just claim it was a trait one either had or did
not??
> Not quite it for you? Oh, well. ;-)
No, not that -- never heard of him! Will browse amazon.com just to
get briefed....
> That depends on the willingness of both parties to persevere in the
> relationship. When one chooses to end it, there isn't much the other
> can do.
Like I said, it doesn't *have to*...it's definitely a choice, and
choices in these matters are affected by our culture -- and in a
click-click channel-surfing consumer culture, I'm afraid people call
it quits before they themselves even understand what's involved....
> True love, for sure. A rarity these days.
Sigh!
> I'm very picky about my hamburgers. ;-)
Burp!
KrosRogue
>> When everything else is stripped away, that is in fact a
>> life-changing experience. You discover something new about yourself
>> and hopefully how to deal with it.
> Again, semantics. YOur point is well-taken, though.
"Semantics". Yeah, there's that nasty word again. ;-)
> I already know, really, how to deal with this. I'm just stubborn, I
> guess, in so many ways....
I suppose that comes from the perception of defeat. Viewing it from
that perspective can make the transition difficult.
> Well, what did you learn from it all? Are you totally healed now?
I'm not really sure what I learned from that. I am still trying to
figure it all out. But, I have learned quite a bit since then, which
would have been nice to know before I got involved in that
relationship. I am not totally healed, but I think that process is
nearly complete.
>> It was a living death. Folk respond to pain in different ways and feel
>> it with differing intensities. My pain was unbearably intense and I
>> responded accordingly.
> Damn...no medication? Just an act of will, a willing apathy,
> numbness?
It wasn't really an act of will. It was more inaction, rather an
unwillingness to register a meaningful response. I suppose you could
compare my reaction to one enduring a state of shock.
> Truth to tell, I'm getting sick of crying (so to speak) over her....
Perhaps you are recovering from your state of shock.
>> You are an individual. You will deal with your pain in your own way.
> Well, insofar as we're both human beings, and that at this level, that
> of the gut, of the heart, we can find some common ground suggests
> that, as I say, what happened to you could well happen to me -- "but
> for the Grace of God go I" and all that.
That's a reasonable perspective.
> DAMN!! How could it have been so? Care to share? Was it "necessary"
> or "inevitable" in any way for your life to have become a shambles as
> a result of your marriage?
I don't know. I suppose it may have been inevitable, considering the
fact that I was emotionally immature at the time. From the time I was
a child until then, I was very awkward socially, a misfit.
> How has your sleep ended, how came it to finally end? Did you decide
> to awake, decide from the midst of your dream (this has happened to me
> on a few occasions now, where in the midst of a dream I realize that
> I'm actually just dreaming and somehow *will* myself awake), this
> death-like sleep, or did someone shake you awake?
It wasn't really much of an awakening. One day I compared my life to
others my age and the result wasn't very pleasant. I realized I made
one helluva mess and I had to clean it up. I'm still working on that.
> She's now moving in with this new dude, whom she appeared to have
> found a mere two weeks after our surprise break-up...sigh....
Wow, that quick? That says volumes right there. For one thing, it
indicates to me that you were probably quite fortunate that you didn't
marry her.
> As did I! And I love so, honest I do, I'd even take her back still.
> It isn't what she does for me so much as simply who she is, at her
> best...I do wish a life with her, I've told her many times that she's
> the only woman I can imagine growing old with, the only woman whose
> wrinkles and flaccid fat would hold no horror for my heart -- damn it
> but I've told her many times!!
The new dude should have killed that feeling. It would have for me.
> Ah...oh why can't I just enjoy my youth? Why speak of love? Why do I
> remain stuck in this Average Frustrated Chump mentality where a woman
> scorns my best efforts?
A question I have asked myself many times.
> But I told the truth, I was civilized and adult about it -- and this
> is what happens. Truly a case for Plato's "Noble Lie" if there ever
> was one. I treated the matter with the greatest import, thus
> necessitating some serious discussion...I guess I should have just
> shuffled my feet and gone through the motions and manufactured one
> sudden excuse after another to put off the actual thing....
Either that or realized your goals were not mutual and ended things
based on what I consider a fundamental incompatibility.
>> I really didn't choose it. I just allowed it to happen.
> You chose to let it happen.
Up pops that dirty word, "semantics", again. ;-)
> Well, I don't want to become a zombie, I really don't, so I'm afraid I
> have to settle for the hurt.
And it's intensity will lessen over time.
>> And it feels so much like a steel claw ripping the heart out. Whether
>> it is worth it or not remains to be seen. One day you will know, as
>> will I.
> Sure it will be worth it...would you have chosen the blissful
> ignorance of Eden or this melancholia which attends Knowledge? For we
> are at least wiser and generally speaking better-equipped now.
I am still considering the merits.
> > There may be. I don't know. If not, we can just laugh at ourselves
> > after the pain goes away. ;-)
>
> Yeah, I've always had a dark, ruminating disposition...not conducive
> to merriment...humor's efforts would result only in scorn's bounty
> given my temperament.
>
> > Me too. Oh, well, I'll just have to catch the next one! ;-)
>
> The fun never stops, as they say.
>
> I've got to learn the humor of it all...ever taken a foreign language?
Yes. Humor rarely translates well, especially double-entendres and
puns.
> And one day, it clicks for you, and you get not just the grammar, but
> the very heart and soul, such that idioms make sense, and you're able
> to make up a figures of speech all your own which do not betray your
> English tongue!
When one becomes truly fluent.
> Likewise, there is a "core grammar" here to all this love madness
> which I believe I'm approaching....
This is good.
>> That may be true. But until I have a better balance that's the way I
>> choose to deal with my problem.
> God damn, well that's just her attitude! And that sucks so bad.
> Because none of this grief, on her part and mine, need be if only
> she'd recognize that her "instincts" aren't infallible!
Was she trying to deal with wounds from a previous relationship?
> > At this point I don't really know. I'm too busy recovering.
>
> Right, well, "don't you know/that storybook loves/always have a happy
> ending"....
The actors follow the script. I haven't written it, I just follow it.
The last scene didn't have a particularly joyful or fulfilling ending.
>> Not to sound crude, but it seems that decision has been removed from
>> your control.
> There are a few things going on here in this situation.
>
> One is her attitude. Another is mine. I don't see why they need to
> coincide.
Compatibility. I think it's essential.
> What may be beyond my control (for how do we ever truly know without
> trying when it comes to such matters?) is actually gettin her back.
> What isn't beyond my control is my perspective on all this.
Can you change your perspective?
>> It's not a question of being comfy. It's a question of presently not
>> being ready.
> Okay, fine, but then again, when is one ever ready, really?
When one feels froggy enough to jump. ;-)
> Yeah, but here's the rub -- the doing it, the actual practice of it.
> Many know what true love is in theory, but find it too bothersome to
> attempt in practice.
That's why it's so rare.
> Love is about choice, isn't it? Choice implies freedom. Choice and
> freedom are only possbile with intelligence. Everything else is habit
> and instinct. Not love.
That's a point I'll have to mull over a bit.
>> I think it's a trait one has or doesn't.
> No, really? I mean, really -- you can't be serious. I think we're on
> one of those slippery semantic slopes agian....
That nasty word again. You're probably right.
>> It can be learned, of course, but few exert the effort to do so.
> Aha! But didn't you just claim it was a trait one either had or did
> not??
Some have it, some don't. Those who don't may or may not be able to
learn it.
>> Not quite it for you? Oh, well. ;-)
> No, not that -- never heard of him! Will browse amazon.com just to
> get briefed....
Some enjoy that sort of thing and some are off-putted by it. A matter
of preference and taste.
>> That depends on the willingness of both parties to persevere in the
>> relationship. When one chooses to end it, there isn't much the other
>> can do.
> Like I said, it doesn't *have to*...it's definitely a choice, and
> choices in these matters are affected by our culture -- and in a
> click-click channel-surfing consumer culture, I'm afraid people call
> it quits before they themselves even understand what's involved....
Hmm, when I called it quits the other party was long gone.
>> True love, for sure. A rarity these days.
> Sigh!
Yeah.
>> I'm very picky about my hamburgers. ;-)
> Burp!
If it's really good, then BUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP!!!!
Low, gutteral, and loud. ;-)
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> "Semantics". Yeah, there's that nasty word again. ;-)
Yeah, it's hard enough even between people of good will talking in
good faith.
> I suppose that comes from the perception of defeat. Viewing it from
> that perspective can make the transition difficult.
Yes, that's definitely part of all this.
I had been ready to move on Friday, actually ("ready" as in making a
concentrated effort to do so) -- but then suddenly she renegged on our
deal for me to get copies of our photos and video together, including
the only video of my now-deceased mom, from when my mom took her to
Chicago!!
> I'm not really sure what I learned from that. I am still trying to
> figure it all out. But, I have learned quite a bit since then, which
> would have been nice to know before I got involved in that
> relationship. I am not totally healed, but I think that process is
> nearly complete.
That's what frightens me, that I will forever have this scar on me,
this ugly scar...I don't want to be cynical about women, that's so
easy to do...I don't want to be cynical about myself, more to the
point -- how to be "wise" without being "cynical"??
Oh, how to forgive...forgive her, forgive myself....
> It wasn't really an act of will. It was more inaction, rather an
> unwillingness to register a meaningful response. I suppose you could
> compare my reaction to one enduring a state of shock.
Umm...mind if I inquire about the particulars? What was so shocking
to you? To me, it was as if the princess I'd been with was really an
old crone, like something out of a fairy tale like that...I'm really
doubting myself, my own judgment, powers of perception, even my own
intentions and driving desires, my very thoughts!
> Perhaps you are recovering from your state of shock.
Yes, I know I am...I almost don't want to -- to face, in effect, the
reality that she really doesn't give a damn about me, and that such
things can happen in the world, silly as all this sounds....
> I don't know. I suppose it may have been inevitable, considering the
> fact that I was emotionally immature at the time. From the time I was
> a child until then, I was very awkward socially, a misfit.
Well, precisely how?? I'd been socially awkward, too, but I am able
to keep up appearances nowadays....
See, my thing is, I'm really a sensitive geek trapped in an athlete's
body -- how misfit is that, huh? Almost like being gay or something.
'Matter of fact, various people, not acquainted with one another at
various points of my life have joked how I look like Clark Kent.
I suppose you'll say that you were even more awkwardly misfit than I
or the usual self-conscious kid...so please say exactly how, if you
care to, and what you're doing about it all *today*.
> It wasn't really much of an awakening. One day I compared my life to
> others my age and the result wasn't very pleasant. I realized I made
> one helluva mess and I had to clean it up. I'm still working on that.
Yeah, me too, me too.
And all without sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll! WTF?!?! How low can
one get, huh? All the pain without any of the glory -- or gals!
> Wow, that quick? That says volumes right there. For one thing, it
> indicates to me that you were probably quite fortunate that you didn't
> marry her.
This is the stuff I keep going on about!!! I want to talk, she would
bring up marriage but all these red flags, such as we've noted in this
thread, make me reluctant -- plus of course the matter of her son.
But I'd always maintained that it was all negotiable: just talk to me!
Please deal with *my* concerns! My feelings are definitely there for
you, honey, but I'm also worried about x, y, and z....
Yeah, I know, stuff like this hurts mainly my manly ego, so I'm able
to take a more or less "objective" view and say "well, good riddance!"
But somewhere it still hurts...plus that I could have been so wrong
about someone! Really makes me wonder about myself, you know? I
actually feel, ahem, violated. I mean, yeah, my trust has been
violated...and it makes me wonder: what could be done to screen out
such people? It seems that one just never knows until it's too late,
what???
> The new dude should have killed that feeling. It would have for me.
No, not if she's just being her usual emotionally-impulsive self (like
a kid that wants anything in the store). If it's a cold-hearted
calculus that she's actually doing, though, then that would "kill" my
feelings -- for the most part, since it'd be an intentional murder (as
opposed to negligent homicide, so to speak) -- even though I would
still love her simply for who she is at her best and most unique.
> A question I have asked myself many times.
God damn, where's the late-night infomercial peddling love antidotes??
Chemicals to inhibit my hormones and such...they've got diet pills,
muscle shakes, love potions even -- but where the brew for peace of
mind???
> Either that or realized your goals were not mutual and ended things
> based on what I consider a fundamental incompatibility.
But that's just the thing! Many times we've broken up and
acknowledged this incompatibility where material goals are concerned,
and we'd been civil about it. I don't understand what's different
this time, that this should be necessary, this apathy and fatigue just
shy of hate.
> I am still considering the merits.
You'll only know by testing it. "Once more into the breach, dear
friends, once more!"
> Was she trying to deal with wounds from a previous relationship?
That's my suspicion...this is what's behind the statement "everyone
has their issues"...we look for the father/mother we once/never had,
among other things....
I really do believe in talking things through...not that that will,
ipso facto, settle things, but I do believe in its helping matters.
She just couldn't talk...for her, as for most people -- particular
females it seems -- talking isn't about problem-solving, it's about
acceptance...I think I may well have erred in treating such chats,
infrequent as they were even in the beginning blossom-time of our
relationship, as problem-solving opportunities instead of simply
sitting back and just accepting what she had to say and letting that
be...she doesn't have this "engineer's" POV to tinker with things,
think them through analytically -- it's about what she feels and
that's it. No need, apparently, to resolve anything.
> The actors follow the script. I haven't written it, I just follow it.
> The last scene didn't have a particularly joyful or fulfilling ending.
As I've always said, this feels like a rushed ending unbecoming the
preceding events.
> Compatibility. I think it's essential.
In general, yes, but one needn't be in accord on every -- or even most
-- particulars...just the crucial ones.
> Can you change your perspective?
Sure I can. I just may not want to...for example (as I've often
bemoaned), I don't want to view her as an opportunist, but she
certainly is acting like one (though friends and family say that they
knew all along, though I couldn't agree then and find hard to do even
now). Viewing her as an opportunist implicates me, I feel -- how did
I make a thief of her, as it were? You know, fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me....
> When one feels froggy enough to jump. ;-)
So indeed it all comes down to feelings -- which are notorious for
changing on a dime -- despite all our vaunted rational capabilities?
Indeed, so many life decisions are not motivated by rationality as
much as feeling...and somewhere between the two, as between the heaven
and earth, there is a flash of inspiration and it finally rains.
> If it's really good, then BUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP!!!!
> Low, gutteral, and loud. ;-)
Yeah, I've had it up to here with mystery meat...time to move onto
prime steak! I feel so foolish dashing my heart against such crude
rocks...more honor, it seems, in losing a war over Helen than over
some Medusa.
Sklenge
>> "Semantics". Yeah, there's that nasty word again. ;-)
>>
> Yeah, it's hard enough even between people of good will talking in good faith.
I like that.
>> I suppose that comes from the perception of defeat. Viewing it from that
>> perspective can make the transition difficult.
>>
> Yes, that's definitely part of all this.
>
> I had been ready to move on Friday, actually ("ready" as in making a
> concentrated effort to do so) -- but then suddenly she renegged on our deal
> for me to get copies of our photos and video together, including the only
> video of my now-deceased mom, from when my mom took her to Chicago!!
I wonder why she did that.
>> I'm not really sure what I learned from that. I am still trying to figure it
>> all out. But, I have learned quite a bit since then, which would have been
>> nice to know before I got involved in that relationship. I am not totally
>> healed, but I think that process is nearly complete.
>>
> That's what frightens me, that I will forever have this scar on me, this ugly
> scar...I don't want to be cynical about women, that's so easy to do...I don't
> want to be cynical about myself, more to the point -- how to be "wise" without
> being "cynical"??
>
> Oh, how to forgive...forgive her, forgive myself....
This being cynical about women thing... I think it's a good thing to be
comfortably cynical about everyone. Once you are realistic about how other
people can let you down you can go on to trust them implicitly. You know
the worst they can do, and you can still be happy to open up and let them do
it. After all, *you* can let people down too. (Also applies to par below)
> But somewhere it still hurts...plus that I could have been so wrong about
> someone! Really makes me wonder about myself, you know? I actually feel,
> ahem, violated. I mean, yeah, my trust has been violated...and it makes me
> wonder: what could be done to screen out such people? It seems that one just
> never knows until it's too late, what???
>> Compatibility. I think it's essential.
>>
> In general, yes, but one needn't be in accord on every -- or even most --
> particulars...just the crucial ones.
(Like marriage and kids.)
>> Can you change your perspective?
>>
> Sure I can. I just may not want to...for example (as I've often bemoaned), I
> don't want to view her as an opportunist, but she certainly is acting like one
> (though friends and family say that they knew all along, though I couldn't
> agree then and find hard to do even now). Viewing her as an opportunist
> implicates me, I feel -- how did I make a thief of her, as it were? You know,
> fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me....
If you can expect some healthy nastiness you can start to accept it. She's
only human. You're only human.
Is it getting any better?
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> I like that.
Yeah, um, I like that too when it's actually the case...unfortunately,
I think the internet is really the only place where that can happen,
'cause there's no incentive for someone to lie.
> I wonder why she did that.
That's what I don't understand!!!! What did I ever do to you,
Claudia?!?!?!?!
Cruel, cruel queen! Whatever I have done wrong, I honestly can't
imagine how I deserve this sort of treatment!
> This being cynical about women thing... I think it's a good thing to be
> comfortably cynical about everyone. Once you are realistic about how other
> people can let you down you can go on to trust them implicitly. You know
> the worst they can do, and you can still be happy to open up and let them do
> it. After all, *you* can let people down too. (Also applies to par below)
"Letting people down" suggests at least the recognition of such a
thing by the offender when it does occur...I can deal with honest
mistakes, sloth, incompetence, etc. -- what I have no way of dealing
with is apathy, except to follow suit and lose the love myself...??
And I'm not talking about people in general...I'm talking about one's
-- gasp -- soulmate, life-partner, significant other!
> (Like marriage and kids.)
Nope! I did want marriage, and I did want kids with her...I just
needed details ironed out -- our goals were similar; we just needed
work on all the particulars.
No, the fatal thing we did not have in common was the belief that we
were to be forever a couple. Oh, she wrote it all down on cards to me
-- so sweetly the script, so tender the colored inks she
chose..."thank you for the best four years of my life"..."I don't know
what I would ever do without you"..."please don't ever leave me"..."I
love you forever"..."you have made me so happy"...this is all January
6th!!! But obviously she's not a woman of her word.
And she wanted to get married just like that????
Believe me, I'm inclined to sympathize with the female in any
break-up, so I keep trying to figure out what I could have done
differently, "within reason"...and I'm just at the point now where I'm
like, whatever....
> If you can expect some healthy nastiness you can start to accept it. She's
> only human. You're only human.
Yeah, human. That's why I know I'd forgive her and take her back.
In terms of hurting and being upset...I still am.
My faith has really been shattered here. I mean, wow, this girl knew
me! She had wanted to marry me! How does one go from....
Ow, this is too much....
> Is it getting any better?
Depends on what "it" is...the pain is still there, can while no longer
constant, it's still quite near the surface...in terms of flare-ups --
that only happens when something reminds me of her (hell, that's just
about everything, so I spend a lot of time repressing such
thoughts)....
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD624CD3.1EE0D%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>
>>
>> I like that.
>>
> Yeah, um, I like that too when it's actually the case...unfortunately, I think
> the internet is really the only place where that can happen, 'cause there's no
> incentive for someone to lie.
I don't agree with that assumption. People have been known to 'groom' others
on the net... this place is as dangerous as any other part of real life.
Trust me - don't trust me.
>> I wonder why she did that.
>>
> That's what I don't understand!!!! What did I ever do to you, Claudia?!?!?!?!
> Cruel, cruel queen! Whatever I have done wrong, I honestly can't imagine how
> I deserve this sort of treatment!
Hang on, what I mean is can you analyze why? Do you really think she's
punishing you? Or are you 'misunderstanding her intentions' somehow... You
know, you're out the door in her world, it doesn't matter to her anymore so
therefore the videos and all those things may even be in the bin
(literally). I hate to add even more cruelty to the state you're in.
It's possible she doesn't think about the cruelty; that *she's* not
inflicting it but you're inflicting it on her behalf, like some kind of
imaginary toxic friend. I'm really sorry if I'm even half right here. She
could truly have moved on and may not even be thinking about you.
Is she being cruel? Are you reading her correctly? Cruelty comes from
feeling, are you holding on to the idea that she has some kind of feelings
no matter how sadistic they may be.
>> This being cynical about women thing... I think it's a good thing to be
>> comfortably cynical about everyone. Once you are realistic about how other
>> people can let you down you can go on to trust them implicitly. You know the
>> worst they can do, and you can still be happy to open up and let them do it.
>> After all, *you* can let people down too. (Also applies to par below)
>>
> "Letting people down" suggests at least the recognition of such a thing by the
> offender when it does occur...I can deal with honest mistakes, sloth,
> incompetence, etc. -- what I have no way of dealing with is apathy, except to
> follow suit and lose the love myself...??
That would be a shame. But this kind of thing can make you stronger, believe
it or not. You could look upon it as cutting back to make a plant grow
stronger. But we could sit and bandy similes and metaphors all year long
perhaps that will help or maybe it will just keep the wound from healing.
When I was being dumped it took me and him a year to articulate what was
happening and I didn't actually accept it until that fateful moment I spoke
about a while ago: that moment where the bond breaks. It took me three
months to 'get over' the intense pain that comes from a deep cut like that.
That's not really all that long, is it? It actually took more than a year
for me to accept and deny all the relevant bits and pieces to form them into
the correct picture.
> And I'm not talking about people in general...I'm talking about one's -- gasp
> -- soulmate, life-partner, significant other!
I know. I've lost my soul mate before, it's a harsh landscape.
>> (Like marriage and kids.)
>>
> Nope! I did want marriage, and I did want kids with her...I just needed
> details ironed out -- our goals were similar; we just needed work on all the
> particulars.
Working out the particulars is part of the fun of doing it. I'm still
working out the particulars with my husband fifteen years into the marriage.
You must take care with absolutes like this: "I absolutely love only her and
want only to have kids with her." When you meet your next deep love you may
remember how you felt about that - only wanting to have children with
Claudia, how could you then face your new love and accept your desire for
children with her. If you only want Claudia, you only want children with
Claudia... you may as well get a vasectomy now or enter a monastery... or
try to win her back which could turn into a very messy stalking episode.
[As an aside to people who know me: this is another one of the many reasons
why I would never have children, it's simply not worth the emotional agony
of bringing someone else into the equation. It's bad enough breaking up with
one human but add a family on top of that and you have yourself the biggest
heartache of your life.]
> No, the fatal thing we did not have in common was the belief that we were to
> be forever a couple. Oh, she wrote it all down on cards to me -- so sweetly
> the script, so tender the colored inks she chose..."thank you for the best
> four years of my life"..."I don't know what I would ever do without
> you"..."please don't ever leave me"..."I love you forever"..."you have made me
> so happy"...this is all January 6th!!! But obviously she's not a woman of her
> word.
>
> And she wanted to get married just like that????
>
> Believe me, I'm inclined to sympathize with the female in any break-up, so I
> keep trying to figure out what I could have done differently, "within
> reason"...and I'm just at the point now where I'm like, whatever....
Sometimes it is out of your control.
Funny, I tend to sympathize with the male in a break-up because I've seen
how hard men can take it. I know how it feels as a human to be dumped but
I've seen how men can really have their world kicked away from under them.
Somehow it's harder for men, I think this because I can't empathize with
men, but I know what women can be like I know what I'm like.
>> If you can expect some healthy nastiness you can start to accept it. She's
>> only human. You're only human.
>>
> Yeah, human. That's why I know I'd forgive her and take her back.
>
> In terms of hurting and being upset...I still am.
Well I wish I could wave a magic wand right now.
I wonder what you would wish for.
> My faith has really been shattered here. I mean, wow, this girl knew me! She
> had wanted to marry me! How does one go from....
>
> Ow, this is too much....
>
>> Is it getting any better?
>>
> Depends on what "it" is...the pain is still there, can while no longer
> constant, it's still quite near the surface...in terms of flare-ups -- that
> only happens when something reminds me of her (hell, that's just about
> everything, so I spend a lot of time repressing such thoughts)....
I'm tempted to suggest you go out and get yourself laid. But that may appear
a cynical and unacceptable piece of advice. That's what I would do, perhaps
after a little time... it's useful to feel loved, and loveable, and capable
of feeling something for someone else. I don't know if you could contemplate
that in your situation, but that's what I would do. It may be far too early.
Sorry if that just adds to the pain.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> I don't agree with that assumption. People have been known to 'groom' others
> on the net... this place is as dangerous as any other part of real life.
> Trust me - don't trust me.
Yes, yes, you are correct -- sorry about that, and thanks for the
reminder.
> Hang on, what I mean is can you analyze why? Do you really think she's
> punishing you? Or are you 'misunderstanding her intentions' somehow...
No, that's the thing -- she doesn't "mean" to "punish" me; she
could/couldn't care less! I'm just so not on her radar anymore...it's
like me crying over the fact that the water isn't praising me my
reflection or something, you know? She just doesn't give a damn.
Now the thing is, we're not strangers.
> You
> know, you're out the door in her world, it doesn't matter to her anymore so
> therefore the videos and all those things may even be in the bin
> (literally). I hate to add even more cruelty to the state you're in.
It well could be, except that she hasn't said this. Finally she came
up with a lame excuse -- "oh, I thought you were asking me where I'd
put the stuff in your place" (she claims, essentially, to have thought
that I was asking something along the lines of "where did you put my
socks?"), and that she'd been too busy anyway (moving into this guy's
place, obviously).
Yes I'm soooo out the door for her, I realize that, and that
recognition adds even more pain...I suppose it's ultimately
narcissistic (sp?), but I just expected different after four years of
"I love you," "please don't ever leave me," "I don't know what I would
do without you," "thank you for being in my life"....
Boy, it's really true: women think they can change men, and men think
women never change.
> It's possible she doesn't think about the cruelty; that *she's* not
> inflicting it
Yes, certainly! That's precisely what's so cruel, in effect if not in
intent: she doesn't give a damn! I'm not even someone she's out to
get -- I'm this piece of trash that the wind keeps blowing unto her
doorstep, and she can't figure out why I'm there, forgetting that
she's dumped me out the window...!
> but you're inflicting it on her behalf, like some kind of
> imaginary toxic friend. I'm really sorry if I'm even half right here. She
> could truly have moved on and may not even be thinking about you.
Yes, she really has moved on, that's just my point!!!!
I'm trying to figure out what the hell happened...how does it just
happen that someone moves on like that?? See, I'd actually feel
better if I could at least say she used me, or something like that
(I've had another girl cheat on me, so I know what I'm talking about:
I was very hurt when I found out -- messed up in school and all that,
you know -- but I actually had my "pride" left intact, for the most
part: I was like, okay, her loss [and I was so into this girl, too]).
But I can't even have that kind of closure...I gave fairly close to
all my all this time -- and I certainly gave my all in the beginning,
that's true. So for Claudia to have just moved on so quickly and
effortlessly really shatters my faith in humanity, know what I mean?
I'm not talking about some "intimate stranger" here, some two-month
relationship....
How to ever trust again? Particularly myself! How could I have been
so...blind?? Or was she once really as "good" as I'd always thought,
only that somehow something changed...? But what? And how?
> Is she being cruel? Are you reading her correctly? Cruelty comes from
> feeling, are you holding on to the idea that she has some kind of feelings
> no matter how sadistic they may be.
Oh yes, I'm aware of the temptation to think that at least she has
some feelings for me still, even if they're cruel ones...cruelest of
all (and by that I refer to effect, not intent) is that she's so moved
on so quickly and I haven't any idea as to the how and why of it all.
> That would be a shame. But this kind of thing can make you stronger, believe
> it or not. You could look upon it as cutting back to make a plant grow
> stronger. But we could sit and bandy similes and metaphors all year long
> perhaps that will help or maybe it will just keep the wound from healing.
Indeed, it's not even like there's a course of healing to follow...who
knows, truly? Perhaps this kind of venting is what's needed, so that
all "intellectual possibilities" are exhausted, like letting poison
out of the system...perhaps more stoicism helps...just don't know!
I realize that theoretically I can come out of this stronger and wiser
and whatnot, but I also see the opposite side, that I can become
embittered and hardened, too...so when logic finds equal plausibility
to both scenarios, I only have my feelings to fall back on -- and my
feelings now are of foreboding, doom....
> When I was being dumped it took me and him a year to articulate what was
> happening and I didn't actually accept it until that fateful moment I spoke
> about a while ago: that moment where the bond breaks. It took me three
> months to 'get over' the intense pain that comes from a deep cut like that.
> That's not really all that long, is it? It actually took more than a year
> for me to accept and deny all the relevant bits and pieces to form them into
> the correct picture.
Hmm, so you were the one being let go? I'd gotten the opposite
impression because at that moment of epiphany where your bonds just
broke you sounded so resolute and steely that I thought you were the
dumper!
So how did you "get over" your intense pain? Was this pain before
that moment of epiphany for you where the bonds just broke, or
afterwards? What does it mean to both deny and accept all the
relevant bits and pieces -- and what are those bits and pieces?? What
was the correct picture you ultimately came up with, and how do you
know it is correct??
> I know. I've lost my soul mate before, it's a harsh landscape.
For some people, a soulmate by definition never leaves...so, I
dunno...could I just be mistaken?
Of course, this whole notion of a soulmate (or souldmates, plural) is
problematic for many....
> Working out the particulars is part of the fun of doing it. I'm still
> working out the particulars with my husband fifteen years into the marriage.
Yes, but you did work out some first and second steps before actually
getting married, right?
Ultimately, you know, my reluctance was on so many levels, and the
most reasonable of them all was my fear of just this kind of thing one
day occurring -- that she just leaves me. I had cause to fear just
that because not only has she done it before -- and even with other
guys (of course, they all deserved it, right, she assured me and I
believed her) -- but she never apologized, except on a few occasions
when I basically dragged it out of her.
She's not communicative about tough stuff -- which is the real test of
a relationship right there. She won't admit to being wrong, and has
this tendency to contradict me even when it's clear that I am right.
I've always just had this sense that I was an accessory, however
greatly prized at any given moment. So all that really gave me pause
-- especially because I did not relish, on top of all that, playing,
as I say, babysitter to her kid in tow.
Yet I do love how familiar she felt, how so much like my own mother
she was in so many ways. And there was a "pathos" to the sex that was
so addicting -- it wasn't just mechanical or pleasurable, there was
actually a spirtual dimension to it, often, though usually a dark one
-- dark spirits, demons...she was not some angel but a succubus....
Yet outside of that, her sense of humor was what was ultimately so
endearing...sigh....
> You must take care with absolutes like this: "I absolutely love only her and
> want only to have kids with her."
No no no, I'm not saying that I believe she was The One, or that I
even subscribe to that whole romantic notion of there being a One and
Only. I merely mean to state that she was indeed someone I loved
truly, at least given my own level of maturity and so forth at the
time.
> When you meet your next deep love you may
> remember how you felt about that - only wanting to have children with
> Claudia, how could you then face your new love and accept your desire for
> children with her.
That's why I've got to work out this matter and not just go on the
rebound.
> If you only want Claudia, you only want children with
> Claudia... you may as well get a vasectomy now or enter a monastery... or
> try to win her back which could turn into a very messy stalking episode.
I do believe in a life with her, you know? But that's not to say that
that's the only life I can imagine, theoretically.
And no, I refuse to stalk her because it doesn't feel like anything
would be achieved by it. Seeing how she has no feelings for me, such
an act would only engender scorn and disgust if not outright fear.
> [As an aside to people who know me: this is another one of the many reasons
> why I would never have children, it's simply not worth the emotional agony
> of bringing someone else into the equation. It's bad enough breaking up with
> one human but add a family on top of that and you have yourself the biggest
> heartache of your life.]
And I used to feel just that way, you know? Then I guess my "manly
pride" got the better of me and I figured, well, I'll just have sons,
then...cool! But with Claudia, I was so in love with her that I
actually wanted to have a daughter with her! Somehow being with her
made me see the beauty of a daughter, of having a "little version" of
the woman I love so dear! To raise that girl right, as if to make up
for the mother's own lost childhood...you know? Anyway, if nothing
else, I do see now how good it would be to have daughters as well!
Previously I'd only considered them a lot of trouble....
> Sometimes it is out of your control.
Yeah, it is -- but was it always? And why? And why did I not
perceive it all?? Etc.
I mean, hell, I might as well learn something from all this storm and
stress, right? But even that seems to be denied me.
> Funny, I tend to sympathize with the male in a break-up because I've seen
> how hard men can take it. I know how it feels as a human to be dumped but
> I've seen how men can really have their world kicked away from under them.
> Somehow it's harder for men, I think this because I can't empathize with
> men, but I know what women can be like I know what I'm like.
Hmm! So how are women like, how are you like, with a break-up?
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to think that all those sexual
chuckles are right -- "a woman is never satisfied," "a woman changes
in a heartbeat"....
> Well I wish I could wave a magic wand right now.
> I wonder what you would wish for.
Interesting! Is it anything at all, or just related to this matter
with Claudia?
If it's anything at all, then I'll get as ridiculous as the offer and
wish for omniscience, if not omnipotence -- Godhood, in effect! Or
world peace and progress then...you know, that kind of thing.
Within the context of relationships, I'd love to have Claudia back,
and somehow see things my way and blah blah blah....
> I'm tempted to suggest you go out and get yourself laid.
Well, I've thought of that, but even if prostitution were legal here,
it'd be too much money, as I'd go on a great big binge.
Your advice is sound, BTW. It doesn't cure the ache, but it does put
things into perspective. And that in itself alleviates some pain.
> But that may appear
> a cynical and unacceptable piece of advice.
I'd call it "realistic"...only that it isn't "practical" given my
social milieu.
But hey, thanks, though...that's really empathetic of you!
> That's what I would do, perhaps
> after a little time... it's useful to feel loved, and loveable, and capable
> of feeling something for someone else. I don't know if you could contemplate
> that in your situation, but that's what I would do. It may be far too early.
> Sorry if that just adds to the pain.
The thing is, a woman can always get sex. Not anywhere near as easy
for a guy. I mean, I'm talking "regular guys." Whereas even a
"regular gal" can always get at least that.
Hey, thanks for your good company, at least. This is at least
comparable to, if not actually (slightly?) better than, "sex therapy."
=)
Really, thanks for the hand-holding. It helps.
Kerr 062
> message
>
>
> Boy, it's really true: women think they can change men, and men think women
> never change.
>
Some people think like that I suppose.
>> It's possible she doesn't think about the cruelty; that *she's* not
>> inflicting it
>>
> Yes, certainly! That's precisely what's so cruel, in effect if not in intent:
> she doesn't give a damn! I'm not even someone she's out to get -- I'm this
> piece of trash that the wind keeps blowing unto her doorstep, and she can't
> figure out why I'm there, forgetting that she's dumped me out the window...!
>
And now think - well it's her loss.
> Yes, she really has moved on, that's just my point!!!!
>
> I'm trying to figure out what the hell happened...how does it just happen that
> someone moves on like that?? See, I'd actually feel better if I could at
> least say she used me, or something like that (I've had another girl cheat on
> me, so I know what I'm talking about: I was very hurt when I found out --
> messed up in school and all that, you know -- but I actually had my "pride"
> left intact, for the most part: I was like, okay, her loss [and I was so into
> this girl, too]).
>
> But I can't even have that kind of closure...I gave fairly close to all my all
> this time -- and I certainly gave my all in the beginning, that's true. So
> for Claudia to have just moved on so quickly and effortlessly really shatters
> my faith in humanity, know what I mean? I'm not talking about some "intimate
> stranger" here, some two-month relationship....
>
> How to ever trust again? Particularly myself! How could I have been
> so...blind?? Or was she once really as "good" as I'd always thought, only
> that somehow something changed...? But what? And how?
>
I've got a couple of possible suggestions they are both difficult to
describe:
Always keep something of yourself back in future - just for you. It's a bit
like putting on armour; putting up a shield, but not quite it's not an outer
shield it's an inner one, and it's self preservation that drives this. You
may well think that this would be unfair on the next person you have a
relationship with, that if you're not willing to 'give your all' then you're
effectively deceiving in some way by omission. But this method can give you
a sanctuary that's there for you in all emergency situations.
I did this when the love of my life destroyed my faith in other humans. I
realized that it could happen at any time with anyone else. It could be that
I'm just not very good at reading people, or that people are only human and
make mistakes, and sometimes I could be their mistake. But it can always
happen.
Either that or go completely the other way, be so open that you're
effectively giving them a clear run at hurting you, that way you know
quickly when they first do it and can ditch them at the first offence. This
could lead to becoming a bit of a doormat but at least you'd know pretty
quickly what someone's intentions are. This may be an unsafe option for you
at this time.
Perhaps a mixture of the two techniques would work... Being open and
easy-going with a small section which is closed to the public.
>> That would be a shame. But this kind of thing can make you stronger, believe
>> it or not. You could look upon it as cutting back to make a plant grow
>> stronger. But we could sit and bandy similes and metaphors all year long
>> perhaps that will help or maybe it will just keep the wound from healing.
>>
> Indeed, it's not even like there's a course of healing to follow...who knows,
> truly? Perhaps this kind of venting is what's needed, so that all
> "intellectual possibilities" are exhausted, like letting poison out of the
> system...perhaps more stoicism helps...just don't know!
>
> I realize that theoretically I can come out of this stronger and wiser and
> whatnot, but I also see the opposite side, that I can become embittered and
> hardened, too...so when logic finds equal plausibility to both scenarios, I
> only have my feelings to fall back on -- and my feelings now are of
> foreboding, doom....
>
"Hardened" isn't necessarily a bad thing but embittered is something to
avoid. As to venting: I had to do mine with my friends as usenet wasn't
around then. I made their lives a misery with my misery. I just couldn't see
any kind of future without him it was miserable.
>> When I was being dumped it took me and him a year to articulate what was
>> happening and I didn't actually accept it until that fateful moment I spoke
>> about a while ago: that moment where the bond breaks. It took me three months
>> to 'get over' the intense pain that comes from a deep cut like that. That's
>> not really all that long, is it? It actually took more than a year for me to
>> accept and deny all the relevant bits and pieces to form them into the
>> correct picture.
>>
> Hmm, so you were the one being let go? I'd gotten the opposite impression
> because at that moment of epiphany where your bonds just broke you sounded so
> resolute and steely that I thought you were the dumper!
>
No, it just took him a lot of work to make me realize that it was over, and
to be fair it took him a long time to realize it for himself anyway.
> So how did you "get over" your intense pain? Was this pain before that moment
> of epiphany for you where the bonds just broke, or afterwards? What does it
> mean to both deny and accept all the relevant bits and pieces -- and what are
> those bits and pieces?? What was the correct picture you ultimately came up
> with, and how do you know it is correct??
>
It's correct enough, it doesn't matter now.
The pain became stronger and more intense up to the moment he made it
absolutely clear to me (the epiphany) and then it was like someone had
unlocked a door and let me out into somewhere I had been trying to get to by
banging on the door for months and pleading to be let through. Only it
wasn't where I wanted to be and I knew there was no going back - I had to
start again in this strange new world.
It was like falling into water at night, there's this moment of silence as
you drop in and then, when you realize you can't breathe down there, you
have to struggle up to the surface for air, instinctively you know where
surface is and how to get there but the temptation is quite strong to stay
down there in the peace and stillness.
Actually I had another look at some of the signals and laugh at how stupid I
was at the time: how could I not have seen what he was trying to tell me.
Well for one thing, he didn't actually /tell me/ he just kept dropping
hints. It doesn't even start with obvious hints... it starts with things
like taking someone for granted, and then using them, and sometimes lying to
them, or even laughing at them and not letting them in on the big joke. When
I look back at some of the things he said/did I think I must have been so
dim. But no, I wasn't stupid because at the time they were isolated events
that weren't related. I should have also taken more note of other people's
reaction to some of the things he would say/do. But again, I loved him at
the time and he could do no wrong; all other people couldn't see him like I
could: I was wearing rose tinted specs.
Well anyway that's years ago now. But you never forget your first love.
>> I know. I've lost my soul mate before, it's a harsh landscape.
>>
> For some people, a soulmate by definition never leaves...so, I dunno...could I
> just be mistaken?
>
> Of course, this whole notion of a soulmate (or souldmates, plural) is
> problematic for many....
>
Well whatever he was it's still a harsh landscape.
>> Working out the particulars is part of the fun of doing it. I'm still working
>> out the particulars with my husband fifteen years into the marriage.
>>
> Yes, but you did work out some first and second steps before actually getting
> married, right?
>
Erm... I suppose so. No, not really... kind of. It just sort of happened as
we talked we fell in love and discussed the future/past honestly, so by the
time I said "I do" I pretty much knew what I was agreeing to. I'd known him
for years before we started going out so it's not like we were starting from
a blank canvas. I had a good database to refer to and mutual friends who
could give me references. He used to live with one of my friends so I'd
known him for about eight years before we went out. But I knew within a
couple of months that I wanted to be with him forever. And when I say
'forever' I'm quite practical about that... I know forever could mean until
death or until he dumps me for someone he prefers.
All children are a lot of trouble and so are all relationships. (Actually
that's not always true but generally it is. I, for instance, was a really
easy child to rear according to my parents... well why make the job
difficult for someone when everyone can have a much better time when it's
easy?)
But, YABH if you think this break-up is bad just imagine how you'd feel if
she had your daughter in her house and that other man was now playing the
role of the father? Ooh that's got to be a killer blow.
>> Sometimes it is out of your control.
>>
> Yeah, it is -- but was it always? And why? And why did I not perceive it
> all?? Etc.
>
> I mean, hell, I might as well learn something from all this storm and stress,
> right? But even that seems to be denied me.
>
You'll be able to put your own picture together one day, just like I did. I
hope.
>> Funny, I tend to sympathize with the male in a break-up because I've seen how
>> hard men can take it. I know how it feels as a human to be dumped but I've
>> seen how men can really have their world kicked away from under them. Somehow
>> it's harder for men, I think this because I can't empathize with men, but I
>> know what women can be like I know what I'm like.
>>
> Hmm! So how are women like, how are you like, with a break-up?
>
We're emotionally stronger than men. Much more resilient to relationship
breakdown. I think people have said it's got something to do with our
extended network of friends and having the ability to express our emotions
openly, or that we have this biological urge to drop one man in favour of
another (something to do with maternal urges and biological clocks). That's
the conventional myth/wisdom.
I've never dumped someone at this level. I wonder what it would be like to
be on that side of the equation. It must be really painful and difficult
(Good!) I sympathize because I can't empathize: meaning that because I have
no idea what it's like to be a man I almost over compensate and indulge my
imagination... if it's bad for me to feel this way it must be worse for a
man. I don't know why, I think it's because men supposedly don't go around
offloading their emotions all over the place and generally have to block it
off; not reach out - that makes the anguish even more inconsolable. It
extends the heartache half-life.
> I hate to say this, but I'm starting to think that all those sexual chuckles
> are right -- "a woman is never satisfied," "a woman changes in a
> heartbeat"....
>
I've not heard those mantras. I've heard that women are shallow. Perhaps so.
>
>> Well I wish I could wave a magic wand right now. I wonder what you would wish
>> for.
>>
> Interesting! Is it anything at all, or just related to this matter with
> Claudia?
>
> If it's anything at all, then I'll get as ridiculous as the offer and wish for
> omniscience, if not omnipotence -- Godhood, in effect! Or world peace and
> progress then...you know, that kind of thing.
>
I'd wish for nothing... after all, with a magic wand I can wish for anything
I want - what more could I wish for?
> Within the context of relationships, I'd love to have Claudia back, and
> somehow see things my way and blah blah blah....
>
But then you're wishing for a Stepford Wife; a Claudiabot. Remember, Claudia
is as Claudia does.
>> I'm tempted to suggest you go out and get yourself laid.
>>
> Well, I've thought of that, but even if prostitution were legal here, it'd be
> too much money, as I'd go on a great big binge.
>
> Your advice is sound, BTW. It doesn't cure the ache, but it does put things
> into perspective. And that in itself alleviates some pain.
>
I don't mean paid sex, I mean a rebound romance. Get out there and flirt and
eye up some women... that's what I meant about it appearing cynical because
you'd be doing it for your own selfish needs.
>> That's what I would do
>>
> The thing is, a woman can always get sex. Not anywhere near as easy for a
> guy. I mean, I'm talking "regular guys." Whereas even a "regular gal" can
> always get at least that.
Ha! I found it terribly difficult getting sex when I was in my early
twenties... in fact I couldn't give it away! Actually I don't think I'd have
as much difficulty now, ironically.
>
> Hey, thanks for your good company, at least. This is at least comparable to,
> if not actually (slightly?) better than, "sex therapy." =)
>
> Really, thanks for the hand-holding. It helps.
>
It's an absolute pleasure! You're really interesting to 'talk' to.
Sklenge
> Yet Another Broken Heart's post: Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message
>
> Now the thing is, we're not strangers.
>
You're still working together? Is that what you mean?
> Boy, it's really true: women think they can change men, and men think women
> never change.
>
Some people think like that I suppose.
>> It's possible she doesn't think about the cruelty; that *she's* not
>> inflicting it
>>
> Yes, certainly! That's precisely what's so cruel, in effect if not in intent:
> she doesn't give a damn! I'm not even someone she's out to get -- I'm this
> piece of trash that the wind keeps blowing unto her doorstep, and she can't
> figure out why I'm there, forgetting that she's dumped me out the window...!
>
And now think - well it's her loss.
> Yes, she really has moved on, that's just my point!!!!
>
> I'm trying to figure out what the hell happened...how does it just happen that
> someone moves on like that?? See, I'd actually feel better if I could at
> least say she used me, or something like that (I've had another girl cheat on
> me, so I know what I'm talking about: I was very hurt when I found out --
> messed up in school and all that, you know -- but I actually had my "pride"
> left intact, for the most part: I was like, okay, her loss [and I was so into
> this girl, too]).
>
> But I can't even have that kind of closure...I gave fairly close to all my all
> this time -- and I certainly gave my all in the beginning, that's true. So
> for Claudia to have just moved on so quickly and effortlessly really shatters
> my faith in humanity, know what I mean? I'm not talking about some "intimate
> stranger" here, some two-month relationship....
>
> How to ever trust again? Particularly myself! How could I have been
> so...blind?? Or was she once really as "good" as I'd always thought, only
> that somehow something changed...? But what? And how?
>
I've got a couple of possible suggestions they are both difficult to
describe:
Always keep something of yourself back in future - just for you. It's a bit
like putting on armour; putting up a shield, but not quite it's not an outer
shield it's an inner one, and it's self preservation that drives this. You
may well think that this would be unfair on the next person you have a
relationship with, that if you're not willing to 'give your all' then you're
effectively deceiving in some way by omission. But this method can give you
a sanctuary that's there for you in all emergency situations.
I did this when the love of my life destroyed my faith in other humans. I
realized that it could happen at any time with anyone else. It could be that
I'm just not very good at reading people, or that people are only human and
make mistakes, and sometimes I could be their mistake. But it can always
happen.
Either that or go completely the other way, be so open that you're
effectively giving them a clear run at hurting you, that way you know
quickly when they first do it and can ditch them at the first offence. This
could lead to becoming a bit of a doormat but at least you'd know pretty
quickly what someone's intentions are. This may be an unsafe option for you
at this time.
Perhaps a mixture of the two techniques would work... Being open and
easy-going with a small section which is closed to the public.
>> That would be a shame. But this kind of thing can make you stronger, believe
>> it or not. You could look upon it as cutting back to make a plant grow
>> stronger. But we could sit and bandy similes and metaphors all year long
>> perhaps that will help or maybe it will just keep the wound from healing.
>>
> Indeed, it's not even like there's a course of healing to follow...who knows,
> truly? Perhaps this kind of venting is what's needed, so that all
> "intellectual possibilities" are exhausted, like letting poison out of the
> system...perhaps more stoicism helps...just don't know!
>
> I realize that theoretically I can come out of this stronger and wiser and
> whatnot, but I also see the opposite side, that I can become embittered and
> hardened, too...so when logic finds equal plausibility to both scenarios, I
> only have my feelings to fall back on -- and my feelings now are of
> foreboding, doom....
>
"Hardened" isn't necessarily a bad thing but embittered is something to
avoid. As to venting: I had to do mine with my friends as usenet wasn't
around then. I made their lives a misery with my misery. I just couldn't see
any kind of future without him it was miserable.
>> When I was being dumped it took me and him a year to articulate what was
>> happening and I didn't actually accept it until that fateful moment I spoke
>> about a while ago: that moment where the bond breaks. It took me three months
>> to 'get over' the intense pain that comes from a deep cut like that. That's
>> not really all that long, is it? It actually took more than a year for me to
>> accept and deny all the relevant bits and pieces to form them into the
>> correct picture.
>>
> Hmm, so you were the one being let go? I'd gotten the opposite impression
> because at that moment of epiphany where your bonds just broke you sounded so
> resolute and steely that I thought you were the dumper!
>
No, it just took him a lot of work to make me realize that it was over, and
to be fair it took him a long time to realize it for himself anyway.
> So how did you "get over" your intense pain? Was this pain before that moment
> of epiphany for you where the bonds just broke, or afterwards? What does it
> mean to both deny and accept all the relevant bits and pieces -- and what are
> those bits and pieces?? What was the correct picture you ultimately came up
> with, and how do you know it is correct??
>
>> I know. I've lost my soul mate before, it's a harsh landscape.
>>
> For some people, a soulmate by definition never leaves...so, I dunno...could I
> just be mistaken?
>
> Of course, this whole notion of a soulmate (or souldmates, plural) is
> problematic for many....
>
Well whatever he was it's still a harsh landscape.
>> Working out the particulars is part of the fun of doing it. I'm still working
>> out the particulars with my husband fifteen years into the marriage.
>>
> Yes, but you did work out some first and second steps before actually getting
> married, right?
>
Erm... I suppose so. No, not really... kind of. It just sort of happened as
we talked we fell in love and discussed the future/past honestly, so by the
time I said "I do" I pretty much knew what I was agreeing to. I'd known him
for years before we started going out so it's not like we were starting from
a blank canvas. I had a good database to refer to and mutual friends who
could give me references. He used to live with one of my friends so I'd
known him for about eight years before we went out. But I knew within a
couple of months that I wanted to be with him forever. And when I say
'forever' I'm quite practical about that... I know forever could mean until
death or until he dumps me for someone he prefers.
All children are a lot of trouble and so are all relationships. (Actually
that's not always true but generally it is. I, for instance, was a really
easy child to rear according to my parents... well why make the job
difficult for someone when everyone can have a much better time when it's
easy?)
But, YABH if you think this break-up is bad just imagine how you'd feel if
she had your daughter in her house and that other man was now playing the
role of the father? Ooh that's got to be a killer blow.
>> Sometimes it is out of your control.
>>
> Yeah, it is -- but was it always? And why? And why did I not perceive it
> all?? Etc.
>
> I mean, hell, I might as well learn something from all this storm and stress,
> right? But even that seems to be denied me.
>
You'll be able to put your own picture together one day, just like I did. I
hope.
>> Funny, I tend to sympathize with the male in a break-up because I've seen how
>> hard men can take it. I know how it feels as a human to be dumped but I've
>> seen how men can really have their world kicked away from under them. Somehow
>> it's harder for men, I think this because I can't empathize with men, but I
>> know what women can be like I know what I'm like.
>>
> Hmm! So how are women like, how are you like, with a break-up?
>
We're emotionally stronger than men. Much more resilient to relationship
breakdown. I think people have said it's got something to do with our
extended network of friends and having the ability to express our emotions
openly, or that we have this biological urge to drop one man in favour of
another (something to do with maternal urges and biological clocks). That's
the conventional myth/wisdom.
I've never dumped someone at this level. I wonder what it would be like to
be on that side of the equation. It must be really painful and difficult
(Good!) I sympathize because I can't empathize: meaning that because I have
no idea what it's like to be a man I almost over compensate and indulge my
imagination... if it's bad for me to feel this way it must be worse for a
man. I don't know why, I think it's because men supposedly don't go around
offloading their emotions all over the place and generally have to block it
off; not reach out - that makes the anguish even more inconsolable. It
extends the heartache half-life.
> I hate to say this, but I'm starting to think that all those sexual chuckles
> are right -- "a woman is never satisfied," "a woman changes in a
> heartbeat"....
>
I've not heard those mantras. I've heard that women are shallow. Perhaps so.
>
>> Well I wish I could wave a magic wand right now. I wonder what you would wish
>> for.
>>
> Interesting! Is it anything at all, or just related to this matter with
> Claudia?
>
> If it's anything at all, then I'll get as ridiculous as the offer and wish for
> omniscience, if not omnipotence -- Godhood, in effect! Or world peace and
> progress then...you know, that kind of thing.
>
I'd wish for nothing... after all, with a magic wand I can wish for anything
I want - what more could I wish for?
> Within the context of relationships, I'd love to have Claudia back, and
> somehow see things my way and blah blah blah....
>
But then you're wishing for a Stepford Wife; a Claudiabot. Remember, Claudia
is as Claudia does.
>> I'm tempted to suggest you go out and get yourself laid.
>>
> Well, I've thought of that, but even if prostitution were legal here, it'd be
> too much money, as I'd go on a great big binge.
>
> Your advice is sound, BTW. It doesn't cure the ache, but it does put things
> into perspective. And that in itself alleviates some pain.
>
I don't mean paid sex, I mean a rebound romance. Get out there and flirt and
eye up some women... that's what I meant about it appearing cynical because
you'd be doing it for your own selfish needs.
>> That's what I would do
>>
> The thing is, a woman can always get sex. Not anywhere near as easy for a
> guy. I mean, I'm talking "regular guys." Whereas even a "regular gal" can
> always get at least that.
Ha! I found it terribly difficult getting sex when I was in my early
twenties... in fact I couldn't give it away! Actually I don't think I'd have
as much difficulty now, ironically.
>
> Hey, thanks for your good company, at least. This is at least comparable to,
> if not actually (slightly?) better than, "sex therapy." =)
>
> Really, thanks for the hand-holding. It helps.
>
KrosRogue
> I had been ready to move on Friday, actually ("ready" as in making a
> concentrated effort to do so) -- but then suddenly she renegged on our
> deal for me to get copies of our photos and video together, including
> the only video of my now-deceased mom, from when my mom took her to
> Chicago!!
Ouch! That is nasty.
> That's what frightens me, that I will forever have this scar on me,
> this ugly scar...I don't want to be cynical about women, that's so
> easy to do...I don't want to be cynical about myself, more to the
> point -- how to be "wise" without being "cynical"??
There is a fine line between the two. I am still learning how to
balance them.
> Oh, how to forgive...forgive her, forgive myself....
I think that may be a big part of it.
>> It wasn't really an act of will. It was more inaction, rather an
>> unwillingness to register a meaningful response. I suppose you could
>> compare my reaction to one enduring a state of shock.
> Umm...mind if I inquire about the particulars? What was so shocking
> to you? To me, it was as if the princess I'd been with was really an
> old crone, like something out of a fairy tale like that...I'm really
> doubting myself, my own judgment, powers of perception, even my own
> intentions and driving desires, my very thoughts!
That was pretty much my feeling. Then the pain just faded to numbness.
From then on it seemed as though my whole life got swallowed up into
oblivion.
>> Perhaps you are recovering from your state of shock.
> Yes, I know I am...I almost don't want to -- to face, in effect, the
> reality that she really doesn't give a damn about me, and that such
> things can happen in the world, silly as all this sounds....
Yeah. It's silly. But it still hurts. I think that's where the
numbness comes in. The mind cringes from the pain and seeks escape.
>> I don't know. I suppose it may have been inevitable, considering the
>> fact that I was emotionally immature at the time. From the time I was
>> a child until then, I was very awkward socially, a misfit.
> Well, precisely how?? I'd been socially awkward, too, but I am able
> to keep up appearances nowadays....
>
> See, my thing is, I'm really a sensitive geek trapped in an athlete's
> body -- how misfit is that, huh? Almost like being gay or something.
> 'Matter of fact, various people, not acquainted with one another at
> various points of my life have joked how I look like Clark Kent.
>
> I suppose you'll say that you were even more awkwardly misfit than I
> or the usual self-conscious kid...so please say exactly how, if you
> care to, and what you're doing about it all *today*.
While growing up I had very low self esteem. Everything I said seemed
to come out wrong. Kids my age teased me about my cumbersome way of
interacting. I was painfully shy and almost never spoke unless I was
spoken to. And woe to me if a girl showed me any pleasant attention at
all; I got all gushy and acted like a stupid puppy dog. I would do
anything to please her and never make any attempt at all to express my
own desires. Hmph! It makes me sick to my stomach now to remember what
a sick wimp I was back then. This was pretty much what I was when I
met the one who would be my wife. I was easy shark-bait for her.
We were married for ten years and then she got tired of me and filed
for divorce. My life went down the toilet after that.
Then, after a long period of numbness, haziness, and aimless drifting,
I began to allow myself to acknowledge the existence of the rest of
the world. One benefit of the aimless drifting and bouncing from one
job to the next was that I was no longer shy. Being hungry enough to
beg for a job pushed away all shyness and feelings of
self-consciousness. It also caused me to be more pro-active in the
pursuit of my needs and desires.
I know what it is to feel like trash.
Now, I also know what it is to see what I want and go after it. I
think that is the best lesson I could have learned from this whole
mess. I am creating a new life for myself, and even though the
progress is slow, I can see the improvement.
> And all without sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll! WTF?!?! How low can
> one get, huh? All the pain without any of the glory -- or gals!
Yeah, like waking up with a hangover, after a night of being cold
sober.
> But somewhere it still hurts...plus that I could have been so wrong
> about someone! Really makes me wonder about myself, you know? I
> actually feel, ahem, violated. I mean, yeah, my trust has been
> violated...and it makes me wonder: what could be done to screen out
> such people? It seems that one just never knows until it's too late,
> what???
Pick up the pieces and move on. Or, as in my case, to Hell with the
damn pieces. I just moved on.
>> The new dude should have killed that feeling. It would have for me.
> No, not if she's just being her usual emotionally-impulsive self (like
> a kid that wants anything in the store). If it's a cold-hearted
> calculus that she's actually doing, though, then that would "kill" my
> feelings -- for the most part, since it'd be an intentional murder (as
> opposed to negligent homicide, so to speak) -- even though I would
> still love her simply for who she is at her best and most unique.
I once had a girlfriend that slept around with anyone she chose. She
didn't even try to hide it from me. But me, puppy-sick as I was,
stayed with her. That will never happen again. Signs of unfaithfulness
will definitely end any future relationship.
>> A question I have asked myself many times.
> God damn, where's the late-night infomercial peddling love antidotes??
> Chemicals to inhibit my hormones and such...they've got diet pills,
> muscle shakes, love potions even -- but where the brew for peace of
> mind???
Deep inside, I think. It comes from knowing one's self-worth.
>> Either that or realized your goals were not mutual and ended things
>> based on what I consider a fundamental incompatibility.
> But that's just the thing! Many times we've broken up and
> acknowledged this incompatibility where material goals are concerned,
> and we'd been civil about it. I don't understand what's different
> this time, that this should be necessary, this apathy and fatigue just
> shy of hate.
That's another mistake I've made that I will avoid in the future. That
mistake is wrestling for an answer that isn't forthcoming. Drop it and
move on. The pain is bad enough without tormenting yourself more about
it.
> I really do believe in talking things through...not that that will,
> ipso facto, settle things, but I do believe in its helping matters.
> She just couldn't talk...for her, as for most people -- particular
> females it seems -- talking isn't about problem-solving, it's about
> acceptance...I think I may well have erred in treating such chats,
> infrequent as they were even in the beginning blossom-time of our
> relationship, as problem-solving opportunities instead of simply
> sitting back and just accepting what she had to say and letting that
> be...she doesn't have this "engineer's" POV to tinker with things,
> think them through analytically -- it's about what she feels and
> that's it. No need, apparently, to resolve anything.
This is where I would differ with you. The way I am now, I would push
for the resolve, even if it caused the end of the relationship.
>> Compatibility. I think it's essential.
> In general, yes, but one needn't be in accord on every -- or even most
> -- particulars...just the crucial ones.
It appears to me that compatibility implies agreement on which
particulars *are* crucial.
> Sure I can. I just may not want to...for example (as I've often
> bemoaned), I don't want to view her as an opportunist, but she
> certainly is acting like one (though friends and family say that they
> knew all along, though I couldn't agree then and find hard to do even
> now). Viewing her as an opportunist implicates me, I feel -- how did
> I make a thief of her, as it were? You know, fool me once, shame on
> you, fool me twice, shame on me....
That's a crude philosophy, but IMHO, a very good one.
>> When one feels froggy enough to jump. ;-)
> So indeed it all comes down to feelings -- which are notorious for
> changing on a dime -- despite all our vaunted rational capabilities?
That seems to be the result of my analysis. Feelings, vibes,
chemistry, impulse. If they synchronize with the one you love, it's
Heaven. If not, it's Hell. From what I see, it's as simple as that.
> Indeed, so many life decisions are not motivated by rationality as
> much as feeling...and somewhere between the two, as between the heaven
> and earth, there is a flash of inspiration and it finally rains.
Sounds really stupid, doesn't it? So much for making informed and
rational choices. ;-)
>> If it's really good, then BUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP!!!!
>> Low, gutteral, and loud. ;-)
> Yeah, I've had it up to here with mystery meat...time to move onto
> prime steak! I feel so foolish dashing my heart against such crude
> rocks...more honor, it seems, in losing a war over Helen than over
> some Medusa.
Try shooting for some compatibility. Mutual "sparks" are good, too.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
> Ouch! That is nasty.
Yes. Just no sense of...I don't know what to call it -- gratitude?
Respect? Humanity?
Yet she is no monster, and I can be sure she's very loving of the new
guy and all that.
Human nature...ugh!
> There is a fine line between the two. I am still learning how to
> balance them.
I can only recall Christ's own admonishment -- either be hot or cold,
but lukewarm water is no good! Or as the Spanish say, either be a
saint of a villain, but do it with balls!
I think I'm sick of the "nice guy" routine. It really, truly is just
a game. It really is. I've just got to get that through to my head.
Forget labels, forget whether that's "cynical" or "mean" or
whatever...it just is, isn't it?
So I have to be, accordingly.
> I think that may be a big part of it.
But upon what foundation does forgiveness rest for an atheist? I
can't even understand her.
I think I'm sick of thinking of her. Just sick of it now, of her.
And this makes me sick, to think that I could think of her now as
she's been thinking of me, in all likelihood. That I've become just
the evil which had caused me so much pain. I'm becoming callous
myself. Becoming tired of my own heartaches.
> That was pretty much my feeling. Then the pain just faded to numbness.
> From then on it seemed as though my whole life got swallowed up into
> oblivion.
I suppose I'm getting there myself. I hope my life doesn't get messed
up, but at least emotionally speaking, I can hardly look at any girl
without this sense of...disdain.
Maybe that really what it is -- react to the uniform, not the person
in it.
> Yeah. It's silly. But it still hurts. I think that's where the
> numbness comes in. The mind cringes from the pain and seeks escape.
I guess this really is how things are, and I ought to wise up. I know
that sounds so self-pitying, but I mean that really as an expression
of fact...I'm making more out of this than it really deserves. I need
a sense of perspective. She was just some girl who kept me some
company for four years, whatever fantasies we've entertained ourselves
and for one another. There are bigger and better tits and asses out
there, which shake more impressively, which taste sweeter, which cost
less....
Oh, who am I kidding. The truth is that there are, but not for the
likes of me. I haven't the money, and as far as looks -- that only
goes so far. Ultimately, it's persistence -- but I'm feeling so
jaded, it's hard to keep going when I
> While growing up I had very low self esteem. Everything I said seemed
> to come out wrong. Kids my age teased me about my cumbersome way of
> interacting. I was painfully shy and almost never spoke unless I was
> spoken to. And woe to me if a girl showed me any pleasant attention at
> all; I got all gushy and acted like a stupid puppy dog. I would do
> anything to please her and never make any attempt at all to express my
> own desires. Hmph! It makes me sick to my stomach now to remember what
> a sick wimp I was back then. This was pretty much what I was when I
> met the one who would be my wife. I was easy shark-bait for her.
Yeah, I guess that's what I will take away from this experience: to be
ever-vigilent.
Sorry about your wife...though I guess even you now think that that
was something of a blessing in disguise. What do you suppose you
could/should have done different?
> We were married for ten years and then she got tired of me and filed
> for divorce. My life went down the toilet after that.
Damn! How, exactly, did she "tire" of you? Did she at least try to
let you down "gently"?? Were you yourself happy with her for those
ten years?
> Then, after a long period of numbness, haziness, and aimless drifting,
> I began to allow myself to acknowledge the existence of the rest of
> the world. One benefit of the aimless drifting and bouncing from one
> job to the next was that I was no longer shy. Being hungry enough to
> beg for a job pushed away all shyness and feelings of
> self-consciousness. It also caused me to be more pro-active in the
> pursuit of my needs and desires.
Just curious...would you characterize yourself now as "new and
improved"? Do you suppose that, had you been this way then, before
the divorce, she would have behaved differently?
Not blaming you in any way, you understand...I'm just always curious
as to all the various factors which may have been
involved...(ultimately, I know, such hair-splitting wears one out).
> I know what it is to feel like trash.
Sorry that you do. Sorry that I'm now hoping she gets trashed
herself!
> Now, I also know what it is to see what I want and go after it. I
> think that is the best lesson I could have learned from this whole
> mess. I am creating a new life for myself, and even though the
> progress is slow, I can see the improvement.
That is good. How does this NG fit into your new life, I wonder?
I expect there's something here for me, too...just can't see it....
> Yeah, like waking up with a hangover, after a night of being cold
> sober.
Great analogy! Gee, so much for the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics!
> Pick up the pieces and move on. Or, as in my case, to Hell with the
> damn pieces. I just moved on.
Yeah. Tsk, tsk....
> I once had a girlfriend that slept around with anyone she chose. She
> didn't even try to hide it from me. But me, puppy-sick as I was,
> stayed with her. That will never happen again. Signs of unfaithfulness
> will definitely end any future relationship.
You know, I used to be very strict about that stuff -- but with
Claudia, I loved her, what can I say, I forgave her...so she did it
again!!!
> Deep inside, I think. It comes from knowing one's self-worth.
Yes, true...I mean, I know it in an intellectual sense, but I don't
always feel it.
Plus, I try not to let anything anywhere resembling "pride" get in the
way -- though I guess I'll really have to, and just realize how
undeserving she is of my largesse, material and otherwise.
> That's another mistake I've made that I will avoid in the future. That
> mistake is wrestling for an answer that isn't forthcoming. Drop it and
> move on. The pain is bad enough without tormenting yourself more about
> it.
You have to understand, it's who I am, a seeker, one who quests, and
searches for answers...and, frankly, I do at least "enjoy" (or, more
accurately, "believe in" [the "validity" of]) the journey -- the
mission....
Still, she is a dearly-departed comrade who betrayed me...see, that's
what hurts...this isn't just about some silly girl -- I really thought
we were "comrades," as I say; soulmates, even.
> This is where I would differ with you. The way I am now, I would push
> for the resolve, even if it caused the end of the relationship.
Sorry, come again? Not sure I follow you.
> It appears to me that compatibility implies agreement on which
> particulars *are* crucial.
Not every single particular needs to match perfectly, if match at all,
right? Thus I say that general compatibility should still trump any
particular incompatibility.
> That's a crude philosophy, but IMHO, a very good one.
"Good" in what sense? "Crude" in what sense?
I'm not as interested in the "practical" as such as much as I am in
the "ontological" -- from whence I feel that a practical path will
then naturally flow. In other words, I'm still trying to determine
the what, before I decide how to proceed...still trying to figure out
what happened and why, who's responsible, etc.
Anyway, there is such a thing as short division, so to speak...I think
I'll just take your advice to heart and skip all the work and jump
straight at the end result -- forward, march!
> That seems to be the result of my analysis. Feelings, vibes,
> chemistry, impulse. If they synchronize with the one you love, it's
> Heaven. If not, it's Hell. From what I see, it's as simple as that.
Um...but feelings change...so if we're doing things based on
feelings...then what can ever be guaranteed? Except through threat of
loss, pain, etc. -- the Hobbesian view, in fact. Can't have one's
word be their bond -- must have some penalty attached to discourage
betrayal.
Like that?
Yeah, okay, I hear you, I hear...I will be more realistic in my
outlook.
> Sounds really stupid, doesn't it? So much for making informed and
> rational choices. ;-)
Yeah...that's what's so depressing, really...it's this sense of
powerlessness, this sense that, hey, this is about as good as I can
realistically expect of anyone! It's just luck, fate...nothing I can
do, so why bother trying...except that I am lonely, and need the
company, right....
> Try shooting for some compatibility. Mutual "sparks" are good, too.
The odds are stacked -- and I'm not even all that picky! I lowered my
previous standards with regards to Claudia, and I'm alone as I ever
was when I had held to my standards.
It's truly the luck of the draw. I guess that's just what I'm slowly
coming to accept. This appears to be the lesson. Nothing I can do.
Just try to enjoy the ride, whatever ride I find myself on. Just be
glad for the simple things in life. Don't set myself up for
disappointment.
Indeed, I ache and hurt and...for what? What great crusade is this?
To preserve the memories of a dream? As if First Love and Frienship
did not imply a second and a third, as if a pledge did not imply its
breach, as if in life there is no death and the seasons knew not their
time. Wherefore this longing? All is fair in love and war. And if
so, then hate will be peace, quiet and calm, and will heal me as fire
closes a wound, as fire ennobles steel, and as fire consumes my pain I
will marvel no more at the mechanics of change or the instruments of
war.
Accept...let go...move on...a new life, a new life. She means to be
rid of me completely.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> You're still working together? Is that what you mean?
No, what I'd meant was that her apathy is the sort strangers receive,
not someone of four years' hopes and dreams. That's all.
And that's a lot to take in.
> Some people think like that I suppose.
The thing is, people change...but that change is something they allow
and/or will....
All the red flags were there, but I thought that, hell, whatever the
problems, at least I know that she'll be with me, that she wants me.
I thought I could have counted on at least that. I mean, when a girl
proposes marriage -- when a girl who isn't given to writing writes
"please don't ever leave me" and so forth -- I just took her at her
word and assumed that that was a reflection of who she forever is,
just like her sense of humor, something she can't lose even if she
wanted to....
> And now think - well it's her loss.
I can think that, but I still don't quite feel it...and even just
thinking -- even on just an intellectual level -- I hate to seem as if
I'm playing at "sour grapes"...I'd always believed that she got more
out of the relationship than I did, under the current philosophy of
the marketplace, but I didn't let it get to me because I felt that
loving her was its own reward...and now, to see how little she thinks
of that care and concern...ugh!
It is her loss in many ways -- but she doesn't need a guy built like
an Olympic athlete, she doesn't need a guy conversant in four
different languages, she doesn't need someone who can paint pictures
and compose essays, who knows of history and culture as well as
science, who loves her sense of humor like no one else and takes her
shit and comes back for more.
She doesn't need all that. It would be nice -- it was nice -- but she
doesn't *need* all that. She just needs her house and car and a
decent fella who'll be around to build a life with her and her son.
It's her loss on paper. In my heart, it's felt as my loss. And not
just her have I lost...I really think I've lost a certain kind of
faith in humanity, as it were. I'm no longer an innocent, and I will
now harm others myself. Once this certain perspective crystallizes, I
will be...I don't know. I wonder if I really have it in me, after
all, to stick it to someone like that.
Truly there are no good or bad men, only strong and weak ones.
Hmm....
> I've got a couple of possible suggestions they are both difficult to
> describe:
>
> Always keep something of yourself back in future - just for you. It's a bit
> like putting on armour; putting up a shield, but not quite it's not an outer
> shield it's an inner one, and it's self preservation that drives this. You
> may well think that this would be unfair on the next person you have a
> relationship with, that if you're not willing to 'give your all' then you're
> effectively deceiving in some way by omission. But this method can give you
> a sanctuary that's there for you in all emergency situations.
Yes, and you know, it's precisely that attitude which has made me drop
previous relationships on one ground or another -- all valid, and yet
none of which has caused me to drop Claudia, because I figured that
I'd finally cut some slack and be "reasonable," "realistic,"
"pragmatic," "compassionate"...I thought I'd give it my all for once
in my life and not hold back, not fear, not be such a snob...well,
well....
> I did this when the love of my life destroyed my faith in other humans. I
> realized that it could happen at any time with anyone else. It could be that
> I'm just not very good at reading people, or that people are only human and
> make mistakes, and sometimes I could be their mistake. But it can always
> happen.
Isn't that something? Sure it *can* happen -- and that's precisely
the whole goddamned point of "love," that it doesn't! That one
commits whole-heartedly and fights for the relationship, struggles to
maintain it, creates together with the beloved the miracle that for
once we mortals have something which doesn't perish, the activity of
loving, of caring, of being patient -- ever, forever patient! -- with
another, of going through thick and thin...what the hell do people
suppose loving is all about, anyway????
> Either that or go completely the other way, be so open that you're
> effectively giving them a clear run at hurting you, that way you know
> quickly when they first do it and can ditch them at the first offence. This
> could lead to becoming a bit of a doormat but at least you'd know pretty
> quickly what someone's intentions are. This may be an unsafe option for you
> at this time.
Yeah, this appeals more to me, and it was quite what I'd adopted with
Claudia. I'd only figured that after four years she would have
ditched me already...oh well, I'll use four years as a landmark from
now on -- LOL, they say most business start-ups fail within five --
and...aw, I dunno...what the hell, it's only just my feelings...let
all hell break loose, come what may! What am I crying about here -- I
took my chances with this girl and my luck had been running pretty
good; statistically it was just bound to fail sooner or later....
Come then, give me a rap on the head and send me off again! Bid me no
return until I come either with my shield or on it! And no one dies
of love, one only learns and grows...that's all this is, growing
pains...I will think of her less and less, until she passes into
memory, and then beyond that she will not even haunt my dreams
anymore. She will fade for me, and I will not fear that.
> Perhaps a mixture of the two techniques would work... Being open and
> easy-going with a small section which is closed to the public.
That's what most would recommend, and surely it sounds reasonable.
But I had forgotten who I am. I'm an adventurer, damn it, and this is
the luck of the draw. I've lost this time, and lost big, but I will
not let this cause me to be more afraid! Damn it, but I haven't seen
anything yet, haven't lived yet, and almost surely haven't yet been
loved!
> "Hardened" isn't necessarily a bad thing but embittered is something to
> avoid. As to venting: I had to do mine with my friends as usenet wasn't
> around then. I made their lives a misery with my misery. I just couldn't see
> any kind of future without him it was miserable.
Yeah, this internet is quite a boon! It's quite interesting...total
strangers find more resonance with one's pain than do friends who are
supposed to care.
> No, it just took him a lot of work to make me realize that it was over, and
> to be fair it took him a long time to realize it for himself anyway.
So are you two still friends? I guess you've long forgiven him, at
least in your heart.
So was life better after all that?
> It's correct enough, it doesn't matter now.
Wow. "Fascinating."
> The pain became stronger and more intense up to the moment he made it
> absolutely clear to me (the epiphany) and then it was like someone had
> unlocked a door and let me out into somewhere I had been trying to get to by
> banging on the door for months and pleading to be let through. Only it
> wasn't where I wanted to be and I knew there was no going back - I had to
> start again in this strange new world.
Hmm.
> It was like falling into water at night, there's this moment of silence as
> you drop in and then, when you realize you can't breathe down there, you
> have to struggle up to the surface for air, instinctively you know where
> surface is and how to get there but the temptation is quite strong to stay
> down there in the peace and stillness.
Yes, wow...been there myself, I do believe.
> Actually I had another look at some of the signals and laugh at how stupid I
> was at the time: how could I not have seen what he was trying to tell me.
Yeah, well, I suppose I could have been a better mind-reader myself,
too.
> Well for one thing, he didn't actually /tell me/ he just kept dropping
> hints. It doesn't even start with obvious hints... it starts with things
> like taking someone for granted, and then using them, and sometimes lying to
> them, or even laughing at them and not letting them in on the big joke.
Yup -- love truly is blind!
> When
> I look back at some of the things he said/did I think I must have been so
> dim. But no, I wasn't stupid because at the time they were isolated events
> that weren't related. I should have also taken more note of other people's
> reaction to some of the things he would say/do. But again, I loved him at
> the time and he could do no wrong; all other people couldn't see him like I
> could: I was wearing rose tinted specs.
So how to avoid this again??
> Well anyway that's years ago now. But you never forget your first love.
It's terrible there has to be this big parade of visions before the
horizon decides to settle in place!
> Well whatever he was it's still a harsh landscape.
I feel like Dr. Faustus...for all my "learning" I now see that we just
cannot know -- we can only experience (but by then, it may well be too
late!).
All that stuff about better decision-making, getting in touch with
one's own feelings...nice ideas, but they just...I dunno...are of no
help...you do what you can, but in the end it's still a plunge, isn't
it. It really is like picking stocks...no telling at all, really none
for all the "scientific" gloss.
> Erm... I suppose so. No, not really... kind of. It just sort of happened as
> we talked we fell in love and discussed the future/past honestly, so by the
> time I said "I do" I pretty much knew what I was agreeing to. I'd known him
> for years before we started going out so it's not like we were starting from
> a blank canvas. I had a good database to refer to and mutual friends who
> could give me references. He used to live with one of my friends so I'd
> known him for about eight years before we went out. But I knew within a
> couple of months that I wanted to be with him forever. And when I say
> 'forever' I'm quite practical about that... I know forever could mean until
> death or until he dumps me for someone he prefers.
Gosh...WTH kind of "forever" is that?!
Why bother getting married at all?
And, besides, what are you lonely for with a husband?
Please don't think me rude; these questions arise naturally. This
kind of "whatever's clever" mode of being really makes me wonder. Not
that my life has turned out just peachy following, haphazardly,
prescribed ideas, mind you...just wondering, as I say.
> All children are a lot of trouble and so are all relationships. (Actually
> that's not always true but generally it is. I, for instance, was a really
> easy child to rear according to my parents... well why make the job
> difficult for someone when everyone can have a much better time when it's
> easy?)
You were, obviously, a most prescient and precocious child. =)
Perhaps that happens genetically.
> But, YABH if you think this break-up is bad just imagine how you'd feel if
> she had your daughter in her house and that other man was now playing the
> role of the father? Ooh that's got to be a killer blow.
I know, I know -- it could be worse.
> You'll be able to put your own picture together one day, just like I did. I
> hope.
LOL -- yeah, me too!
So far, I'm afraid I've gotten only "nihilistic" lessons from all
this....
> We're emotionally stronger than men. Much more resilient to relationship
> breakdown. I think people have said it's got something to do with our
> extended network of friends and having the ability to express our emotions
> openly, or that we have this biological urge to drop one man in favour of
> another (something to do with maternal urges and biological clocks). That's
> the conventional myth/wisdom.
Seems to describe her perfectly. Damn, if "nine guys in eleven years"
doesn't just scream "hello!" I must be deaf and blind. Which, of
course, I was -- and probably still am, and might well remain.
> I've never dumped someone at this level. I wonder what it would be like to
> be on that side of the equation. It must be really painful and difficult
> (Good!)
Huh??
> I sympathize because I can't empathize: meaning that because I have
> no idea what it's like to be a man I almost over compensate and indulge my
> imagination... if it's bad for me to feel this way it must be worse for a
> man. I don't know why, I think it's because men supposedly don't go around
> offloading their emotions all over the place and generally have to block it
> off; not reach out - that makes the anguish even more inconsolable. It
> extends the heartache half-life.
Probably -- so thank goodness for my internet connection!
> I've not heard those mantras. I've heard that women are shallow. Perhaps so.
I dunno, maybe now I can really "start my life"...I mean, truth to
tell, there's a lot of stuff here, in the aftermath...I can only
believe that they will serve me in some unlooked-for stead one
necessary day....
> I'd wish for nothing... after all, with a magic wand I can wish for anything
> I want - what more could I wish for?
LOL! Reminds me of the funny phenomenon sociologists noticed after
German Reunification -- "Ossies" were no longer trying to get into the
West!
> But then you're wishing for a Stepford Wife; a Claudiabot. Remember, Claudia
> is as Claudia does.
No, I doubt she had ever been much of a Stepford Wife, really. I had
been the one putting up with so much...oh....
Can love ever be one-sided, I wonder? Hmm...I don't mean the feeling
of passion; I mean true lovingkindness...I keep feeling that I've
failed her in some really fundamental way (I certainly was full of
mistakes myself, honestly speaking), which is why she's treating me
like this...like I'm some disease that one can't get away from fast
enough.
> I don't mean paid sex, I mean a rebound romance. Get out there and flirt and
> eye up some women... that's what I meant about it appearing cynical because
> you'd be doing it for your own selfish needs.
Believe it or not, I would enjoy just hanging out with her and her
friends -- but, lo and behold! suddenly there aren't even girls who
"just want to be friends"!
JFC, this is really too funny...believe me, this is sooooo
hilarious...I must deserve all this somehow!!
> Ha! I found it terribly difficult getting sex when I was in my early
> twenties... in fact I couldn't give it away! Actually I don't think I'd have
> as much difficulty now, ironically.
Hm. I find that hard to believe.
> It's an absolute pleasure! You're really interesting to 'talk' to.
Really! Well, I wonder...maybe I should just go ply my troubles on
the next hapless damsel in distress!
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD6647C9.1FBBD%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>
> The thing is, people change...but that change is something they allow and/or
> will....
>
> All the red flags were there, but I thought that, hell, whatever the problems,
> at least I know that she'll be with me, that she wants me. I thought I could
> have counted on at least that. I mean, when a girl proposes marriage -- when
> a girl who isn't given to writing writes "please don't ever leave me" and so
> forth -- I just took her at her word and assumed that that was a reflection of
> who she forever is, just like her sense of humor, something she can't lose
> even if she wanted to....
In a way... you're lucky she didn't "oops" you into marriage if she was that
desperate. By that I mean accidentally forgot to deal with the contraception
accurately.
> It is her loss in many ways -- but she doesn't need a guy built like an
> Olympic athlete, she doesn't need a guy conversant in four different
> languages, she doesn't need someone who can paint pictures and compose essays,
> who knows of history and culture as well as science, who loves her sense of
> humor like no one else and takes her shit and comes back for more.
Taking her shit and coming back for more is where it falls down, I think.
> She doesn't need all that. It would be nice -- it was nice -- but she doesn't
> *need* all that. She just needs her house and car and a decent fella who'll
> be around to build a life with her and her son.
>
> It's her loss on paper. In my heart, it's felt as my loss. And not just her
> have I lost...I really think I've lost a certain kind of faith in humanity, as
> it were. I'm no longer an innocent, and I will now harm others myself. Once
> this certain perspective crystallizes, I will be...I don't know. I wonder if
> I really have it in me, after all, to stick it to someone like that.
>
> Truly there are no good or bad men, only strong and weak ones.
>
> Hmm....
Hmm... I don't think that you need to become a total basta'd.
>> I've got a couple of possible suggestions they are both difficult to
>> describe:
>>
>> Always keep something of yourself back in future - just for you. It's a bit
>> like putting on armour; putting up a shield, but not quite it's not an outer
>> shield it's an inner one, and it's self preservation that drives this. You
>> may well think that this would be unfair on the next person you have a
>> relationship with, that if you're not willing to 'give your all' then you're
>> effectively deceiving in some way by omission. But this method can give you a
>> sanctuary that's there for you in all emergency situations.
>>
> Yes, and you know, it's precisely that attitude which has made me drop
> previous relationships on one ground or another -- all valid, and yet none of
> which has caused me to drop Claudia, because I figured that I'd finally cut
> some slack and be "reasonable," "realistic," "pragmatic," "compassionate"...I
> thought I'd give it my all for once in my life and not hold back, not fear,
> not be such a snob...well, well....
By giving your all, you've left nothing for your self.
>> I did this when the love of my life destroyed my faith in other humans. I
>> realized that it could happen at any time with anyone else. It could be that
>> I'm just not very good at reading people, or that people are only human and
>> make mistakes, and sometimes I could be their mistake. But it can always
>> happen.
>>
> Isn't that something? Sure it *can* happen -- and that's precisely the whole
> goddamned point of "love," that it doesn't! That one commits whole-heartedly
> and fights for the relationship, struggles to maintain it, creates together
> with the beloved the miracle that for once we mortals have something which
> doesn't perish, the activity of loving, of caring, of being patient -- ever,
> forever patient! -- with another, of going through thick and thin...what the
> hell do people suppose loving is all about, anyway????
That sounds more like blind faith.
>> Either that or go completely the other way, be so open that you're
>> effectively giving them a clear run at hurting you, that way you know quickly
>> when they first do it and can ditch them at the first offence. This could
>> lead to becoming a bit of a doormat but at least you'd know pretty quickly
>> what someone's intentions are. This may be an unsafe option for you at this
>> time.
>>
> Yeah, this appeals more to me, and it was quite what I'd adopted with Claudia.
> I'd only figured that after four years she would have ditched me already...oh
> well, I'll use four years as a landmark from now on -- LOL, they say most
> business start-ups fail within five -- and...aw, I dunno...what the hell, it's
> only just my feelings...let all hell break loose, come what may! What am I
> crying about here -- I took my chances with this girl and my luck had been
> running pretty good; statistically it was just bound to fail sooner or
> later....
Before four years *you* could have ditched *her*, was what I meant. If she
shows herself to be anything that doesn't fit in with your view of how you
would like a relationship to be, then you let her know - openly. And if she
does it again you let her go - openly. You can still be friends that way,
she knows the score, she knows how and when she offended.
> Come then, give me a rap on the head and send me off again! Bid me no return
> until I come either with my shield or on it! And no one dies of love, one
> only learns and grows...that's all this is, growing pains...I will think of
> her less and less, until she passes into memory, and then beyond that she will
> not even haunt my dreams anymore. She will fade for me, and I will not fear
> that.
They're only my suggestions, opinions. Others may have better or more
relevant things to say about this. And in the end you have to work it out
for yourself. As you know.
>> Perhaps a mixture of the two techniques would work... Being open and
>> easy-going with a small section which is closed to the public.
>>
> That's what most would recommend, and surely it sounds reasonable. But I had
> forgotten who I am. I'm an adventurer, damn it, and this is the luck of the
> draw. I've lost this time, and lost big, but I will not let this cause me to
> be more afraid! Damn it, but I haven't seen anything yet, haven't lived yet,
> and almost surely haven't yet been loved!
Lol. Sorry to laugh there - you're hurt after all, but this reminds me of my
cry for help to my close friend: "I don't know who I am anymore!" Sklenge
wailed pitifully. She gave me the best piece of help anyone could at that
time, other than slapping me round the face and telling me to grow up. "What
do you mean you don't know who you are? You're Sklenge!" Somehow - she made
real sense at the time.
>> "Hardened" isn't necessarily a bad thing but embittered is something to
>> avoid. As to venting: I had to do mine with my friends as usenet wasn't
>> around then. I made their lives a misery with my misery. I just couldn't see
>> any kind of future without him it was miserable.
>>
> Yeah, this internet is quite a boon! It's quite interesting...total strangers
> find more resonance with one's pain than do friends who are supposed to care.
>
>> No, it just took him a lot of work to make me realize that it was over, and
>> to be fair it took him a long time to realize it for himself anyway.
>>
> So are you two still friends? I guess you've long forgiven him, at least in
> your heart.
No we're not friends, like I say I don't quite know how I'd react if I saw
him again... or any of his friends. My life was deliberately kept on hold in
the background while we were together - I kept my flat, job, friends and he
kept his separately from me... they joined at the edges but he wouldn't buy
anything with me and mostly our sets of friends didn't mix. It was a very
well constructed break-up. "Forgiven" is another strange concept... I've
accepted it, I hope we both got something from it, it's over - it doesn't
matter anymore.
> So was life better after all that?
Yes. I re-met someone who I was able to love fully and who could enjoy me as
I am (and vice versa).
>> When I look back at some of the things he said/did I think I must have been
>> so dim. But no, I wasn't stupid because at the time they were isolated events
>> that weren't related. I should have also taken more note of other people's
>> reaction to some of the things he would say/do. But again, I loved him at the
>> time and he could do no wrong; all other people couldn't see him like I
>> could: I was wearing rose tinted specs.
>>
> So how to avoid this again??
Shields, openness... being true to yourself and not becoming a doormat or
turning someone else into one. And in the end you never know, you have to
accept that you never really know someone fully. I actually like to get some
surprises anyway. But I would definitely take much more note of how his
relationships with other people went, how he treats people and how they
react to what he says/does... If I were ever going through the selection
process again.
>> Well anyway that's years ago now. But you never forget your first love.
>>
> It's terrible there has to be this big parade of visions before the horizon
> decides to settle in place!
Aah. If I hadn't have known him I would never have been able to feel the
difference between love, lust, understanding, fulfilment, trust etc...
>> Well whatever he was it's still a harsh landscape.
>>
> I feel like Dr. Faustus...for all my "learning" I now see that we just cannot
> know -- we can only experience (but by then, it may well be too late!).
>
> All that stuff about better decision-making, getting in touch with one's own
> feelings...nice ideas, but they just...I dunno...are of no help...you do what
> you can, but in the end it's still a plunge, isn't it. It really is like
> picking stocks...no telling at all, really none for all the "scientific"
> gloss.
Yes, I got it wrong twice, and right three times. But in all instances I got
something out of the experience worth having.
>> Erm... I suppose so. No, not really... kind of. It just sort of happened as
>> we talked we fell in love and discussed the future/past honestly, so by the
>> time I said "I do" I pretty much knew what I was agreeing to. I'd known him
>> for years before we started going out so it's not like we were starting from
>> a blank canvas. I had a good database to refer to and mutual friends who
>> could give me references. He used to live with one of my friends so I'd known
>> him for about eight years before we went out. But I knew within a couple of
>> months that I wanted to be with him forever. And when I say 'forever' I'm
>> quite practical about that... I know forever could mean until death or until
>> he dumps me for someone he prefers.
>>
> Gosh...WTH kind of "forever" is that?!
An honest kind?
> Why bother getting married at all?
Why /not/ get married? (Flippant response). "Forever" for me may not mean
the same as "forever" for him. I've always maintained the view that it's
impossible to know exactly what the future will bring. If, for instance, I
become incapacitated and dribbling from some form of Alzheimer's, I've told
him straight up he's to shove me in an institution and move on with his
life. Hopefully that won't happen. There are other things that I've accepted
may happen and that these will not afflict how I feel for him nor our
marriage. If he finds he has the opportunity for something I wouldn't want
to hold him back; who am I to clip someone's wings? I like to think of it as
a marriage not a prison.
> And, besides, what are you lonely for with a husband?
I'm not lonely all the time and I'm not a sufferer with loneliness. I'm here
because I like to be alone... No. I love to be alone. Sometimes having
another side for the defence of 'being alone' can help people see that being
alone isn't as frightening as they think. Obviously I'm cheating somewhat
because I'm married. It's funny how people assume that once someone is
married their 'troubles' are over, I've said before that he and I aren't
'joined at the hip'.
Anyway, I like it here in a.s.l. I like the people and ambience.
What made you post to a.s.l? How did you find the group? What's keeping you
here? (These aren't rebukes, just playful comebacks).
> Please don't think me rude; these questions arise naturally. This kind of
> "whatever's clever" mode of being really makes me wonder. Not that my life
> has turned out just peachy following, haphazardly, prescribed ideas, mind
> you...just wondering, as I say.
I hope I'm not being evasive, I've said before I'm happy to answer
questions. I'll let you know if it's none of your business. You have to
judge if I'm being honest or playing a part.
>> All children are a lot of trouble and so are all relationships. (Actually
>> that's not always true but generally it is. I, for instance, was a really
>> easy child to rear according to my parents... well why make the job difficult
>> for someone when everyone can have a much better time when it's easy?)
>>
> You were, obviously, a most prescient and precocious child. =) Perhaps that
> happens genetically.
Well all that genetic nonsense is going to stop right here.
>> But, YABH if you think this break-up is bad just imagine how you'd feel if
>> she had your daughter in her house and that other man was now playing the
>> role of the father? Ooh that's got to be a killer blow.
>>
> I know, I know -- it could be worse.
Learn from that knowledge.
>> You'll be able to put your own picture together one day, just like I did. I
>> hope.
>>
> LOL -- yeah, me too!
>
> So far, I'm afraid I've gotten only "nihilistic" lessons from all this....
In the end everything is 'knowable' or, more accurately in my opinion, can
be accepted for what it seems to be, whether we like it or not. Sometimes
scepticism is a device for pushing knowledge further away.
>> We're emotionally stronger than men. Much more resilient to relationship
>> breakdown. I think people have said it's got something to do with our
>> extended network of friends and having the ability to express our emotions
>> openly, or that we have this biological urge to drop one man in favour of
>> another (something to do with maternal urges and biological clocks). That's
>> the conventional myth/wisdom.
>>
> Seems to describe her perfectly. Damn, if "nine guys in eleven years" doesn't
> just scream "hello!" I must be deaf and blind. Which, of course, I was -- and
> probably still am, and might well remain.
I don't believe it myself I think "everybody hurts". Nine men in eleven
years isn't a massive throughput, but I'd have been wary. She wasn't a
Gemini was she? (This is my favourite conclusion when someone describes
flighty, flirty, two-faced behaviour in a female... I know it's based on
hocus pocus and selective memory but it's as reliable as the "Darkfalzian"
theory that all women are bitches.)
>> I've never dumped someone at this level. I wonder what it would be like to be
>> on that side of the equation. It must be really painful and difficult (Good!)
>>
> Huh??
What I mean is, if it's as painful as being dumped I'm glad. Hopefully the
dumper will think twice before getting into the same position again.
>> But then you're wishing for a Stepford Wife; a Claudiabot. Remember, Claudia
>> is as Claudia does.
>>
> No, I doubt she had ever been much of a Stepford Wife, really. I had been the
> one putting up with so much...oh....
I used a bad analogy - I'm talking about turning reality into a virtual
world where Claudia is your perfect love match, no matter how much hard work
she is that's the way you wanted her.
>> I don't mean paid sex, I mean a rebound romance. Get out there and flirt and
>> eye up some women... that's what I meant about it appearing cynical because
>> you'd be doing it for your own selfish needs.
>>
> Believe it or not, I would enjoy just hanging out with her and her friends --
> but, lo and behold! suddenly there aren't even girls who "just want to be
> friends"!
>
> JFC, this is really too funny...believe me, this is sooooo hilarious...I must
> deserve all this somehow!!
Fatalist? Or is this some kind of karmic comeback?
>> Ha! I found it terribly difficult getting sex when I was in my early
>> twenties... in fact I couldn't give it away! Actually I don't think I'd have
>> as much difficulty now, ironically.
>>
> Hm. I find that hard to believe.
You're probably right, I ought to accept my 'sell by' date.
>> It's an absolute pleasure! You're really interesting to 'talk' to.
>>
> Really! Well, I wonder...maybe I should just go ply my troubles on the next
> hapless damsel in distress!
No. You need a woman who knows what she wants - if you're strong enough to
deal with a relationship of equals. Now that sounds like a prescription or
advice that's a bit definite. But I'm only giving my view on this - you're
free to keep going after needy, broken, girls.
Yet Another Broken Heart
>
>
> In a way... you're lucky she didn't "oops" you into marriage if she was that
> desperate. By that I mean accidentally forgot to deal with the contraception
> accurately.
Oh, um, actually, I really wanted a daughter with her -- not even just
a child, but a daughter specifically, so enamored I was with her I
imagined there could be nothing better than a miniature version of
her! So we didn't use contraception at all.
Interestingly -- and I'm glad you kind of brought this up, maybe you
know -- she got pregnant at 15, and that was after 2 years of sex.
After that time, she'd never come out pregnant, ever, even though she
had unprotected sex on numerous occasions with eight or nine other
guys, many long-term relationships. Me, I'd had unprotected sex with
only four other girls besides her (not to worry, I'm extremely
healthy, says my bloodtests), and none of them ever got pregnant
either. So I'm like...huh?!?!
> Taking her shit and coming back for more is where it falls down, I think.
Yeah, for the crudest mentality which equates "niceness" with
"weakness"...she believes me a nice guy, a good man -- but she just
doesn't care anymore! I guess I have to just face the possibility
that she had that kind of mentality too, where a guy who does so much
for her just becomes unattractive.
(BTW, none of that is to deny her own Herculean efforts, too.)
Once
> Hmm... I don't think that you need to become a total basta'd.
But that's just the point of the statement -- there are no "nice guys"
or "bad boys"...just "strong" fellas and "weak" ones.
> By giving your all, you've left nothing for your self.
That sounds "cute" but I'm not sure if it explains anything (no
offense, you understand)...I think it was my courage and relative
innocence which inspired great affection in her...and in terms of
profit, well -- until this break-up I did consider that I've gained a
great deal by being with her...hell, why play sour grapes: I still
consider that I gained much from this relationship...my life is
richer, and both brighter (past) and darker (present) for it...etc.
> That sounds more like blind faith.
I don't know what "blind faith" means anymore. I only remain in the
belief that love is more than just feelings of affection -- because
feelings come and go, but love is indeed forever.
All these emotive statements...I know they sound so, you know,
out-of-touch oftentimes...let's just say that I realize now how so
very differently my understanding of love is from that of many other
people, Claudia included.
Ultimately, the theory is relatively simple compared to the actual
practice of it...I've got too much theory and nowhere near enough
practice. Claudia's simply no longer my partner in the sport of love,
as it were, the exercise of love, the work of love, the art of loving.
> Before four years *you* could have ditched *her*, was what I meant. If she
> shows herself to be anything that doesn't fit in with your view of how you
> would like a relationship to be, then you let her know - openly. And if she
> does it again you let her go - openly. You can still be friends that way,
> she knows the score, she knows how and when she offended.
Yes, I will do this now. I still agree with Erich Fromm's ideas on
love, but you know, they truly are so hard, and in the end I'm just
another guy, and I just want an attractive girl waiting for me at
home, you know? What am I getting my head lost in the clouds
for...I'm really a meat-and-potatoes kind of fella, and that kind of
gal is relatively simple to love. I mean, I don't even care for
intellectual company in her -- I can come here for that! As long as
we can have great sex often and share some interesting hobbies as well
as build a life together -- essentially Fromm's "egoism a deux" --
what the hell.
Time to save up for a trip to, what, Mexico....
Yes, let's be professional about this.
> They're only my suggestions, opinions. Others may have better or more
> relevant things to say about this. And in the end you have to work it out
> for yourself. As you know.
Right, and I believe them good suggestions. I hope I didn't sound
sarcastic with that lapse into psuedo-poetics! Just had a slight and
momentary rush of hope for better things to come.
> Lol. Sorry to laugh there - you're hurt after all, but this reminds me of my
> cry for help to my close friend: "I don't know who I am anymore!" Sklenge
> wailed pitifully. She gave me the best piece of help anyone could at that
> time, other than slapping me round the face and telling me to grow up. "What
> do you mean you don't know who you are? You're Sklenge!" Somehow - she made
> real sense at the time.
Yes, that's funny in a dry, Zen-like way! My problem, I guess, has
been trying to get away from myself so much that I've forgotten who I
am.
LOL -- that's just all language and head-games...it's like the old "so
have you stopped beating your wife yet" bit...creates an impression
where there was nothing to begin with...LOL!
> No we're not friends, like I say I don't quite know how I'd react if I saw
> him again... or any of his friends. My life was deliberately kept on hold in
> the background while we were together - I kept my flat, job, friends and he
> kept his separately from me... they joined at the edges but he wouldn't buy
> anything with me and mostly our sets of friends didn't mix.
Hmm, yeah, that was me and Claudia. 'Cept that she didn't have no
friends, and I let mine "go" because I'd spend every waking hour
outside of work with her, at her request, for roughly two wonderful
years....
> It was a very
> well constructed break-up. "Forgiven" is another strange concept... I've
> accepted it, I hope we both got something from it, it's over - it doesn't
> matter anymore.
Well-constructed? As in, well-designed? How so? In what sense? Do
you mean with a minimum of hurt feelings, or as quickly separated as
possible? Do you mean there was something clever, sneaky about it?
Or that its contours were, say, somehow romantic?
> Yes. I re-met someone who I was able to love fully and who could enjoy me as
> I am (and vice versa).
Sigh!
> Shields, openness...
LOL -- sounds oxymoronic! I take your point, though...but I think
it's just not my style, however much I may see the logic behind it
all.
> being true to yourself and not becoming a doormat or
> turning someone else into one.
Sigh.
> And in the end you never know, you have to
> accept that you never really know someone fully.
Yeah, I did accept that...I just figured I knew her *enough* that she
wouldn't cheat again -- and just leave me suddenly, without a word,
essentially -- and not be civil about it, including giving me our
photos like how I was supposed to have gotten copies of anyway long
ago -- and how the only video footage of my mom would not be given me,
either -- and that she took back the cards and such she'd given me
previously when she moved out -- and how she dumped me a month after
my mother's apparent suicide -- and how she could really have no
feelings at all (or easily negligible ones)....
> I actually like to get some
> surprises anyway. But I would definitely take much more note of how his
> relationships with other people went, how he treats people and how they
> react to what he says/does... If I were ever going through the selection
> process again.
Yeah, but the problem -- oh, the problems! -- is that, as you say, you
never really know...it could be all an act, it could be your own
wishful thinking, it could be anything *but*....
And then, of course, there's that classic: people change. Shit
happens.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
> Aah. If I hadn't have known him I would never have been able to feel the
> difference between love, lust, understanding, fulfilment, trust etc...
Hell, I don't mind if all that's commingled in my beloved! Who cares
for differences when they blend so beautifully in the beloved, where
the is no end of love, no beginning of sorrow, no divide between sheer
lust and noble love, in whom unity of mind and heart expresses itself
in a winning smile and a wink of the eye.
Claudia remains in my imagination because for four years we went
through all sorts of ups and downs (short of drugs or abuse, stuff
like that) and managed to keep our intial pledge.
So this is what the end of love looks like...
> Yes, I got it wrong twice, and right three times. But in all instances I got
> something out of the experience worth having.
Heh? Got it right three times? If you got it "right" once, how were
there two more to follow?
Look, I can see, even now from the darkness, that there will be things
to cherish forever out of my time with Claudia. I've become more
patient, I've learned to enjoy babies and flowers, and have a better
appreciation of humor -- yes, even her sense of humor's rubbed off on
me a bit! I've learned more of what to do in bed, what I enjoy there;
I've practiced being by a woman's side patiently, through stores and
restroom lines and winter illnesses; I've learned how to make up after
a fight, how to swallow my pride, how to plead her back and reassure
her of my devotion; I've learned how easily money and tears flow, how
quickly lust is satisfied, how long it endures, how to see in the
dark, to follow her breath's rise and fall next to me, on my shoulder,
and how easily my shoulder bears her head, how fragrant her feet are,
though no different from mine...I've seen her tears at a caterpillar,
I've seen her disgust at me, I've noticed her eyes shift away from
secrets, I've heard her voice imitate a child's, I've felt the fold
between her thighs, I've laughed at the dimples where her knuckles
should be, I've bathed her, washed her hair, I've rubbed Vicks
medicinal cream on her chest, forgetting for those moments the
familiar beloved paths under her breasts and around back up only to
loop into her belly and just below it...how can all that die? How can
those curls of her lips mean the same thing for others? How can her
tongue massage now another's lust? How can she bring herself to
pledge once more that selfsame pledge, where does honesty and faith go
to be recycled anew? How can she be who she is given who she was?
The same way it did for me four years ago for four years...the same
way, only better now for him, with him.
> An honest kind?
There's a difference between "forever" and "whenever" or "whatever"!
> Why /not/ get married? (Flippant response). "Forever" for me may not mean
> the same as "forever" for him. I've always maintained the view that it's
> impossible to know exactly what the future will bring. If, for instance, I
> become incapacitated and dribbling from some form of Alzheimer's, I've told
> him straight up he's to shove me in an institution and move on with his
> life. Hopefully that won't happen. There are other things that I've accepted
> may happen and that these will not afflict how I feel for him nor our
> marriage. If he finds he has the opportunity for something I wouldn't want
> to hold him back; who am I to clip someone's wings? I like to think of it as
> a marriage not a prison.
I've felt the same exact way, and have said so to Claudia from the
very beginnig. I had asked her what she would do if, say, Ricky
Martin or whatever dancing stud were to, oh, propose to her -- even
ask her out -- and of course she said she'd turn the guy down, right,
and I'd told her that I wouldn't want to hold her back...etc.
What eats me still is that she JUST DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE about me and
my feelings. Wow. I mean, even for her job that she hates she'd give
the standard two weeks' notice, you know what I mean? God....
How have you and your husband "planned" for any possible parting of
the ways? Just curious if any.
> I'm not lonely all the time and I'm not a sufferer with loneliness. I'm here
> because I like to be alone... No. I love to be alone. Sometimes having
> another side for the defence of 'being alone' can help people see that being
> alone isn't as frightening as they think. Obviously I'm cheating somewhat
> because I'm married. It's funny how people assume that once someone is
> married their 'troubles' are over, I've said before that he and I aren't
> 'joined at the hip'.
Well, I don't know about "troubles" in general, but it does seem that
a prime attraction of the married life is the companionship...not sure
what you mean by "cheating" either....
Anyway, that's cool if this is just like a sort of neighborhood pub
for you. =)
> Anyway, I like it here in a.s.l. I like the people and ambience.
Yes, I see! Doesn't often sound like folks have much of a problem,
though...more like alt.support.bored, know what I mean? I'm not
trying to be sarcastic here; I really mean that.
> What made you post to a.s.l? How did you find the group? What's keeping you
> here? (These aren't rebukes, just playful comebacks).
Your playful comebacks keep me coming back, for one. Mainly, it's for
the sense of loneliness I feel right now on account of this break
up...I really have no one to talk to about this! I mean, they'll just
get tired of me, see...here, if anyone tires of me or this
conversation, I'm fine with that, really, but in real life with
friends and family, it's just not the thing to do, see....
I found this newsgroup simply by typing in loneliness on
dejanew/googlegroups.com. No offense, but I'd still rather have
Claudia, warts and all, than even all the generous compassion you and
others have shown me. Can you believe that? I so miss her. Even
miss the asinine calls she'd make many times a day just to have me
close by her, telling me about her family's gossip, her workplace's
gossip, what she had for breakfast, what she had for lunch, how tired
she feels, how stressed out she is, how sick of her job she is, how
despondent she feels over her lack of professional opportunities given
her limited intelligence (yeah, really)...I never complained about
such calls, and often did enjoy them simply because they were just
*her* -- but now I wish for even the simple gripe-session calls....
Which negative attitude she last attributed to me, no joke! She'd
said that she was happier without me, implying that all that was my
fault -- like I'm the one calling her up to encourage her to grouse
and gripe! LOL
> I hope I'm not being evasive, I've said before I'm happy to answer
> questions. I'll let you know if it's none of your business. You have to
> judge if I'm being honest or playing a part.
Surely you're being honest, because what would be the point in not
being honest? I remain grateful simply for your company. It's this
"animal" sense of comfort in just knowing someone's out there,
whatever their motives at this point, you know? I would just love to
go out on dates -- not even anything romantic, but just to go out on a
few dates to platonically enjoy female company. And of course, now
that I'm single, no one seems to notice me! No joke!
So thanks again. This correspondence between us functions just that
way.
> Well all that genetic nonsense is going to stop right here.
You don't believe in genetics and biochemistry?
> Learn from that knowledge.
Learning is in the head. What hurts is my heart. So to speak.
I see I've specified "female" company above, but really just company
in general. It's funny how shit always happens like this...my handful
of friends are not availabe to hang out with these days, just when
that's what I'd need the most. So I take my trips around the city,
striking up conversations with strangers.
Anyway, I've got classes now, and schoolwork. Just that, with this
emotional mess I'm in, it gets hard to focus oftentimes.
> In the end everything is 'knowable' or, more accurately in my opinion, can
> be accepted for what it seems to be, whether we like it or not. Sometimes
> scepticism is a device for pushing knowledge further away.
True.
I'm accepting. I'm accepting. Just slowly. More like, without
trying to accept. I'm just letting it happen on its own. Which
sounds nice, but...it's awfully slow.
> I don't believe it myself I think "everybody hurts". Nine men in eleven
> years isn't a massive throughput, but I'd have been wary. She wasn't a
> Gemini was she? (This is my favourite conclusion when someone describes
> flighty, flirty, two-faced behaviour in a female... I know it's based on
> hocus pocus and selective memory but it's as reliable as the "Darkfalzian"
> theory that all women are bitches.)
Oh yeah, Darkfalz! So has anyone ever found him??
Wait, don't tell me...that's who Claudia's with right now!!!!!!!!
> What I mean is, if it's as painful as being dumped I'm glad. Hopefully the
> dumper will think twice before getting into the same position again.
OIC! No, it's obvious that she's not having problems. Trust me on
this -- she sounds very calm and collected. I do believe that there's
an element of "will" involved, that she's making sure things go
smoothly, as opposed to them magically going smoothly all on their own
as she makes it out to seem...but the bottom line is that she's so far
from hurt, and that's my dilemma. My appeal had ever been, why put us
both through the hurt? We want each other. Let's not torture
overselves. Now, however, she plainly doesn't want me and that's
that.
But thanks for explaining your position...you were in effect following
that logic behind such a statement as "slavery enslaves both master
and slave."
> I used a bad analogy - I'm talking about turning reality into a virtual
> world where Claudia is your perfect love match, no matter how much hard work
> she is that's the way you wanted her.
Well, this is the thing...I believe that love is something to be
worked at -- not in the sense of an office job, but in the sense of
tending to a garden. So it's necessary to work at a relationship.
And, as Spinoza remarked, that which is noblest and best in life also
is hardest to achieve. So difficulty in and of itself doesn't deter
my faith in the mission.
As I'd asked before, what wouldn't you do for true love? I really
thought we were building something there...I found her lax in some
ways, and I definitely see how I was lax in my own, but even now I
figure that we have a good shot...it's just a matter of wanting to do
it.
> Fatalist? Or is this some kind of karmic comeback?
I'm don't feel fatalistic, though the older I get the more I tend to
lend that attitude credence. As for karma...I can't believe such
karma only happens to me! Because everyone else hooks up easily, even
if not ideally.
Truly I deserve this, in the sense that in a free society I have no
excuse to remain frustrated.
> You're probably right, I ought to accept my 'sell by' date.
LOL -- no, what I'd found hard to believe was your claim that in your
youth you had trouble even giving "it" away, since the theory is that
all women (short of looks flirting with deformity) can get bedded.
That's the other thing about Claudia -- she was the ***ONLY*** girl
I'd ever EVER ***EVER*** actually imagined myself growing old with! I
used to think, OMG, how to have sex with a sack of skin and bones??
But with Claudia, well, first of all, she was overweight (pleasantly
so, IMHO) and likely to remain that way, but also because I was just
so into her many times I could picture myself still making love to her
when she's fifty, sixty!
> No. You need a woman who knows what she wants - if you're strong enough to
> deal with a relationship of equals. Now that sounds like a prescription or
> advice that's a bit definite. But I'm only giving my view on this - you're
> free to keep going after needy, broken, girls.
What can I say, that's what I come across!
Frankly, you know, I really don't care, it isn't much of an issue with
me anymore...I used to reject "needy, broken" girls, but with Claudia,
I was like, well, what the hell, we all have issues -- and she's so
cute! And so sexy! And she proposed marriage, she has changed with
me, we've grown towards one another...now that we're irrevocably
apart, I'm like...OMG....
Anyway, you're right about a woman who knows what she wants and all
that, a relationship of equals. Thing is, I just haven't found such a
person who doesn't have kids, isn't married or otherwise taken, is
into me, and is under thirty. Am I picky? Believe me, I'll be
reverting to my old high standards now! Might as well, as I say, be
dashed by Helen than some lesser beauty, if flounder I must.
It all starts with the phsyical, and stays mainly there (LOL -- bear
with me now!). She's just got to have a face I will enjoy looking at,
and looking into. She's also got to have such a body as to keep me
grateful, know what I mean? And I can tolerate belly fat -- up to a
point I even find it sexy, suggestive of fertility.
What else do I need? Just the standard faithfulness. I don't ask
anything else. I can cook and clean myself. I can have intellectual
conversations with lots of other people. I can even go work out by
myself! But when I come home at the end of the day, I need her in my
bed. When I wake up in the morning, I need her there.
Though I'd love children with her, I don't even hold that as an
absolute must.
I think I'm pretty simple, no? So why the hell is that so hard??
Thing is, most girls like that are taken young.
Hmm, like I said, I am seriously considering saving up for a trip to,
what, Mexico, Dominican Republic....
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD6C70F4.20A19%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>
>>
>> In a way... you're lucky she didn't "oops" you into marriage if she was that
>> desperate. By that I mean accidentally forgot to deal with the contraception
>> accurately.
>>
> Oh, um, actually, I really wanted a daughter with her -- not even just a
> child, but a daughter specifically, so enamored I was with her I imagined
> there could be nothing better than a miniature version of her! So we didn't
> use contraception at all.
>
> Interestingly -- and I'm glad you kind of brought this up, maybe you know --
> she got pregnant at 15, and that was after 2 years of sex. After that time,
> she'd never come out pregnant, ever, even though she had unprotected sex on
> numerous occasions with eight or nine other guys, many long-term
> relationships. Me, I'd had unprotected sex with only four other girls besides
> her (not to worry, I'm extremely healthy, says my bloodtests), and none of
> them ever got pregnant either. So I'm like...huh?!?!
>
I don't know what to say. I've sat and pondered for a while but I can't
think of anything productive to say about this...
Perhaps only this: you should just feel greatly relieved that, not only have
you escaped any kind of life threatening disease but that you didn't
accidentally, and unnecessarily, bring another person into being, (in my
view unnecessarily is always the case, heh). One other good thing you can
consider is that you sound like you could be infertile. Lucky you.
>> Taking her shit and coming back for more is where it falls down, I think.
>>
> Yeah, for the crudest mentality which equates "niceness" with "weakness"...she
> believes me a nice guy, a good man -- but she just doesn't care anymore! I
> guess I have to just face the possibility that she had that kind of mentality
> too, where a guy who does so much for her just becomes unattractive.
>
> (BTW, none of that is to deny her own Herculean efforts, too.) Once
>
It just smacks of becoming a doormat. You don't have to be nasty or nice,
weak or strong just have some common sense.
>> Hmm... I don't think that you need to become a total basta'd.
>>
> But that's just the point of the statement -- there are no "nice guys" or "bad
> boys"...just "strong" fellas and "weak" ones.
>
No, like I say just have a bit of common sense.
>> By giving your all, you've left nothing for your self.
>>
> That sounds "cute" but I'm not sure if it explains anything (no offense, you
> understand)...I think it was my courage and relative innocence which inspired
> great affection in her...and in terms of profit, well -- until this break-up I
> did consider that I've gained a great deal by being with her...hell, why play
> sour grapes: I still consider that I gained much from this relationship...my
> life is richer, and both brighter (past) and darker (present) for it...etc.
>
Well that's good, now it's time to learn from that, be grateful and perhaps
a little resentful, and move on.
>> That sounds more like blind faith.
>>
> I don't know what "blind faith" means anymore. I only remain in the belief
> that love is more than just feelings of affection -- because feelings come and
> go, but love is indeed forever.
>
Don't worry about 'love' then, it can take care of itself if it's a
constant; like background radiation.
> All these emotive statements...I know they sound so, you know, out-of-touch
> oftentimes...let's just say that I realize now how so very differently my
> understanding of love is from that of many other people, Claudia included.
>
> Ultimately, the theory is relatively simple compared to the actual practice of
> it...I've got too much theory and nowhere near enough practice. Claudia's
> simply no longer my partner in the sport of love, as it were, the exercise of
> love, the work of love, the art of loving.
>
You'll find another partner when you're good and ready ('find' is a word I
dislike in this context, like you'll discover some one under a rock
somewhere! And, like you're desperately hunting for someone. I don't mean
that by the word 'find' in this context... I think I probably mean bump
into/encounter.)
>> It was a very well constructed break-up. "Forgiven" is another strange
>> concept... I've accepted it, I hope we both got something from it, it's over
>> - it doesn't matter anymore.
>>
> Well-constructed? As in, well-designed? How so? In what sense? Do you mean
> with a minimum of hurt feelings, or as quickly separated as possible? Do you
> mean there was something clever, sneaky about it? Or that its contours were,
> say, somehow romantic?
>
I mean he had designed it (his participation in it) so that he could
extricate himself with the least amount of collateral damage. He didn't need
to be sneaky, it was like pulling something apart along a fault line that
he'd engineered as he went along.
>> And in the end you never know, you have to accept that you never really know
>> someone fully.
>>
> Yeah, I did accept that...I just figured I knew her *enough* that she wouldn't
> cheat again -- and just leave me suddenly, without a word, essentially -- and
> not be civil about it, including giving me our photos like how I was supposed
> to have gotten copies of anyway long ago -- and how the only video footage of
> my mom would not be given me, either -- and that she took back the cards and
> such she'd given me previously when she moved out -- and how she dumped me a
> month after my mother's apparent suicide -- and how she could really have no
> feelings at all (or easily negligible ones)....
>
She doesn't sound so wonderful, not from that description.
>> I actually like to get some surprises anyway. But I would definitely take
>> much more note of how his relationships with other people went, how he treats
>> people and how they react to what he says/does... If I were ever going
>> through the selection process again.
>>
> Yeah, but the problem -- oh, the problems! -- is that, as you say, you never
> really know...it could be all an act, it could be your own wishful thinking,
> it could be anything *but*....
>
> And then, of course, there's that classic: people change. Shit happens.
>
> Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
>
I've read/heard that you can tell how a man will treat a potential wife by
the way he treats his mother. Do you know, when I look at folk I know - good
and bad - I can see that this is true.
> So this is what the end of love looks like...
>
Yes. It's not much fun.
>> Yes, I got it wrong twice, and right three times. But in all instances I got
>> something out of the experience worth having.
>>
> Heh? Got it right three times? If you got it "right" once, how were there
> two more to follow?
>
Just 'cause /I/ got it right doesn't make it right. Now I come to think of
it I only really got it wrong once, and even then it was a pointless liaison
that was never intended to go anywhere, so it was right at that time.
>> An honest kind?
>>
> There's a difference between "forever" and "whenever" or "whatever"!
>
Lol.
>
>> Why /not/ get married? (Flippant response). "Forever" for me may not mean the
>> same as "forever" for him. I've always maintained the view that it's
>> impossible to know exactly what the future will bring. If, for instance, I
>> become incapacitated and dribbling from some form of Alzheimer's, I've told
>> him straight up he's to shove me in an institution and move on with his life.
>> Hopefully that won't happen. There are other things that I've accepted may
>> happen and that these will not afflict how I feel for him nor our marriage.
>> If he finds he has the opportunity for something I wouldn't want to hold him
>> back; who am I to clip someone's wings? I like to think of it as a marriage
>> not a prison.
>>
> I've felt the same exact way, and have said so to Claudia from the very
> beginnig. I had asked her what she would do if, say, Ricky Martin or whatever
> dancing stud were to, oh, propose to her -- even ask her out -- and of course
> she said she'd turn the guy down, right, and I'd told her that I wouldn't want
> to hold her back...etc.
>
So you both lied then.
> What eats me still is that she JUST DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE about me and my
> feelings. Wow. I mean, even for her job that she hates she'd give the
> standard two weeks' notice, you know what I mean? God....
>
If you were looking for the signals (the break-ups and fights) you will
probably see that you /were/ given the correct notice for her quitting.
Isn't it one year for every three years?
> How have you and your husband "planned" for any possible parting of the ways?
> Just curious if any.
>
We aren't planning on breaking up. If it happens we'd both be devastated I
should imagine. And I'd keep the house. :vP
>> I'm not lonely all the time and I'm not a sufferer with loneliness. I'm here
>> because I like to be alone... No. I love to be alone. Sometimes having
>> another side for the defence of 'being alone' can help people see that being
>> alone isn't as frightening as they think. Obviously I'm cheating somewhat
>> because I'm married. It's funny how people assume that once someone is
>> married their 'troubles' are over, I've said before that he and I aren't
>> 'joined at the hip'.
>>
> Well, I don't know about "troubles" in general, but it does seem that a prime
> attraction of the married life is the companionship...not sure what you mean
> by "cheating" either....
>
"cheating" on a.s.l by being married; If you're married you're therefore not
lonely is a common myth. I'll extend that myth further by cheating some more
- I'm married, I'm not lonely, and I /still/ like to post to a.s.l.
>> Anyway, I like it here in a.s.l. I like the people and ambience.
>>
> Yes, I see! Doesn't often sound like folks have much of a problem,
> though...more like alt.support.bored, know what I mean? I'm not trying to be
> sarcastic here; I really mean that.
>
P'raps I should switch to a.s.b. I did post there a few times but I couldn't
be bothered to learn the ropes.
>> I hope I'm not being evasive, I've said before I'm happy to answer questions.
>> I'll let you know if it's none of your business. You have to judge if I'm
>> being honest or playing a part.
>>
> Surely you're being honest, because what would be the point in not being
> honest? I remain grateful simply for your company. It's this "animal" sense
> of comfort in just knowing someone's out there, whatever their motives at this
> point, you know? I would just love to go out on dates -- not even anything
> romantic, but just to go out on a few dates to platonically enjoy female
> company. And of course, now that I'm single, no one seems to notice me! No
> joke!
>
That was my problem when I was younger and thought I wanted to be noticed.
>> Well all that genetic nonsense is going to stop right here.
>>
> You don't believe in genetics and biochemistry?
>
I don't agree with having children.
> I see I've specified "female" company above, but really just company in
> general. It's funny how shit always happens like this...my handful of friends
> are not availabe to hang out with these days, just when that's what I'd need
> the most. So I take my trips around the city, striking up conversations with
> strangers.
>
Another pitfall of becoming too wrapped up in 'the one and only'. Learn from
that too.
> Anyway, I've got classes now, and schoolwork. Just that, with this emotional
> mess I'm in, it gets hard to focus oftentimes.
>
>> Nine men in eleven years isn't a massive throughput, but I'd have been wary.
>> She wasn't a Gemini was she? (This is my favourite conclusion when someone
>> describes flighty, flirty, two-faced behaviour in a female... I know it's
>> based on hocus pocus and selective memory but it's as reliable as the
>> "Darkfalzian" theory that all women are bitches.)
>>
> Oh yeah, Darkfalz! So has anyone ever found him??
>
> Wait, don't tell me...that's who Claudia's with right now!!!!!!!!
>
I don't think she's his type. No... I know she's not his type. So is she a
Gemini?
> But thanks for explaining your position...you were in effect following that
> logic behind such a statement as "slavery enslaves both master and slave."
haha it takes two to tango.
>> I used a bad analogy - I'm talking about turning reality into a virtual world
>> where Claudia is your perfect love match, no matter how much hard work she is
>> that's the way you wanted her.
>>
> Well, this is the thing...I believe that love is something to be worked at --
> not in the sense of an office job, but in the sense of tending to a garden.
> So it's necessary to work at a relationship. And, as Spinoza remarked, that
> which is noblest and best in life also is hardest to achieve. So difficulty
> in and of itself doesn't deter my faith in the mission.
I don't think that a relationship, voluntarily entered into, should be
difficult. What's the point if it's a struggle? Unless you're some kind of
sadomasochistic freakjob.
> As I'd asked before, what wouldn't you do for true love?
I think I would develop an attitude somewhere between: "I would die for him"
and "there are plenty more fish in the sea".
>> Fatalist? Or is this some kind of karmic comeback?
>>
> I'm don't feel fatalistic, though the older I get the more I tend to lend that
> attitude credence. As for karma...I can't believe such karma only happens to
> me! Because everyone else hooks up easily, even if not ideally.
Lol... by its very nature karma happens to everyone. You have trouble
hooking up with someone? Well join the club over in a.s.shyness.
Take care with the overseas bride; women there are just as 'interesting' as
women just around the corner from you. Anyway you're coming into the party
season you lucky thing, you! You're good looking, intelligent, financially
stable and you know what you want (Helen). This is the best time to be on
the lookout. But for heathens' sake - wear a condom!
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> I don't know what to say. I've sat and pondered for a while but I can't
> think of anything productive to say about this...
Umm...oh....
> Perhaps only this: you should just feel greatly relieved that, not only have
> you escaped any kind of life threatening disease but that you didn't
> accidentally, and unnecessarily, bring another person into being, (in my
> view unnecessarily is always the case, heh). One other good thing you can
> consider is that you sound like you could be infertile. Lucky you.
NO WAY!!! I DON'T WANT TO BE STERILE!!!
Good grief, I've got to see a doc, then...I do bicycle a lot, lift
weights (no steroids, though), run a lot, wear briefs...maybe -- LOL
-- I ought to just give up the masturbation!!! 'Cause I have a huge
sex drive, too -- on average I'd say that in four years with Claudia
we did it every other day! (When we'd been living together, it was
every day!)
Yes, I've escaped disease and all that...hmm, don't know what to say
about that...I also bike at break-neck speeds in city traffic without
a helmet, and have even had two "real" accidents (as opposed to "tap"
or "bumps")...I dunno, but...anyway, I'm older and wiser now....
> It just smacks of becoming a doormat. You don't have to be nasty or nice,
> weak or strong just have some common sense.
See, to me, it's love...I mean, what am I supposed to do, spank her?
It's like having a recalcitrant kid -- you don't disown the kid,
right...could be a real prodigal son (before the repentence -- though
you'd never think to ever see it), and you'd still love him. Likewise
Claudia. I really believe that I loved her best as I could -- though
still quite short, ultimately, of what I knew I should have done.
> No, like I say just have a bit of common sense.
Ah, forget common sense! Does it make sense that something weighing
tons should be able to fly? I'm an adventurer, a gambler.
(I don't mean any of that with braggadocio, BTW -- just an honest
statement of who I am.)
> Well that's good, now it's time to learn from that, be grateful and perhaps
> a little resentful, and move on.
Yes, "moving" (as she used to say -- this was one example of what I
call her "cute" [and corny to most] sense of humor: I'd say "careful!"
or "hurry!" and she'd sing back in her girl's voice with those chubby
baby cheeks "carefulling!" or "hurrying!" [Okay, you had to be there
-- and you'd have to be me!])...slowly...moving...on...to better and
brighter...girls girls girls!
Sigh!
> Don't worry about 'love' then, it can take care of itself if it's a
> constant; like background radiation.
Yes...I do believe somehow that we'll meet again, and quite possible
as lovers, too...I don't know...it isn't just mere wishful thinking, I
feel, 'cause I'm still hurting and whatnot, and I don't believe it'll
happen, in a way...but in another, I just kinda feel that there can't
really be death, know what I mean? In a way I just feel -- not hope,
but feel, almost like I know -- that what we had, what we shared and
created...lives, and will live...and will bring us together again in
some way, somehow, at some time somewhere....
> You'll find another partner when you're good and ready ('find' is a word I
> dislike in this context, like you'll discover some one under a rock
> somewhere! And, like you're desperately hunting for someone. I don't mean
> that by the word 'find' in this context... I think I probably mean bump
> into/encounter.)
Yes, I take your meaning. I believe that, though I'd still like to be
with Claudia, to hear of her day, what she had for lunch, what's going
on with her family...really mundane stuff which I didn't find
interesting for the actual content as much as simply because it was
her, a reflection of who she is, her interests.
In a way, I'm ready right now! I do try to chit-chat with females I
meet, often complete strangers...that helps too, just in terms of
perspective.
> I mean he had designed it (his participation in it) so that he could
> extricate himself with the least amount of collateral damage.
Haha...isn't that something?? I certainly had my chances during our
time together (as I say, my "love resume" looks so much better than
hers), but I'd always worried over hurting her!
BTW, I'm sure you don't mean "collateral damage" if you mean to say
that he was concerned with damage to himself.
Or do you really mean "collateral damage," as in damage to *you*??
If so...then that was rather considerate of him.
> He didn't need
> to be sneaky, it was like pulling something apart along a fault line that
> he'd engineered as he went along.
Ah, well, that sounds sneaky to me, to engineer a break-up.
> She doesn't sound so wonderful, not from that description.
You know, I keep trying to see what I can "learn" from this...and one
possible lesson may be to STAY AWAY FROM GHETTO GIRLS!
She grew up poor, sexually abused, blah blah blah...lots of issues...I
suppose I should just stay away from that kind of stuff in future.
Essentially, do the bourgeois thing!
Me, my faults were the usual -- I was posessive (but not "jealous," if
you understand that...), easily irritated (not violent, but annoyed by
stuff like crowds or humid weather which in turn irritated her),
arrogant (but I think I'm being honest when I say I'm a most eligible
bachelor!), and having gross sexual fantasies (I'll spare you the
details, but let's just say that she was actually curious about a
FMF-threesome though she wasn't interested in a MFM-threesome!).
Typical guy stuff, right?
Oh, yeah, and that killer of all deal-breakers -- I really didn't want
to live with her kid if possible. We got along fine as friends,
essentially, but things would likely change when living together -- no
way could I have just let a kid watch TV all day and night...though I
must admit, I often did think that when he got older we could play
those computer wargames together!
> I've read/heard that you can tell how a man will treat a potential wife by
> the way he treats his mother. Do you know, when I look at folk I know - good
> and bad - I can see that this is true.
Yes, I've heard that too, and it does seem to stand to reason...but I
honestly (and why should I lie, this is the anonymous internet) can
say that I did not treat Claudia like how I treated my mother....
See -- and this is likely part of the reason why the break-up's hit me
so hard -- I'd essentially neglected my mother. So her apparent
suicide had an effect on me, as you can imagine, as well as the rest
of the family.
I neglected my mother for many reasons. I didn't feel like I had much
in common with her -- except for this bulldog-tenacity, where we just
don't let go ("drive" or, negatively, "nag"), and psycho-emotional
stuff like that (though I've also got my father's silver tongue and
his sense of adventure and going for broke) -- and I also resented her
for how she'd been with me while growing up. Of course now I see how
she was at her wits' end -- at the funeral an uncle (maternal) noted
how all the siblings agreed that she'd always been an unhappy person
-- and all that, and I certainly wasn't helping matters by going
through my growing pains, I who was supposed to be the scion of the
family...so...um, where was I...so anyway there were lots and lots of
issues involved.
Not a justification, just a much-simplified explanation.
But Claudia, as I'd noted, was one whom I really took care of. And so
when my mother apparently (likely) killed herself, and then Claudia
just dumped me soon thereafter, it really came like some kind
of...karmic payback??? You know, something spooky (or as Claudia used
to say in her cute way, "spooggy!")....
Anyway, just wanted to say that I was definitely a case where that
theory did not hold. I neglected my mother -- so-called "benign
neglect" (she was almost certainly paranoid and I ran from that) --
but I typically gave almost my all for Claudia.
> Yes. It's not much fun.
Forget about "fun" -- one can live with the "what" and figure out the
"how" once given a convincing "why"...I only wish there was a reason,
you know? A point, a purpose....
Oh, well. I'm kinda numb now, not in as much hurt as before, really
like getting kinda drowsy, know what I mean? So I'm just like
"whatever"....
> Just 'cause /I/ got it right doesn't make it right. Now I come to think of
> it I only really got it wrong once, and even then it was a pointless liaison
> that was never intended to go anywhere, so it was right at that time.
Um, okay!
> So you both lied then.
Hmm?? Not sure how I might have lied with regards to that, about not
holding her back....
> If you were looking for the signals (the break-ups and fights) you will
> probably see that you /were/ given the correct notice for her quitting.
> Isn't it one year for every three years?
What's one year for every three?
Sure one can always play Monday-morning-QB and start saying that there
were signals all along...problem is, she was supposed to have came out
and said things! I mean, am I supposed to be constantly suspicious??
Anyway, in future, any girl who winds up being "mysterious" to me is
gonna get "the treatment" all right...I'm really sick of this
crap...wanna play games? I'm a real intelligent guy, I can definitely
be a player and take 'em for the trip of their lives.
God...this is the thing with women, in my experience -- so damned
concerned about being treated like an "adult," but can't act like
one...wanna be a princess? Okay, I'll treat you like one...princesses
obviously live in la-la-land, and if it's a bill of goods, a
rose-tinted picture you want from me -- fine....
This was one of the things that stuck in my throat during our
relationship, this BS sentiment about "if you love me you would
know"...I refuse to be a mind reader! You wanna be an adult, start
acting like one! Say what you want, and let's go from there!
> We aren't planning on breaking up. If it happens we'd both be devastated I
> should imagine. And I'd keep the house. :vP
No, I don't mean "planning on a break-up" but how you "plan" on doing
it or expect to do it...not that that helps, I suppose, 'cause
obviously Claudia's forgotten.
> "cheating" on a.s.l by being married; If you're married you're therefore not
> lonely is a common myth. I'll extend that myth further by cheating some more
> - I'm married, I'm not lonely, and I /still/ like to post to a.s.l.
Ah, funny; I see what you mean now.
> P'raps I should switch to a.s.b. I did post there a few times but I couldn't
> be bothered to learn the ropes.
LOL -- that's an acutal NG????
> That was my problem when I was younger and thought I wanted to be noticed.
And oddly enough, I had at least two chances -- one an almost perfect
opportunity -- to chit-chat with attractive females...but though my
mind registerd "nice!" there was no passion motivating me to actually
step up to them to say anything! I just smiled and went my way...I
really wasn't being suddenly stuck-up or anything -- just didn't feel
like conversation, however attractive they were!
Feelings...sigh!
> I don't agree with having children.
Good God woman, whatever is your problem???? =)
Seriously, though -- what have you against children? I mean having
your own...I know they're a hell of a lot of work and all...but....
Well, if I really am sterile, truth to tell, I'd not mind too
much...I'd still prefer to have children, but I can also honestly see
the bright side -- "philosophical" as well as practical -- to not
having them....
It's just that what I don't understand is your being actively against
it, as opposed to not really caring too much, say....
> Another pitfall of becoming too wrapped up in 'the one and only'. Learn from
> that too.
I don't subscribe to the romantic view that there is some
once-in-a-lifetime star-sanctioned pairing, if that's the impression
I'm giving.
But you know, I don't think that knowledge affects the romantic
experience for me. I'm still able to marvel, and believe without that
kind of faith.
> I don't think she's his type. No... I know she's not his type. So is she a
> Gemini?
Um, I dunno...what's June 28? Me, I'm a Capicorn -- but so what??
> I don't think that a relationship, voluntarily entered into, should be
> difficult. What's the point if it's a struggle? Unless you're some kind of
> sadomasochistic freakjob.
Bingo! That's precisely the problem, I think. People expect things
to be easy. It definitely should be fun in some sense, and should
have some kind of meaning, but difficulty...hell, what isn't difficult
in life? Life itself is hard! But it's worth living.
I really think people have got the wrong end of the stick with regards
to the activity of loving...any Olympic athlete will tell you that
things are difficult for him, too, for all his talent...but that's
what separates the real deal from the fakes.
So I'm not going to marry some peasant girl whose peasant common sense
tells her that life is hard but relationships should be easy. I'm to
marry some noble lady who understands the virtue of stoicism, and that
laughter comes from much difficulty. She will understand that life
itself is hard, and that all good things come of struggle, however
freely sometimes they seem to come to us (a smile, the sun, a stroke
of genius)....
One does not look for problems -- but one anticipates them,
understands their inevitability.
> I think I would develop an attitude somewhere between: "I would die for him"
> and "there are plenty more fish in the sea".
Ah, but again you betray what for me is the false understanding of
love's problem as that of an object -- "more fish in the sea" -- as
opposed to that of consistently exercising a power of the human being.
To think in terms of objects -- "more fish in the sea" -- is to think
in terms of possession, of having. We really shouldn't even talk of
"love" as a noun, since such language itself deceives us into viewing
the matter precisely in terms of an object possession. We really
ought to, as Erich Fromm proposes in his classic "Art of Loving,"
speak of love as what it really is, an activity, a state of being -- a
verb, as I say.
This right here is the great problem, that people remain essentially
children and react as an anthology of prepubescent tastes and desires.
Now much of all that serves us well, or at least brings us to no
great harm -- but in terms of loving, in terms of the activity that
best fulfills the existential angst and loneliness which is our common
lot: we have to rise above that, or else we are forever just playing
the lotto, hoping to get lucky one day, hoping to meet Mr. or Mrs.
Right.
That doesn't mean there aren't people who are more compatible with one
another than others, but it does mean that the focus must mature
beyond mere object possession and the preferences and desires which
inform that.
Like the punchline goes, "love the one you're with." The typical
rejoinder would be "but he's (now) so this-that-and-the-other!" Which
means that the focus is an object-oriented one. That person remains
stuck at the most preliminary stage of things.
And for a charmed few, there is no need to progress beyond that.
They're just very lucky to have had the perfect object to love, and so
need not develop their capacity for love further than that of a child
with his or her beloved toy. And that's all they need, and that's
fine in a sense -- certainly for them where they're concerned.
But for most of us, it's gonna be a struggle, whether titanic or
quotidian. And that's when we wonder "what's love all about anyway?"
But, again, our culture is so materialistic and object-oriented, we
don't think in terms of processes, of activities, we're only thinking
in terms of bottom-line results, of the destination ("are we there
yet?") and forgetting the journey....
As you can see, I take the gravest exception to such common sense
notions of love. I don't expect to perfect my ability to love --
partly because I don't have the need to, just as I'd said of others
before -- but I do recognize the scope of the matter and that does
help me in so many ways.
> Lol... by its very nature karma happens to everyone. You have trouble
> hooking up with someone? Well join the club over in a.s.shyness.
Naw, I'm not shy -- not outside of the usual garden-variety
self-consciousness that happens every so often. And
alt.seduction.fast has been corrupted -- and besides, it was only ever
mostly for "clubbing" or "bar" scenarios, which I don't frequent at
all.
Sigh...I miss her....
> Take care with the overseas bride; women there are just as 'interesting' as
> women just around the corner from you.
LOL -- don't I know it! I'm in NYC, so I don't think somehow that
these darlings are perfect angels over there and that somehow it's
America that corrupts them.
I don't know what I'm talking about at this point, obviously...it's
more the myth that I'm buying into, the idea that pastures are greener
overseas...I mean, they're raised to be housewives, and I'm perfectly
fine with that! Their big thing is to have babies and a house, a
car...and I'm down with that! I don't need her to be some kind of
genius -- I come here to the internet for that! No, I need her for
more earthy purposes, and she me.
So what separates the wheat from the chaff is their character, what
their values are, etc. And again, the hope is that a "traditional"
culture would have taught them to be more patient and tolerant, to
endure, etc.
Anyway, believe me, I do take your warning to heart. Interestingly,
today on the subway I bumped into an old acquaintance who wound up
offering to play match-maker for me! I didn't ask her to...during the
course of our conversation (and no, really, I didn't vent to her like
I did here -- never brought any of this up, actually), she had
occasion to wonder what such a fine specimen like myself is doing
without anyone to cook for him at night, etc. It must have been a
quick subconscious (and hence all the more striking when perceived)
flash of melancholia that crossed my face which caught her eyes and
moved her to offer introducing me. So when she's going back, I'll go
vacation with her and her family.
But yeah, I know what you mean about "women being all the same." =)
> Anyway you're coming into the party
> season you lucky thing, you!
???
What party season???
> You're good looking, intelligent, financially
> stable and you know what you want (Helen). This is the best time to be on
> the lookout. But for heathens' sake - wear a condom!
See, the thing is...you're right. Aw, you're right.
You know, the more I think about this...the more it seems to me that
if I could just somehow drop the "ego" -- the sense of...I dunno...me,
I guess...the sense of who I imagine myself to be -- I'd recover so
much more quickly from this break-up...it's only that I've quite
defined myself in terms of her, in terms of "us" for so long....
Thanks for the pep talk, coach! I feel better, yes -- and though I
relapse, I'm recovering quicker and quicker. Wow, I wonder how long
it will be when I'm finally out of the woods, at this rate??
KrosRogue
>> Ouch! That is nasty.
> Yes. Just no sense of...I don't know what to call it -- gratitude?
> Respect? Humanity?
>
> Yet she is no monster, and I can be sure she's very loving of the new
> guy and all that.
>
> Human nature...ugh!
Human nature seems to be inherently the unexpected. Yet, when one
adopts the logical attitude on which that premise is based, basic
trust is undermined, which removes the foundation from which most
intimate relations are nourished.
>> There is a fine line between the two. I am still learning how to
>> balance them.
> I can only recall Christ's own admonishment -- either be hot or cold,
> but lukewarm water is no good! Or as the Spanish say, either be a
> saint of a villain, but do it with balls!
That's an interesting philosophy which may be worth considering. ;-)
> I think I'm sick of the "nice guy" routine. It really, truly is just
> a game. It really is. I've just got to get that through to my head.
> Forget labels, forget whether that's "cynical" or "mean" or
> whatever...it just is, isn't it?
Being a "nice guy" doesn't necessarily mean allowing yourself to be
used as a dish rag. You can be "nice" and still remain true to
yourself and your desires.
> So I have to be, accordingly.
Be true to yourself. You may consider compromising some things which
will result in your unhappiness. Don't do it, because if you do, you
will make everyone around you miserable, including yourself. If you
find yourself in a situation where compromising such things is
required to maintain a relationship, then it's time to end that
relationship. It took me an incredibly long time to realize that.
>> I think that may be a big part of it.
> But upon what foundation does forgiveness rest for an atheist? I
> can't even understand her.
I used to be an atheist, and even with that background I can't give an
acceptable answer to that question. I won't do any "Bible-Thumping"
because that usually elicits a negative response. I have the
impression, however, that you are reasonably familiar with Scripture.
Based on that assumption, I think you know that in it forgiveness is
described in great detail. You may find the advice given therein to be
helpful.
> I suppose I'm getting there myself. I hope my life doesn't get messed
> up, but at least emotionally speaking, I can hardly look at any girl
> without this sense of...disdain.
>
> Maybe that really what it is -- react to the uniform, not the person
> in it.
That's what I did. Occasionally I revert back to that mindset, but
when I become conscious of it and the damage it does to me, I pull out
of it.
> Yeah, I guess that's what I will take away from this experience: to be
> ever-vigilent.
>
> Sorry about your wife...though I guess even you now think that that
> was something of a blessing in disguise. What do you suppose you
> could/should have done different?
Back then I really don't know. But now, with what I *know* now, if I
could turn back the clock, I would have been far more assertive about
my wants and needs. This would have had one of two results, a break-up
or a happier marriage. Either way it would have been much better for
me.
>> We were married for ten years and then she got tired of me and filed
>> for divorce. My life went down the toilet after that.
> Damn! How, exactly, did she "tire" of you? Did she at least try to
I never really knew. I think she just got bored with me. She had two
daughters when we met, one 10, the other 12. I was a meal ticket, I
guess. When the nest was empty, she had no further use for me.
> let you down "gently"?? Were you yourself happy with her for those
> ten years?
Actually, no, I wasn't happy. I was "comfortable", I suppose, and I
"almost" had companionship, but I always felt there was something
missing. I found out later what that something was; me. I always felt
out of place, like I really didn't belong. I was nothing more than a
"walking wallet", a bill-payer and not much else.
And, let me down "gently"? Hmm, well, two days after her second
daugher got married, she told me she wanted a divorce.
> Just curious...would you characterize yourself now as "new and
> improved"? Do you suppose that, had you been this way then, before
> the divorce, she would have behaved differently?
If the "New Me" met her back then, everything would have been
different. The relationship would have been radically better or would
have ended quicker.
>> Now, I also know what it is to see what I want and go after it. I
>> think that is the best lesson I could have learned from this whole
>> mess. I am creating a new life for myself, and even though the
>> progress is slow, I can see the improvement.
> That is good. How does this NG fit into your new life, I wonder?
I'm still lonely and I'm still searching for someone compatible enough
with me to share lives.
> I expect there's something here for me, too...just can't see it....
Perhaps you see it but can't name it?
>> Deep inside, I think. It comes from knowing one's self-worth.
> Yes, true...I mean, I know it in an intellectual sense, but I don't
> always feel it.
And you may not always feel it. Sometimes I don't. But lack of feeling
doesn't negate its veracity.
> Plus, I try not to let anything anywhere resembling "pride" get in the
> way -- though I guess I'll really have to, and just realize how
> undeserving she is of my largesse, material and otherwise.
A tiny dose of pride can be a very good guide.
>> That's another mistake I've made that I will avoid in the future. That
>> mistake is wrestling for an answer that isn't forthcoming. Drop it and
>> move on. The pain is bad enough without tormenting yourself more about
>> it.
> You have to understand, it's who I am, a seeker, one who quests, and
> searches for answers...and, frankly, I do at least "enjoy" (or, more
> accurately, "believe in" [the "validity" of]) the journey -- the
> mission....
Validity of the journey is fine. But obvious futility is a waste.
>> This is where I would differ with you. The way I am now, I would push
>> for the resolve, even if it caused the end of the relationship.
> Sorry, come again? Not sure I follow you.
My understanding of what you said indicates that you tried to resolve
problems when she chose not to. If a problem is not resolved, it
festers and becomes worse. It needs to be dealt with, even at the
expense of the relationship, because eventually such a problem will be
its demise anyway.
>> It appears to me that compatibility implies agreement on which
>> particulars *are* crucial.
> Not every single particular needs to match perfectly, if match at all,
> right? Thus I say that general compatibility should still trump any
> particular incompatibility.
That depends on how *crucial* a given incompatibility is.
> > That's a crude philosophy, but IMHO, a very good one.
>
> "Good" in what sense? "Crude" in what sense?
"Good" in the fact that it allows for trust and at the same time sets
a standard for a response to violated trust. "Crude" in the sense that
it should be an instinctual gut-level reflex.
> I'm not as interested in the "practical" as such as much as I am in
> the "ontological" -- from whence I feel that a practical path will
> then naturally flow. In other words, I'm still trying to determine
> the what, before I decide how to proceed...still trying to figure out
> what happened and why, who's responsible, etc.
I tend to be a bit more pragmatic. I touch a flame and feel the burn.
I know not to touch it again or the same thing will happen. I have no
need for the knowledge that the flame owes its existence to fuel,
oxygen, and heat.
> Anyway, there is such a thing as short division, so to speak...I think
> I'll just take your advice to heart and skip all the work and jump
> straight at the end result -- forward, march!
Heh, heh! Damn the torpedoes and full speed astern! ;-)
>> That seems to be the result of my analysis. Feelings, vibes,
>> chemistry, impulse. If they synchronize with the one you love, it's
>> Heaven. If not, it's Hell. From what I see, it's as simple as that.
> Um...but feelings change...so if we're doing things based on
> feelings...then what can ever be guaranteed? Except through threat of
No guarantees. You can reduce risk, but nothing is truly guaranteed.
> loss, pain, etc. -- the Hobbesian view, in fact. Can't have one's
> word be their bond -- must have some penalty attached to discourage
> betrayal.
Doesn't that imply the existence of a Supreme Being? My impression is
that your belief system doesn't allow for that.
> Yeah...that's what's so depressing, really...it's this sense of
> powerlessness, this sense that, hey, this is about as good as I can
> realistically expect of anyone! It's just luck, fate...nothing I can
> do, so why bother trying...except that I am lonely, and need the
> company, right....
A game of cards, the hand you are dealt. You assess your chances with
what you have. You dump a card that appears not to work. You may pick
one that does. When the play ends, you either win or lose. A little
skill and a little luck. As I said, no guarantees.
> > Try shooting for some compatibility. Mutual "sparks" are good, too.
>
> The odds are stacked -- and I'm not even all that picky! I lowered my
> previous standards with regards to Claudia, and I'm alone as I ever
> was when I had held to my standards.
My standards are considerably raised for the woman I want. I won't
tolerate deceit in any form, even so-called "little white lies". I
won't tolerate infidelity or any perceived tendency toward it. I feel
the same way toward any perceived form of manipulation or
passive-aggressive behavior. Any tendency toward violence is similarly
rejected. Any public humiliation will make me dump her on the spot
with no recourse. My list is rather lengthy, but I think you get the
idea.
> It's truly the luck of the draw. I guess that's just what I'm slowly
> coming to accept. This appears to be the lesson. Nothing I can do.
> Just try to enjoy the ride, whatever ride I find myself on. Just be
> glad for the simple things in life. Don't set myself up for
> disappointment.
That about sizes it up.
Sklenge
>> One other good thing you can consider
>> is that you sound like you could be infertile. Lucky you.
>>
> NO WAY!!! I DON'T WANT TO BE STERILE!!!
Why?
> Good grief, I've got to see a doc, then...I do bicycle a lot, lift weights (no
> steroids, though), run a lot, wear briefs...maybe -- LOL -- I ought to just
> give up the masturbation!!! 'Cause I have a huge sex drive, too -- on average
> I'd say that in four years with Claudia we did it every other day! (When we'd
> been living together, it was every day!)
>
> Yes, I've escaped disease and all that...hmm, don't know what to say about
> that...I also bike at break-neck speeds in city traffic without a helmet, and
> have even had two "real" accidents (as opposed to "tap" or "bumps")...I dunno,
> but...anyway, I'm older and wiser now....
LOL! So far you've been lucky. Giving up on masturbation seems like much to
drastic a step in order to father a child.
>> It just smacks of becoming a doormat. You don't have to be nasty or nice,
>> weak or strong just have some common sense.
>>
> See, to me, it's love...I mean, what am I supposed to do, spank her? It's like
> having a recalcitrant kid -- you don't disown the kid, right...could be a real
> prodigal son (before the repentence -- though you'd never think to ever see
> it), and you'd still love him. Likewise Claudia. I really believe that I
> loved her best as I could -- though still quite short, ultimately, of what I
> knew I should have done.
Sometimes you have to let the kid go... grow up.
>> No, like I say just have a bit of common sense.
>>
> Ah, forget common sense! Does it make sense that something weighing tons
> should be able to fly? I'm an adventurer, a gambler.
>
> (I don't mean any of that with braggadocio, BTW -- just an honest statement of
> who I am.)
Having common sense doesn't make anyone less of a gambler/adventurer! You
can still climb Everest but if you have common sense and assess your path
properly, it just means you have less chance of getting yourself killed. you
still get to experience the climb and the view.
>> Don't worry about 'love' then, it can take care of itself if it's a constant;
>> like background radiation.
>>
> Yes...I do believe somehow that we'll meet again, and quite possible as
> lovers, too...I don't know...it isn't just mere wishful thinking, I feel,
> 'cause I'm still hurting and whatnot, and I don't believe it'll happen, in a
> way...but in another, I just kinda feel that there can't really be death, know
> what I mean? In a way I just feel -- not hope, but feel, almost like I know
> -- that what we had, what we shared and created...lives, and will live...and
> will bring us together again in some way, somehow, at some time somewhere....
That's not what I meant by 'background radiation'. I mean it's happening out
there without your interference and that you will be able to tap into it
again... not with Claudia. Although I'm not discounting any possible
reunion.
> In a way, I'm ready right now! I do try to chit-chat with females I meet,
> often complete strangers...that helps too, just in terms of perspective.
That's great. It may be useful for you to chit chat with males too! I found
that it's essential to never cut yourself off from friends simply because
you're in a LTR, you never know when you may need them or they may need you.
>> I mean he had designed it (his participation in it) so that he could
>> extricate himself with the least amount of collateral damage.
>>
> Haha...isn't that something?? I certainly had my chances during our time
> together (as I say, my "love resume" looks so much better than hers), but I'd
> always worried over hurting her!
>
> BTW, I'm sure you don't mean "collateral damage" if you mean to say that he
> was concerned with damage to himself.
>
> Or do you really mean "collateral damage," as in damage to *you*??
>
> If so...then that was rather considerate of him.
He wasn't all that bothered about how I got hurt, he just didn't want over
spill into the rest of his life. It was important that he didn't end up
looking the big mean ogre to his friends.
>> He didn't need to be sneaky, it was like pulling something apart along a
>> fault line that he'd engineered as he went along.
>>
> Ah, well, that sounds sneaky to me, to engineer a break-up.
He may have been doing it intuitively in the process of being with me as a
means of escape for the future and as part of his insurance scheme if he
were to 'do better with someone else'. Very practical of him.
>> She doesn't sound so wonderful, not from that description.
>>
> You know, I keep trying to see what I can "learn" from this...and one possible
> lesson may be to STAY AWAY FROM GHETTO GIRLS!
>
> She grew up poor, sexually abused, blah blah blah...lots of issues...I suppose
> I should just stay away from that kind of stuff in future. Essentially, do the
> bourgeois thing!
>
> Me, my faults were the usual -- I was posessive (but not "jealous," if you
> understand that...), easily irritated (not violent, but annoyed by stuff like
> crowds or humid weather which in turn irritated her), arrogant (but I think
> I'm being honest when I say I'm a most eligible bachelor!), and having gross
> sexual fantasies (I'll spare you the details, but let's just say that she was
> actually curious about a FMF-threesome though she wasn't interested in a
> MFM-threesome!). Typical guy stuff, right?
> Oh, yeah, and that killer of all deal-breakers -- I really didn't want to live
> with her kid if possible. We got along fine as friends, essentially, but
> things would likely change when living together -- no way could I have just
> let a kid watch TV all day and night...though I must admit, I often did think
> that when he got older we could play those computer wargames together!
Knowing what I know about being a female the kid issue is too big an issue
to ignore. If you want kids and she doesn't, that's a deal breaker. If she
had a kid you can't accept/adopt, that's a deal breaker. Can you see this?
>> I've read/heard that you can tell how a man will treat a potential wife by
>> the way he treats his mother. Do you know, when I look at folk I know - good
>> and bad - I can see that this is true.
>>
> Yes, I've heard that too, and it does seem to stand to reason...but I honestly
> (and why should I lie, this is the anonymous internet) can say that I did not
> treat Claudia like how I treated my mother....
I'm not really saying a man will treat his SO like his mother! I'm saying
you can tell a great deal from how he treats/talks to his mother. I wonder
if this works for how he treats all his close family and the same must be
true for women too. I know my husband is constantly amazed at how like my
father I am. Personality wise.
> See -- and this is likely part of the reason why the break-up's hit me so hard
> -- I'd essentially neglected my mother. So her apparent suicide had an effect
> on me, as you can imagine, as well as the rest of the family.
>
> I neglected my mother for many reasons. I didn't feel like I had much in
> common with her -- except for this bulldog-tenacity, where we just don't let
> go ("drive" or, negatively, "nag"), and psycho-emotional stuff like that
> (though I've also got my father's silver tongue and his sense of adventure and
> going for broke) -- and I also resented her for how she'd been with me while
> growing up. Of course now I see how she was at her wits' end -- at the
> funeral an uncle (maternal) noted how all the siblings agreed that she'd
> always been an unhappy person -- and all that, and I certainly wasn't helping
> matters by going through my growing pains, I who was supposed to be the scion
> of the family...so...um, where was I...so anyway there were lots and lots of
> issues involved.
>
> Not a justification, just a much-simplified explanation.
>
> But Claudia, as I'd noted, was one whom I really took care of. And so when my
> mother apparently (likely) killed herself, and then Claudia just dumped me
> soon thereafter, it really came like some kind of...karmic payback??? You
> know, something spooky (or as Claudia used to say in her cute way,
> "spooggy!")....
>
> Anyway, just wanted to say that I was definitely a case where that theory did
> not hold. I neglected my mother -- so-called "benign neglect" (she was almost
> certainly paranoid and I ran from that) -- but I typically gave almost my all
> for Claudia.
Are you getting any help with your grieving 'process'?
>> Yes. It's not much fun.
>>
> Forget about "fun" -- one can live with the "what" and figure out the "how"
> once given a convincing "why"...I only wish there was a reason, you know? A
> point, a purpose....
She dumped you because...? You want the answer to that? I thought you
touched on the reason a few posts back with Chloe and Sumire and Little
Monster. Something to do with that deal breaking position regarding
rejecting her own 'flesh and blood'.
>> So you both lied then.
>>
> Hmm?? Not sure how I might have lied with regards to that, about not holding
> her back....
Well you're mentally/emotionally hanging on to her right now, aren't you?
>> If you were looking for the signals (the break-ups and fights) you will
>> probably see that you /were/ given the correct notice for her quitting. Isn't
>> it one year for every three years?
>>
> What's one year for every three?
>
> Sure one can always play Monday-morning-QB and start saying that there were
> signals all along...problem is, she was supposed to have came out and said
> things! I mean, am I supposed to be constantly suspicious??
>
> Anyway, in future, any girl who winds up being "mysterious" to me is gonna get
> "the treatment" all right...I'm really sick of this crap...wanna play games?
> I'm a real intelligent guy, I can definitely be a player and take 'em for the
> trip of their lives.
Taking it out on the next woman isn't really a healthy use of your emotional
energy. Still, if it gets it out of your system.
> God...this is the thing with women, in my experience -- so damned concerned
> about being treated like an "adult," but can't act like one...wanna be a
> princess? Okay, I'll treat you like one...princesses obviously live in
> la-la-land, and if it's a bill of goods, a rose-tinted picture you want from
> me -- fine....
>
> This was one of the things that stuck in my throat during our relationship,
> this BS sentiment about "if you love me you would know"...I refuse to be a
> mind reader! You wanna be an adult, start acting like one! Say what you
> want, and let's go from there!
Woohhooo! Real anger. I thought you responded to her broken-princess child
act though? I thought that's what you loved about her.
>> We aren't planning on breaking up. If it happens we'd both be devastated I
>> should imagine. And I'd keep the house. :vP
>>
> No, I don't mean "planning on a break-up" but how you "plan" on doing it or
> expect to do it...not that that helps, I suppose, 'cause obviously Claudia's
> forgotten.
I'm not planning to do it. I don't expect it to happen. But if it did happen
I'd be devastated probably. I simply mean that I accept that it could occur.
>> P'raps I should switch to a.s.b. I did post there a few times but I couldn't
>> be bothered to learn the ropes.
>>
> LOL -- that's an acutal NG????
Yeah. LOL.
>> I don't agree with having children.
>>
> Good God woman, whatever is your problem???? =)
>
> Seriously, though -- what have you against children? I mean having your
> own...I know they're a hell of a lot of work and all...but....
>
> Well, if I really am sterile, truth to tell, I'd not mind too much...I'd still
> prefer to have children, but I can also honestly see the bright side --
> "philosophical" as well as practical -- to not having them....
>
> It's just that what I don't understand is your being actively against it, as
> opposed to not really caring too much, say....
There are far too many good reasons not to have them.
>> Another pitfall of becoming too wrapped up in 'the one and only'. Learn from
>> that too.
>>
> I don't subscribe to the romantic view that there is some once-in-a-lifetime
> star-sanctioned pairing, if that's the impression I'm giving.
>
> But you know, I don't think that knowledge affects the romantic experience for
> me. I'm still able to marvel, and believe without that kind of faith.
And when I say that it's another pitfall becoming too wrapped up in the one
and only I meant to say: it's another pitfall shutting off all other avenues
of interest. So - once you have 'found' another person you feel you can love
don't drop your friends like a stone. You may always need them to be there
for you.
>> I don't think she's his type. No... I know she's not his type. So is she a
>> Gemini?
>>
> Um, I dunno...what's June 28? Me, I'm a Capicorn -- but so what??
I know. So what? As it turns out I think she escapes being a dreaded Gemini
by five days. So she's only five days away from my theory.
>> I don't think that a relationship, voluntarily entered into, should be
>> difficult. What's the point if it's a struggle? Unless you're some kind of
>> sadomasochistic freakjob.
>>
> Bingo! That's precisely the problem, I think. People expect things to be
> easy. It definitely should be fun in some sense, and should have some kind of
> meaning, but difficulty...hell, what isn't difficult in life? Life itself is
> hard! But it's worth living.
I thought I was saying that a relationship, voluntarily entered into,
/shouldn't/ be difficult! I must deal with my vocabulary in a much clearer
way. If I wasn't having such a great time with my DH I would never have
asked him to marry me.
> I really think people have got the wrong end of the stick with regards to the
> activity of loving...any Olympic athlete will tell you that things are
> difficult for him, too, for all his talent...but that's what separates the
> real deal from the fakes.
>
> So I'm not going to marry some peasant girl whose peasant common sense tells
> her that life is hard but relationships should be easy. I'm to marry some
> noble lady who understands the virtue of stoicism, and that laughter comes
> from much difficulty. She will understand that life itself is hard, and that
> all good things come of struggle, however freely sometimes they seem to come
> to us (a smile, the sun, a stroke of genius)....
Well I'm not sure if looking for a struggle is the way forward.
> One does not look for problems -- but one anticipates them, understands their
> inevitability.
Now /that/ I agree with; anticipate potential problems... However this
doesn't make them inevitable.
Perhaps you should take your notion of love and save it for God. Personally
speaking I'm a woman and I can only take so much airy fairy "what is this
thing called, love?" [ stet punctuation :v) ] before I need a good, solid
amount of practical objectivity. I'm flesh and blood not smoke and water.
>> Take care with the overseas bride; women there are just as 'interesting' as
>> women just around the corner from you.
>>
> LOL -- don't I know it! I'm in NYC, so I don't think somehow that these
> darlings are perfect angels over there and that somehow it's America that
> corrupts them.
>
> I don't know what I'm talking about at this point, obviously...it's more the
> myth that I'm buying into, the idea that pastures are greener overseas...I
> mean, they're raised to be housewives, and I'm perfectly fine with that!
> Their big thing is to have babies and a house, a car...and I'm down with that!
> I don't need her to be some kind of genius -- I come here to the internet for
> that! No, I need her for more earthy purposes, and she me.
Now you're talking... practical objectivity!
> So what separates the wheat from the chaff is their character, what their
> values are, etc. And again, the hope is that a "traditional" culture would
> have taught them to be more patient and tolerant, to endure, etc.
>
> Anyway, believe me, I do take your warning to heart. Interestingly, today on
> the subway I bumped into an old acquaintance who wound up offering to play
> match-maker for me! I didn't ask her to...during the course of our
> conversation (and no, really, I didn't vent to her like I did here -- never
> brought any of this up, actually), she had occasion to wonder what such a fine
> specimen like myself is doing without anyone to cook for him at night, etc.
> It must have been a quick subconscious (and hence all the more striking when
> perceived) flash of melancholia that crossed my face which caught her eyes and
> moved her to offer introducing me. So when she's going back, I'll go vacation
> with her and her family.
>
> But yeah, I know what you mean about "women being all the same." =)
Haha. Is that what I said?
You little tinker.
>> Anyway you're coming into the party season you lucky thing, you!
>>
> ???
>
> What party season???
Oh, come on! You must know it's the party season! Halloween through to New
Years and on into Valentine's Day - it's almost relationship geared! You
have a Feb 14th deadline to meet.
>> You're good looking, intelligent, financially stable and you know what you
>> want (Helen). This is the best time to be on the lookout. But for heathens'
>> sake - wear a condom!
>>
> See, the thing is...you're right. Aw, you're right.
>
> You know, the more I think about this...the more it seems to me that if I
> could just somehow drop the "ego" -- the sense of...I dunno...me, I
> guess...the sense of who I imagine myself to be -- I'd recover so much more
> quickly from this break-up...it's only that I've quite defined myself in terms
> of her, in terms of "us" for so long....
>
> Thanks for the pep talk, coach! I feel better, yes -- and though I relapse,
> I'm recovering quicker and quicker. Wow, I wonder how long it will be when
> I'm finally out of the woods, at this rate??
Well keep it up!
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> Human nature seems to be inherently the unexpected. Yet, when one
> adopts the logical attitude on which that premise is based, basic
> trust is undermined, which removes the foundation from which most
> intimate relations are nourished.
Yeah, so how does it work? Willing suspension of disbelief, I guess.
Or is it really as the Buddha noted -- all suffering comes from
attachment? I am not attached to you, nor you to me, and so should we
never speak again, there is no problem, much as we enjoy our time
together now.
Why should it be different when it comes to erotic love between a guy
and a gal? Why this dramatically increased sense of obligation, then?
I really wonder how these things work in primitive societies where
sexual relations are simply about pleasure and affection, and where
the feelings go the couples part with no acrimony at all...wow! Could
it really be? I ask because I have read how
sociologist/antrhopologist Margaret Meade made up some of her field
research....
> That's an interesting philosophy which may be worth considering. ;-)
It sounds good -- but so do them all.
> Being a "nice guy" doesn't necessarily mean allowing yourself to be
> used as a dish rag. You can be "nice" and still remain true to
> yourself and your desires.
Well, in any relationship, there is an "amendment" of one's desires
and so forth. I just believe in a more "soldierly" sort of
relationship, I guess -- I expect to bear the burden, I expect
problems. But I do not expect to give up. And I guess I ask
something like that from my woman.
Not some party girl who's just after a good time, or some gold-digger
who's simply after creature comforts. I need a warrior princess! =)
> Be true to yourself. You may consider compromising some things which
> will result in your unhappiness. Don't do it, because if you do, you
> will make everyone around you miserable, including yourself. If you
> find yourself in a situation where compromising such things is
> required to maintain a relationship, then it's time to end that
> relationship. It took me an incredibly long time to realize that.
But surely there's always compromise! It's just the trick to realize
which one can handle and which ones one cannot, for whatever reason.
I don't know...I actually expect to compromise, unlike most people, it
seems, who come to the table with a list of preconditions (like we're
doing the Arab-Israeli talks or something!)....
Ultimately, who is the "I" behind the apparent preferences? Aren't
they all preferences, in the end? I dunno. How much is hard-wired
and how much not? A social guy who loves skydiving...is he
necessarily advised against a home-making gal?
I dunno anymore...I suppose one ought to take the Daoist "water-course
way," which is the path of least resistance....
I dunno anymore...tell me, what was your case, and why did it take you
so long to realize?
> I used to be an atheist, and even with that background I can't give an
> acceptable answer to that question.
LOL -- and I used to be, without knowing it, a Christian
fundamentalist.
> I won't do any "Bible-Thumping"
> because that usually elicits a negative response.
Well, sometimes it appears besides the point. But Jesus, how did you
get back into Christianity after atheism?
Maybe I shouldn't label myself an atheist...let's just say agnostic,
then -- I don't claim to know, but insofar as my senses are all I have
to go on, I feel pretty sure...that there is no deity, no supreme
intelligence, no...well, like I said, I really dunno.
> I have the
> impression, however, that you are reasonably familiar with Scripture.
> Based on that assumption, I think you know that in it forgiveness is
> described in great detail. You may find the advice given therein to be
> helpful.
Um, far as I can recall, forgiveness in Scripture has to do with the
Lord's own mercy, in seeing the offender as a brother in Christ,
another son of God, etc.
But I don't believe this anymore. Alas, I do not perceive our common
divinity -- I see only our common humanity, and that is a mixed thing.
All reference to forgiveness in the Bible refers back to God...there
seems nothing which can stand on its own, except by reference to God
and His disposition and whatnot...but for an atheist like myself,
that's like going to the dealership to inquire about whether some
option for a car, you know....
> That's what I did. Occasionally I revert back to that mindset, but
> when I become conscious of it and the damage it does to me, I pull out
> of it.
Yeah, me too. So I guess it's "being saved" that's helped you out of
your years-long morass?
> Back then I really don't know. But now, with what I *know* now, if I
> could turn back the clock, I would have been far more assertive about
> my wants and needs. This would have had one of two results, a break-up
> or a happier marriage. Either way it would have been much better for
> me.
Well, you did have a break-up, so I guess what you're really saying is
that you would have had an "easier" break-up, a "healthier" break-up,
a "safer" break-up?
Hmm, being assertive of one's wants and needs. Yes, all very well and
good...but emotions...come into play...that's the thing!
Oh, I suppose it's really time to grow up and stop playing at romance.
Okay, getting real here....
> I never really knew. I think she just got bored with me. She had two
> daughters when we met, one 10, the other 12. I was a meal ticket, I
> guess. When the nest was empty, she had no further use for me.
Sigh...!
I dunno, it really is time to grow up...I guess I always felt that
such things happened only on TV or something, stories like
this...never thought one could go through years with such a mind-set
("meal ticket"), always thought that after a few months (by which I
don't mean weekends only) people's characters are fairly
revealed...haha, "fairly"...I mean, "more or less".....
> Actually, no, I wasn't happy. I was "comfortable", I suppose, and I
> "almost" had companionship, but I always felt there was something
> missing.
But truly, doesn't one always feel that "something" is missing?
Whether it's romance or lust or personality orientations or tastes or
intellectual capacities or whatever -- it's never "perfect," is it?
One's always gonna "wonder," even if simply out of curiosity
(especially at first), and then one's mind comes up with the old list
of "cons" or "MIA"....
> I found out later what that something was; me. I always felt
> out of place, like I really didn't belong. I was nothing more than a
> "walking wallet", a bill-payer and not much else.
I didn't mind being a walking wallet -- my ego was pretty much
gratified by the fact that I had a large-enough wallet, see -- but I
can definitely relate to what you mean, feeling like, in effect, an
accessory, or dessert...just not the main thing.
> And, let me down "gently"? Hmm, well, two days after her second
> daugher got married, she told me she wanted a divorce.
Good grief. I guess you're not in touch with the daughters either,
then?
Gosh. You know what's truly scary? Really, I'm not exaggerating when
I say that there's this creeping, forlorn fear...what really eats me
is that I don't know whether it's just a matter of being careful! I
wish that now I could at least never be, what's the word...tricked
again -- especially by myself! -- but all that's hard to know....
Gosh, have I just talked myself into a bit of worry, now?
This is crazy, for sure....
> If the "New Me" met her back then, everything would have been
> different. The relationship would have been radically better or would
> have ended quicker.
Ah, okay. Hmm. You know, I suppose much the same may happen with
me...I'm still digesting the remains of this relationship with
Claudia, but maybe the next ones I'll be -- though I'm afraid it's all
to do with luck -- more mindful, more careful, more aware, more
perceptive, more...disciplined!
> I'm still lonely and I'm still searching for someone compatible enough
> with me to share lives.
God, it's mind-boggling when you think about it, all the lonely people
out there, and how so many things keep us from finding one another.
> Perhaps you see it but can't name it?
Hmm, well, if I can't name it then it's harder to think about --
harder to "see." That's language and semantics for you -- sometimes
using words just confuses things even more!
> And you may not always feel it. Sometimes I don't. But lack of feeling
> doesn't negate its veracity.
Yes, but the problem is that we often go on feelings, we so used to
being on "auto pilot."
> A tiny dose of pride can be a very good guide.
Yeah...I really just got comfortable and lulled into complacency.
> Validity of the journey is fine. But obvious futility is a waste.
But that's the thing! What's obvious? We'd lasted four years through
so much, really amazing stuff in its own small, everyday way...common,
but not easy....
> My understanding of what you said indicates that you tried to resolve
> problems when she chose not to. If a problem is not resolved, it
> festers and becomes worse. It needs to be dealt with, even at the
> expense of the relationship, because eventually such a problem will be
> its demise anyway.
OIC.
Yes, quite right you are -- this is, broadly speaking, precisely what
happened.
Yes, I will have to bite the bullet next time.
> That depends on how *crucial* a given incompatibility is.
Well, right -- but aside from something like homosexuality, right --
how crucial are the overwhelming majority of incompatibilities? Is
snoring really such a big deal? Or being messy? Etc.
I know easier/harder...but to speak of incompabitility in an absolute
sense makes me wonder.
> "Good" in the fact that it allows for trust and at the same time sets
> a standard for a response to violated trust. "Crude" in the sense that
> it should be an instinctual gut-level reflex.
Um...okay, now I've lost the thread of our discussion here.
I was saying that viewing her as an opptunist (what your woman was, a
gold-digger) still makes me feel bad for the implications it places on
me as the dupe. Not seeing at all how that statement engenders the
rest of your comments.
> I tend to be a bit more pragmatic. I touch a flame and feel the burn.
> I know not to touch it again or the same thing will happen. I have no
> need for the knowledge that the flame owes its existence to fuel,
> oxygen, and heat.
Yes, well, I'm just curious. She, and most people, have just that
orientation you do -- no need for further inquiry; the fact itself is
all that's intersting.
> Heh, heh! Damn the torpedoes and full speed astern! ;-)
Yeah...there's only so much I can ask before I wonder why I bother
asking. =)
> No guarantees. You can reduce risk, but nothing is truly guaranteed.
Yeah, well, am I really just agonizing over the fact that there are no
guarantees in life? However I dress this up, is that all this pain
really is, unresolved security issues??
> Doesn't that imply the existence of a Supreme Being? My impression is
> that your belief system doesn't allow for that.
Why should a Supreme Being be implied by the desire for
accountability?
Not that, as all would agree, Claudia's "guilty" of anything -- other
than apathy. And that apathy, I'm sure she'd say on such a day (ha!),
comes from somewhere, something....
> A game of cards, the hand you are dealt. You assess your chances with
> what you have. You dump a card that appears not to work. You may pick
> one that does. When the play ends, you either win or lose. A little
> skill and a little luck. As I said, no guarantees.
Thing is, I didn't know we were still playing; though I'd won the game
already, you know?
> My standards are considerably raised for the woman I want. I won't
> tolerate deceit in any form, even so-called "little white lies".
Well, depending on your definition of "white lies" (and "little" ones
at that!), I think we all engage in it.
You don't mean something like "honey, how do I look," do you??
> I
> won't tolerate infidelity or any perceived tendency toward it.
Um, well, if she's beautiful there's always the possibility, just
the...I mean, so what if she gets turned on by some other guy, say the
fella up on the screen? Doesn't matter where she gets her appetite,
as long as she eats at home, right!
> I feel
> the same way toward any perceived form of manipulation or
> passive-aggressive behavior.
But this is just the thing -- we all engage in it to some degree or
other, at one time or another!
I don't know...I'm just wondering where's the "love" in the middle of
all our wish-lists....
> Any tendency toward violence is similarly
> rejected. Any public humiliation will make me dump her on the spot
> with no recourse. My list is rather lengthy, but I think you get the
> idea.
It's a big list...I've revised mine to make it more manageable, and
still I wind up lonely...obviously need to redo it once more....
> That about sizes it up.
Sigh. We'll see. This is America! Must I be reduced to enjoying
just the simple pleasures of life -- the sun, a smile, etc. -- in
Sodom and Gomorrah??
=)
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> Why?
'Cause I'd like to have kids one day! 'Cause it would be fun to do
that with someone I love, you know? Just another thing to have in
common -- a great thing! Etc.
Sure there's some "ego" involved...but the end result is love, and
that's what's important! =)
> LOL! So far you've been lucky. Giving up on masturbation seems like much to
> drastic a step in order to father a child.
Well, it's for a good cause! I've gone "totally celibate" before -- I
just need a reason, you know?
> Sometimes you have to let the kid go... grow up.
Yes -- and by letting go, both parties grow....
Sniff....
> Having common sense doesn't make anyone less of a gambler/adventurer! You
> can still climb Everest but if you have common sense and assess your path
> properly, it just means you have less chance of getting yourself killed. you
> still get to experience the climb and the view.
Ah, yes, you're very right...I had in mind a different perspective,
but yours is the wider, more encompassing and correct one to take.
Yes, well...I...well, you know, when you're lonely, you just go with
whatever there is on hand -- better one in hand than two in
waiting...and I'm not even convinced that there are any in waiting!
Anyway, I do agree with your point. I'll try to practice it better --
and more often!
> That's not what I meant by 'background radiation'. I mean it's happening out
> there without your interference and that you will be able to tap into it
> again... not with Claudia. Although I'm not discounting any possible
> reunion.
OIC...yes, well, that's why "love" is not a matter of the love object
("more fish in the sea") as much as it involves a power of the lover,
the one who would love. It's like background radiation, then, in the
sense that the power to love, to exercise love, is something we
naturally have...we just need to develop it, to practice....
> That's great. It may be useful for you to chit chat with males too!
No, the males I know just don't interest me...I have no male friends,
actually! I mean, I do, but none with whom I do anything...always
something preventing it -- incompatible schedules, divergent
interests, etc.
Females...well, any female that hangs out with me is gonna be
interested in me, know what I mean? =)
> I found
> that it's essential to never cut yourself off from friends simply because
> you're in a LTR, you never know when you may need them or they may need you.
Yes, I do agree. I just never thought I was "cutting myself off"...I
mean, I was busy! And I myself don't take it personally -- as much of
a bummer as it can feel -- when a pal hasn't time to hang out no more
because they're with someone.
But anyway, I don't have friends like that...very few to begin with,
and none with whom to "hang out"....
Except on ASL, right! =)
> He wasn't all that bothered about how I got hurt, he just didn't want over
> spill into the rest of his life.
OIC! LOL -- well, that's even more Orwellian than Orwell, when
"innocents killed" become "civilian casualties" to "collateral damage"
to, now, "don't want the rest of *my* life affected, though I'm the
dumper"...!
> It was important that he didn't end up
> looking the big mean ogre to his friends.
Well, sure, there's always an element of what I call our sense of our
"legacy"...part of my pain is how Claudia may remember me -- when she
finally bothers to, you know; when "I" just suddenly occur to her --
as well as how I "look"....
But, well, I'm sorry the fellow was so selfish...I don't know, you
know...I mean, why can't we be like Margaret Meade's Somoans, who
couple and decouple and recouple with new partners with no hurt
feelings at all? I think our culture trains us to feel attachment and
hurt...and it does this in order to maintain our level of
civilization...we can't just have people quitting left and right,
after all -- so it's got to be painful, and shameful, and
inconvenient, whether we speak of romantic relationships or business
partnerships or military duties or whatever....
> He may have been doing it intuitively in the process of being with me as a
> means of escape for the future and as part of his insurance scheme if he
> were to 'do better with someone else'. Very practical of him.
This is the thing...I wish we could be "honest" about our
"practicality"....
> Knowing what I know about being a female the kid issue is too big an issue
> to ignore. If you want kids and she doesn't, that's a deal breaker. If she
> had a kid you can't accept/adopt, that's a deal breaker. Can you see this?
I just don't believe it has to be that way, that's all. After all,
there are certainly women who abandon their kids or give them up for
adoption, etc.
It wasn't like I made it a matter of me or her son...she made it that
way. Get the difference? But that had to do with her notions of how
things should be...but instead of exploring that with me in dialogue,
we never got past the "deal-breaker" mentality, the "supermarket
checklist" mentality....
> I'm not really saying a man will treat his SO like his mother! I'm saying
> you can tell a great deal from how he treats/talks to his mother.
Yes, this is the conventional wisdom...I was only noting that I was
one of those rare exceptions, by most criteria.
> I wonder
> if this works for how he treats all his close family and the same must be
> true for women too.
Interesting question, especially with regards to women who grew up
without fathers. I do believe that on one very important level, both
sexes look for, in effect if not in conscious intent, the parent they
once had or never had.
> I know my husband is constantly amazed at how like my
> father I am. Personality wise.
Well, yes, kids will certainly resemble their parents in so many ways.
I really have seen that for myself, not only with myself and my
parents but also between Claudia and her mother and her son as well as
her brothers.
> Are you getting any help with your grieving 'process'?
Frankly, this is it. I'm not just being polite when I say that all
the usenet support has been helpful. And I honestly don't see a
difference from what I could receive with, you are saying,
psychotherapy.
"Physician, heal thyself!"
> She dumped you because...? You want the answer to that? I thought you
> touched on the reason a few posts back with Chloe and Sumire and Little
> Monster. Something to do with that deal breaking position regarding
> rejecting her own 'flesh and blood'.
Um, but that's been something understood from Day Five! Or, more
accurately, month four....
Yes, answers are always appreciated. I do feel that they all
contribute to insight, healing, and growth.
But you know, I really don't like this "flesh and blood"
notion...absolutely ridiculous...I mean, damn it, I'm with her, not
her whole friggin' family!
Reminds me of the old Ivor Novello song about the mother-in-law who's
always tagging along on their dates....
> Well you're mentally/emotionally hanging on to her right now, aren't you?
Um, no. I wouldn't want to hold her back -- but hell, we should
discuss things first! Precisely because feelings would be involved,
emotional attachment and all that...still feeling for her isn't
holding her back. It's what I do with those feelings, and what she
does in relation to them...desiring her isn't holding her back --
desiring her is simply desiring her. Holding her back would be making
her life miserable, etc.; stuff like that.
> Taking it out on the next woman isn't really a healthy use of your emotional
> energy. Still, if it gets it out of your system.
Not sure what you mean by "healthy use"...but, as you note, it does
get it out of the system in some sense, and that does sound rather
healthy in itself.
For me. For the girl, well...conceivably, she's just getting her just
desserts, right -- being "mysterious" and "playing games"...I can
certainly play games: hardball, screwball, dodgeball, what have ya....
But I don't expect to meet such girls anymore anyway. My m.o. would
most likely be, in any case, simply being myself and going from there.
I'm just that much more savvy now, is all.
> Woohhooo! Real anger. I thought you responded to her broken-princess child
> act though? I thought that's what you loved about her.
Again, things operate on many levels.
On one level, there's just the sex, the physical sensations.
On another right above that, there's the psycho-emotional associations
where Jungian archetypes dwell and work -- Knight in Shining
Armor/Damsel in Distress....
But we shouldn't be stuck there. That shouldn't be the guiding
"ethos" of our relationship. We're still adults, we should still talk
and articulate our needs, desires, problems, issues, feelings,
thoughts....
> I'm not planning to do it. I don't expect it to happen. But if it did happen
> I'd be devastated probably. I simply mean that I accept that it could occur.
Um, well, I do too, then, and did. Just took me for a real loop how
it happened, and that she cares not one damned bit.
> Yeah. LOL.
Well, this is a close cousin, ASL...it's almost as bad as chatting
online sometimes!
> There are far too many good reasons not to have them.
There's an Ingmar Bergman film, oh what was it...black and white -- so
one of his early ones..."Wild Strawberries," was it? Anyway, there
this young guy driving his young girlfriend crazy by not wanting
children...what's the point of creating more people to suffer, etc.
Anyway...there are many good reasons to have kids, too.
> And when I say that it's another pitfall becoming too wrapped up in the one
> and only I meant to say: it's another pitfall shutting off all other avenues
> of interest. So - once you have 'found' another person you feel you can love
> don't drop your friends like a stone. You may always need them to be there
> for you.
Yes, okay, you are right, of course. I guess I just didn't feel like
I'd "dropped" my friends...I just have a certain conception of
relationships, romantic and otherwise, and assumed everyone shared --
or at least understood, recognized, have come across -- that
perspective, where there is a "hierarchy" of devotion, friendship,
time....
I just didn't see it as "dropping" them.
> I know. So what? As it turns out I think she escapes being a dreaded Gemini
> by five days. So she's only five days away from my theory.
LOL -- and me, about six months away!
> I thought I was saying that a relationship, voluntarily entered into,
> /shouldn't/ be difficult!
You were -- and I replied by noting that life in general is difficult,
the point being that difficulty is quite besides the point.
Everything is difficult, right; nothing is "perfect" and thus there
will always be some bit of hassle -- it's just a matter of one's faith
and interest.
> I must deal with my vocabulary in a much clearer
> way. If I wasn't having such a great time with my DH I would never have
> asked him to marry me.
Well, it sounded like that for you a "great" time has to comprise of a
lot of "ease" as well. For me, the level of difficulty (short of
"impossible") just isn't a factor. But I'm into challenges, right --
I bike, I jog, I lift weights, I play chess and go, I learn foreign
languages, I draw and write and read philosophy and psychology and
history and fiction and play video games, too...none of which is
"immediately useful," all of which require time and devotion
(difficulty)...but I have a "great" time....
That's the thing I have trouble with...people seem to have a short
attention span or something...things get boring quickly....
I dunno....
> Well I'm not sure if looking for a struggle is the way forward.
But it's always a struggle! Unless one just gets lucky, of
course...but typically we wind up with people who aren't going to
match us so well -- though probably for other reasons (oh she's just
so beautiful! He's just so rich!) we rationalize things and see it as
a good match....
It just seems the "proper orientation" to me to expect
problems...that's how I've been raised, right -- everything's got to
be earned, worked for, sustained, maintained....
> Now /that/ I agree with; anticipate potential problems... However this
> doesn't make them inevitable.
Um...sure they're inevitable..."it's always something"....
Anyway, we may be stuck on the semantics of all this...we may be
reacting to the particular presentation instead of the idea itself, on
which I do think we're in accord.
> Perhaps you should take your notion of love and save it for God.
No, no God.
Anyway, you don't need this notion of love, you're fine without it.
And that's good. All ideas arise out of some necessity, and that you
find this one so unnecessary may well be indication of your good luck.
> Personally
> speaking I'm a woman and I can only take so much airy fairy "what is this
> thing called, love?" [ stet punctuation :v) ] before I need a good, solid
> amount of practical objectivity. I'm flesh and blood not smoke and water.
Anti-intellectualism is no rebuttal to the validity of an idea. You
can say what you will, but "empty" statements do not explain anything.
To use words is already to engage in "smoke and water," as any
semanticist, linguist, Daoist or Zen Buddhist can tell you! For
language is many times removed from the experience they purport to
describe, replicate, intimate...and when we speak of love, we speak of
an activity, an experience...herein lies the difficulty: describing
"red" to a man blind from birth, and distinguishing that from "pink"
and "burgundy"....
> Now you're talking... practical objectivity!
And this is what's so funny -- I'm eminently practical and objective!
=) But you know women; can't just get down to business with most of
'em...gotta go through the motions first, the ritual courtship, etc.
Anyway, "practical objectivity" is, in the end, influenced by ideas,
theories, like all else in life. There had been a time when I'd not
have defined "practical objectivity" so physically, carnally....
> Haha. Is that what I said?
> You little tinker.
Just being "practical" and "objective"...like someone observed -- they
all look the same in the dark! (Or, alternately, "they're all pink
inside!")
> Oh, come on! You must know it's the party season! Halloween through to New
> Years and on into Valentine's Day - it's almost relationship geared! You
> have a Feb 14th deadline to meet.
LOL! Well, I don't do parties...don't drink, don't dance, don't none
o' that...but...okay...party season...hmm....
I'd rather meet a girl in the library, you know? 'Cause then I could
imagine we'd talk about books. Or at the gym. 'Cause then we can
work out together. Or at the park. We'd both be nature-lovers.
But a party??? Like I said, I ain't into none of that stuff. It'd be
false advertising on my part!
Party season...sigh...nah, thanks for the idea, but I do all right
without such fora! I really am a jock-looking geek...so just
"meeting" girls isn't a problem...it's...getting with the "right"
ones!
Nah, parties are not my thing. I am just not interested. I really
don't care to "meet" people that way. Something rather "artificial"
about it -- and I don't just mean the one-upmanships, the preening,
etc.
> Well keep it up!
Yes! Well, I am talking to girls again, flirting, you know...I even
get telephone numbers! But, like I said, nothing seems to pan out...I
guess they just like to flirt, too -- but there's never an actual date
agreed to....
Thanks, though, for everything. I still feel lonely, but I don't
experience it as something very bad. It's just like feeling
chilly...so what?
Funny, feelings...how they just come and go...thanks to y'all, I think
I've been half-talked half-way out of my depression weeks ago! I'm
not "there" yet -- but hell, maybe I am! Maybe I don't even know
it...I mean, I'm flirting again, right? I ain't manic about it, nor
all "hang-dog"...feel quite "normal" when I talk to females,
actually...funny how feelings work, eh?
Yeah...who knows anymore...who cares! Hey, why don't this work for
more ASLers?? Or maybe it's just the nature of language that what we
put to words inevitably appears worse (the opposite of words failing
experience) than is the case!
BTW, what kind of name is "sklenge"??
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Knowing what I know about being a female the kid issue is too big an issue to
>> ignore. If you want kids and she doesn't, that's a deal breaker. If she had a
>> kid you can't accept/adopt, that's a deal breaker. Can you see this?
>>
> I just don't believe it has to be that way, that's all. After all, there are
> certainly women who abandon their kids or give them up for adoption, etc.
I think someone who can dump an obligation like their own child could be
capable of dumping something less binding like a SO.
> It wasn't like I made it a matter of me or her son...she made it that way.
> Get the difference? But that had to do with her notions of how things should
> be...but instead of exploring that with me in dialogue, we never got past the
> "deal-breaker" mentality, the "supermarket checklist" mentality....
I don't know much about kids and parents but I don't think this is something
that can be negotiated with a compromise agreement - the only compromise is
that you accept the kid or you don't. What's left to discuss?
>> Are you getting any help with your grieving 'process'?
>>
> Frankly, this is it. I'm not just being polite when I say that all the usenet
> support has been helpful. And I honestly don't see a difference from what I
> could receive with, you are saying, psychotherapy.
I've never had anyone close to me die. So I don't have much experience with
grief. Suicide must be so painful. I mean, the guilt one normally feels
within grief must be extreme. Are you posting to other newsgroups to get
these issues out in the open?
>> She dumped you because...? You want the answer to that? I thought you touched
>> on the reason a few posts back with Chloe and Sumire and Little Monster.
>> Something to do with that deal breaking position regarding rejecting her own
>> 'flesh and blood'.
>>
> Um, but that's been something understood from Day Five! Or, more accurately,
> month four....
>
> Yes, answers are always appreciated. I do feel that they all contribute to
> insight, healing, and growth.
>
> But you know, I really don't like this "flesh and blood" notion...absolutely
> ridiculous...I mean, damn it, I'm with her, not her whole friggin' family!
If it were your sweet adorable little baby girl would you expect your
beloved girlfriend to accept your baby, for the love of you, or would you
gladly give your baby up for your beloved girlfriend?
Trust me on this. (I know I said don't trust me before, but this time trust
me.) If a person is given the choice of saving their lover or their child I
think the child tends to win out. God knows why, it wouldn't be my choice.
But most normal women who have a child would die rather than give up their
kid.
>> Well you're mentally/emotionally hanging on to her right now, aren't you?
>>
> Um, no. I wouldn't want to hold her back -- but hell, we should discuss
> things first! Precisely because feelings would be involved, emotional
> attachment and all that...still feeling for her isn't holding her back. It's
> what I do with those feelings, and what she does in relation to
> them...desiring her isn't holding her back -- desiring her is simply desiring
> her. Holding her back would be making her life miserable, etc.; stuff like
> that.
Yes, I was being dim there. I guess you're not stalking her then.
>> Taking it out on the next woman isn't really a healthy use of your emotional
>> energy. Still, if it gets it out of your system.
>>
> Not sure what you mean by "healthy use"...but, as you note, it does get it out
> of the system in some sense, and that does sound rather healthy in itself.
No I think it stokes up the fires of karmic revenge.
> Well, this is a close cousin, ASL...it's almost as bad as chatting online
> sometimes!
I've never done that.
>> There are far too many good reasons not to have them.
>
> Anyway...there are many good reasons to have kids, too.
On balance there aren't enough. Mostly it's to do with one's own selfish ego
rather than any greater good. That's not a good enough reason to put someone
else through this misery.
>> I must deal with my vocabulary in a much clearer way. If I wasn't having such
>> a great time with my DH I would never have asked him to marry me.
>>
> Well, it sounded like that for you a "great" time has to comprise of a lot of
> "ease" as well. For me, the level of difficulty (short of "impossible") just
> isn't a factor. But I'm into challenges, right -- I bike, I jog, I lift
> weights, I play chess and go, I learn foreign languages, I draw and write and
> read philosophy and psychology and history and fiction and play video games,
> too...none of which is "immediately useful," all of which require time and
> devotion (difficulty)...but I have a "great" time....
>
> That's the thing I have trouble with...people seem to have a short attention
> span or something...things get boring quickly....
>
> I dunno....
I have low blood pressure and poor circulation I think my humour tends
towards the melancholic, or possibly phlegmatic (out of the four humours). I
can get a great deal from doing something tedious and I don't get bored
quickly - I have a fairly long attention span and can be totally dogged and
determined about details... So although I don't race around jogging and
improving myself with zen poetry. I feel I'm happy enough given the material
I have to work with. And I love to spend a great deal of my time relaxing -
so yes a great time for me does include a huge amount of ease.
What computer games do you play?
>> Well I'm not sure if looking for a struggle is the way forward.
>>
> But it's always a struggle! Unless one just gets lucky, of course...but
> typically we wind up with people who aren't going to match us so well --
> though probably for other reasons (oh she's just so beautiful! He's just so
> rich!) we rationalize things and see it as a good match....
>
> It just seems the "proper orientation" to me to expect problems...that's how
> I've been raised, right -- everything's got to be earned, worked for,
> sustained, maintained....
Well I'm definitely someone who can compromise but I would want to start at
a good enough match. Otherwise it could lead to someone in the relationship
becoming a doormat.
>> Now /that/ I agree with; anticipate potential problems... However this
>> doesn't make them inevitable.
>>
> Um...sure they're inevitable..."it's always something"....
>
> Anyway, we may be stuck on the semantics of all this...we may be reacting to
> the particular presentation instead of the idea itself, on which I do think
> we're in accord.
Can you restate this idea - I've lost the thread there. Are we agreeing that
problems will always exist so do some risk assessment?
>> Personally speaking I'm a woman and I can only take so much airy fairy "what
>> is this thing called, love?" [ stet punctuation :v) ] before I need a good,
>> solid amount of practical objectivity. I'm flesh and blood not smoke and
>> water.
>>
> Anti-intellectualism is no rebuttal to the validity of an idea. You can say
> what you will, but "empty" statements do not explain anything. To use words is
> already to engage in "smoke and water," as any semanticist, linguist, Daoist
> or Zen Buddhist can tell you! For language is many times removed from the
> experience they purport to describe, replicate, intimate...and when we speak
> of love, we speak of an activity, an experience...herein lies the difficulty:
> describing "red" to a man blind from birth, and distinguishing that from
> "pink" and "burgundy"....
This is something that may be worth discussing in a different thread at a
different time.
> Party season...sigh...nah, thanks for the idea, but I do all right without
> such fora! I really am a jock-looking geek...so just "meeting" girls isn't a
> problem...it's...getting with the "right" ones!
I wonder what the "right" ones consist of.
> BTW, what kind of name is "sklenge"??
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=8fad19c5.
0303090909.3dd5cc52%40posting.google.com
And what kind of name is "Left Hand of Empire"?
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> I think someone who can dump an obligation like their own child could be
> capable of dumping something less binding like a SO.
Yes, that may be all well and true, but my point is that there does
exist females who can give their kids up for adoption, etc., which was
in response to your suggestion that females are necessarily attached
to their kids and therefore one's got to accept the "package deal"
view of things.
> I don't know much about kids and parents but I don't think this is something
> that can be negotiated with a compromise agreement - the only compromise is
> that you accept the kid or you don't. What's left to discuss?
The relationship is between me and her. The kid is between her and
the kid, just like her mother would be between her and her mother.
See? I don't have to be involved in all that.
It's like some people keeping their last names in marriage, or keeping
separate bank accounts...I really think that things can be worked out.
Of course it depends on the parties involved -- which is my point:
it's got to do with her notions of how things should be or really just
are, as opposed to what, objectively speaking, the many different
possibilities.
I mean, jeesh, to adopt your (and her) mentality would be to say just
the following: since the father of her son is, well, the father, she
cannot accept her own son without accepting his father! And, if
you'll recall, she's so totally set against him she's never even
looked for child support payments from him on the theory that no
contact at all is preferrable to some money with some inevitable
contact!
> I've never had anyone close to me die. So I don't have much experience with
> grief. Suicide must be so painful. I mean, the guilt one normally feels
> within grief must be extreme. Are you posting to other newsgroups to get
> these issues out in the open?
Yeah, alt.zen, in order to analyze the ontology of my pain.
In terms of venting, though, that's mainly here on ASL! =)
Suicide is definitely a guilt-ridden thing for the survivors (funny
term, that, "survivors"). I definitely feel guilty -- and all the
more so because I really am not taking it hard, as I noted to
you...it's only been through my loss of Claudia's affections that I
can even begin to imagine what my younger sister's going
through...she's the one who's shedding the tears! She just called me
last night, actually, to brief me on the latest matters of estate and
whatnot...couldn't help but sob, and all I could do was be an
ear...and this is our mother we're talking about! Yet, Claudia was
more "real" to me than my mother....
Recalls to mind the phenomenon Freud observed as "transference,"
whereby a patient transfer his/her load of sentiment onto the
therapist, somewhat the same psychological process as scapegoating --
except transference isn't necessarily negative in any way...quite
inevitable, actually....
So I seem to have somehow "transferred" my sense of love onto Claudia,
when, one might easily note, I should have held it for my mother...and
she most likely would not have chosen suicide then....
It's an unusually dark autumn here.
> If it were your sweet adorable little baby girl would you expect your
> beloved girlfriend to accept your baby, for the love of you, or would you
> gladly give your baby up for your beloved girlfriend?
Again the matter is falsely framed!
I'm not asking her to choose between me and her son! She's asking to
get married and live together, and I have concerns, only a few of
which deal with her son! The rest are, as I've detailed, her lack of
communication, her apparent readiness for cruelty (she'd pinch me very
hard when she caught me checking out another girl), etc.
This is what's so frustrating...she, like you, kept rounding back to
the same false dichotomy of "my way or the highway"...it wasn't, in
the end, about her son....
You know, it's like when talking to a lot of black people, or
feminists, or any other aggrieved group, and they're so touchy about
racism or sexism or whatever and you really wind up walking on
eggshells 'cause anything can be construed to mean something else....
The choice wasn't me or her son!!!! I wanted to spend my life with
her, too -- it was a question of when and how.
Sigh.
> Trust me on this. (I know I said don't trust me before, but this time trust
> me.) If a person is given the choice of saving their lover or their child I
> think the child tends to win out. God knows why, it wouldn't be my choice.
NO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
NO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
It's obvious...we're hard-wired to sacrifice....
You raise an interesting thought experiment, similar to one which I've
raised myself: if only one child could be saved from a burning
building, which would she/I save -- hers or ours???
> But most normal women who have a child would die rather than give up their
> kid.
Hm...this is the conceit, anyway. But I'm almost certain that a sort
of "Sophie's Choice" could be induced in "most normal women" with a
kid...promise a life rich with opportunity, etc., for themselves and
their kid, only in exchange for the two being irrevocably
separated...and see what sort of a response you get. Even
middle-class women would be tempted for a thought or two.
> Yes, I was being dim there. I guess you're not stalking her then.
The temptation to "do" something is certainly there -- but I don't
even see what to do. So your company has also helped in that regard.
It's just the feeling that I'm being heard -- if not by her (alas!),
then by a fellow female! >=[
Really...it's..."it's all good"....
> No I think it stokes up the fires of karmic revenge.
God damn it! Why does "karma" only seem to affect me???
LOL -- I know what you mean, but I can't believe in that kind of
karma...she's very happy, whereas here I am, poor fool! =)
> I've never done that.
You ain't missing nothing. It's such BS...all kinds of sex talk, but
silly...and then there are those inevitable "drops" and "hangs"
connections being what they are.
> On balance there aren't enough.
I think that's only 'cause you've got this one-for-one mindset, like
you're thinking in terms of a coin for a coin, not realizing that
dimes, even if smaller, are more valuable than nickels, as it were.
> Mostly it's to do with one's own selfish ego
> rather than any greater good. That's not a good enough reason to put someone
> else through this misery.
It certainly is the case much too often. But that doesn't mean it has
to be the case in *your* case! Indeed, the choice to not have
children could also have much to do with ego, obviously.
> I have low blood pressure and poor circulation I think my humour tends
> towards the melancholic, or possibly phlegmatic (out of the four humours).
I too have a melancholic disposition, but I've improved so much in the
past few years by actively questioning the melancholia instead of just
"taking it for granted" -- it may rain, but I can carry an umbrella!
> I
> can get a great deal from doing something tedious
I would agree here, with dishwashing or jogging 'round a track in
mind.
> and I don't get bored
> quickly - I have a fairly long attention span and can be totally dogged and
> determined about details... So although I don't race around jogging and
> improving myself with zen poetry. I feel I'm happy enough given the material
> I have to work with. And I love to spend a great deal of my time relaxing -
> so yes a great time for me does include a huge amount of ease.
> What computer games do you play?
Wargames, mainly (and I don't mean arcade shooters, I mean real
wargames, realistic tactics and strategy), when I do at all these
days, though I would still consider myself a big-time role-playing
guy. Interestingly, I haven't really played (as in every day hours on
end) for like eight months now. It just isn't very interesting
anymore playing against the computer AI, and I have only a dial-up
connection so internet gaming seems bandwidth-prohibitive.
Besides, none of my friends share this hobby. You? I take it you
know something about this. Well, come to think of it, you almost
must; you seem to be often online and likely into computers....
> Well I'm definitely someone who can compromise but I would want to start at
> a good enough match. Otherwise it could lead to someone in the relationship
> becoming a doormat.
Sure we start with "a good enough match"...but one must get beyond
that -- for, after all, no one ever being "perfect," there is always
something to complain about, potentially.
It was literally sickening to hear her talk about how she had a lot in
common with this new guy, how well they got along, how she really
trusts him...the same shit that had been said of me.
I WILL NEVER SAY I LOVE YOU AGAIN!!!!! Not in a romantic
context...too ashamed, frankly...what does it really mean? It would
be like giving someone else her clothes to wear.
God, how disgusting! You know...I don't even mind an open
relationship...I...I mean, what's really disgusting isn't that she's
having fun and getting physical pleasure...what really disgusts me
when I think about all this isn't some picture of them having sex,
it's some movie of her telling him just those things!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHCCCCCCCCCCKKK!!!!!!
> Can you restate this idea - I've lost the thread there. Are we agreeing that
> problems will always exist so do some risk assessment?
We agree that problems will always exist. But from that I say
"tolerate" and "love the one you're with." You say, from the same
point of departure, "make sure it's as 'close' a match as possible."
The two aren't incompatible -- we're just emphasizing different
aspects of what it takes to sustain a relationship. Like you're the
entrepreneur, involved with start-up matters, while I am the
day-to-day manager brought in at a later date....
We don't disagree, then, except insofar as we emphasize different
aspects as being possibly more important.
> This is something that may be worth discussing in a different thread at a
> different time.
It is, actually, a kind of "subtext" to any discussion anyone ever
has...at what point is it worth further conversation? What determines
worth, anyway? What is the goal of a dialogue? What relevance has
extenuating circumstances? Etc.
We all operate on some theory, articulated or not, conscious or not,
consistent or not, practical or not....
> I wonder what the "right" ones consist of.
I'd already told you! I'm a simple guy, really, and very
down-to-earth, for all my apparent pretentiousness/arrogance. I'm a
meat-and-potatoes kinda fella, so I need my T&A, right. After that,
she's just got to be "into" me. That's all. Very simple! I don't
ask for much, really!
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=8fad19c5.
> 0303090909.3dd5cc52%40posting.google.com
LOL
Cool!
> And what kind of name is "Left Hand of Empire"?
Look on the United States Coat of Arms.
I still think of myself as (something of) a soldier. (Thank you,
nurse!)
It is, moreover, the title of on-going fiction with which I'm working,
grappling, teasing, sculpting.
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD77AD5B.225A7%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>
>>
>> I think someone who can dump an obligation like their own child could be
>> capable of dumping something less binding like a SO.
>>
> Yes, that may be all well and true, but my point is that there does exist
> females who can give their kids up for adoption, etc., which was in response
> to your suggestion that females are necessarily attached to their kids and
> therefore one's got to accept the "package deal" view of things.
>
> The relationship is between me and her. The kid is between her and the kid,
> just like her mother would be between her and her mother. See? I don't have
> to be involved in all that.
I think it's difficult to divorce someone from their other relationships
just so that you can take over and be everything to them. That may not be
what you mean, but that's how I'm reading it. I've seen people do this with
their partners and it doesn't work. You need to stay related/attached to
everyone or you risk ending up with no one.
> I mean, jeesh, to adopt your (and her) mentality would be to say just the
> following: since the father of her son is, well, the father, she cannot accept
> her own son without accepting his father! And, if you'll recall, she's so
> totally set against him she's never even looked for child support payments
> from him on the theory that no contact at all is preferrable to some money
> with some inevitable contact!
It's different when the person you're talking about has lived inside you for
nine months and ripped you apart as it enters the world. I think women feel
some kind of physical bond with something that visceral - flesh and blood.
This is why I don't fully understand it but accept it. You, as a man and I
as a barren female will never be able to understand what that feels like
(thankgoodness). As I understand, it's not the same as how you feel about a
parent or even a former lover.
On that note - notice if you will how she shed herself of her child's father
and moved on to the next guy and so on. She seems to have a steady use for
men but not for a life partner.
>> I've never had anyone close to me die. So I don't have much experience with
>> grief. Suicide must be so painful. I mean, the guilt one normally feels
>> within grief must be extreme. Are you posting to other newsgroups to get
>> these issues out in the open?
>>
> Yeah, alt.zen, in order to analyze the ontology of my pain.
>
> In terms of venting, though, that's mainly here on ASL! =)
>
> Suicide is definitely a guilt-ridden thing for the survivors (funny term,
> that, "survivors"). I definitely feel guilty -- and all the more so because I
> really am not taking it hard, as I noted to you...it's only been through my
> loss of Claudia's affections that I can even begin to imagine what my younger
> sister's going through...she's the one who's shedding the tears! She just
> called me last night, actually, to brief me on the latest matters of estate
> and whatnot...couldn't help but sob, and all I could do was be an ear...and
> this is our mother we're talking about! Yet, Claudia was more "real" to me
> than my mother....
>
> Recalls to mind the phenomenon Freud observed as "transference," whereby a
> patient transfer his/her load of sentiment onto the therapist, somewhat the
> same psychological process as scapegoating -- except transference isn't
> necessarily negative in any way...quite inevitable, actually....
>
> So I seem to have somehow "transferred" my sense of love onto Claudia, when,
> one might easily note, I should have held it for my mother...and she most
> likely would not have chosen suicide then....
>
> It's an unusually dark autumn here.
I love the autumn - the darker the better.
>> If it were your sweet adorable little baby girl would you expect your beloved
>> girlfriend to accept your baby, for the love of you, or would you gladly give
>> your baby up for your beloved girlfriend?
>>
> Again the matter is falsely framed!
>
> I'm not asking her to choose between me and her son! She's asking to get
> married and live together, and I have concerns, only a few of which deal with
> her son! The rest are, as I've detailed, her lack of communication, her
> apparent readiness for cruelty (she'd pinch me very hard when she caught me
> checking out another girl), etc.
>
> This is what's so frustrating...she, like you, kept rounding back to the same
> false dichotomy of "my way or the highway"...it wasn't, in the end, about her
> son....
>
> You know, it's like when talking to a lot of black people, or feminists, or
> any other aggrieved group, and they're so touchy about racism or sexism or
> whatever and you really wind up walking on eggshells 'cause anything can be
> construed to mean something else....
>
> The choice wasn't me or her son!!!! I wanted to spend my life with her, too
> -- it was a question of when and how.
>
> Sigh.
>
>
> You raise an interesting thought experiment, similar to one which I've raised
> myself: if only one child could be saved from a burning building, which would
> she/I save -- hers or ours???
>
I would save the dog.
>> But most normal women who have a child would die rather than give up their
>> kid.
>>
> Hm...this is the conceit, anyway. But I'm almost certain that a sort of
> "Sophie's Choice" could be induced in "most normal women" with a kid...promise
> a life rich with opportunity, etc., for themselves and their kid, only in
> exchange for the two being irrevocably separated...and see what sort of a
> response you get. Even middle-class women would be tempted for a thought or
> two.
>
No I don't think I would be tempted with that offer. Hang on a mo though.
Obviously I'd give up a kid for riches! But I wouldn't give up
something/someone I loved for all the tea in India.
>> No I think it stokes up the fires of karmic revenge.
>>
> God damn it! Why does "karma" only seem to affect me???
LOL.
> LOL -- I know what you mean, but I can't believe in that kind of karma...she's
> very happy, whereas here I am, poor fool! =)
Is she happy? I've seen 'happy' women who flit from man to man. They're not
happy in my book.
> I too have a melancholic disposition, but I've improved so much in the past
> few years by actively questioning the melancholia instead of just "taking it
> for granted" -- it may rain, but I can carry an umbrella!
I love the rain. I love those grey, miserable days where the clocks go back
an hour and the night falls at 3pm. And when it's 3pm on the shortest day
and the rain is pelting down - I'm blissfully happy. So I go without an
umbrella - I like to feel it running through my hair and onto my scalp. It
makes coming home even more comforting.
>
>> What computer games do you play?
>>
> Wargames, mainly (and I don't mean arcade shooters, I mean real wargames,
> realistic tactics and strategy), when I do at all these days, though I would
> still consider myself a big-time role-playing guy. Interestingly, I haven't
> really played (as in every day hours on end) for like eight months now. It
> just isn't very interesting anymore playing against the computer AI, and I
> have only a dial-up connection so internet gaming seems bandwidth-prohibitive.
>
> Besides, none of my friends share this hobby. You? I take it you know
> something about this. Well, come to think of it, you almost must; you seem to
> be often online and likely into computers....
I play sims style games and I used to really like Half-Life, but I obviously
don't like it that much or I would be playing it now rather than posting to
usenet all the time. Otherwise I got into the Myst games - I like the sad
journey they take me on... talk about melancholy! Wandering around alone in
deserted/semi deserted landscapes is perfect for me. It's like the games
were designed with me in mind.
I'm online because I'm basically on the computer all day which is on line
and usenet is running in the background whilst I work on things. This leads
to me becoming something of a marathon poster... SORRY EVERYONE [waves to
anyone who hasn't killfiled me]. I really ought to get out more.
> It was literally sickening to hear her talk about how she had a lot in common
> with this new guy, how well they got along, how she really trusts him...the
> same shit that had been said of me.
>
"the same shit" so that's just what it is.
> I WILL NEVER SAY I LOVE YOU AGAIN!!!!!
That's actually a good idea! My beloved doesn't say any of that stuff either
- I don't need him to, if he didn't love me he wouldn't still be here after
all.
>> I wonder what the "right" ones consist of.
>>
> I'd already told you! I'm a simple guy, really, and very down-to-earth, for
> all my apparent pretentiousness/arrogance. I'm a meat-and-potatoes kinda
> fella, so I need my T&A, right. After that, she's just got to be "into" me.
> That's all. Very simple! I don't ask for much, really!
Good luck in your quest for the right one... when you begin the enterprise
of searching.
>> And what kind of name is "Left Hand of Empire"?
>>
> Look on the United States Coat of Arms.
>
> I still think of myself as (something of) a soldier. (Thank you, nurse!)
>
> It is, moreover, the title of on-going fiction with which I'm working,
> grappling, teasing, sculpting.
I think everyone on usenet is writing a novel in their spare time. [smile]
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> I think it's difficult to divorce someone from their other relationships
> just so that you can take over and be everything to them.
How does this keep getting misconstrued?? How do you get to "take
over and be everything" from what I've said?
Honestly, all I'm saying is that I don't feel like a relationship *has
to* involve the son, the mother-in-law, the ne'er-do-well brother,
etc. I really don't think that I *have to* marry into the whole
family, culture, nation, religion...species!
> That may not be
> what you mean, but that's how I'm reading it.
But how is this reading possible, given what I've very clearly written
several times now? It makes me very sad, this, 'cause this is just a
repeat of how it was with Claudia...I don't understand what's so
incomprehensible. We obviously disagree on what a relationship
*necessarily* entails. But that stuff about wanting to "take over"
hasn't anything to do with what I said. Of course I'd love -- expect
-- her devotion, but that's far from "taking over," which suggests
some kind of mind-control.
> I've seen people do this with
> their partners and it doesn't work. You need to stay related/attached to
> everyone or you risk ending up with no one.
Yes, I understand what you mean. I only have a different philosophy,
that's all. It's obviously not the currently fashionable one -- it
may indeed be less "effective" (in the utilitarian sense of greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number, or the Maslow sense of
self-actualization), but I don't think it at all harmful or
detrimental, either.
I mean, I have friends right now who are too busy, whether with girls
or jobs or school...something of a bummer, but hey, I understand.
> It's different when the person you're talking about has lived inside you for
> nine months and ripped you apart as it enters the world.
I'm not sure what the "it" is in that statement...but I don't see how
that's a reply to my comment, true though it is.
> I think women feel
> some kind of physical bond with something that visceral - flesh and blood.
Yes, it's true. But we keep going around in circles because you're
still operating on some kind of notion that I'm asking her to leave
her kid for me.
> This is why I don't fully understand it but accept it. You, as a man and I
> as a barren female will never be able to understand what that feels like
> (thankgoodness).
LOL
I can certainly imagine it, though, and becasue I can at least imagine
it, I do basically understand it and accept it.
> As I understand, it's not the same as how you feel about a
> parent or even a former lover.
Yes, I do agree -- but the difference is one of degrees, not kind.
It's more intense and so forth, yes -- but essentially the same thing:
devotion, loyalty, emotional bonds. There's a very physical element
in the case of motherhood that words can never fully capture, I would
agree, but it is indeed the same phenomenon, only so much more
intensely experienced.
> On that note - notice if you will how she shed herself of her child's father
> and moved on to the next guy and so on. She seems to have a steady use for
> men but not for a life partner.
Well, she says she wants one. And I don't think she's a "user" in the
sense that could be inferred from your observation -- it's just that
most any life partner will do for her, the way the Army takes just
about anyone who's able-bodied.
And that was my misunderstanding...I really thought that she loved
*me*, unique me, the way I loved her...her main concern was a lot more
"practical" than I'd imagined.
> I love the autumn - the darker the better.
Yeah, from someone who's got home and hearth -- like middle-class
suburban white kids affecting the cynicism of inner-city ghettos. =)
(Not an attack, mind you.)
> I would save the dog.
LOL
Can't understand how you could really rather have a dog than a child,
if you're being serious (however humorous, too).
> No I don't think I would be tempted with that offer. Hang on a mo though.
> Obviously I'd give up a kid for riches! But I wouldn't give up
> something/someone I loved for all the tea in India.
Again, I wonder whatever is with your disdain of children!
> Is she happy? I've seen 'happy' women who flit from man to man. They're not
> happy in my book.
She's happy all right. Unless he kicks her out for some reason later
on. But -- not that I know, but...I know her so well I'd bet on it --
she's living together with a guy she "really trust" and "have a lot in
common" and "actually get along pretty well" and has a car and lives
together with her son...that's all she wants out of a guy, you know?
It was my conceit to have thought that being unique, special me,
whatwith my looks and physique and intellect and whatnot -- that that
could ever compensate for such simple, concrete things.
I hope I don't sound bitter there; I certainly ain't being sarcastic.
I just really did not see that, how important that was for her. Of
course, as I've always noted, it wasn't like she made that known,
either, aside from a passing remark here and there.
Sigh.
> I love the rain. I love those grey, miserable days where the clocks go back
> an hour and the night falls at 3pm. And when it's 3pm on the shortest day
> and the rain is pelting down - I'm blissfully happy. So I go without an
> umbrella - I like to feel it running through my hair and onto my scalp. It
> makes coming home even more comforting.
Hey, I've biked miles and miles in rain, I've jogged in rain, marched
in it, even slept in it! But kissing in it is still best. And unless
I'm kissing in rain, I guess I'm a little sick of getting wet.
> I play sims style games
But of course! You're female! Silly question. =)
> and I used to really like Half-Life,
Oh, wow, really?? I don't care for those things...it's only fun when
it's people I know, you know? Like among friends.
> but I obviously
> don't like it that much or I would be playing it now rather than posting to
> usenet all the time.
Yes, make love not war! Or make chit-chat, anyway.
It's funny, but after some time one no longer gets a thrill out of the
manipulation of pixels...getting to know someone -- and thus
discovering oneself -- is really the most fun of all.
> Otherwise I got into the Myst games - I like the sad
> journey they take me on... talk about melancholy! Wandering around alone in
> deserted/semi deserted landscapes is perfect for me. It's like the games
> were designed with me in mind.
How interesting! I no longer care for most games precisely because
that's the feeling they induce in me, whether there are inhabitants to
those digital worlds or not...somehow they actually increase my sense
of loneliness, and so that's another reason why I hardly play anymore
-- except wargames, as noted, since the appeal isn't so much emotional
as intellectual ("how to divide five enemy tanks by two and still have
a few Americans left over?").
I used to enjoy bicycling around lonely spots in NYC (yes they do
exist!) but now I just feel way too lonely for that...it's no longer
pleasurable...I don't want to be alone anymore, you know? I've made
the most of it for years, but now I'm really at the point where I
really don't want to be alone...I want a woman, I want her smiles and
her thoughts, I want her virginity or the accumulated joys of her
experiences...you know? I want to connect now. I was okay before,
but now I want to connect. I want to possess. I want to be owned
myself -- to belong. To create again, together.
Because of all that, the ways no longer suffice, the old gods have
faded. I can no longer find solace in games or study or exercise or,
even, art.
> I'm online because I'm basically on the computer all day which is on line
> and usenet is running in the background whilst I work on things. This leads
> to me becoming something of a marathon poster... SORRY EVERYONE [waves to
> anyone who hasn't killfiled me]. I really ought to get out more.
Well, lucky for me, then, that you've so much time! Yes, I often
wonder about my fellow Netizens....
> "the same shit" so that's just what it is.
Sigh! Good point, there.
> That's actually a good idea! My beloved doesn't say any of that stuff either
> - I don't need him to, if he didn't love me he wouldn't still be here after
> all.
Um, well, seeing how we understand love differently, it's all just as
well.
> Good luck in your quest for the right one... when you begin the enterprise
> of searching.
Exactly -- it's really just luck. I really believe this now. One can
spin one's wheels -- and one must, even, though it's all just luck --
but that's no guarantee at all.
Sounds so trite but it's quite profound...how to live with such
knowledge, and not lose motivation...I think this is why "fun" is such
an important factor...because it doesn't matter whether it matters
when one's having fun.
> I think everyone on usenet is writing a novel in their spare time. [smile]
LOL
You know, I've always thought that in some futuristic society of
plenty, when even sex itself is widely and freely available, the only
thing left is...art. And it will be the one fount that is truly
inexhaustible.
KrosRogue
>> Human nature seems to be inherently the unexpected. Yet, when one
>> adopts the logical attitude on which that premise is based, basic
>> trust is undermined, which removes the foundation from which most
>> intimate relations are nourished.
> Yeah, so how does it work? Willing suspension of disbelief, I guess.
Probably so. Emotions are irrational and seem to oppose logic, so any
attempt to gratify those emotions naturally risks pain by such
attempts.
> Or is it really as the Buddha noted -- all suffering comes from
> attachment? I am not attached to you, nor you to me, and so should we
Perhaps that is another way of saying the same thing.
> never speak again, there is no problem, much as we enjoy our time
> together now.
Simply because what attachment there may be requires no real emotional
investment, at least in the magnitude generated by personal contact.
> Why should it be different when it comes to erotic love between a guy
> and a gal? Why this dramatically increased sense of obligation, then?
Simply, the personal contact requiring a huge emotional investment
creates the attachment and the associated sense of obligation.
> I really wonder how these things work in primitive societies where
> sexual relations are simply about pleasure and affection, and where
> the feelings go the couples part with no acrimony at all...wow! Could
> it really be? I ask because I have read how
> sociologist/antrhopologist Margaret Meade made up some of her field
> research....
From what little I understand, primitive societies function with more
emphasis on instinct than we do. That may mean that there is less
emotional impact, but I don't know for sure.
> Well, in any relationship, there is an "amendment" of one's desires
> and so forth. I just believe in a more "soldierly" sort of
> relationship, I guess -- I expect to bear the burden, I expect
> problems. But I do not expect to give up. And I guess I ask
> something like that from my woman.
I have made my desires far too "amenable" in the past. I intend to be
just a touch more selfish now.
> Not some party girl who's just after a good time, or some gold-digger
> who's simply after creature comforts. I need a warrior princess! =)
I have had a "warrior princess" or two in the past. All that means is
another knife in the back which needs to be avoided.
>> Be true to yourself. You may consider compromising some things which
>> will result in your unhappiness. Don't do it, because if you do, you
>> will make everyone around you miserable, including yourself. If you
>> find yourself in a situation where compromising such things is
>> required to maintain a relationship, then it's time to end that
>> relationship. It took me an incredibly long time to realize that.
> But surely there's always compromise! It's just the trick to realize
> which one can handle and which ones one cannot, for whatever reason.
Compromise is good for small things that are inconsequential, but I
think it is harmful for things of basic or core value.
> Ultimately, who is the "I" behind the apparent preferences? Aren't
> they all preferences, in the end? I dunno. How much is hard-wired
> and how much not? A social guy who loves skydiving...is he
> necessarily advised against a home-making gal?
A lot more of me is hard-wired these days. And a home-making gal is a
rare find these days, largely extinct in many areas.
> I dunno anymore...I suppose one ought to take the Daoist "water-course
> way," which is the path of least resistance....
>
> I dunno anymore...tell me, what was your case, and why did it take you
> so long to realize?
I realized the path of least resistance is not necessarily the path of
least pain. I think the reason it took so long to realize any of this
is that I was so dependant on what emotional crumbs I got.
> Well, sometimes it appears besides the point. But Jesus, how did you
> get back into Christianity after atheism?
That's a very long story, but suffice it to say that a close friend of
mine asked me to genuinely *act* as if I believed for one month. I was
an excessively heavy drinker at the time, hitting the bottle to drown
my sadness. After that month I had a dramatic decline in my desire to
get drunk. While I can point to nothing other than subjective
emotional evidence, I did notice that my general attitude toward life
improved.
> Maybe I shouldn't label myself an atheist...let's just say agnostic,
> then -- I don't claim to know, but insofar as my senses are all I have
> to go on, I feel pretty sure...that there is no deity, no supreme
> intelligence, no...well, like I said, I really dunno.
I seriously doubt that anyone really knows. That's why it's called
"Faith". If one truly and impartially uses scientific inquiry, I don't
think anyone can truly prove or disprove the existence of God. Faith
is either accepted or rejected purely on an emotional level. For me
personally, I have found it essential for my emotional health. Having
said that, I really don't know how I would handle it if someone were
able to provide objectively conclusive proof that God does not exist.
>> I have the impression, however, that you are reasonably familiar
>> with Scripture. Based on that assumption, I think you know that in
>> it forgiveness is described in great detail. You may find the
>> advice given therein to be helpful.
> Um, far as I can recall, forgiveness in Scripture has to do with the
> Lord's own mercy, in seeing the offender as a brother in Christ,
> another son of God, etc.
>
> But I don't believe this anymore. Alas, I do not perceive our common
> divinity -- I see only our common humanity, and that is a mixed thing.
I don't see anything particularly divine about humanity. What I do see
is that we are created in the *image* of God. To me, this means there
are some things we can do to *imitate* Him. One such thing that we can
do is *forgive*. To rephrase a portion of the Lord's prayer, we can
say "forgive us for the pain we have inflicted on You, as we forgive
those who have inflicted pain on us".
> All reference to forgiveness in the Bible refers back to God...there
> seems nothing which can stand on its own, except by reference to God
> and His disposition and whatnot...but for an atheist like myself,
> that's like going to the dealership to inquire about whether some
> option for a car, you know....
That may be because you have difficulty accepting the "Image of God"
concept. Yes, even that refers back to God, but perhaps that's because
we were never meant to stand on our own, *without* Him. An image can
be compared to a reflection, which is really nothing without anything
to reflect. An *imitation* is merely a defective copy of the Genuine
Original.
>> That's what I did. Occasionally I revert back to that mindset, but
>> when I become conscious of it and the damage it does to me, I pull out
>> of it.
> Yeah, me too. So I guess it's "being saved" that's helped you out of
> your years-long morass?
I would say that was a huge contributing factor.
>> Back then I really don't know. But now, with what I *know* now, if I
>> could turn back the clock, I would have been far more assertive about
>> my wants and needs. This would have had one of two results, a break-up
>> or a happier marriage. Either way it would have been much better for
>> me.
> Well, you did have a break-up, so I guess what you're really saying is
> that you would have had an "easier" break-up, a "healthier" break-up,
> a "safer" break-up?
All of those combined, as well as possibly a quicker break-up, or,
conversely, a marriage that would probably still be intact. Either
way, it would have been much healthier for me in the long run.
> Hmm, being assertive of one's wants and needs. Yes, all very well and
> good...but emotions...come into play...that's the thing!
That's where self-control comes in. That's what paradoxically makes it
both easier and harder at the same time.
> Oh, I suppose it's really time to grow up and stop playing at romance.
> Okay, getting real here....
No play. Take the helm. Steer your life in the direction you wish.
> I dunno, it really is time to grow up...I guess I always felt that
> such things happened only on TV or something, stories like
> this...never thought one could go through years with such a mind-set
> ("meal ticket"), always thought that after a few months (by which I
> don't mean weekends only) people's characters are fairly
> revealed...haha, "fairly"...I mean, "more or less".....
Fairly, or unfairly. ;-)
>> Actually, no, I wasn't happy. I was "comfortable", I suppose, and I
>> "almost" had companionship, but I always felt there was something
>> missing.
> But truly, doesn't one always feel that "something" is missing?
I don't think that applies in a truly healthy relationship. It may
seem that something is missing in life, but not in the relationship.
The mistake that many make is to search for another to make one's self
complete. Instead, one needs to be complete in one's own right, and
then search for another who will provide a harmonious companionship.
> Whether it's romance or lust or personality orientations or tastes or
> intellectual capacities or whatever -- it's never "perfect," is it?
> One's always gonna "wonder," even if simply out of curiosity
> (especially at first), and then one's mind comes up with the old list
> of "cons" or "MIA"....
Then comes the decision of how severe those "cons" are.
> I didn't mind being a walking wallet -- my ego was pretty much
> gratified by the fact that I had a large-enough wallet, see -- but I
> can definitely relate to what you mean, feeling like, in effect, an
> accessory, or dessert...just not the main thing.
Hmm, is a toilet considered an accessory? I'm just the roll on the
spindle tacked to the wall. ;-)
> Good grief. I guess you're not in touch with the daughters either,
> then?
No.
> Gosh. You know what's truly scary? Really, I'm not exaggerating when
> I say that there's this creeping, forlorn fear...what really eats me
> is that I don't know whether it's just a matter of being careful! I
> wish that now I could at least never be, what's the word...tricked
> again -- especially by myself! -- but all that's hard to know....
>
> Gosh, have I just talked myself into a bit of worry, now?
>
> This is crazy, for sure....
I think one just needs to guage, as carefully as possible, how ready
one is for the next risk. Crazy? Yeah. But emotions are like that.
> Ah, okay. Hmm. You know, I suppose much the same may happen with
> me...I'm still digesting the remains of this relationship with
> Claudia, but maybe the next ones I'll be -- though I'm afraid it's all
> to do with luck -- more mindful, more careful, more aware, more
> perceptive, more...disciplined!
Self-discipline in such things is essential. Among other things, it
enables clearer perception.
>> I'm still lonely and I'm still searching for someone compatible enough
>> with me to share lives.
> God, it's mind-boggling when you think about it, all the lonely people
> out there, and how so many things keep us from finding one another.
It's exhausting sometimes to even think about it.
>> Perhaps you see it but can't name it?
> Hmm, well, if I can't name it then it's harder to think about --
> harder to "see." That's language and semantics for you -- sometimes
> using words just confuses things even more!
That's another way of saying it. ;-)
>> A tiny dose of pride can be a very good guide.
> Yeah...I really just got comfortable and lulled into complacency.
I hate "me too's", but for lack of a better acknowledgement... ;-)
>> Validity of the journey is fine. But obvious futility is a waste.
> But that's the thing! What's obvious? We'd lasted four years through
> so much, really amazing stuff in its own small, everyday way...common,
> but not easy....
Perhaps I spouted that off the top of my head based on my own
experience. I was like an ostrich with my head buried in the sand. I
acted as though if I didn't see it, maybe it will go away.
> I know easier/harder...but to speak of incompabitility in an absolute
> sense makes me wonder.
"Absolute" in this case means nothing to anyone but you. There are
things in your life that must *be*, absolutely without compromise.
Only you know what those things are.
>> "Good" in the fact that it allows for trust and at the same time sets
>> a standard for a response to violated trust. "Crude" in the sense that
>> it should be an instinctual gut-level reflex.
> Um...okay, now I've lost the thread of our discussion here.
>
> I was saying that viewing her as an opptunist (what your woman was, a
> gold-digger) still makes me feel bad for the implications it places on
> me as the dupe. Not seeing at all how that statement engenders the
> rest of your comments.
OK, you said:
>>>>> knew all along, though I couldn't agree then and find hard to do
>>>>> even now). Viewing her as an opportunist implicates me, I feel --
>>>>> how did I make a thief of her, as it were? You know, fool me once,
>>>>> shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me....
Commenting on the "fool me once" quote, I said:
>>>> That's a crude philosophy, but IMHO, a very good one.
You said:
>>> "Good" in what sense? "Crude" in what sense?
I said:
>> "Good" in the fact that it allows for trust and at the same time sets
>> a standard for a response to violated trust. "Crude" in the sense that
>> it should be an instinctual gut-level reflex.
Then you lost the thread. Does this rehash help?
>> I tend to be a bit more pragmatic. I touch a flame and feel the burn.
>> I know not to touch it again or the same thing will happen. I have no
>> need for the knowledge that the flame owes its existence to fuel,
>> oxygen, and heat.
> Yes, well, I'm just curious. She, and most people, have just that
> orientation you do -- no need for further inquiry; the fact itself is
> all that's intersting.
That's well and good for things which are quantifiable. Emotional
matters are seldom that way, and for that reason seem to defy rational
analysis.
>> No guarantees. You can reduce risk, but nothing is truly guaranteed.
> Yeah, well, am I really just agonizing over the fact that there are no
> guarantees in life? However I dress this up, is that all this pain
> really is, unresolved security issues??
For me it was. For you it may or may not be. I think only you can
truthfully answer that question.
>> Doesn't that imply the existence of a Supreme Being? My impression is
>> that your belief system doesn't allow for that.
> Why should a Supreme Being be implied by the desire for
> accountability?
That's my "spin" on accountability.
>> A game of cards, the hand you are dealt. You assess your chances with
>> what you have. You dump a card that appears not to work. You may pick
>> one that does. When the play ends, you either win or lose. A little
>> skill and a little luck. As I said, no guarantees.
> Thing is, I didn't know we were still playing; though I'd won the game
> already, you know?
In this "game", you ultimately don't "quit", "win", or "lose" until you die.
>> My standards are considerably raised for the woman I want. I won't
>> tolerate deceit in any form, even so-called "little white lies".
> Well, depending on your definition of "white lies" (and "little" ones
> at that!), I think we all engage in it.
>
> You don't mean something like "honey, how do I look," do you??
Presuming she is asking about something she is wearing, I'll tell her
the truth. If she is wearing something I don't like, I'll tell her
that what she's wearing is crap. ;-)
>> I won't tolerate infidelity or any perceived tendency toward it.
> Um, well, if she's beautiful there's always the possibility, just
> the...I mean, so what if she gets turned on by some other guy, say the
> fella up on the screen? Doesn't matter where she gets her appetite,
> as long as she eats at home, right!
I tend to be a bit more jealous than that.
>> I feel the same way toward any perceived form of manipulation or
>> passive-aggressive behavior.
> But this is just the thing -- we all engage in it to some degree or
> other, at one time or another!
I am referring specifically to recurrent or habitual behavior.
> I don't know...I'm just wondering where's the "love" in the middle of
> all our wish-lists....
Love is the trap that causes us to discard that wishlist. It is also
the icing on the cake if one happens to fill the most important items
on that list.
>> Any tendency toward violence is similarly rejected. Any public
>> humiliation will make me dump her on the spot with no recourse. My
>> list is rather lengthy, but I think you get the idea.
> It's a big list...I've revised mine to make it more manageable, and
> still I wind up lonely...obviously need to redo it once more....
I continually bounce back and forth between "too lonely, too picky"
and "too hurt, not picky enough".
>> That about sizes it up.
> Sigh. We'll see. This is America! Must I be reduced to enjoying
> just the simple pleasures of life -- the sun, a smile, etc. -- in
> Sodom and Gomorrah??
>
> =)
"Reduced to enjoying"? What does that mean? I truly envy the folk who
can be alone and genuinely enjoy the solitude, such as hermits and
monks and such like. They truly don't need anyone, as they are
emotionally self-sufficient. I can't see myself living like that, but
at times like this I wish I could.
Sklenge
> Sklenge
>> I think it's difficult to divorce someone from their other relationships just
>> so that you can take over and be everything to them.
>>
> How does this keep getting misconstrued?? How do you get to "take over and be
> everything" from what I've said?
>
> Honestly, all I'm saying is that I don't feel like a relationship *has to*
> involve the son, the mother-in-law, the ne'er-do-well brother, etc. I really
> don't think that I *have to* marry into the whole family, culture, nation,
> religion...species!
You don't have to do any of that, I'm not saying that you do.
>> That may not be what you mean, but that's how I'm reading it.
>>
> But how is this reading possible, given what I've very clearly written several
> times now? It makes me very sad, this, 'cause this is just a repeat of how it
> was with Claudia...I don't understand what's so incomprehensible. We
> obviously disagree on what a relationship *necessarily* entails. But that
> stuff about wanting to "take over" hasn't anything to do with what I said. Of
> course I'd love -- expect -- her devotion, but that's far from "taking over,"
> which suggests some kind of mind-control.
That's not how I meant it either. I think both of us were taking polarized
viewpoints to make the point. (Whatever point that was - I'm losing the
thread again). The point being that people are inter-related. End of
statement.
>> I've seen people do this with their partners and it doesn't work. You need to
>> stay related/attached to everyone or you risk ending up with no one.
>>
> Yes, I understand what you mean. I only have a different philosophy, that's
> all. It's obviously not the currently fashionable one -- it may indeed be
> less "effective" (in the utilitarian sense of greatest amount of happiness for
> the greatest number, or the Maslow sense of self-actualization), but I don't
> think it at all harmful or detrimental, either.
>
> I mean, I have friends right now who are too busy, whether with girls or jobs
> or school...something of a bummer, but hey, I understand.
Ooh, now that's interesting for a reason I can't quite get my head round
yet... The ability to give and take but on one's own terms must be a
wonderful thing. So, when you're ready to relate to person A they can
automatically relate straight back and to an appropriate level... these
relationships can be dropped and picked up at any point and no one takes any
of it personally. Don't ask me how I got that from what we've been talking
about but that's what I got.
>> It's different when the person you're talking about has lived inside you for
>> nine months and ripped you apart as it enters the world.
>>
> I'm not sure what the "it" is in that statement...but I don't see how that's a
> reply to my comment, true though it is.
the 'it' is the emotional bond and relationship between blood relatives. A
woman would have much more of an attachment to a child than to her mother.
Again, not something I can associate with very well but am willing to
accept.
>> I think women feel some kind of physical bond with something that visceral -
>> flesh and blood.
>>
> Yes, it's true. But we keep going around in circles because you're still
> operating on some kind of notion that I'm asking her to leave her kid for me.
Sorry. Perhaps that's how it looks to me. Were you asking her to choose
between you and her child? Did you want her to put her child up for adoption
or send him away to some boarding school to get him out of the way for your
relationship with her? If she didn't want him to go to his natural father
she would probably be fairly dubious of sending him to a faceless
institution too... or have I misunderstood again?
>> This is why I don't fully understand it but accept it. You, as a man and I as
>> a barren female will never be able to understand what that feels like
>> (thankgoodness).
>>
> LOL
>
> I can certainly imagine it, though, and becasue I can at least imagine it, I
> do basically understand it and accept it.
I'm probably one degree closer to understanding it, being a female, and I
couldn't claim to understand it at all. I can just blindly point at it.
>> As I understand, it's not the same as how you feel about a parent or even a
>> former lover.
>>
> Yes, I do agree -- but the difference is one of degrees, not kind. It's more
> intense and so forth, yes -- but essentially the same thing: devotion,
> loyalty, emotional bonds. There's a very physical element in the case of
> motherhood that words can never fully capture, I would agree, but it is indeed
> the same phenomenon, only so much more intensely experienced.
I still think it goes beyond degrees that you or I can relate to.
>> I would save the dog.
>>
> LOL
>
> Can't understand how you could really rather have a dog than a child, if
> you're being serious (however humorous, too).
"Dogs are better than children because..." I have the official list
somewhere that got posted up to a.s.childfree (To get the full benefit of
the joke, you have to also understand that I don't like dogs much either).
>> No I don't think I would be tempted with that offer. Hang on a mo though.
>> Obviously I'd give up a kid for riches! But I wouldn't give up
>> something/someone I loved for all the tea in India.
>>
> Again, I wonder whatever is with your disdain of children!
I wonder whatever is with people's love of children... No I don't. I don't
think it's based on a rationale that I'm equipped to understand.
>> Is she happy? I've seen 'happy' women who flit from man to man. They're not
>> happy in my book.
>>
> She's happy all right. Unless he kicks her out for some reason later on. But
> -- not that I know, but...I know her so well I'd bet on it -- she's living
> together with a guy she "really trust" and "have a lot in common" and
> "actually get along pretty well" and has a car and lives together with her
> son...that's all she wants out of a guy, you know? It was my conceit to have
> thought that being unique, special me, whatwith my looks and physique and
> intellect and whatnot -- that that could ever compensate for such simple,
> concrete things.
Are you happy for her then? I'd still say she's probably not going to settle
for him either but my perception of Claudia is coloured by another woman I
used to know who merrily tripped through perfect relationships (where she
was totally in love, and desperate for the man to truly and faithfully love
her back)... then she would dump him and move on to the next 'conquest'
sometimes it would take her a couple of months to get the blind devotion she
required, sometimes it took years. But once she got it she dumped it. A
woman like that is not happy. But this probably isn't what Claudia is like.
>> I play sims style games
>>
> But of course! You're female! Silly question. =)
Yes I like to push people around. And get them to do my evil bidding.
> It's funny, but after some time one no longer gets a thrill out of the
> manipulation of pixels...getting to know someone -- and thus discovering
> oneself -- is really the most fun of all.
> I used to enjoy bicycling around lonely spots in NYC (yes they do exist!) but
> now I just feel way too lonely for that...it's no longer pleasurable...I don't
> want to be alone anymore, you know? I've made the most of it for years, but
> now I'm really at the point where I really don't want to be alone...I want a
> woman, I want her smiles and her thoughts, I want her virginity or the
> accumulated joys of her experiences...you know? I want to connect now. I was
> okay before, but now I want to connect. I want to possess. I want to be
> owned myself -- to belong. To create again, together.
>
> Because of all that, the ways no longer suffice, the old gods have faded. I
> can no longer find solace in games or study or exercise or, even, art.
Where are you looking now for your fun? I'm beginning to think it's likely
to be found from within rather than from 'out there somewhere'.
>
>> Good luck in your quest for the right one... when you begin the enterprise of
>> searching.
>>
> Exactly -- it's really just luck. I really believe this now. One can spin
> one's wheels -- and one must, even, though it's all just luck -- but that's no
> guarantee at all.
>
Luck and more practical considerations like spinning the wheel in the first
place.
> Sounds so trite but it's quite profound...how to live with such knowledge, and
> not lose motivation...I think this is why "fun" is such an important
> factor...because it doesn't matter whether it matters when one's having fun.
We're put on this earth to mess around and have fun.
> You know, I've always thought that in some futuristic society of plenty, when
> even sex itself is widely and freely available, the only thing left is...art.
> And it will be the one fount that is truly inexhaustible.
And art is just another form of messing around and having fun.
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> You don't have to do any of that, I'm not saying that you do.
Well, that's all I've ever claimed, too -- that no one has to do any
of "that"...and my pet peeve is folks who act that way, whatever they
may say. For example, a lot of single moms say that they aren't
looking for a father for their kids, but, LOL, guess what...you
"interview" before the kids as well! Kinda like that high school
thing with having to meet the prom night date's parents....
> That's not how I meant it either. I think both of us were taking polarized
> viewpoints to make the point. (Whatever point that was - I'm losing the
> thread again). The point being that people are inter-related. End of
> statement.
The point was that inter-relatedness, inter-relationships, need not
play the "take or leave it" ("either/or") role they did in my case.
As to "losing the thread again"...it's interesting how things feel
once they're framed differently! =) Throughout all these posts I've
usually maintained that we didn't disagree as much as stumble over
semantics or something like that. That's what makes my heartbreak all
the more tragic to me -- it doesn't have to be this way. It's not a
breakup over "genuine" reasons, so to speak....
> Ooh, now that's interesting for a reason I can't quite get my head round
> yet... The ability to give and take but on one's own terms must be a
> wonderful thing. So, when you're ready to relate to person A they can
> automatically relate straight back and to an appropriate level... these
> relationships can be dropped and picked up at any point and no one takes any
> of it personally. Don't ask me how I got that from what we've been talking
> about but that's what I got.
Um, you got that from what we've been talking about because that's
been my point all along! Just like right here on ASL, or usenet in
general -- folks chat, but no one's offended if the conversation's
just dropped suddenly...we all recognize that there each of us have
other interests and commitments, etc.
Likewise with friends in "real life" (beyond the internet and all): we
shared good times once, but times have now changed such that our
interests have diverged, or our schedules are incompatible, and no one
takes any of this personally. The true test of Friendship, I'd even
say, is that such relations could be "dropped" (not in the sense of
"dumped") and picked up just like that. Like in those movies, you
know, where the hero looks up some old pals and they give him food and
shelter...um, say, like in "The Lord of the Rings" when Gandalf just
comes and goes...or "The Crying Game" when Fergus looks up Tom to
escape from the authorities....
Really, folks are much too touchy-feely in an egotistical way. One of
my friends, who's generally "unreliable" where most things are
concerned (one of these types who can't be counted on to help with
anything big -- he'll pick up trinkets like tee-shirts while on
vacation, but don't expect him to help you beyond anything that's
simply on his way), is also one who bemoans how people -- friends --
just come and go in life. I find that very ironic. This is a guy who
once left me and another friend on a 2,000+ ft. mountain overnight (a
rainy, autumnal night without gear at all -- we were in shorts and tee
shirts, moveover!) without bothering to call the authorities, and yet
his periodic lament is how people don't keep in touch.
Me? I just look at it pragmatically -- can't get blood out of a
stone. He's only good for so much as a friend, that's all.
It's ironic, too, that that stupid asinine show "Friends" is such a
hit. This pal of mine loves that show. So does Claudia. So did
(does, for all I know now) this flaky professor I once had when that
show first came out. All these people who love such an obviously
idiotic show like that...must really speak to the fantasy world people
want, as well as to the realities they create for themselves and
others.
> the 'it' is the emotional bond and relationship between blood relatives. A
> woman would have much more of an attachment to a child than to her mother.
> Again, not something I can associate with very well but am willing to
> accept.
Right, I understand that, too.
But again we go around in circles, because I was not looking to sever
such bonds. So why are they an issue?
This is the hypocrisy of women, and single mothers in particular.
They want to go on about all this crap with the emotional bonding and
so forth, like it's the only right and proper POV to take. Somehow
they just don't get the fact that, for most guys, the kid's a constant
reminder of how someone fucked the woman and yet now the guy's gotta
deal with the aftermath.
So why make the kid an issue? 'Cause it's soooo romantic to think
that somebody loves her so much that he'd put up with such a thing!
And sooooo romantic to believe that, wow, he doesn't find it at all
disagreeable -- he'd have it no other way! Wow!!!
Sigh...like I said, the kid ain't the issue. He's your kid. You go
take care of him. Just like your debts, your mother, etc. Not that
I'm unsympathetic, but if it's simply not something I'm interested in,
well, to hold that against me only shows that you weren't really into
*me* after all. The way I'm into you for who you are as a person
(gee, isn't this what girls are always talking about? How they want
to be loved for more than their T&A??), not simply what you can do for
me as an asset.
> Sorry. Perhaps that's how it looks to me. Were you asking her to choose
> between you and her child? Did you want her to put her child up for adoption
> or send him away to some boarding school to get him out of the way for your
> relationship with her? If she didn't want him to go to his natural father
> she would probably be fairly dubious of sending him to a faceless
> institution too... or have I misunderstood again?
She wanted us to be married. Married means living together. Living
together means the kid with us. The kid with us means me assuming
paternal responsibilities. Assuming paternal responsibilities means,
besides their "allegiance" to me as pater familias, striving for love
against my own convenience, my own self-interests in the matter.
It was enough "work" -- though happy work, the work an artist enjoys,
say, or an athlete -- to love Claudia (not that I'm blaming her, mind
you; could be that I'm a weakling where that's concerned; could be
that that's just the nature of most relationships). To have to love a
kid not my own, given my obvious prejudices in that regard, was even
more work.
Unfortunately, she didn't believe in *me*, in the sense of being in
love with *me*...otherwise, she would not have let "business" (the
kid) get in the way of "pleasure" (us as a couple). She was, after
all, looking for a father for her son -- she was looking to settle
down, with baggage in tow. As soon as she saw my reluctance, she
jumped -- or rather, dumped...me.
She was living with her mother. They're ghetto people, living in the
ghetto. She wanted more out of life, and she wanted a partner who
will help lift her out of that. She didn't think me an asset where
that's concerned. All the good things about me, she really didn't
need. Nice to have, but just barely -- like me having a BMW vs. a
Honda; I don't care much for cars, so it's all the same to me: just
need to get from point A to point B, that's all. Likewise, given
those goals of hers, it was immaterial whether the guy's a couch
potato or an athletic intellectual -- the first requirement is that he
help her out of that ghetto situation of hers. That means with her
kid in tow.
> I'm probably one degree closer to understanding it, being a female, and I
> couldn't claim to understand it at all. I can just blindly point at it.
You know, I truly marvel at that. Forgive me that I wonder if you
maybe haven't some kind of unresolved "issue" operating under the
surface...I mean, you're not just apathetic -- by which I really mean,
cool with whatever happens -- but you're actually "hostile," almost,
to child-bearing for yourself!
Me, I'm fairly cool with being childless, though I'd rather much
prefer having children (yes, plural!) -- like 30/70.
> I still think it goes beyond degrees that you or I can relate to.
Well, yes, ultimately, insofar as it is an experience, and all we can
do is intellectually imagine it -- "the map is not the territory,"
after all.
But that's no excuse for why we have to break up.
> "Dogs are better than children because..." I have the official list
> somewhere that got posted up to a.s.childfree (To get the full benefit of
> the joke, you have to also understand that I don't like dogs much either).
I think the joke, as you'd related it (given the context), implies
your disdain for dogs.
Are you a cat person, then? Or just not into animals as pets?
Claudia was like that. Such a princess! Though she didn't hate them
either -- it's just that they poo-poo and have to be cleaned and leave
hair all over the place! Oh, Claudia was such a cute girl...like I
said, I would have really loved a daughter by her. Her wants, her
goals...all that is superfluous to me. Those things have nothing to
do with her, with who she is -- in a Zen sense, those are just
"ego"...not the "real" her. Likewise, I have my preferences, too --
but it was the truly remarkable thing about "falling in love" with
Claudia that I saw past those preferences...see, this is part of the
reason why she so holds my imagination, still: I grew so much with
her. Not in the sense that I was immature (except insofar as we're
all "immature" to one degree or another, even throughout our lives),
but that being strong, I became even stronger! I saw how I could look
past a person's preferences to the "real" (so to speak) person
beyond...I suppose we all have a certain sense of this, intuitively,
but somehow with Claudia such a sense became conscious, like God come
down amongst us, like the Word made flesh, like a yearning translated
into a beautiful poem...yeah, you get the idea....
So I was able to see past her prissiness, past her silliness, past her
common-as-mud complaints and issues and hopes and fears, past all that
to the happy, joking spirit that was also naturally quiet and shy --
not out of some sense of inadequacy so much as simply not having a
need to be in the spotlight -- and who she likely was as a young
child, before the world "corrupted" her...know what I mean? I saw, in
a sense, her immortal soul (and being an atheist I'm using poetic
license to dabble in such talk)...it was beautiful.
> I wonder whatever is with people's love of children... No I don't. I don't
> think it's based on a rationale that I'm equipped to understand.
Simple nostalgia. We imagine ourselves as children (we think we
"remember," but I suspect that mostly we imagine), which is even
easier when those children are our own flesh and blood.
And of course, they look funny! Someone with a chubby belly and
chubby cheeks on a giant head with short arms and legs...it's just too
funny! I mean, look at how it makes them run, how they sway from side
to side trying unconsciously to keep that bowling ball-head in
balance! And what funny voices they have! And how curious it is that
the boys are so much more aggressive than the girls, though they're
both soft and pudgy and cry as easily as each other!
This is another thing I've "learned" from Claudia, this appreciation
of kids -- I don't say "love" just yet, but certainly I'm much better
able to appreciate them, the way an art course helps one appreciate
art more. Simply seeing Claudia's joy in flowers and babies has
"infected" me with the same sense of excitement now when I come across
them. It's like a contagious laugh, you know? Or, better yet, like a
yawn! Like we automatically start yawning when we see other people do
it! LOL
> Are you happy for her then?
As I told her, "I'm glad in my head that you've found what you want,
but sad in my heart that it's not me."
> I'd still say she's probably not going to settle
> for him either but my perception of Claudia is coloured by another woman I
> used to know who merrily tripped through perfect relationships (where she
> was totally in love, and desperate for the man to truly and faithfully love
> her back)... then she would dump him and move on to the next 'conquest'
> sometimes it would take her a couple of months to get the blind devotion she
> required, sometimes it took years. But once she got it she dumped it. A
> woman like that is not happy. But this probably isn't what Claudia is like.
No, Claudia's a simple girl, really. She'll be happy alright. She is
happy. And what can I say to that? I am in pain, but not because
she's happy. I'm in pain because I could not make her happy.
Claudia's had many relationships, it's true...but my sense is that
she's happy now. Or, at least, in a worst-case scenario, she's
significantly happier now than she'd been with me. I know simply
having someone pick her up with a car from school and work (as opposed
to not having a car and basically keeping her company on the bus and
train) will alleviate a great complaint of hers.
Of course, what does my "sense" count for anymore these
days...sigh...!
> Yes I like to push people around. And get them to do my evil bidding.
Yeah, but the funny thing is...in life, that's done with sex...in
SimLife, how is that achieved, exactly?? Seriously...the guy gets
nothing out of it all...well, then again, it is role-playing --
emphasis on "playing"....
> Where are you looking now for your fun? I'm beginning to think it's likely
> to be found from within rather than from 'out there somewhere'.
Yeah, well, it was ever "within," truth to tell. It was just that,
being young (-er), the world was still new and all....
Nowadays I'm on newsgroups, just checking out the variety of concerns,
interests, issues, goings-on and whatnot...mainly, though, I'm doing
my short stories (LOL -- please don't laugh!) when not exercising...I
think I'm going to "rediscover" myself (sorry, I know that sounds so
"precious" of me, but it's the shortest way of saying things -- even
with this disclaimer!): get back into foreign languages, and chalk
pastels and studio art in general....
> Luck and more practical considerations like spinning the wheel in the first
> place.
Um, "spinning the wheel in the first place"...you mean, take the first
step, as in say hello to someone? I do, I usually have no problems
making conversation...it's that things don't progress beyond "nice to
meet you," however great a time we seem to be having.
Anyway, whatever. =)
> We're put on this earth to mess around and have fun.
Yeah, "have fun." Curious phrase, that...did you know that many
languages have no equivalent expression? In German, for example, the
closest is "Spass machen," literally to make a joke, but also used
idomatically to express the American "(having) fun"....
(And no, "German" isn't simply about being "Prussian"...those
Bavarians are supposed to be real hedonists, for all their
Catholicism!)
> And art is just another form of messing around and having fun.
Yes, but even art has its limits...because ultimately even artists
need their actual human contact.
Fun...I mean, I do enjoy my life, actually....
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> Simply because what attachment there may be requires no real emotional
> investment, at least in the magnitude generated by personal contact.
But why is this? Why should one kind of contact produce one effect,
and another produce another?
Is it simply the length of time?
> Simply, the personal contact requiring a huge emotional investment
> creates the attachment and the associated sense of obligation.
Yes, but where's that sense of obligation coming from?
Our culture?
> From what little I understand, primitive societies function with more
> emphasis on instinct than we do. That may mean that there is less
> emotional impact, but I don't know for sure.
Hmm..."primitive" suggests "instinctual" and "emotional"...!
> I have made my desires far too "amenable" in the past. I intend to be
> just a touch more selfish now.
Well, there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness.
Ultimately, it involves a theory of humankind, of what a self really
is. Erich Fromm has some great observations about this in "Man for
Himself."
> I have had a "warrior princess" or two in the past. All that means is
> another knife in the back which needs to be avoided.
LOL -- yes, I take your, ahm, point!
Yeah, what am I saying...I don't like such girls, do I? No, I want
some sweet something, right....
Sigh...!
> Compromise is good for small things that are inconsequential, but I
> think it is harmful for things of basic or core value.
But that's just the thing: how basic are basic values? A lot of what
we take for basic values (or, as you term it below, an "absolute") are
actually quite subject to change! For example, I don't go looking for
a fat girl...but Claudia simply got fat! She gained forty pounds, but
look like she gained a hundred! Yet honestly I did not notice until
she herself pointed out her stomach to me...it'd just grown on me I
didn't notice it! And yet that's one of my basic values, someone
who's into a healthy lifestyle...but, you know, I just love her, and
didn't care!
Even now it's hard to explain, since writing about it is putting it in
a stark, obvious black-and-white contrast which misses an important
aspect of it all...I guess it really was just love...I mean, I
literally did not see her ballooning stomach and arms! (And of
course, with my luck, it wasn't like her tits and ass got bigger --
no, only her neck, her arms, her very ankles! But not her
breasts...LOL!)
I mean, look at my understanding of love (by way of Erich Fromm)...how
many beautiful, sexy young girls out there believe in Erich Fromm who
are also single, without children, and want me??? So there's this
extremely important core value right here that's already an "issue" if
I were to adopt your attitude.
> A lot more of me is hard-wired these days. And a home-making gal is a
> rare find these days, largely extinct in many areas.
Well, "hard-wired" by definition means "congenital." But I take your
meaning, which I'd render as "a lot more of me is *as if* it is
hard-wired these days."
And yes, a home-making gal is indeed hard to find...we'll definitely
have to look overseas...!
> I realized the path of least resistance is not necessarily the path of
> least pain. I think the reason it took so long to realize any of this
> is that I was so dependant on what emotional crumbs I got.
Well, by definition resistance is pain -- pain comes from friction,
friction comes from forcing something against something else.
But I understand what you mean...though you probably "really" mean
that what *appears* to be the path of least resistance (the so-called
easy way out) is not always all that painless.
And that's my beef with the popular notions of love in our culture.
We think that love is supposed to just happen, just come, just flow
naturally...feelings have those qualities, but not love, true love
(truly the only kind worthy of the name -- but again, that's our
culture, where we even have such almost Orwellian distinctions).
Love is, ultimately, an act of will, of the imagination, of the human
mind...it involves feelings, but does not -- cannot -- depend on them,
since feelings come and go.
> That's a very long story, but suffice it to say that a close friend of
> mine asked me to genuinely *act* as if I believed for one month. I was
> an excessively heavy drinker at the time, hitting the bottle to drown
> my sadness. After that month I had a dramatic decline in my desire to
> get drunk. While I can point to nothing other than subjective
> emotional evidence, I did notice that my general attitude toward life
> improved.
Yes, I've always noted how simply smiling makes one feel a bit
happier....
Likewise, love is a similar act of will..."love the one you're with,"
as the punchline goes...if you're not happy, just smile, and you will
be happy...if you're not "in love," just practice loving, care-taking
-- and you will be....
Truly we have put the cart before the horse! We are so used to be
drive by our emotions that we do not realize the amount of control we
have over them!
> I seriously doubt that anyone really knows. That's why it's called
> "Faith". If one truly and impartially uses scientific inquiry, I don't
> think anyone can truly prove or disprove the existence of God. Faith
> is either accepted or rejected purely on an emotional level. For me
> personally, I have found it essential for my emotional health. Having
> said that, I really don't know how I would handle it if someone were
> able to provide objectively conclusive proof that God does not exist.
Didn't Paul admonish the brethren to prove things for themselves and
not just accept them on the authority of church elders? I believe he
said this in one of his Epistles...IIRC, the Church was already
undergoing doctrinal schisms, even then....
> I don't see anything particularly divine about humanity. What I do see
> is that we are created in the *image* of God. To me, this means there
> are some things we can do to *imitate* Him. One such thing that we can
> do is *forgive*. To rephrase a portion of the Lord's prayer, we can
> say "forgive us for the pain we have inflicted on You, as we forgive
> those who have inflicted pain on us".
Yes, but like I said, I'm an atheist, and so "forgiveness" seems a
strange concept. I mean, I don't have any feelings that make me want
to forgive her, right -- I don't feel any particular pity or
compassion...forgiveness, even for Christians, is often an act of will
(God's will at that!), but for someone without such an ideology there
doesn't seem an basis for forgiveness....
> That may be because you have difficulty accepting the "Image of God"
> concept. Yes, even that refers back to God, but perhaps that's because
> we were never meant to stand on our own, *without* Him. An image can
> be compared to a reflection, which is really nothing without anything
> to reflect. An *imitation* is merely a defective copy of the Genuine
> Original.
Fine, but how does all that relate to my having no "ideological
foundation" upon which to forgive Claudia? I'm certainly angry with
her in that respect, though it's not a boiling, or even simmering,
kind of anger...it's quite mild, actually, but anger it is for sure.
How to forgive? It's conceivable that one day I will no longer care
about all this -- but to forgive? That's not the same as apathy.
So, again, why forgive?
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> All of those combined, as well as possibly a quicker break-up, or,
> conversely, a marriage that would probably still be intact. Either
> way, it would have been much healthier for me in the long run.
OIC. Well, so we agree that there's a right and wrong way of doing
things!
> <SNIP>
>
>
> I don't think that applies in a truly healthy relationship. It may
> seem that something is missing in life, but not in the relationship.
> The mistake that many make is to search for another to make one's self
> complete. Instead, one needs to be complete in one's own right, and
> then search for another who will provide a harmonious companionship.
Well, that all sounds nice and dandy, but truly, when is one ever
"complete" in themselves?? Honestly, who but saints on mountaintops
are like that? Is there even a limit to personal growth? And are we
not, after all, social animals??
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Self-discipline in such things is essential. Among other things, it
> enables clearer perception.
Yes, yes...sigh...! Actually, discipline is also developed through
practice, it seems to me. Hard to practice when failure just rips
your heart out, of course.
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Perhaps I spouted that off the top of my head based on my own
> experience. I was like an ostrich with my head buried in the sand. I
> acted as though if I didn't see it, maybe it will go away.
And that's what's so hard, to call something properly, to judge it
properly -- for it is the case that many things in life, many
problems, do go away, dissipate, take care of themselves, and what was
needed was time.
> "Absolute" in this case means nothing to anyone but you. There are
> things in your life that must *be*, absolutely without compromise.
> Only you know what those things are.
But see, I define "absolute" differently...that which is variable
among individuals is not "absolute"...water, food, shelter, clothing,
air...these are "absolutes"...no one can live without them.
Everything else is, really, just imagined, powerful thought they be as
motivations.
Something absolute implies to me the eternal and unchanging. To speak
of absolutes even in the context of human relations without such
implications seems to really misapply the word. It's as if people
wanted to hide from themselves their own possibility for change. "Oh
I could never...."
But you know what? Given the right reason, you could. And will.
That's why one can bear any what as long as there is a why. I mean,
what wouldn't we do for true love, world peace, etc., etc., etc., et
al.? Or just food on the table? All those prostitutes in the
world...I don't think they all enjoy it, or find it agreeable work....
> <SNIP>
>
> Then you lost the thread. Does this rehash help?
Ah, yes, thank you! Yes yes yes, I see what you mean.
My only problem is the "response" part...I mean, where love is
concerned, how does one punish, exactly? So she's violated my trust.
But I love her, I want her. How can I punish her, really? Beat her?
Deny her the pleasure of my high esteem? Break up with her?
Seems to harm me just as well, all that -- but I'm not the guilty one!
Interesting, that in love, there really is no longer an "I" or
"you"...there is, as there ought to be, only "us"...! (And yes I too
shudder at the thought of "only" there...but truly how could it be
otherwise? One's either devoted or not -- anything else is mere
hobby, not vocation!)
> That's well and good for things which are quantifiable. Emotional
> matters are seldom that way, and for that reason seem to defy rational
> analysis.
Not so sure you're correct...certainly science ("rational analysis")
has shed much, much light on the physical (electro-chemical) bases of
our emotions....
> For me it was. For you it may or may not be. I think only you can
> truthfully answer that question.
For me, love truly is forever. In extreme cases, it's a matter of
will -- as it always ever was, in truth...just that in "extreme" cases
a whole lot more will is involved (like that "CBS 60 Minutes" family
that adopted some retarded kid from Romania willingly, and had to deal
with all his violent acting-out).
> That's my "spin" on accountability.
Um, talk about a leap of faith!
> In this "game", you ultimately don't "quit", "win", or "lose" until you die.
The real problem was, in this regard, that she isn't communicative in
the same way I am...I'm a literalist, for lack of a better term...I
expect someone to say what they mean and mean what they say...so of
course she nodded her head and told me many times that she'll tell me
if there's anything wrong...I mean, hey, I really believe in customer
satisifaction! Problem is that she never did tell me -- in a way I
understood, in a way I could pick up on...we'd agreed to talk, but for
her it was not through words....
> Presuming she is asking about something she is wearing, I'll tell her
> the truth. If she is wearing something I don't like, I'll tell her
> that what she's wearing is crap. ;-)
Haha, that's just my problem too! Actually, she's never worn anything
I don't like, though I too have my preferences (would like her to
dress more sexy). Actually, she's the only person I've ever known who
seems to look good in any hat! Seriously, I couldn't believe it
(slightly relevant background info: I'd been an art student once) --
she had a face which looked good in ***ANY*** kind of hat or
headgear...I don't know how to describe it, except that she had a
baby-face which, though they usually look bad on adults, looked really
good and fitting!!!
> I tend to be a bit more jealous than that.
Jealousy has to do with ego, and as much as possible I try to minimize
ego. Believe it or not, I don't even care if she fucks other guys! I
truly, truly don't, except insofar as it adversely affects our
relationship. To me, it's really just sex, what the hell...why
shouldn't she enjoy herself? I do want "the best" for her, after
all....
Honestly -- to me, if she wants an "open-relationship," that's fine.
I don't need to posess her in that sense for me to love her, I really
don't. Of course, I don't want to be out of the picture, or play
second-fiddle -- I do enjoy her myself, naturally -- but if it's "just
a fling" or an "itch" that she needs scratched, etc., then I'm fine
with it. I seriously am. Again, I'm able to put aside my own ego,
for the most part -- mainly because I've "evolved" that ego, grown
that ego to a point where I see how little many things really do
affect me. The ego's still there, but I'm able to not worry on
account of it.
For example, I just got in a fight last week. Or, rather, someone
sucker-punched me. I didn't cry or anything -- wasn't even upset,
wasn't mad that the person took advantage of my being distracted by
his dog (of which I was really afraid) to throw a punch, unannounced
("unannounced" in the sense that we'd not been physically fighting
before-hand). As a kid, I used to really, really get mad that someone
would *dare* touch me, but, oh, I guess ever since the Army, I just
don't care...have taken hits to the face which meant nothing to
me...really odd...'cause as a kid I'd cry -- not for hurt, but from
indignation -- and go nuts, biting, scratching, pulling hair! =) As
a young man, the few fights I got into were almost like sporting
events....
So anyway I just don't take myself all that seriously, in a sense. So
if she wanted to just sleep around for pleasure, well, fine, whatever.
My pain -- what remains of it, 'tis true, thank you all -- is mainly
over that I should lose access to her myself, and over such a silly
reason as she's constructed in her mind! Well, whatever, right.
> I am referring specifically to recurrent or habitual behavior.
To which I also refer! It happens -- as in, periodically. We are,
after all, creatures of habit. To me, that's just part of the whole
give-and-take of it all.
> Love is the trap that causes us to discard that wishlist. It is also
> the icing on the cake if one happens to fill the most important items
> on that list.
How you as a Christian could take such a view of love is quite beyond
even an atheist like me!
> I continually bounce back and forth between "too lonely, too picky"
> and "too hurt, not picky enough".
LOL -- or just "alone" and "alone"...!
> "Reduced to enjoying"? What does that mean?
Well, I meant that, being in The Promised Land, I seem reduced to
enjoying such "simple pleasures" as any Third-World peasant might
afford. I mean, it's absurd to be single while young and handsome in
New York!
> I truly envy the folk who
> can be alone and genuinely enjoy the solitude, such as hermits and
> monks and such like. They truly don't need anyone, as they are
> emotionally self-sufficient.
Indeed, it sounds very desirable, such a state of being. And, believe
it or not, I honestly think that sometimes I "glimpse" such a mode of
being, such a frame of mind. It never lasts more than a few days at
most, but there have been times where I truly, truly do not *feel*
"lonely" even though I do not socialize -- other than bus-stop banter,
say. I don't feel any *desire* for company, either, though I do not
reject it if it somehow happens -- again, say, bus-stop banter.
Usually it's just that particular day, though sometimes it's a few
days, where I simply am content...even happy, though in a sort of
quiet way (yet also "mildly excited," too)...at such times, I feel so
wonderfully natural -- yet it doesn't feel at all strange, though
intellectually I recognize those moments for the "gifts" that they
are...somehow, hormones do not kick in, I do not feel the need to
chase after every pretty pair of tits, you know....
Anyway, not quite what those "holy men" experience, but something like
it...a glimpse, as I say, in all likelihood....
> I can't see myself living like that, but
> at times like this I wish I could.
Like "this"? Like what? Is something happening -- or not happening
-- right now with you??
Sklenge
>>
> Well, that's all I've ever claimed, too -- that no one has to do any of
> "that"...and my pet peeve is folks who act that way, whatever they may say.
> For example, a lot of single moms say that they aren't looking for a father
> for their kids, but, LOL, guess what...you "interview" before the kids as
> well! Kinda like that high school thing with having to meet the prom night
> date's parents....
I wouldn't date someone with kids. (If I were in the position of dating).
I'd rather go without than tie myself to someone who didn't feel the same
way about children as I do. Anyone who is happy to date someone with kids is
taking the risk you exposed yourself to.
>> That's not how I meant it either. I think both of us were taking polarized
>> viewpoints to make the point. (Whatever point that was - I'm losing the
>> thread again). The point being that people are inter-related. End of
>> statement.
>>
> The point was that inter-relatedness, inter-relationships, need not play the
> "take or leave it" ("either/or") role they did in my case.
>
> As to "losing the thread again"...it's interesting how things feel once
> they're framed differently! =) Throughout all these posts I've usually
> maintained that we didn't disagree as much as stumble over semantics or
> something like that. That's what makes my heartbreak all the more tragic to
> me -- it doesn't have to be this way. It's not a breakup over "genuine"
> reasons, so to speak....
Aww you still need a hug! (((((((YABH/LHoE)))))))
I'm not keen on fair weather friends. Most of my friends are geographically
distant but if they need me I'd help out. I get a little fed up with people
who don't learn from their mistakes though... a bit like crying wolf! I'm
fairly patient but if someone's taking the pee I back off.
>> the 'it' is the emotional bond and relationship between blood relatives. A
>> woman would have much more of an attachment to a child than to her mother.
>> Again, not something I can associate with very well but am willing to accept.
>>
> Right, I understand that, too.
>
> But again we go around in circles, because I was not looking to sever such
> bonds. So why are they an issue?
>
> This is the hypocrisy of women, and single mothers in particular. They want to
> go on about all this crap with the emotional bonding and so forth, like it's
> the only right and proper POV to take. Somehow they just don't get the fact
> that, for most guys, the kid's a constant reminder of how someone fucked the
> woman and yet now the guy's gotta deal with the aftermath.
So why get involved in the first place?
> So why make the kid an issue? 'Cause it's soooo romantic to think that
> somebody loves her so much that he'd put up with such a thing! And sooooo
> romantic to believe that, wow, he doesn't find it at all disagreeable -- he'd
> have it no other way! Wow!!!
>
> Sigh...like I said, the kid ain't the issue. He's your kid. You go take care
> of him. Just like your debts, your mother, etc. Not that I'm unsympathetic,
> but if it's simply not something I'm interested in, well, to hold that against
> me only shows that you weren't really into *me* after all. The way I'm into
> you for who you are as a person (gee, isn't this what girls are always talking
> about? How they want to be loved for more than their T&A??), not simply what
> you can do for me as an asset.
If you can love someone at the points of contact where you're both happy to
be in love and can separate these from the undesirable parts then you're not
accepting the full deal. (I love my husband including all the bits I don't
particularly like... it's a total deal. He still has his interests and I'm
not entirely involved in them but, if he needs me to be involved I'd be
involved - entirely, no pretence. If he asked me to give up usenet and sit
with him in his attic while he paints another one of his wagons I'd do it
immediately. LOL. I think he'd quickly change his mind though.)
>> Sorry. Perhaps that's how it looks to me. Were you asking her to choose
>> between you and her child? Did you want her to put her child up for adoption
>> or send him away to some boarding school to get him out of the way for your
>> relationship with her? If she didn't want him to go to his natural father she
>> would probably be fairly dubious of sending him to a faceless institution
>> too... or have I misunderstood again?
>>
> To have to love a kid not my own, given my
> obvious prejudices in that regard, was even more work.
Hmm. I always used to think that, if I did possess a maternal instinct, the
only way I would have a child in my life would be by adopting one. Well you
made your choice and she wasn't happy to accept it.
>> I'm probably one degree closer to understanding it, being a female, and I
>> couldn't claim to understand it at all. I can just blindly point at it.
>>
> You know, I truly marvel at that. Forgive me that I wonder if you maybe
> haven't some kind of unresolved "issue" operating under the surface...I mean,
> you're not just apathetic -- by which I really mean, cool with whatever
> happens -- but you're actually "hostile," almost, to child-bearing for
> yourself!
No, I'd go further! I'm pretty 'hostile' to /anyone/ having children. LOL.
Fortunately I'm too old to be cross-examined on this point any more so I
don't have to worry about unresolved issues, even if they did exist.
> Me, I'm fairly cool with being childless, though I'd rather much prefer having
> children (yes, plural!) -- like 30/70.
Anything I can say to help you reconsider the ratio?
>> I still think it goes beyond degrees that you or I can relate to.
>>
> Well, yes, ultimately, insofar as it is an experience, and all we can do is
> intellectually imagine it -- "the map is not the territory," after all.
>
> But that's no excuse for why we have to break up.
I would break up with someone if they wanted children.
>> "Dogs are better than children because..." I have the official list somewhere
>> that got posted up to a.s.childfree (To get the full benefit of the joke, you
>> have to also understand that I don't like dogs much either).
>>
> I think the joke, as you'd related it (given the context), implies your
> disdain for dogs.
>
> Are you a cat person, then? Or just not into animals as pets?
I suppose I'm a cat person. But I'm also a hamster person.
>
> Claudia was like that. Such a princess! Though she didn't hate them either
> -- it's just that they poo-poo and have to be cleaned and leave hair all over
> the place! Oh, Claudia was such a cute girl...like I said, I would have
> really loved a daughter by her. Her wants, her goals...all that is
> superfluous to me. Those things have nothing to do with her, with who she is
> -- in a Zen sense, those are just "ego"...not the "real" her. Likewise, I
> have my preferences, too -- but it was the truly remarkable thing about
> "falling in love" with Claudia that I saw past those preferences...see, this
> is part of the reason why she so holds my imagination, still: I grew so much
> with her. Not in the sense that I was immature (except insofar as we're all
> "immature" to one degree or another, even throughout our lives), but that
> being strong, I became even stronger! I saw how I could look past a person's
> preferences to the "real" (so to speak) person beyond...I suppose we all have
> a certain sense of this, intuitively, but somehow with Claudia such a sense
> became conscious, like God come down amongst us, like the Word made flesh,
> like a yearning translated into a beautiful poem...yeah, you get the idea....
>
> So I was able to see past her prissiness, past her silliness, past her
> common-as-mud complaints and issues and hopes and fears, past all that to the
> happy, joking spirit that was also naturally quiet and shy -- not out of some
> sense of inadequacy so much as simply not having a need to be in the spotlight
> -- and who she likely was as a young child, before the world "corrupted"
> her...know what I mean? I saw, in a sense, her immortal soul (and being an
> atheist I'm using poetic license to dabble in such talk)...it was beautiful.
Shame it had to end then... but by a similar token I'd say you'd be capable
of seeing god in another woman... They /are/ only women you know?
>
>> Yes I like to push people around. And get them to do my evil bidding.
>>
> Yeah, but the funny thing is...in life, that's done with sex...in SimLife, how
> is that achieved, exactly?? Seriously...the guy gets nothing out of it
> all...well, then again, it is role-playing -- emphasis on "playing"....
Eventually it will involve whatever we want but at the moment sim games are
in their infancy. I just like being in on the ground floor... I have a
feeling that sim life is where it's going to be 'happening' in the future.
>> Where are you looking now for your fun? I'm beginning to think it's likely to
>> be found from within rather than from 'out there somewhere'.
>>
> Yeah, well, it was ever "within," truth to tell. It was just that, being
> young (-er), the world was still new and all....
>
> Nowadays I'm on newsgroups, just checking out the variety of concerns,
> interests, issues, goings-on and whatnot...mainly, though, I'm doing my short
> stories (LOL -- please don't laugh!) when not exercising...I think I'm going
> to "rediscover" myself (sorry, I know that sounds so "precious" of me, but
> it's the shortest way of saying things -- even with this disclaimer!): get
> back into foreign languages, and chalk pastels and studio art in general....
"studio art" ? That's not a term I'm familiar with.
>> Luck and more practical considerations like spinning the wheel in the first
>> place.
>>
> Um, "spinning the wheel in the first place"...you mean, take the first step,
> as in say hello to someone? I do, I usually have no problems making
> conversation...it's that things don't progress beyond "nice to meet you,"
> however great a time we seem to be having.
Don't worry, when you're really ready to take the plunge I'm sure you'll
know - perhaps you need to be 'over Claudia' completely before you can move
on rather than 'using' someone else to help you to get over Claudia.
>
> Anyway, whatever. =)
>
>> We're put on this earth to mess around and have fun.
>>
> Yeah, "have fun." Curious phrase, that...did you know that many languages
> have no equivalent expression? In German, for example, the closest is "Spass
> machen," literally to make a joke, but also used idomatically to express the
> American "(having) fun"....
>
> (And no, "German" isn't simply about being "Prussian"...those Bavarians are
> supposed to be real hedonists, for all their Catholicism!)
>
>> And art is just another form of messing around and having fun.
>>
> Yes, but even art has its limits...because ultimately even artists need their
> actual human contact.
>
> Fun...I mean, I do enjoy my life, actually....
Well that's good then. Hopefully not crying so much will help.
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> I wouldn't date someone with kids. (If I were in the position of dating).
> I'd rather go without than tie myself to someone who didn't feel the same
> way about children as I do. Anyone who is happy to date someone with kids is
> taking the risk you exposed yourself to.
Still curious: what is it you've got against kids??????
> Aww you still need a hug! (((((((YABH/LHoE)))))))
LOL
> I'm not keen on fair weather friends. Most of my friends are geographically
> distant but if they need me I'd help out. I get a little fed up with people
> who don't learn from their mistakes though... a bit like crying wolf! I'm
> fairly patient but if someone's taking the pee I back off.
Well, like I said, it's ironic, this pal of mine who complains about
fair-weather friends (or something like that) and yet seems to be one
himself. Except that I really don't take it personally. I don't feel
like friends "owe" me anything. Is that "taking the pee"? I don't
feel that way. I do what I want to for them, but I don't feel I "owe"
them, either. That's the beauty of friendship, it seems to me.
Friendship truly is possible between equals, when neither party
actually "needs" the other. And where there is no need, and common
interests (or schedules, for that matter) change, then that's all
okay, isn't it?
You have been a friend to me. Certainly! This all feels very
friendly. You're a real pal, sklenge! =) But I don't expect you to,
well, I dunno...I don't expect anything, really. And I hope that
statement doesn't come across as being apathetic to you -- it's just
that I'm...well, I'm just enjoying your company, and that's all.
So that's how I look at friendship. I'm not sure what more to say --
and I feel like there should be more to say on such an important
subject, especially this being ASL! But it all seems so simple,
really. I dunno.
> So why get involved in the first place?
'Cause she was sooooo pretty! Just real cute! It's like you and me
right now...why should we be conversing at all, really? Out of all
the people in the world, on this newsgroup, etc.
She was there, I was there, we liked each other. We were both lonely,
too, and interested, curious. No particular reason why, in a way.
> If you can love someone at the points of contact where you're both happy to
> be in love and can separate these from the undesirable parts then you're not
> accepting the full deal. (I love my husband including all the bits I don't
> particularly like... it's a total deal. He still has his interests and I'm
> not entirely involved in them but, if he needs me to be involved I'd be
> involved - entirely, no pretence. If he asked me to give up usenet and sit
> with him in his attic while he paints another one of his wagons I'd do it
> immediately. LOL. I think he'd quickly change his mind though.)
I'd have to disagree with you on this point as well, then. I really
love bicycling, but I don't expect that my Significant Other has to
keep me company or something. I just don't. It'd be nice, certainly,
but if she really doesn't (as Claudia tried to but not for long), then
that's fine. Really. And I don't consider that an issue of
acceptance (of "the full deal," as you put it) or non-acceptance.
That's just a hobby...like, much as I'd love to keep all my limbs,
should I ever lose them (God forbid!!!!), life would still go on --
albeit much differently. Similarly, loves goes on, even if she wasn't
into this or that, etc.
> Hmm. I always used to think that, if I did possess a maternal instinct, the
> only way I would have a child in my life would be by adopting one. Well you
> made your choice and she wasn't happy to accept it.
What is it with you and children??????
> No, I'd go further! I'm pretty 'hostile' to /anyone/ having children. LOL.
> Fortunately I'm too old to be cross-examined on this point any more so I
> don't have to worry about unresolved issues, even if they did exist.
But whatever is the matter that you should be "hostile"?? =)
> Anything I can say to help you reconsider the ratio?
Yes! Tell me why I should reconsider! Tell why you believe I should!
> I would break up with someone if they wanted children.
Gee, what happened to love and accepting the full deal? An
understandable enough reason for a parting of ways, I agree, but still
no "real" reason...especially since you're amenable to adoption, so it
can't be children *per se* that you object to, it's that they have
something to do with you, are related to you....
I once had a girlfriend who confessed to me (long story) how she'd
prefer a son but how she was worried too that she would wind up
engaging in incest with him (long story)...but she still wanted
children, though really a son and not a daughter.
> I suppose I'm a cat person. But I'm also a hamster person.
Yeah! I hope one day to be able to own (and have the time to spend on
them) cats and dogs and horses and chimps and, of course, hamsters!
> Shame it had to end then... but by a similar token I'd say you'd be capable
> of seeing god in another woman... They /are/ only women you know?
Well, I don't know what you mean by "only"...frankly, I don't know why
hormones should have this kind of an effect on me, why I mix things up
-- conceivably I can enjoy the divine in all the world, right, so why
is it that I see it only in women, really...I dunno....
But...sigh....
> Eventually it will involve whatever we want but at the moment sim games are
> in their infancy. I just like being in on the ground floor... I have a
> feeling that sim life is where it's going to be 'happening' in the future.
And of course, all this could be one great illusion, right? A la "The
Matrix."
No, what I meant was why those Sim games should have such great
appeal...for a guy, it's obviously something sexual...but for women?
Well, okay, I guess women feel more uninhibited to let out there Inner
Slut or something like that....
> "studio art" ? That's not a term I'm familiar with.
Oh, meaning only in contrast with stuff like outdoor painting or
computer graphics. One's in a studio or some such workspace drawing
or painting or sculpting with physical materials.
> Don't worry, when you're really ready to take the plunge I'm sure you'll
> know - perhaps you need to be 'over Claudia' completely before you can move
> on rather than 'using' someone else to help you to get over Claudia.
No, not worried...feeling so "numb" that I've actually missed a few
opportunities -- or, rather, what looked like opportunities.
Yeah...I need to be over Claudia...I don't want to be, in a way...I'm
almost afraid to think of her as anything less than how I have been
all these years....
> Well that's good then. Hopefully not crying so much will help.
Yes, thank you. =)
KrosRogue
>> Simply because what attachment there may be requires no real emotional
>> investment, at least in the magnitude generated by personal contact.
> But why is this? Why should one kind of contact produce one effect,
> and another produce another?
>
> Is it simply the length of time?
Based strictly on my own POV, personal contact seems to be more
conducive to an emotional bond than other seemingly less personal
forms, because physical presence radically enhances the subjective
reality. This physical presence seems to heighten emotional reactions.
It is difficult for me to form any real emotional bond with someone I
can't touch or see. I assume that this must be true for most folk.
>> Simply, the personal contact requiring a huge emotional investment
>> creates the attachment and the associated sense of obligation.
> Yes, but where's that sense of obligation coming from?
>
> Our culture?
I would venture to say that it is a product of physical proximity and
emotional bonding. It is also possible that culture may have something
to do with it.
>> From what little I understand, primitive societies function with more
>> emphasis on instinct than we do. That may mean that there is less
>> emotional impact, but I don't know for sure.
> Hmm..."primitive" suggests "instinctual" and "emotional"...!
"Emotional" regarding one's own pleasures, perhaps with less concern
for another's pleasure and comfort.
>> I have made my desires far too "amenable" in the past. I intend to be
>> just a touch more selfish now.
> Well, there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness.
> Ultimately, it involves a theory of humankind, of what a self really
> is. Erich Fromm has some great observations about this in "Man for
> Himself."
I haven't read that, but the title speaks volumes for the changes that
have taken place in me.
>> I have had a "warrior princess" or two in the past. All that means is
>> another knife in the back which needs to be avoided.
> LOL -- yes, I take your, ahm, point!
>
> Yeah, what am I saying...I don't like such girls, do I? No, I want
> some sweet something, right....
>
> Sigh...!
I don't much care for a syrupy, mindless robot. And I certainly don't
want a perpetually enraged hellcat. The woman I want is submissive out
of love, and yet can speak her mind and hold an intelligent
conversation. These days I am beginning to believe that is a bit much
to ask of most women raised under the poisonous influence of feminazi
dogma.
>> Compromise is good for small things that are inconsequential, but I
>> think it is harmful for things of basic or core value.
> But that's just the thing: how basic are basic values? A lot of what
> we take for basic values (or, as you term it below, an "absolute") are
> actually quite subject to change! For example, I don't go looking for
What I term "Core Values" or "Basic Values" are a part of my
personality, what makes me "me". These are the values that form the
fabric of my being, the part that responds to other folk in a positive
or negative way.
> a fat girl...but Claudia simply got fat! She gained forty pounds, but
I don't consider that a "Core Value", and apparently neither do you.
> look like she gained a hundred! Yet honestly I did not notice until
> she herself pointed out her stomach to me...it'd just grown on me I
> didn't notice it! And yet that's one of my basic values, someone
> who's into a healthy lifestyle...but, you know, I just love her, and
> didn't care!
Were she my woman, she would join me in a daily workout. Even if she
got a bit fat with that, at least she would be healthy.
> I mean, look at my understanding of love (by way of Erich Fromm)...how
> many beautiful, sexy young girls out there believe in Erich Fromm who
> are also single, without children, and want me??? So there's this
> extremely important core value right here that's already an "issue" if
> I were to adopt your attitude.
If it were a core value with you, you would make it a huge issue with
everyone around you. An integral part of one's personality and thought
processes does not change without considerable effort and enough
desire to sustain that effort for a sufficient period of time.
>> A lot more of me is hard-wired these days. And a home-making gal is a
>> rare find these days, largely extinct in many areas.
> Well, "hard-wired" by definition means "congenital." But I take your
> meaning, which I'd render as "a lot more of me is *as if* it is
> hard-wired these days."
I suppose I am a bit looser with my semantics than you seem to be. ;-)
> And yes, a home-making gal is indeed hard to find...we'll definitely
> have to look overseas...!
I wonder how difficult it is to join an Amish Community. From what I
understand, that sort of woman is not all that rare in that
environment. ;-)
> Love is, ultimately, an act of will, of the imagination, of the human
> mind...it involves feelings, but does not -- cannot -- depend on them,
> since feelings come and go.
That is what many would call "unconditional love". In today's society,
it is considered an odd and apparently unacceptable concept.
> Truly we have put the cart before the horse! We are so used to be
> drive by our emotions that we do not realize the amount of control we
> have over them!
I still struggle to internalize that idea regarding other areas of my
life.
> Didn't Paul admonish the brethren to prove things for themselves and
> not just accept them on the authority of church elders? I believe he
> said this in one of his Epistles...IIRC, the Church was already
> undergoing doctrinal schisms, even then....
I think I have proven it sufficiently to myself. But, I don't blind
myself to the possibility that I could be wrong. The fact that
"doctrinal schisms" have apparently always existed in one form or
another leaves room for the possibility that what I have accepted as
fact could be proven otherwise.
> Yes, but like I said, I'm an atheist, and so "forgiveness" seems a
> strange concept. I mean, I don't have any feelings that make me want
> to forgive her, right -- I don't feel any particular pity or
> compassion...forgiveness, even for Christians, is often an act of will
> (God's will at that!), but for someone without such an ideology there
> doesn't seem an basis for forgiveness....
Does the concept of "lightening the load" mean anything? It requires
effort to hold a grudge. If one chooses not to hold a grudge against
someone, that is a simple act of forgiveness. It is less effort
because no grudge is held and no revenge is sought. It is also a bit
less taxing on the blood pressure, too. ;-)
> Fine, but how does all that relate to my having no "ideological
> foundation" upon which to forgive Claudia? I'm certainly angry with
> her in that respect, though it's not a boiling, or even simmering,
> kind of anger...it's quite mild, actually, but anger it is for sure.
Try simplifying the concept and just release the anger. Allow it to
disappear. Try not to cling to it.
> How to forgive? It's conceivable that one day I will no longer care
> about all this -- but to forgive? That's not the same as apathy.
It's a willful obliteration of ill will toward a perceived wrong.
> So, again, why forgive?
Why hold a grudge? Why waste an effort that could better be expended
on something constructive and fulfilling?
>> All of those combined, as well as possibly a quicker break-up, or,
>> conversely, a marriage that would probably still be intact. Either
>> way, it would have been much healthier for me in the long run.
> OIC. Well, so we agree that there's a right and wrong way of doing
> things!
Hmm, I wasn't aware of any perceived disagreement of such. ;-)
> Well, that all sounds nice and dandy, but truly, when is one ever
> "complete" in themselves?? Honestly, who but saints on mountaintops
> are like that? Is there even a limit to personal growth? And are we
> not, after all, social animals??
My language isn't quite precise enough, is it? ;-)
One should *strive* to be as complete as possible. Then smooth over
the rest with the above-mentioned companionship. ;-)
>> Self-discipline in such things is essential. Among other things, it
>> enables clearer perception.
> Yes, yes...sigh...! Actually, discipline is also developed through
> practice, it seems to me. Hard to practice when failure just rips
> your heart out, of course.
I said nothing about it being easy, simply what I consider to be an
essential practice.
> But see, I define "absolute" differently...that which is variable
> among individuals is not "absolute"...water, food, shelter, clothing,
> air...these are "absolutes"...no one can live without them.
> Everything else is, really, just imagined, powerful thought they be as
> motivations.
Those are what I call "objective absolutes". What applies uniquely to
you or me are what I call "subjective absolutes". These "subjective
absolutes" refer back to one's core values.
> That's why one can bear any what as long as there is a why. I mean,
> what wouldn't we do for true love, world peace, etc., etc., etc., et
> al.? Or just food on the table? All those prostitutes in the
> world...I don't think they all enjoy it, or find it agreeable work....
There are many prostitutes whose core values reject what they are
doing as totally wrong, so naturally they don't enjoy it, and may even
loathe themselves for doing it. When given a chance to pull out of
that rut, they will leap at the opportunity. The same thing can be
said for killing someone in self-defense. A necessary act, if it is
against core values, will distress the killer emotionally. But one
core value seems to override all others, and that is
self-preservation. So, whether the prostitute sacrifices her virtue or
the killer strikes in self-defense, it still doesn't alter their core
values even if they are violated.
> Ah, yes, thank you! Yes yes yes, I see what you mean.
>
> My only problem is the "response" part...I mean, where love is
> concerned, how does one punish, exactly? So she's violated my trust.
> But I love her, I want her. How can I punish her, really? Beat her?
> Deny her the pleasure of my high esteem? Break up with her?
Punish? I don't see how this has anything to do with punishment. It's
about self-protection. You decide whether you will stop at "fool me
once" or you continue to "fool me twice".
> Seems to harm me just as well, all that -- but I'm not the guilty one!
Just decide how much battle damage you choose to endure.
> Interesting, that in love, there really is no longer an "I" or
> "you"...there is, as there ought to be, only "us"...! (And yes I too
> shudder at the thought of "only" there...but truly how could it be
> otherwise? One's either devoted or not -- anything else is mere
> hobby, not vocation!)
Love is definitely not a hobby, nor is the devotion that it nurtures.
>> That's well and good for things which are quantifiable. Emotional
>> matters are seldom that way, and for that reason seem to defy rational
>> analysis.
> Not so sure you're correct...certainly science ("rational analysis")
> has shed much, much light on the physical (electro-chemical) bases of
> our emotions....
If that means what it seems, I could take some chemical compound which
would eliminate my feelings of loneliness and other negative feelings,
thereby washing away all my misery and any desires for companionship.
And even if that could be done, would that really be desireable?
>> For me it was. For you it may or may not be. I think only you can
>> truthfully answer that question.
> For me, love truly is forever. In extreme cases, it's a matter of
> will -- as it always ever was, in truth...just that in "extreme" cases
> a whole lot more will is involved (like that "CBS 60 Minutes" family
> that adopted some retarded kid from Romania willingly, and had to deal
> with all his violent acting-out).
I think unconditional love is forever.
>> That's my "spin" on accountability.
> Um, talk about a leap of faith!
Hmm, yeah, so it is. ;-)
>> In this "game", you ultimately don't "quit", "win", or "lose" until you die.
> The real problem was, in this regard, that she isn't communicative in
> the same way I am...I'm a literalist, for lack of a better term...I
Hmm, and I always thought I was a literalist, and have taken much
flack for being so. But it seems you are more extreme in that
direction than I am.
> expect someone to say what they mean and mean what they say...so of
> course she nodded her head and told me many times that she'll tell me
> if there's anything wrong...I mean, hey, I really believe in customer
> satisifaction! Problem is that she never did tell me -- in a way I
> understood, in a way I could pick up on...we'd agreed to talk, but for
> her it was not through words....
I take it she had no 2x4 within her grasp? ;-)
>> Presuming she is asking about something she is wearing, I'll tell her
>> the truth. If she is wearing something I don't like, I'll tell her
>> that what she's wearing is crap. ;-)
> Haha, that's just my problem too! Actually, she's never worn anything
> I don't like, though I too have my preferences (would like her to
> dress more sexy). Actually, she's the only person I've ever known who
I prefer more modest attire.
> seems to look good in any hat! Seriously, I couldn't believe it
Hmph!! I don't like hats. One of the things I hate about some of the
old movies is that almost all the women wore hats. Huge turn-off.
> (slightly relevant background info: I'd been an art student once) --
> she had a face which looked good in ***ANY*** kind of hat or
> headgear...I don't know how to describe it, except that she had a
> baby-face which, though they usually look bad on adults, looked really
> good and fitting!!!
A baby-face looking good on an adult? Interesting.
>> I tend to be a bit more jealous than that.
> Jealousy has to do with ego, and as much as possible I try to minimize
> ego. Believe it or not, I don't even care if she fucks other guys! I
OOFFF!! That's a hardline for me, one that will kill the relationship
for sure.
> truly, truly don't, except insofar as it adversely affects our
> relationship. To me, it's really just sex, what the hell...why
> shouldn't she enjoy herself? I do want "the best" for her, after
> all....
I look at it like this; if I'm not the "best" for her, then she and I
need to part ways.
>> Love is the trap that causes us to discard that wishlist. It is also
>> the icing on the cake if one happens to fill the most important items
>> on that list.
> How you as a Christian could take such a view of love is quite beyond
> even an atheist like me!
How is that? If love is unconditional, then one accepts another as is,
wishlist or no. But if that person comes anywhere close to the ideal
outlined on that wishlist, it becomes a far more thrilling experience.
>> I continually bounce back and forth between "too lonely, too picky"
>> and "too hurt, not picky enough".
> LOL -- or just "alone" and "alone"...!
A bit more efficient to say it that way, I suppose. ;-)
>> "Reduced to enjoying"? What does that mean?
> Well, I meant that, being in The Promised Land, I seem reduced to
> enjoying such "simple pleasures" as any Third-World peasant might
> afford. I mean, it's absurd to be single while young and handsome in
> New York!
Hmm, I have never been to New York, other than passing through the air
terminal there. The blatant general rudeness I encountered there
surpassed any I have ever encountered elsewhere. That was in 1973 and
1989, so those attitudes may have changed since then.
>> I truly envy the folk who can be alone and genuinely enjoy the
>> solitude, such as hermits and monks and such like. They truly don't
>> need anyone, as they are emotionally self-sufficient.
> Anyway, not quite what those "holy men" experience, but something like
> it...a glimpse, as I say, in all likelihood....
I've had such glimpses, too, but only for a few hours. It's never
lasted more than a day.
>> I can't see myself living like that, but at times like this I wish
>> I could.
> Like "this"? Like what? Is something happening -- or not happening
> -- right now with you??
The "bouncing" I mentioned earlier. "Too hurt" one moment and "too
lonely" the next. I'd like to stop the pendulum and pull it away from
the "too hurt" side, because while there things feel hopeless. The
"too lonely" part is painful too, but it's more of a throbbing ache,
like a tooth that needs to be pulled, while the other is a suffocating
crushing feeling.
Left Hand of Empire
>
>
> Based strictly on my own POV, personal contact seems to be more
> conducive to an emotional bond than other seemingly less personal
> forms, because physical presence radically enhances the subjective
> reality. This physical presence seems to heighten emotional reactions.
> It is difficult for me to form any real emotional bond with someone I
> can't touch or see. I assume that this must be true for most folk.
This is why I wonder about those long-distance relationships,
especially the ones where folks have not yet actually met physically!
> I would venture to say that it is a product of physical proximity and
> emotional bonding. It is also possible that culture may have something
> to do with it.
For another analogy: it is true that killing is harder when one has to
meet the enemy face-to-face, hand-to-hand.
> "Emotional" regarding one's own pleasures, perhaps with less concern
> for another's pleasure and comfort.
Seems we stumble over semantics once more! =)
Yes, I wonder if we'll ever return to such a state -- or is Freud,
echoing Plato, right, and always will be: civilization needs a
suppression of the primitive and instinctual...?
> I haven't read that, but the title speaks volumes for the changes that
> have taken place in me.
Yes! Catchy title, that, as well as "The Art of Loving." Could give
quite the wrong impressions! What I find so odd is that the guy's
still in print after all these years, but it seems hardly anyone has
heard of him, much less have read him, must less have understood
enough to truly agree/disagree!
> I don't much care for a syrupy, mindless robot.
LOL -- why do people disdain their first loves? =)
> And I certainly don't
> want a perpetually enraged hellcat. The woman I want is submissive out
> of love, and yet can speak her mind and hold an intelligent
> conversation. These days I am beginning to believe that is a bit much
> to ask of most women raised under the poisonous influence of feminazi
> dogma.
The funny thing is, beneath all our respective ideologies -- and we
all have them, right -- is that very core of humanity we all profess
to seek. All the rest are just ego-barriers, walls...in love (the
actual act of will as well as the more familiar drive of lust) they do
fall down, melt away....
> What I term "Core Values" or "Basic Values" are a part of my
> personality, what makes me "me". These are the values that form the
> fabric of my being, the part that responds to other folk in a positive
> or negative way.
But that's just my question: is there truly a "real," absolute and
unchanging "you"? This is the question Buddhists ask: who are you?
Who were you before you were born?
The point is that we are all in a process of change...to speak of
"core values" is to overlook how fundamentally we do change -- or can,
when we allow it.
I never thought I'd ever be in a position to accept infidelity...but
now I'm like, you know, I really don't care, it's just sex, or even if
it's more than sex, I can "accept" it insofar as I can imagine how it
came to be ("to understand is to forgive"), etc.
I mean, I'm at the point now that if a woman wants to screw around, I
actually don't "care" -- that is, get jealous (well, only insofar as
it may cut into "our" time together)...and that's a really radical
shift in perspective for me...but once I basically figured out that a
lot of my "values" has to do with my ego, my sense of my masculinity
and my sense of *me* as a sort of center of the universe -- her
universe (or one of its main features!) -- I just...kinda...well,
sorta just didn't care, as I say, anymore...I dunno; maybe it's just a
psychological defense mechanism, an emotional survival tactic -- but
the point is that I've so changed in four years...I've really come to
see how a lot of my most fundamental values really don't *have* to
be...it's not that they're somehow "right" as much as they serve some
kind of function psychologically -- they boost my ego, whatever...but
I see now how these values have so much to do with my sense of myself
as an individual necessarily cut off from others, and how they protect
me from existential angst and so forth....
> I don't consider that a "Core Value", and apparently neither do you.
Um, sure -- it bespeaks a lot of a person when they let their bodies
go! We are ultimately physically-based, so a healthy body will
facilitate a healthy mind. I hope we don't have to debate this point
as well, because it is such a truism (which means also that folks
simply nod and move on and miss the profundity expressed).
> Were she my woman, she would join me in a daily workout. Even if she
> got a bit fat with that, at least she would be healthy.
Huh? How could she actually get any fatter with a daily workout??
Anyway, that's just one obvious "core value" -- someone who takes care
of herself, someone who, ultimately, loves herself. We really don't
take care of ourselves half as well as we should, most of us.
Sometimes it really cannot be helped, but oftentimes it is really just
that we're not intersted, actually -- as long as we don't experience
pain, we can do without the optimum level of pleasure that comes from
well-being, mentally and physically. We've learned that compromise is
sweeter than health.
Another core value was being communicative. She just wasn't
communicative with me -- had something to do, I'm sure, with her
difficulty with words. A sort of George Bush-type, if you know what I
mean. But you know, I loved her, I really came to enjoy her for who
she was, and it seemed quite petty in comparison to "dismiss" her on
account of her vague verbal incompetency.
Likewise other things -- she being a single mom, a different
socioeconomic class (and all things intellectual that description
usually implies), etc.
> If it were a core value with you, you would make it a huge issue with
> everyone around you. An integral part of one's personality and thought
> processes does not change without considerable effort and enough
> desire to sustain that effort for a sufficient period of time.
Well, aside from being a difficult person (LOL), I really do not make
much "a huge issue" with folks around me. I don't consider that
people have to be like me in order for me to hang out with them,
whether bike-riding or chatting or whatever the activity.
> I suppose I am a bit looser with my semantics than you seem to be. ;-)
And here is one example of me giving people a hard time! Semantic
precision is one of my core values! =)
> I wonder how difficult it is to join an Amish Community. From what I
> understand, that sort of woman is not all that rare in that
> environment. ;-)
LOL -- but can you give up the wealth of the internet, even for Helen?
I've often wondered seriously about that...what wouldn't I do for True
Love? Of course, the whole question's a moronic-set-up, implying that
love is an object when, being a state of being, it is something that
we can achieve in the here and now, regardless of where we're at or
whom we're with....
> That is what many would call "unconditional love". In today's society,
> it is considered an odd and apparently unacceptable concept.
It is the only love worthy of the name. And hard as it is, we hit the
bull's-eye more likely by aiming for it...so folks who believe love
should be something easy are, I think, missing a lot of the point of
love....
I mean, in a sense it is easy, in the same way that being a
pro-athelet is "easy" -- how hard is it, really, when you do something
you, um, love? But it still takes a lot of dedication and will, and
this is what many seem to miss.
> I still struggle to internalize that idea regarding other areas of my
> life.
And this is precisely the reason it seems difficult: we perceive it
still as something "outside" ourselves when it's already within us!
We think we have to wrest control when in truth control was ever
within our grasp! So that just speaks to the amount of alienation we
feel from ourselves (!), such that we perceive ourselves thus, as a
split personality almost, that we actually believe we don't have
control over our feelings, etc.
Of course, in this day of the remote control, most people think of
"control" as something which, like love, is instanteous and near
effortless.
> I think I have proven it sufficiently to myself. But, I don't blind
> myself to the possibility that I could be wrong. The fact that
> "doctrinal schisms" have apparently always existed in one form or
> another leaves room for the possibility that what I have accepted as
> fact could be proven otherwise.
A wise attitude, then! Note also that whatever our beliefs, we
usually feel that we have proven them to our own satisfaction. And
upon what does that sense of epistemological satisfaction rest? Not
out of any great love of truth, often, but simply because it serves
some purpose. Part of why it's so hard to change one's perspective on
things is because of the purpose such a philosophy serves,
psycho-emotionally...our egos will try to prevent anything it sees as
a threat to itself -- our egos being our sense of ourselves as unique
individuals, like an IP address I'd say...some are static, others
dynamic: some people recognize how subject to change their sense of
themselves is, while others believe in an immortal soul doctrine which
holds that there exists some absolute, unchanging unique self.
> Does the concept of "lightening the load" mean anything? It requires
> effort to hold a grudge.
Well, it requires effort (expenditure of energy) to do anything in
life -- such are the laws of thermodynamics. And as I've said,
difficulty in and of itself is usually not a sufficent (may be
necessary, but not sufficient) reason for me to be dissuaded.
> If one chooses not to hold a grudge against
> someone, that is a simple act of forgiveness. It is less effort
> because no grudge is held and no revenge is sought. It is also a bit
> less taxing on the blood pressure, too. ;-)
Well, it's like this. I'm still hurt. So I'm angry, since the hurt
comes from her apathy. Can I rightly blame her for her apathy? No,
but it seems to me that I can hold her accountable nonetheless for
less than good form, paricularly in light of her own promises and what
so forth.
Now I can choose to put that aside. But it doesn't seem "right" to me
that she "gets away" with treating me like this. Hence the grudge.
As it is, I'm still in too much pain -- though much, much less than
when this thread first started ninety-odd posts ago! -- to feel as
much anger. But I guess I just feel like things ought to be a certain
way in the world, and as ridiculous as all this sounds (and see I'm
agreeing that it is!) I just feel that letting go of my "complaint" is
to truly let go of the last thing I have that has anything to do with
her...saying good-bye is so hard to do!
> Try simplifying the concept and just release the anger. Allow it to
> disappear. Try not to cling to it.
Well, as I say, I work out, I jog and lift weights -- am still sore
from pulling a muscle in my leg and one in my shoulder!
I do not exactly try to cling to it, either -- it's just that it's
there, and I'm not pushing it out, is all. It's just there, arising
like some kind of computer error message ("love not found...abort,
retry, or fail?") due to the web of beliefs I have about life, the
universe, and everything...and given such beliefs, I see no "real"
reason to kick it out -- which would be more difficult anyway, it
seems...I'd have to give up a whole set of beliefs, for one thing!
> It's a willful obliteration of ill will toward a perceived wrong.
Yes indeed. And insofar as I love her, I know that I'd take her back
in a heartbeat and forgive everything! But in the here and
now...well, like I said -- I haven't an "ideological" basis for it.
Not that I'm sitting her stewing and steaming, mind you...it's anger
all right when it comes, but it hardly comes and then just quickly and
not very intensely at that...and it only ever comes from missing her
so, anyway.
God I miss that kid! She was so, so cute...just made me smile and
laugh and feel happy, such that the bad times seemed well worth the
hassle!
It's funny, but I will confess this: when I remember the good times, I
no longer feel angry -- nor do I miss her so much! Because I smile
and laugh again -- laugh if you must, but it's true! I smile to
myself quite often when I think of her and things she'd said, or
things which have happened...happy things, things we'd done
together...how can any of that ever die?
I have to try not to possess such moments, either...it's easy to lose
myself in them...what magic! Imagine your fantasy xxx-rated wet-dream
came true -- only in a way you'd never anticipated! That's the best
way I can put it. It's like buying a nice patch of land only to
discover oil beneath it! And then to find out that the government by
law claims all oil reserves found.... =\
> Why hold a grudge? Why waste an effort that could better be expended
> on something constructive and fulfilling?
It doesn't feel like much an effort, and it feels "right" that I
remember how she "owes" me.
> Hmm, I wasn't aware of any perceived disagreement of such. ;-)
Okay, we just agree that we disagree on what constitutes a right and
wrong way!
> My language isn't quite precise enough, is it? ;-)
> One should *strive* to be as complete as possible. Then smooth over
> the rest with the above-mentioned companionship. ;-)
OIC -- LOL
> Those are what I call "objective absolutes". What applies uniquely to
> you or me are what I call "subjective absolutes". These "subjective
> absolutes" refer back to one's core values.
Interesting...it all sounds "nicely put"...I guess we just quibble
over semantics once again! To me, there can be no division where an
"absolute" is concerned, such as a draw...but I think I take your
point now, and wonder what mine was! =)
> There are many prostitutes whose core values reject what they are
> doing as totally wrong, so naturally they don't enjoy it, and may even
> loathe themselves for doing it. When given a chance to pull out of
> that rut, they will leap at the opportunity. The same thing can be
> said for killing someone in self-defense. A necessary act, if it is
> against core values, will distress the killer emotionally. But one
> core value seems to override all others, and that is
> self-preservation. So, whether the prostitute sacrifices her virtue or
> the killer strikes in self-defense, it still doesn't alter their core
> values even if they are violated.
Well, I see your POV now. I guess the difference between us, whatever
the semantics of the words used, was even more far-reaching: I was
talking about theory, and you about practice. Now certainly at some
point they converge -- theory is after all about practice, and
practice comes from theory -- but we'd been talking in two different
"modes" or ways of thinking about things...like how it's illegal to
jay-walk in NYC (theory) but one's almost never arrested for it
(practice).
> Punish? I don't see how this has anything to do with punishment. It's
> about self-protection. You decide whether you will stop at "fool me
> once" or you continue to "fool me twice".
Well, "to fool" implies conscious intent, whereas I don't know, even
know, whether she meant to deceive me. I think she was more or less
confused herself, so...to break up with her, someone I really, truly
dig, over an "honest mistake" (or even a series of them) seems like
killing the patient to cure the disease!
> Just decide how much battle damage you choose to endure.
Yes, well, that's one way of looking at it. I guess it's a state of
perpetual war...peace is what's abnormal.
> Love is definitely not a hobby, nor is the devotion that it nurtures.
Funny you say that; I would say (not that it's contradictory, mind
you) that love is definitely not a hobby precisely because of the
devotion it requires!
> If that means what it seems, I could take some chemical compound which
> would eliminate my feelings of loneliness and other negative feelings,
> thereby washing away all my misery and any desires for companionship.
> And even if that could be done, would that really be desireable?
Um, well, they do have medication out there, right....
As for desirability -- once they iron out all side-effects (if such a
thing be possible given the laws of physics and chemistry), why
wouldn't the absence of such mood-draggers be desirable? Just as we
fly not with wings but with airplanes, so too can we feel happy if not
with love then with chemicals that reproduce just the chemical states
of love! The science is still far off, but closer than at any other
time in human evolution.
> I think unconditional love is forever.
And again I say that that's the kind truly worthy of the name, by
which all others are judged.
It's like the difference between a U.S. Army Ranger and some
Third-World kid with an AK-47, right.
> Hmm, and I always thought I was a literalist, and have taken much
> flack for being so. But it seems you are more extreme in that
> direction than I am.
Yeah, can you imagine it! It's almost like the ol' distinction
between book-smarts and stree-smarts.
> I take it she had no 2x4 within her grasp? ;-)
LOL -- she's not that kind of girl!
No, she just left...talk about kung-fu! Without striking she's struck
me fatally.
> I prefer more modest attire.
I love them all! =)
> Hmph!! I don't like hats. One of the things I hate about some of the
> old movies is that almost all the women wore hats. Huge turn-off.
You know what? I don't either! Makes the girl seem pretentious or
something...don't know why...but, like I said, Claudia was the only
person I know who looked good in hats -- any hat! She had such a cute
face...real sugary, like...um, Tweety Bird or Hello Kitty...you know,
that super-cute way...and it sounds all so silly 'cause she's an adult
but I'm telling you she was the only adult with a baby face I know who
actually looks good, looks beautiful! All other adults with baby-like
features tend to look gross, deformed -- pot belly, fat knuckles,
round faces...but her, she was just lovely; it's incredible!
Sigh! I miss her!
> A baby-face looking good on an adult? Interesting.
YES IT'S TRUE! SHE WAS INCREDIBLE!! Kinda like Betty Boop -- a
baby-face with a sexxxy body ('til she blew up in two months of fine
dining!)...don't know how else to put it. Really, uniquely beautiful
-- I called her CUTIE-FUL!
And I know all this sounds nauseating but to meet her in
person...wow...!
> OOFFF!! That's a hardline for me, one that will kill the relationship
> for sure.
And that's just the thing...I honestly don't care -- and it's not just
'cause I want her back; I've said this for the past two years...after
the first infidelity (the only one, strictly speaking...) when I took
stock of everything and concluded that I really loved her more than
just any sense of entitlement to her body, etc.
> I look at it like this; if I'm not the "best" for her, then she and I
> need to part ways.
That sounds "nice" but in practice I think everyone "compromises" and
"settles"...after all, one's "values" are truly ever in flux --
so-called "core" values notwithstanding, we all can change (and
do)....
It's like saying "I anyone takes a shot at me I'm gonna shoot right
back at them" and when the "moment of truth" comes ("seeing the white
elephant" other veterans of other wars have put it) one ducks and
runs.
> How is that? If love is unconditional, then one accepts another as is,
> wishlist or no. But if that person comes anywhere close to the ideal
> outlined on that wishlist, it becomes a far more thrilling experience.
Yes, but the adoption of such an attitude is not, then, "love!"
> Hmm, I have never been to New York, other than passing through the air
> terminal there. The blatant general rudeness I encountered there
> surpassed any I have ever encountered elsewhere. That was in 1973 and
> 1989, so those attitudes may have changed since then.
Yeah, apparently Taibei's rudest now, according to the Elton John
survey of world capitals!
> The "bouncing" I mentioned earlier. "Too hurt" one moment and "too
> lonely" the next. I'd like to stop the pendulum and pull it away from
> the "too hurt" side, because while there things feel hopeless. The
> "too lonely" part is painful too, but it's more of a throbbing ache,
> like a tooth that needs to be pulled, while the other is a suffocating
> crushing feeling.
I don't get it. Aren't you attending church? I remember that my cult
of a church used to host socials all the time for singles! Every
month, at least!
Or do you live in a small village on the Isle of Wight? =)
Sklenge
> Sklenge <skl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BD832ED6.23A6D%skl...@yahoo.co.uk>...
>
>>
>> I wouldn't date someone with kids. (If I were in the position of dating). I'd
>> rather go without than tie myself to someone who didn't feel the same way
>> about children as I do. Anyone who is happy to date someone with kids is
>> taking the risk you exposed yourself to.
>>
> Still curious: what is it you've got against kids??????
Everything and nothing. I was one once you know (heehe), so I speak
authoritatively; children aren't all they're cracked up to be.
>> I'm not keen on fair weather friends. Most of my friends are geographically
>> distant but if they need me I'd help out. I get a little fed up with people
>> who don't learn from their mistakes though... a bit like crying wolf! I'm
>> fairly patient but if someone's taking the pee I back off.
>>
> Well, like I said, it's ironic, this pal of mine who complains about
> fair-weather friends (or something like that) and yet seems to be one himself.
> Except that I really don't take it personally. I don't feel like friends
> "owe" me anything. Is that "taking the pee"? I don't feel that way. I do
> what I want to for them, but I don't feel I "owe" them, either. That's the
> beauty of friendship, it seems to me. Friendship truly is possible between
> equals, when neither party actually "needs" the other. And where there is no
> need, and common interests (or schedules, for that matter) change, then that's
> all okay, isn't it?
>
> You have been a friend to me. Certainly! This all feels very friendly.
> You're a real pal, sklenge! =) But I don't expect you to, well, I dunno...I
> don't expect anything, really. And I hope that statement doesn't come across
> as being apathetic to you -- it's just that I'm...well, I'm just enjoying your
> company, and that's all.
Likewise. I've said this kind of thing to most people here and on the other
groups - I find you very interesting. I'd also like to add entertaining but,
at this point I don't want you to think I'm being entertained by your
heartache. Some of the stuff on asl is very entertaining. So, as with fair -
or foul - weather friends stick around and have some fun too; I feel I'm
monopolizing you somewhat.
>> So why get involved in the first place?
>>
> 'Cause she was sooooo pretty! Just real cute! It's like you and me right
> now...why should we be conversing at all, really? Out of all the people in
> the world, on this newsgroup, etc.
>
> She was there, I was there, we liked each other. We were both lonely, too,
> and interested, curious. No particular reason why, in a way.
I can guarantee that if I weren't here in this thread someone else would be.
You could just as easily be getting a similar deal from anyone else here
(Krosrogue f'rinstance). Similarly, there are plenty of other pretty women
out there who are just as cute (cuter!) than Claudia.
>> If you can love someone at the points of contact where you're both happy to
>> be in love and can separate these from the undesirable parts then you're not
>> accepting the full deal. (I love my husband including all the bits I don't
>> particularly like... it's a total deal. He still has his interests and I'm
>> not entirely involved in them but, if he needs me to be involved I'd be
>> involved - entirely, no pretence. If he asked me to give up usenet and sit
>> with him in his attic while he paints another one of his wagons I'd do it
>> immediately. LOL. I think he'd quickly change his mind though.)
>>
> I'd have to disagree with you on this point as well, then. I really love
> bicycling, but I don't expect that my Significant Other has to keep me company
> or something. I just don't. It'd be nice, certainly, but if she really
> doesn't (as Claudia tried to but not for long), then that's fine. Really.
> And I don't consider that an issue of acceptance (of "the full deal," as you
> put it) or non-acceptance. That's just a hobby...like, much as I'd love to
> keep all my limbs, should I ever lose them (God forbid!!!!), life would still
> go on -- albeit much differently. Similarly, loves goes on, even if she
> wasn't into this or that, etc.
What I mean is I love the crap bits as well as the bits I'm 'supposed' to
love.
> What is it with you and children??????
> But whatever is the matter that you should be "hostile"?? =)
>
>> Anything I can say to help you reconsider the ratio?
>>
> Yes! Tell me why I should reconsider! Tell why you believe I should!
How much time have you got?
I think it really depends on you before I can find the key to your
enlightenment on this issue. For instance with one of my close relatives
'the key' was to explain to him in straightforward terms that once you have
a child, your life becomes immediately owned by the state. You are knitted
in to the whole issue of taxation and can be criminalized simply by not
allowing the authorities access to your child. This was scary stuff to him.
All the other many reasons I gave for remaining childfree were of little
importance but this one tipped the balance.
For my part I'm less bothered by this as I am with the idea of feeling far
too guilty to impose life on a stranger... it is after all a life sentence,
who am I to take the decision that someone else is going to be really happy
to be born? I wasn't happy to be born, so how could I face someone else and
say - "just put up and shut up like I had to".
I have loads of other reasons but one is usually enough, you just have to
find that one reason and the rest becomes icing on the cake.
>> I would break up with someone if they wanted children.
>>
> Gee, what happened to love and accepting the full deal?
I would accept the full deal with my husband because we made the deal 'no
kids' so I was on safe ground. If he changed his mind he'd have to have them
with someone else, I'd have to accept that. That's never going to happen
though.
> An understandable
> enough reason for a parting of ways, I agree, but still no "real"
> reason...especially since you're amenable to adoption, so it can't be children
> *per se* that you object to, it's that they have something to do with you, are
> related to you....
I gave up on the idea of adoption because he wasn't keen and I wasn't all
that bothered so it became a non-choice a bit like thinking it would be nice
to learn Chinese; not worth the effort. I am however toying with the idea of
adopting an overseas orphan NOT TO BRING BACK TO THE UK but sponsoring one
in their own country.
> I once had a girlfriend who confessed to me (long story) how she'd prefer a
> son but how she was worried too that she would wind up engaging in incest with
> him (long story)...but she still wanted children, though really a son and not
> a daughter.
Eeew. Do you suppose that's common? A lot of men seem to think they'd rather
have a daughter... because they're in love with the idea of females I
suppose, and can only see flaws in males. Perhaps men don't like the idea of
having a younger male entering the relationship dynamic... it's okay for
your wife to love your daughter but it's a little bit kinky if she loves
your son. ? I don't understand these dynamics but I bet they exist.
>> I suppose I'm a cat person. But I'm also a hamster person.
>>
> Yeah! I hope one day to be able to own (and have the time to spend on them)
> cats and dogs and horses and chimps and, of course, hamsters!
Why don't you start now? Having the time is the problem - I think it's sad
for people to have animals and then leave them at home all day getting bored
- not so bad with cats, but dogs and caged animals? I hate to see an animal
caged. That would be why I wouldn't have another hamster. We let our last
one have run of our flat (she only managed to escape a couple of times into
the loft and electrocuted herself once - she survived), I couldn't bear to
hear her scraping away at the cage and once she found the extent of her
world she would scrape away at that :v( So, no caged animals for me. Maybe a
little hamsterbot would be nice.
>> Shame it had to end then... but by a similar token I'd say you'd be capable
>> of seeing god in another woman... They /are/ only women you know?
>>
> Well, I don't know what you mean by "only"...frankly, I don't know why
> hormones should have this kind of an effect on me, why I mix things up --
> conceivably I can enjoy the divine in all the world, right, so why is it that
> I see it only in women, really...I dunno....
>
> But...sigh....
I can't see it myself I think women are as divine as men. But men are far
better looking.
>> Eventually it will involve whatever we want but at the moment sim games are
>> in their infancy. I just like being in on the ground floor... I have a
>> feeling that sim life is where it's going to be 'happening' in the future.
>>
> And of course, all this could be one great illusion, right? A la "The
> Matrix."
I don't like that film. In fact I've only really recently seen it through to
the end the other day and I realized I made the right decision previously by
giving up half way through. It descended into the traditional love story; it
was a wasted opportunity.
> No, what I meant was why those Sim games should have such great appeal...for a
> guy, it's obviously something sexual...but for women? Well, okay, I guess
> women feel more uninhibited to let out there Inner Slut or something like
> that....
Are we talking about the same Sim games? LOL. I know there are the stripper
style sims progs but I was talking about god games really. Seeing how sim
characters relate to one another in little sim communities. Women respond to
sexual imagery too, Left Hand of Empire. I'm no slut but I like sex...
obviously not as much as the next man.
>
>> "studio art" ? That's not a term I'm familiar with.
>>
> Oh, meaning only in contrast with stuff like outdoor painting or computer
> graphics. One's in a studio or some such workspace drawing or painting or
> sculpting with physical materials.
I went life drawing last year to get back to my creative roots. It was great
fun and set my mind at rest; I was relieved to see that I hadn't lost my
talent even after twenty odd years of neglect. I ought to sign up again but
I need a more challenging class.