Welcome to Uncle Wingy's...
Rules for Considerate Dating!
* Introduction *
* Disclaimer and warning *
* Terminology *
* The Top 7 Emotions *
* What IS an Independency Check *
* What IS Contacting *
* Awareness *
* Boredom *
* My Commutation Theory *
* Small Town USA Pioneer Days *
* Worldwide Commutation *
* Embellishment *
* Inequality *
* Insecurity *
* Jealousy *
* Self Image *
* Missing *
* Offramps *
* Possessiveness *
* Pout *
* Sex *
* Tact *
* Tolerance *
* My Teeter Totter Theory *
* Some Crap at the End *
Wingy's Home Page
Intro
Uncle Wingy's Rules for Considerate Dating!
Copyright (c) 1994 Larry J. Wendlandt
Hi! Welcome to the document that never ends. Basically, this
is a log of the things I learn about human emotions and interactions, as
well as a few thousand occurrences of my own biased opinions. Anything you
"adopt" from this document may, or may not, work for your situation. If something you learn here works... great! If not, try something else. Good luck!
Top/Bottom
Warning
I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING! GOT IT? GOOD! Now read on!
As one might expect from me, THIS document seems all out of proper
order. This document will be CONSTANTLY CHANGING... sort of like examining
a wart once a year to see how much larger it has gotten. We sorta pick at
it until it bleeds, then we leave it alone for another year. Hey... if you
follow the RCD updates with the same devotion as with picking at your warts,
I'M NOT GOING TO COMPLAIN! Actually, I'M HONORED!
So here we go again, new, fresh, updated... SMARTER!
REMEMBER, honesty between partners (and with yourself) is the MOST IMPORTANT virtue of any!!! (This is my opinion, of course.)
From this point on, my writing gets VERY opinionated. I ask that before you adopt any of my rantings as "words to live by", you make sure
that whatever you adopt is "contoured" for YOUR situation... and never assume to be able to predict the reactions of others in all cases.
Everything consistently varies! (I just LOVE that line!)
Top/Bottom
Terms
Here are some terms that will be used in RCD... (and minimal definitions)
(my opinionated definitions are found throughout this document)
IC: Independency Check ...checking to insure that a person
can function as an individual should the need arise.
Missing: Lonesomeness for other partner's company or attention.
Insecurity: Feeling of unsureness, unimportance, or non-longevity.
Inequality: Feeling of one partner contributing more to the
relationship then the other (financially or emotionally).
Pout: Feeling of hurt caused by other partner.
Possessiveness: Feeling of want to exclusively own the other partner.
Jealousy: Feeling caused by either partner's attention to or from
a person who is viewed as threatening to the relationship.
Tolerance: Ability to accept self-viewed shortcomings in a partner.
Tact: Skill at dealing with people and sensitive issues.
Embellishment: Adding detail to, or flowering a comment or action.
Mary: Troubled Partner - the one having the above feelings.
John: Other Partner - the one NOT with the above feelings.
Understand that most of these feelings can easily evolve into another, and
another. For example, missing, insecurity, possessiveness, and jealousy
can all run hand in hand, and nearly everything can evolve into anger. Also
understand that the use of the names John and Mary do not imply gender
whatsoever. In many of my examples, Mary is the one with troubled
feelings. It could, just as easily, have been John.
Top/Bottom
Emotions
Here is a list of the MAIN emotions that I could think up. There are lots of other emotions and emotional responses though the ones I could think of... all fit somewhere under one or more of these main emotions. I have excluded EXCITEMENT from this list, because I really am in question as to whether or not it is a true emotion. It definitely can be caused by most of the other emotions, so it may be an emotional response (reaction). Its actual definition doesn't apply too much to this document, as I don't talk about it in any detail. Now for the top 7 emotions.
Happiness Fear Anger Love Hate Loneliness Sadness
Ok, so you don't agree with me? Hell, I don't agree with me either! To be totally truthful about all this emotion stuff... I believe there is really only ONE emotion! Let's give that ONE emotion a name. Let's call it "heartsmart"... which combines heart (feelings) with smart
(thought). Heartsmart itself is a REACTION. It is a reaction to some kind of INPUT data from one or more of our five senses. As soon as we "notice" this input, we process it with our heart, and with our brain, and if that data is terrible or wonderful enough, we "shock" our heart and our brain, and we react... sometimes rationally (whatever THAT means) and sometimes irrationally (again, definitions vary). Therefore, we could say that ALL of my top 7 emotions are actually emotional responses. They are reactions caused by all the different "flavors" of heartsmart. There are also MANY different "power levels" of heartsmart. This explains mood changes. A mood change being... a low-powered reaction to heartsmart. When you look at just how many emotional reactions/changes we have defined for ourselves, you can see where this might make sense. Just for a fleeting moment, I thought of listing a few emotional reactions here, but then I realized I didn't have enough space on my hard drive for such foolishness. I believe there must be thousands of words we use to describe different human moods and feelings, from reluctance to silly, from offended to excited, from cozy to grumpy. See what I mean?
So I now stand corrected, as happiness, fear, anger, love, hate, loneliness, and sadness are indeed the top 7 EMOTIONAL RESPONSES I've found.
Top/Bottom
IC
"IC" stands for Independency Check, which is a term you can use to
describe a self-analysis of individualism. A person will ask theirself...
"Just how dependent AM I on other people for my happiness?" This is never an easy question to answer truthfully, and it is never easy to
heed the findings of an IC. I hear couples asking themselves and each other
all the time... "Where do we stand?" or "Where do I stand
with you?" Wouldn't it be SO MUCH BETTER if both people ALWAYS knew "where they stood"? Discussion and honesty... everyone knows where they stand. Independency is so important when dating, because then your partner can NEVER fool you, you can only fool yourself. There is so much social pressure to "devote" one's self to another, that we all lie to ourselves to satisfy another. Yes, I agree that there still IS a place in society for total devotion, it just doesn't have to come at the cost of deceiving one's self. When Mary asks "Where do I stand with you", she is actually asking "What do you think of me." Generally, John can easily tell Mary the GOOD things he feels toward her, but he won't mention the BAD things until they are in an argument. Unfortunately, during an argument is often the first time Mary will learn about something that is "unappealing" to John. That's because in the early days of the relationship, John and Mary are too busy kissing each other's ass, making sure they portray an appealing image to each other, to get honest and learn about their compatibilities and incompatibilities. (See TOLERANCES). John and Mary often make commitments and promises to each other during their early days, many of which can't be honored once "reality" sets in. Part of doing an IC is to get an HONEST report of how your partner feels about you. This is a VERY difficult report to HONESTLY get. Some choose to put their partner through little "torture tests" and watch reactions, and believe it or not, this is often the most accurate method. John has a fear of TELLING Mary about the unappealing things, because he thinks he may lose her because of it. During an argument, a John will temporarily lose that fear, and use Mary's unappealing traits as ammunition. I suppose one could say... heated arguments are a way of finding out where one "stands". Total honesty is another. It is up to each individual to find the best way to do an IC, and HEEDING THE RESULTS will always minimize any hurt feelings. Mary... John may not be as shallow as you might think. Go ahead and tell him of your bad traits. John, you do the same. DO IT EARLY IN THE RELATIONSHIP! If either one of you believe that the "perfect fit" partner exists, then you are sadly fooling yourselves. One of the things men tend to ignore about themselves, is their (natural?) tendency to have "wandering eyes", and to have fantasies about being with other women. Women tend to ignore the (natural?) tendency to be like men in that respect. Go figure!?
Top/Bottom
Contacting
Terms:
John: Person initiating contact.
Mary: Person receiving contact.
Mary: Person requesting a halt of contact from the other partner.
John: Person who is asked to halt contacts with the other partner.
Any form of communication between partners is considered a contact. This includes phone calls, cards, letters, notes, gifts, and all face to face meetings. Contacting is the most widely used method of "sweeping
somebody off their feet." It is also the cause for such things as stalking, harassment charges, and restraining orders. Therefore, contacting
is probably the most important action in a relationship, and it may be
the most important action of any, in ANY situation. Powerful, eh?
First and foremost, if a Mary requests that contact attempts should be halted, Mary should contact John within a short time... to explain the reason for the request. John should not contact Mary if Mary doesn't want him to. If John DOES contact Mary, Mary should always be considerate of John and should try to acknowledge the contact in some way. Likewise, John
MUST SERIOUSLY try to adhere to Mary's request to halt contact, and must
be happy that he/she will know the reason for the halt request soon.
Mary must also try to understand that... depending on how "short-noticed" and unforeseen her request is, John may still be very much in love with Mary, and he MAY panic! Mary better be ready with some tenderness-filled explanations just in case he does. If Mary does not contact John within a short time, John has every right to contact Mary and request an explanation. Again, honesty, sincerity, and mutual consideration is the key here. Even if John is NEVER given an explanation for the request, John should be happy in knowing that he is doing something to improve Mary's life, and Mary should know that John will not be angry with Mary EVER, because Mary is honest and fair with John, and she will give John an explanation as soon as her feelings say she should/can. You notice
that this theory is VERY MUCH based on honesty and "pride swallowing." The human ego is a very fragile thing, and can cause highly irrational actions to look very rational. But if John can learn to be selfless and noble, then even if Mary falls in love with someone else, and just plain wants John to NEVER make contact again, John can find happiness in knowing that he is doing exactly what Mary wants him to do... and John will not make contact with Mary. Mary... remember that this takes LOTS of pride swallowing and nobility on John's part! Try to give John the honest explanations that he deserves, and have lunch with him on his birthday!
Top/Bottom
Awareness
Aware: Implies having knowledge of something through alertness in
observing or in interpreting what one sees, hears, feels, etc.
The word "aware" has come to be used more widely these days, because of its use in the term "environmentally aware". This is such a generalized phrase, that it essentially has very little COMMON meaning. I emphasize "common" because "awareness" is one of those human-characteristic terms that has drastically different meanings for different people. I remember my dad always saying to me... "Why don't you STOP and THINK before you act?". You can see from that what my childhood was like. It took me quite a few years of growing up before I started to realize the importance of that line. Now I'm NOT saying I turned out better or worse for adopting the "think before you act" policy... I just turned out. It was a few years later before I
realized that the "act" part did not just mean an ACTION... it can also mean TALKING. And TALKING can mean "tone of voice", and
body language, and facial expression, and knowing your surroundings, and tact, and determining the goals of each spoken word, and trying to predict reactions from the people who were spoken to, and learning to handle various expected and unexpected reactions from diverse people of numerous type, and WHEW!
Have you ever considered all those "ramifications" of talking?
If not, keep reading, because you're not yet self-aware. Crap... another term! RAMIFICATION! Webster's first definition mentions "spreading out into branch-like divisions", but the second definition...
"A derived effect, consequence, or result" may be more to our cause. Then, when you bring in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which states... "For every ACTion, there is an equal, and opposite... reACTion"... then you can start to see how the first definition is so similar to the second. In physics, the result or consequence of an action is always "equal and opposite"... but NOT SO in looking at results of a spoken word. In talking, the result, consequence, or RAMIFICATION is rarely equal, or opposite.
I like to use the term "ramifications" because the term "consequences" has become biased toward more-commonly meaning "how much shit one goes through because of the action". And the term "results" has come to mean that some kind of GOAL was pre-determined or expected, such as with "results of a marketing campaign". The term "ramifications" has maintained its feel of not being based around a goal, and not being a good, bad, right, or
wrong reaction... its just a reaction.
Now's a good time to mention, once again, that "awareness" has not only a different meaning for each person, but different levels. So naturally, me, trying to teach you how to become (more) self-aware, may be totally... incandescent! (I couldn't think up a proper term, so I just picked one at random). And know that self-awareness may not be good, bad,
right, or wrong... but there ARE ramifications to being self-aware! (Oh geez!)
Now I've went and done it... I've confused myself. I just KNEW this would
happen while writing this section. Let's see here... we can be self-aware
of ramifications to an action... we can have ramifications from being
self-aware... we can be aware of the ramifications of being self-aware...
we can be aware that others may be self-aware... we can be aware of the
ramifications of others being self-aware... and we MUST be aware of the
ramifications of this added awareness of being self-aware. (duh!)
I feel like I'm equipping a military tank for a TACT battle... even a non-
military tank (you know... equal rights and all that). What's a "TACT
battle" you ask? Well, a tact battle is when two or more "diplomats" get into an ass-kissing contest. They flower and embellish, sidestep and wedge, pull heartstrings and strain logic... all, usually selfishly, to obtain a goal. More primitively put, it's when two dogs go around in a circle trying to smell each others' butt. The only difference between dogs and humans in that respect is... the dogs eventually stop.
Warning: At this point I should inform you that sometimes, becoming aware,
can lead to depression and feelings of futility. As you become more aware,
you start to learn why people do the things they do, and their causes. You may be able to see widespread selfishness and greed, and you may lose some friends... due to your new-found abilities to "see through" people's intentions and predict people's reactions. If you question people
about their intentions, and if their intentions seem EVEN SLIGHTLY non-moralistic, then often they will turn on you in self-defense. They will accuse you of playing head games, or delving too deeply into their psyche. They may just avoid spending time with you, because they feel they have to be on the defensive when you are around. It can break up marriages, destroy
businesses, and even, indirectly, lead to death. This is NOT a thing to
take lightly, and many are happy just living along from day to day, without
worrying about awareness and ramifications. Some know that they COULD be
more aware, but choose not to be. Others aren't even aware that awareness
exists. The aware, the ignore-aware, and the un-aware, all seem to get
through life just fine, whatever "just fine" is... and have been doing it for centuries. I will not venture an opinion on good, bad, right,
wrong. Now, let's look more into the three types of aware status.
The Aware:
Most of these people already know what I'm about to say about them. Aware people don't all look or act the same, and they often try to avoid being exposed as aware. Advanced aware folks are often VERY intelligent and are masters at getting to the root of emotional situations. They are often
believers in minimum tact and total honesty, which often hurts the feelings
of people around them... thus, they often lay low. Aware people will almost
always look at things in an honest, logical, and selfless way, although this is arguable. Some say the aware's lack of tact and inconsideration for human feelings makes them selfish. Its a gray area, indeed. Let me try to show you some examples...
Advanced Aware:
Advanced aware type #1 is a very thorough "situation analyzer".
When he/she walks into a room, they will notice everything "important" in the room, and essentially, "put on a face" to fit the room... but most people do that. They are considerate (in SOMEBODY'S opinion anyway), courteous, correct, tasteful, spontaneous, entertaining, excellent listeners, and any combination of such things. They seem to be morally sound (whatever THAT means) and, in general, the kind of no-nonsense person your mother would want you to marry. They "appear" this way, because they know how to play a person, a room, or a situation, and they will rarely "ruffle feathers". It is part of their "laying low". These people have had years of experience in dealing with the world, and they know EXACTLY what makes things tick, including people. They are often un-voiced skeptics, so you will rarely see anyone get a line of bullshit past an advanced aware person. That is, of course, true ONLY IF they are not using tact. Some advanced aware people place "importance" on other peoples' feelings, and therefore, will not expose the bullshitter or the unaware.
Advanced aware type #2 is completely different. He/She is often viewed as an un-caring jerk. These are the folks who have discovered what the
intentions are in most any situation, and just don't care to be a part of it. Type #2 doesn't give a shit about people, because he/she thinks almost everyone is a loser, and losers aren't able to do anything for his/her life except drag them down. As with the type #1, they are highly intelligent, and don't like dealing with bullshit. They RARELY use tact, and really don't care what other people think of them, for if they did, they would be "letting some moron get in their way". Type #2 people often have a wonderful heart, just like all humans... but you will need to "prove your worth" before they will ever consider showing it to you.
There is only one other type of AWARE person, and there are many of them
to be found. In fact, ALL aware people, advanced or not, fit into this
category of awareness. They are the aware-in-training. They, as well as
the advanced aware, may occasionally "miss the obvious", but will admit "missing it" freely when they discover, or are shown, that
they missed something. Often, you'll find aware-in-training (let's call them AIT's) following an advanced aware person around, both physically and morally. An AIT is meticulously thorough at "looking at all sides of a
situation", being extremely objective and inquisitive, experimenting with religions, self-analyzing, people watching, and they are VERY slow to pass judgement, if at all. Their open-mindedness makes them great listeners, and they are often popular and comfortable outside their own peer group. AIT's also don't like to piss people off, but sometimes accidentally do by way of their inquisitive nature "prying" into sensitive areas of others' morality. They are very apologetic and slightly ass-kissy, as students often are toward their teachers. In this case, the teacher is the world, and everyone on it. AIT's are often searching for a mentor to use as a model to pattern their self-image around... and disappointment may
result when they try desperately to place un-worthy people into that role.
Unfortunately, many of the AIT's are in the 12 - 30 age group... and these are the marryin' years... so if either or both partners in the marriage are AIT... they often have prematurely placed one another in a mentorship/prodigy role, and get very disappointed when either becomes
aware that something doesn't fit.
Ignore Aware:
Ignore aware (IA) people are simple to describe, and are somewhat related to advanced aware type #2 people... except that instead of being viewed as
tact-less jerks, they appear to be stupid. An IA will intentionally act
stupid so that he/she doesn't have to participate in the unpleasantries of
being tactful, responsible, or listeners. You'll see them shrugging their
shoulders often, and claiming "I don't really know" or "I
don't really have an opinion". They are adept at changing subjects, and sidestepping of all sorts. Often, this is just a different "front" or "mask" that an advanced aware person "lays low" behind, to avoid pissing people off. Sometimes,
it is self-insecurity that forces awareness ignorance... and IA is a widely-
used way for type #2 people to maintain tact and thus, maintain acceptance,
friends, and lovers. Advanced aware people can sometimes "see
through" an IA. Type #2 will expose them, and type #1 will mention it privately. Once a type #1 "knows" that an IA is just "playing dumb", the IA will probably "bond" with the type #1, and not "act" when they are alone together.
Un-Aware:
These people have also come to be known as the "clue-impaired"
group. They have never been taught how to be self-aware, or aware of a situation, or possibly, just don't possess the knowledge or intelligence of how to be aware. All unaware are really just aware-in-training (AIT) that probably don't even know they're in training. These are the type of people
who are comfortable being HERDED. They base their image and status/stature
on copying others, and rarely follow the feelings of their own hearts
and/or minds. They may not even know how to listen to their hearts or minds. This all may sound a bit derogatory. It's not meant to. Some of the
happiest people in the world are the unaware. Since they have less self-
induced responsibilities... because others lead them... they often have
less stress and more fun. They're quite sure they'll never be rocket
scientists, and they don't try to be such. They just merrily go through
their days, rarely hassling anyone intentionally, and rarely getting
extremely emotional over anything. Some may seem low on passion, zest,
initiative, and creativity. Advanced aware people may find them annoying
and worthless, and AIT's will agree sometime AFTER they have tried their
best to make them become aware. Near-death or extreme trauma experiences
can sometimes make the unaware turn AIT. Sometimes, its a broken heart.
Top/Bottom
Boredom
Boredom and monotony are problems that happen ONLY in the outdated methods of dating, and really shouldn't happen there either. With honesty as the basis of Mary's relationship with John, she can tell him at ANY time that she is bored or "in a rut". John can reply by asking if it would help if he left her alone for awhile, or he could ask Mary if she'd like
him to help her think of something to help her, whether it includes him or
not. John must not feel slighted if Mary wants to do something alone, or
with someone else. He must pride himself in the thought that by leaving
Mary alone for the requested time period, he is helping to make Mary happy... and if he REALLY cares about Mary, then her happiness is important
above all else. If John feels hurt, then John needs an IC. If Mary feels
guilty about going off alone, then she is lying to herself in some way...
probably by not following her true feelings.
Top/Bottom
Commutator Theory
In a vague conglomeration of various Webster's definitions, to
"commutate" is to reverse the direction of flow. When a
"commute" happens to one of two horseshoe magnets, repelling becoming attracting, OR attracting becomes repelling. Often, new relationships can be much like two horseshoe magnets. The two magnets have their "poles" aligned, and seem to be constantly wanting to "be with" the other magnet. When the magnets touch, life is wonderful. Current flow is at 5000 amps, and John and Mary light-up their worlds for each other. This is passion at its best! Then reality sets in for one of the magnets. John might have suddenly seen an undesirable trait in Mary, and John comes to the realization that Mary is NOT Miss Wonderful! And since we ALL seem to be on a lazy adventuresome search for happiness, especially when it comes to being loved, John decides he needs to GET THE HELL OUTTA TEXAS! The FIRST thought John has is... how do I do this gently. I DON'T want to hurt her. John gives Mary a "first indication" that JUST MAYBE... he might want to date other people. John has commutated! He has at least STARTED to reverse the poles of magnetism. John has doubts about the lasting-power of his passion for Mary. John also has plenty of doubts about continuing his search for Miss Perfect, because there is NO security in a life where nobody loves John. John often feels VERY unsure about his actions, and may even go date other people without letting Mary know... just in case Miss Perfect can't be found. John feels that the security that Mary gives him... is still better than no security at all. It
appears that males tend to "wander" a bit more than females,
and females tend to distrust males because of this (natural?) tendency. This leads to possessiveness, jealousy, secrets, pout, anger, and most other love-killing attributes. Many males enjoy having at least two women who
love them... as this is the only way a non-committed male... can find a
prevention/cure for his insecurity. This male trait, as well as the
(natural?) female traits, causes the "hate all men" and "hate
all women" attitudes often encountered in people. There is also the "all women are the same" and "all men are the same" attitude. Did any of us ever stop to notice that hey... maybe all men or all women ARE THE SAME, at least in certain ways? Too bad we often fool ourselves and say... "No... he/she is not like that. He/She is different!" Well maybe not!
Mary's Reaction: (to John's commutating)
Mary's reaction can be varied. If Mary is a person who has had her heart broken in the past, then she has ALREADY been "guarding her heart"
as much as she can. We ALL guard our hearts to some degree. Some of us
will never let our hearts be seen again. Some just SAY that! (at least
until the passion pyromaniac hits again). In any case, if Mary has been
guarding her heart, she will suffer a small amount of hurt, do an independency check (remember those?), and consider the possibility of
having to continue her search for "Mr. Right"! Mary know's that a few tears, a BIG sigh, and some hot baths will help bring her some familiar
embryonic security. Mary can get VERY lonely at this point, but Mary WILL
survive to love again. And Mary... don't give up on John yet! John's
problem COULD be... "He doesn't know WHAT he wants!" (your
author just ADORES that line! I'm quite convinced that NOBODY knows what they want!) Mary now makes a decision, based on John's "first indication". Often, John wants to continue to be with Mary SOMETIMES, and this is probably a true feeling. Although all sexual contact usually halts at this time, if Mary and John can find things they like to do with each other, and if both understand that there may be other lovers involved, and if everyone and everything is known and understood, then more power to
ya, guys! Sounds like the basis of a GREAT friendship to me! Mary can
find some security in the fact that her ex-lover still LOVES spending time
with her. I think its sweet as hell, personally! Its not passion, but
it sure is a toasty-warm type of love!
BUT...
What if Mary is "head-over-heals" in love with John, and John's thought of dating other people APPALLS Mary! She goes into shock, and cries
for 181 straight hours. Mary may "panic" at this point. Her
magnet poles get carefully re-aligned with John's, and Mary searches almost frantically for her magnetic counterpart. But since John has reversed his poles... (commutated), Mary's attempts to be nearer to John... just push him
away. Long nights of crying phone calls, months of tear-drenched letters,
and Mary's constant asking of "What did I do wrong?" will fuel
the factory that produces heart armor. John is now nearly in a panic trying to get Mary over HER panic. John will often just "go quiet" and not talk to Mary for a LONG time, if ever... claiming he just can't handle it anymore. He's RIGHT... he probably can't, for Mary is almost viciously frantic. Her emotions are a blur of love, anger, pout, and whatever OTHER emotion she can fit into a single night of misery. How can we "repair" Mary?
REPAIRING MARY
Shit, don't ask me! Hell, I just got done BEING Mary awhile ago! I'm
still not done loving her, and she's gone quiet! I even got a "halt
of contact" request! You know... a gentlemen's restraining order! But I DID manage to take a shower, get on the fresh duds, and go meet some new
people. After smelling my killer cologne, some of those people started
showing interest in me, and I re-located my self-esteem. I believe these
actions helped me, and I think they could help Mary as well. Don't look for
John to call Mary. He won't, at least not for a good long time. There is
always a chance, that in a year or seven, John and Mary will accidentally
meet somewhere, and depending on what both have "going", this MAY be the start of a "new and improved" partnership between John and
Mary... a very cautious, but warmly-familiar love. Two magnets, gently commutating back and forth, trying to make sure that the other is not being pulled or pushed too much... an efficient-running, friction-free, electric motor. Commutating and changing is VERY human. Spend a few hours in a single's bar and notice the magnets searching for aligned poles. Its too bad we can't just "sniff out" a cuddling partner, like using a library's card catalog system. Some John could just walk up to some Mary in
a bar and say... "I think you're pleasant to look at, and I want you
to know that I am willing to test and weigh any personality conflicts that
may preclude running an electric motor with you!"
Hhmm... where did we lose the romance? Oh well, if we could just stop
bullshitting each other so much, we could sure get into each other's arms
much easier, and more truthfully based. Mary, and ALL of us, have this
belief that if Mary was to TRUTHFULLY let EVERYONE know who she REALLY is the world would think she was weird! Loony Toons, baby! Mary is wrong, plain and simple. Everyone is weird! We just don't admit it to anyone. If we ALL could admit EVERYTHING to anyone, humanism might take off again, and a town meeting/party might accidentally happen. Shit, we wouldn't want that, now would we!
Top/Bottom
Smalltown USA Pioneer Days
Go to "Small Town USA Pioneer Days" sometime, and you can still sometimes feel the town meeting/party feel to their simple celebrations. John's float-building is done with pride and from the heart. John (and wife
Mary) ask only one favor in return... that someone be proud of that float, and thus proud of that town, and of that town-member, and of that family, and their GOOD name. And way down at the bottom of the list, after the streets are swept and John's smiling overworked face comes home to Mary's arms, you find a proudness that no words can describe. Yes, it was just another Pioneer Days, just a party with his friends and neighbors, where most of the fun came from the repeated breakdowns of the floats. The men rush into the parade route with a muddy pickup truck and quickly weld or duct tape the problem, often beer in hand. But "doing something embarrassing" is never a thought during Pioneer Days, because everyone loves everyone... HONESTLY! And even as FOOLISH as John got during THIS YEAR'S Pioneer Days, Mary trots to the door, kisses John passionately and says "I love you, and I'm proud to be your wife!" Proud love... its what we ALL want in a way. Someone with which we can be "ourselves" around, and will still love us, and us they. Partners
who are in each other's company because they WANT to be, not because they
HAVE TO be. Proud love, the most secure of any! Perfect commutation!
Top/Bottom
Worldwide Commutating
Proud love and town meetings seem to be smothered by business, money, greed, etc. (I smell soap!) I suppose I just want to blame everything on
"Salesman Stan" (see EMBELLISHMENT), but its not totally HIS fault. We could blame ourselves (since many of us are Salesmen Stans), or maybe old man Kresge (many of us resemble him as well). Blame is not necessary. Repair may be necessary. There is possibly only TWO ways to do a worldwide commutation. The first way would probably require that the bible guy show up again and slap the greed out of us. That's a whole other subject in itself. The second way might require the abolishment of money, where everything in the entire world... would be free. Multi-billion dollar
mega-industries would fiercely compete to see which could put more services
into a poverty-strickened nation. The corporation's only reward is the fame and nobility that comes to their name upon being the company that helped that nation... proudly! Money would have no use whatsoever, except for its laugh potential.
So now that you have no money, you ask... How do I eat?
If the commutation is successful worldwide, then greed would disappear. Yes, instantly, there would be a rush on K-Mart as everything became free. But the boredom of possessing EVERYTHING would set in, and soon, these
"hoarders" would be out there on the streets just like everyone
else, trying to give something away... because it feels good to give things away... at the "Give Your Neighbor More Than They Could THINK Of Storing" party and town meeting. Everyone knows that even the hoarders will go home with a brand new car, absolutely free, if they needed one. All will learn that the quickest way to reform a hoarder is to drown them in free gifts, given from the hearts of the neighbors and townsfolk. And there would be more food shoved upon each person in ONE DAY, than they could possibly eat in an entire year. Rent, power, gas, cable tv, daycare, car insurance, paid-up forever. After all, car insurance would simply be a hundred or so of your friends and neighbors saying that they would GLADLY help you get back on your feet after a car accident. There's no reason to bring a lawsuit against ANYONE, even if injured by a careless driver, for that careless driver would gladly be at your hospital bed, asking if anything was needed. He/she would WANT to do that because THAT'S how a person gets a "good name". And since its ONLY your name and reputation that brings fame and nobility, and since you will WANT to have folks speak well of you, then those things will motivate an individual to do "socially-viewed as GOOD" things. A whole movement might form, devoted to making the world pretty again. Hundreds of thousands of rich, well fed, extremely happy people worldwide, proudly volunteer to be the worldwide gardeners. Cars become larger, because nobody travels alone anymore. Trucks are "in", because traveling road parties are commonplace. Highway-side open-invitation picnics can be found every quarter mile along every road, at all hours. Everyone is happy, and needs nothing... because at the FIRST indication of a person NEEDING something, there is a thousand people trying to provide it. And people "hoard" the good feelings they get from helping someone else!
Uh... yeah... right! So you're saying, Larry... that if we could talk
K-Mart into giving all their stuff away, then we could save the world? As a matter of fact, YES! If a few "big boys" all commutated at once,
it COULD be the "first indication" that "flips the magnets".
Top/Bottom
Embellishment
Gosh, that word is just humongous, isn't it! One of Webster's was...
embellish - to decorate or improve by adding detail, often of a fictitious
kind.
Do ANY of us ever "embellish" what we say to our partners?
Do any of us ever give our partners the wrong "impression" or "imply" something that might not be true? DUH! Embellishment is so blatant and widespread, that it might require added ram before I can write about it! See... Stan Dunder was a bull breeder who worked north of the trading post. Mike Olin was a bull breeder who worked south of the trading post. The trading post announced that it would buy 10 bulls per year... (it was a "bull" market) and that they would choose which 10 bulls to buy, basing their choice on any damn thing they wanted to! Like the coming of the devil himself, so came purchasing day. Stan Dunder brought 10 of his best bulls to the trading post. Mike Olin did as well! The purchasing agent steps off the bull dock, saunters over to Stan Dunder, and begins the end of all humanity by asking...
"What makes your bulls better than Mike Olin's bulls?"
I probably don't need to explain what happened next. Let's just say that "selling bull" has become the world's #1 passtime! I suppose it could be called "salesman's disease" as well. Salesmen ARE the
world's BEST embellishers! Why don't we call them Embellishment departments instead of Marketing departments? And since I'm at soap-box height, competition is only "healthy" if you're racing to get somewhere. We now continue with the HAPPY ENDING version of our story...
Stan replies...
"Mike's bulls are superior to mine. I think Mike will agree."
The devil walks up to Mike Olin and whispers...
"Stan Dunder claims your bulls are superior to his! What makes your
new and improved, longer lasting, light and lively, environmentally aware, cost-effective, no risk money back guaranty, " because we care"
bulls better than Stan Dunder's bulls?"
Mike replies...
"Stan's bulls are superior to mine. I think Stan will agree."
The arguments that followed eventually turned to terror, as both Stan and Mike committed suicide trying to insure that each other's bulls would be the bulls chosen by the purchaser. The purchaser got 20 bulls for no cost, so Kresge's Trading Post flourished. Our two traders died trying to help each other, NOT trying to weasel a few dollars out of old man Kresge. Yes, dead IS dead! But something really weird happened to old man Kresge as he stared amazedly at Stan's and Mike's corpses... and the very next day, old man Kresge abolished money. Everything in the trading post was FREE. Traders learned to take only what they needed from the trading post, and an actual competition erupted to see which of the now 681 traders could bring in the most FREE goods to the store. The store became a friendship house, and there was always more food and love at the trading post than any "purchasing" day could consume. People everywhere, almost FORCING their fellow traders to take some more FREE product. Scattered arguments ablaze, stemming from who would GET TO put in the most work toward various projects. And still, to this day... K-Mart has to turn away 1,234,304 potential employees per year. Due to their EXCELLENT all-volunteer workforce, highest quality - totally free merchandise, and nifty marketing techniques, K-Mart will again be awarded "World's Best Trading Center." The "information superhighway", often referred to as "GlassNet", is now the universe's largest swap-meet. Reps from the top 70 automakers are always available to try to GIVE someone a new car, and McDonald's-sponsored "destineers" are everywhere, ready to arrange flights to anywhere for anyone who hasn't been everywhere. Laziness is gone, replaced by pride. K-Mart's high-tech neon art lights up even the most dreary areas of the city... in more ways than one. The K-Mart logo is everywhere, along with the thousands of other no-pay services offered by other trading posts in this unique, wonderful world that Stan and Mike created. K-Mart's logo is simple and to-the-point. The logo itself is simply the face of a bull with a BIG RED X across it... and under that, the 5 letters that has become the word by which nations dictate their affairs...
...that word is NOBLE.
Ok, that's the way it COULD have happened! But that youngest girl in Little House On The Prairie really didn't seem to have both oars in the water, did she! Everything was good and wonderful, except for her. She was always pushing food against various parts of her face, and never really did master much intelligible communication skills. Hhhmm?
In the SAD ENDING version of our story, you don't have to imagine what
happened. When the purchaser asked Stan what made HIS bulls better than
Mike Olin's bulls, Stan started selling the bull.
"These bulls are made of only the finest quality USDA-approved prime beef. Our factory-trained professionals work round-the-clock to insure that
you get the BEST line of bull at bargain basement closeout prices! We've
added a special, high-moisturizing, low-cal, better-fitting, nature-enriched, button-fly suppository, which is YOUR guaranty that life will be wonderful if you buy OUR line of bull!"
Stan and Mike still killed each other, in competition for Kresge's money. Kresge, witnessing this pathetic display of selfism, became a very shrewd, cut-throat, self-centered, money-grubbing miserable jerk and sucked enormous funds from the world's poverty-strickened pure-hearts. Greed and laziness excelled, pride and nobility disappeared forever. People travel alone to poor-paying jobs of futility, finding no hope or self-satisfaction in ANY parts of their lives. They race frantically down highways, constantly competing, rudely gesturing fellow travelers. The meek hide in their houses, the rich boast of their towers, the sad say early goodbyes. "And in the streets, the children screamed. The lovers cried and the poets dreamed. But not a word was spoken... the church bells all were broken."
Yeah, we ALL embellish, don't we! I think I got the point across about the potential harm of embellishing. When John tells Mary that he loves her more than the moon and the stars, Mary can safely assume that John never really DID love the moon and the stars all THAT much. Be careful what you say to your partner. They MIGHT just be listening!
Top/Bottom
Inequality
INEQUALITY is fairly rare, and when it happens, it is sometimes financial in nature. Simply illustrated, it is one person putting more money into a relationship than another. Historically, the male puts more money into the relationship than the female, but this is slowly changing. Again, be honest with your partner. Inequality can be a guilt feeling for Mary if she feels she is not putting in her fair share, or a pout feeling if she thinks she has to put in too much.
EMOTIONAL INEQUALITY, which can be illustrated by the statement... "I think I love you more than you love me" is more common. If and when it
DOES happen, it is DEFINITELY time to do mutual IC's, and it wouldn't hurt
to re-explain the way each partner feels about each other. Defining and
frequently re-defining the way two people feel about one another is VERY
important, as it gives both partners early indications of changes that may
be taking place. If honesty, and the ability to discuss any situation are
present, agreements can be made, and everyone will at least understand, if not be totally happy.
Top/Bottom
Insecurity
INSECURITY, as defined above, often surfaces more in the female then in the male. This is not saying it doesn't exist in the male. Insecurity is often considered un-macho to the male, and is hidden deeper. A male will rarely show insecurity to his female partner, as it is not in line with the role that society has "suggested" he play. One of the males'
"suggested" roles is to quench his partner's thirst for feeling
secure. There is no sure-fire fix for insecurity, but total honesty from a
partner can create a VERY strong sense of security, and frequent IC's may help as well. Insecurity is OFTEN... the cause of jealousy.
There will be MUCH more written soon about insecurity. Stay tuned.
Top/Bottom
Jealousy
JEALOUSY, and its tendency to evolve into anger, is probably the most dangerous problem in a relationship. A human's natural curiousity and need for ego-building and re-affirmed self-esteem is a the probable cause. The use of alcohol and other drugs, in an environment which promotes promiscuity (not necessarily bad), is the advocate of jealousy. Jealousy is also related to insecurity in many ways. An example might be... polyamorous (multiple lovers) John claims openly... to ALL his lovers... that he has "other" lovers, and that each lover has no affect on the amount or quality of love he feels for any other lover. Mary, if she survives the news about John's polyamorous ways, may feel she is in competition for John's time and love. She actually is... but aren't we all? Good friends and good lovers are in heavy demand, and selfish possessiveness can rear its
ugly head. It may have started WAY back when we first fought with other
children over who got to play with the best toy in the toybox, or who got to use the teeter totter with who, and for how long. After all, polyamory is indeed sharing, and equality-speaking, each should get their time and turn on the teeter totter. Unfortunately, it is rare that things in heavy demand get distributed equally and unbiased, and our "playground possessiveness" may fall into that "human nature" category. Equally unfortunate is the possibility that when we "chalk something up" to "human nature", we have decided that "it" is
a "normal" trait, and thus it is GOOD and RIGHT, and we don't
need to change that trait in ourselves to be a "civilized" race.
The terms "human nature" and "civilized" seem to battle each other constantly in life, and heavily affect another thing, called TACT. (See section on TACT... around here somewhere.) ADMITTED polyamory is still fairly rare, because societal pressures toward monogamy (a single lover) are so immense (its normal). Polyamorous men and women are actually
bountiful... but they often hide it, or lie to the people around them to avoid the cruel scrutinization and repercussions of human closed-mindedness. (Can you tell that I AM a poly-am?)
Now we continue on with the more common jealousy situation. (monogamous)
Jealousy can ONLY be beat with self-security in Mary, and total honesty in John, even if that honesty leads to John actually breaking off relations with Mary in order to start dating the person who is "hitting on" John, or who John is "hitting on". A friend once told me that
Mary should, at the time John is "leaving", make contact with John and ask John if he is SURE of the action he is about to take, and aware
of the possible ramifications of such an action. The old adage comes to mind...
"If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, its yours to keep (maybe). If it doesn't, it was never meant to be."
Top/Bottom
Me
This is the future section on idiosyncrasies and other personalized ways that establish indentity and individualism... and the affect of those things when viewed by or involving others. An illustration might be "You know better than to call me during the ball game".
Or maybe... "
I'm sorta weird like that" or "I've always done it that way".
Coming soon, I hope. (Am I talking to myself?)
Top/Bottom
Missing
MISSING, as defined above, (i.e. Mary missing John), should be viewed as very honorable to John. John should feel flattered that Mary is missing him. If John can view it as such, then the problem automatically fails to exist. Compassion from John is the key to beating this trouble. If Mary is missing John, John can be sure that Mary cares very much about John. An IC (independency check) might be a good idea for Mary. If Mary contacts John to say she misses John, a considerate response, if truthful, might be... "I miss you too, and I wish we could be together."
Top/Bottom
Offramps
"Off ramp" is a term for a partner ending dating or requesting a long term "halt of contact". In this case, let's say Mary truly
feels that she wants to quit dating John. Whether she feels it is permanent or temporary, it IS her true feelings, and again, John should take the news well, knowing that this will make Mary happy. Rarely, if ever, should Mary drop this kind of news onto John... "out of the blue". If Mary has had unsurities about her and John for some time, and if Mary is always honest and open with John, John knows about her doubts well before the axe drops. After it DOES drop, Mary, in good etiquette, SHOULD spend plenty of hours making sure John understands and is able to cope with any depression before she breaks off all contact. If she cares about John, which she WILL if they are friends... in or out of love, then she'll treat him with more loving care than her new boyfriend... if one is looming. Mary should probably dedicate a month to John before officially taking the off ramp. Again, if John has "seen it coming" for some time, then John will have already done MANY IC's and has prepared himself, making Mary's cheer-up assistance easier. Off ramps will always hurt to a degree, but the partners must always be dedicated to honesty, and to helping each other follow their feelings and find their destinies. Always be honest with your feelings, even if you're unsure of what your feelings are.
Top/Bottom
Possessiveness
POSSESSIVENESS is often a bi-product of jealousy and insecurity, and is also closely related to terms like envy, stature, status, and greed. Possessiveness is the feeling of desire to own or maintain control over
something or someone. PLEASE ignore Webster's 6th definition of POSSESS...
the one that uses it to describe "managing to have sexual intercourse".
In my opinion, #6 is a poor use of the term.
Possessiveness, or avoidance of, is really what these writings are all
about. Possessiveness, and its related terms like envy, pecking order,
jealousy, resent, and covet... is VERY widespread these days, and MAY be
the reason/cause for many "human-natural" traits, be they viewed socially desirable, or be they viewed as shortcomings. (Gosh, I talk weird
sometimes!) Actually, I side-stepped my bias just for a moment there.
To cut to the chase, I believe there is NO good reason to try to possess
anyone or anything. I believe that a person should make their desires
known, take "FAIR-TO-OTHER-PEOPLE'S-DESIRES" actions toward those goals, and be SELFLESS above all else! Yeah, I know... easier said than done. There is one driving force that keeps getting in the way of a belief
like that... many call it EGO. Ego, briefly defined, is the level of worth, esteem, status, stature, belongingness, lovedness, and pride that is "felt" in one's self. Essentially, its a continuous "report
card" of how well yourself is doing at life and living. We must try
not to confuse EGO with EGOTISM. Egotism has gained a definition of an OVERAGE of ego-building actions. Whether EGO is bad/good, good/right,
right/wrong, or excessive/deficient... seems to be unknown, and often those decisions, are just ignored. Some say that business... ALL business, is just a method we humans have devised to feel less guilty about monetary possessiveness. Some say business is the best spirit of competition, and it is what made America so great. After all, America's most popular game... FOOTBALL, is based around possession of land, and the (supposed) inevitable battle which results from attempts to "divvy it up" fairly. Some say competition is only healthy when you are racing to get somewhere. Many try to possess their lovers and friends... and many lovers and friends WANT to be possessed. (See insecurity.) Many like to possess material things, so they may boldly display their status to the general public. Some of those folks say they are just proud of their accomplishments and desire to permanentize their just rewards. (i.e. they can take away my pride and self-esteem, but they'll NEVER get my jet boat... or my husband/wife.)
Wars, games, friendships, romances, business, politics... all have been
subjected to possessiveness and/or greed in SOME way at SOME time...
possibly MOST ways at MOST times. Everyone wants to be superior to at least SOMEBODY, and everyone wants to be the BEST at SOMETHING. The questions I have are... is this human nature? (natural) Is this a learned trait? (more likely to be wrong and bad) Is it good? Is this RIGHT? (See other parts of this document for good vs right discussions.)
Let's take a second to talk about some terms. We start with NATURAL and
HUMAN NATURE. RIGHT HERE is where I took a moment to look up those terms
in my (trusty?) Webster's dictionary. And RIGHT HERE is where I realized
how the English language... and programming languages are much alike. This dictionary on my lap, is a "standardization guide" so that we can
all TRY to understand EXACTLY what is being communicated to us. It is
SUPPOSE to be common to all English speaking people... as is the case with
other languages as well. The internet's World Wide Web uses a simple
programming language called HTML that establishes a common document-
displaying method that EVERY computer can easily understand. Although
this may seem impertinent at this time... it won't soon. With this new-
found communications method, we will have yet ANOTHER way to bullshit the world about who we REALLY are. Prior to (and during) the World Wide Web phenomenon, we were forced into using talking, singing, yelling, phoning, recording, radio, and tv to communicate using our voice. To use our body language or physical appearances as communications devices... we needed TV, photography, or physically BEING WITH the people we are communicating to. (LIVE performances) First impressions are powerful judgmentation fuel... as runway models, salesmen, and cold-calling phone solicitors will tell you. When we each have a personal world wide web "talking picture book about me" in world publication, will first impressions THERE be important? Models, authors, and movie producers often use shock as a first impression "crowbar" or "biaser". This shock is achieved by first, finding the most stringent taboos... (things we protect most sacredly) and BLATANTLY contradicting the taboo. A model might use "provocative" styles or blatant nudity to accomplish the shock. The author uses words to visualize an emotional scene, and a movie maker physically reproduces the authors visions, and puts them on film. Cartoons use dropping anvils, sportscars use high-powered engines, bungee jumpers use tall bridges, couples use sex, marketers use amazing graphics, musicians use crescendos, CHiPS used 7 mph multi-car accidents with lots of ramps and smoke.
Ok, ok! Now you understand what happens to a writin' sorta guy like myself when introduced to Webster's definitions of NATURAL and HUMAN NATURE. Its not pretty, is it? The definition of "natural" is really a sight. The fact that occurrences DO happen that CAN be defined as NATURAL is no small feat in itself. The definition of "natural" is SUCH a ridiculously "gray area" that we should just call EVERYTHING
natural. One of Webster's lines is... "without man-made changes".
Shit, that means "human nature" is a self-redundafying term. (makes no sense) Another, mentions that "what is natural" is often guided by traditions and accepted social conventions and laws. Is this what the hippies meant when they used the term "establishment"? Gosh, I feel old. (38) Alas, I am but yet another in a long line of people who have fought to get humans to quit bullshitting themselves and others, and to get real. Unfortunately, the most plastic of the plastic of the plastic
people started walking around telling people to get real, and then everyone got confused as to what REALity REALly was. And that is where we are today... convinced that the plastic is real. After all, it IS real plastic! REALLY! I wouldn't shit ya! REALLY! Bias vented.
Webster lists HUMAN NATURE as being a QUALITY! I wasn't prepared for that,
and I am not going to subscribe to that definition. I am going to treat
human nature as a characteristic... not necessarily quality or disquality.
Larry... WHERE in the HELL are you going with all this? "I don't know
Babs... but I DO know this... (quote of Cornelius "Chevy" Chase).
There is a BUNCH of "chalking things up to human nature" going on these days. We say... its NATURAL to be jealous... its natural to be self-
centered... its natural to want to possess your lover... chalk war up to
human nature... competition is natural... stomping the shit out of everything within a 500 mile radius just so you can get to your goal...
is TOTALLY natural! Me me me me!
You can quickly see how calling something "natural" is a world-wide easy-out... so that we aren't subjected to the arduous task of having
to think about the moral and ethic ramifications of a given situation. This is often called conscience... and is affected by religion and such. What is deemed natural, and what is deemed unnatural, makes up the very essence of humanity... whatever THAT is. It is SO easy for us to say...
HUMAN NATURE = NATURAL thus...
NATURAL = NORMAL thus...
NORMAL = GOOD (and/or RIGHT) thus...
HUMAN NATURE = GOOD (and/or RIGHT)
This is how we can substantiate and justify nearly ANY action we do AS A GROUP to be good and/or right. This is why we punish murderers... (not done as a group) while we are proud of soldiers in our military when they kill. (organized group of murderers approved by society) There is another looming term that I have not yet mentioned... CIVILIZED. Off to the dictionary I go... (2 minutes pass) ...ok, I'm back. One was... "Improved in habits or manners; refined." Hey, were the hippies trying to show us something? Were they trying to show us that we need CONSTANT refining, and that "establishments" are dangerous and could cause long-term setbacks in our quest to be "civilized"?
Nah! They were just a bunch of free-sexed, pot-smoking, flower children in funny clothes. Good thing we smothered 'em! They were kind of an un-civilized group anyway... we never did like their kind. Its interesting how young people can see the worthless, plastic paths that the elders before them took, and are still on. But when the youngsters get to where the elders are now, they have to listen to THEIR youngsters bitch about the worthless, plastic paths THEY took, and are still on. Maybe THIS is "refining". A careful balance of slow, civilized change,
caused by the continuous battle of new vs old. Plastic is NOT natural, but man's natural evolution caused its invention. It is a product of a civilized, cultured, refined world... a world of plastics, where everything is pretty, and nobody knows who anyone really is... not even themselves.
The reasons for possessiveness are many, but they are ALWAYS "goal-oriented". The goal being... to possess whatever it is you want to possess. Possessiveness is almost ALWAYS "chalked up to human nature", thus viewed as socially tolerable, even though we are taught
to share in our schools and by our elders. Possessiveness is often viewed
as having varying LEVELS, although I believe that I can prove that to be
incorrect. More truth might be that different people have varying amounts
of TENDENCY to be possessive. And often, people are possessive of PORTIONS
of an object... or another person. A small example of this theory can be
seen in the use of the word "my" in comments like... "I have to have my donut and coffee every morning" or "I didn't get my
lunch break". Each occurrence of "my" can be replaced with "a". Although these are near-subliminal examples, they are, indeed, tiny indicators of our possessive "nature". I'm not here to tell you whether possessiveness is good or bad... I'm just here to tell you its bad. :)
In other parts of this document, I have used two fictional characters named John and Mary to illustrate some examples of problems in dating and relationships. Let's use them again. Let's say that Mary, finds out one day... that she is polyamorous. In other words, she is capable of loving, or "being in love with" two or more men at a time. Notice I said "finds out one day". Keep in mind just how EASILY THAT could happen. Mary has had one lover at a time, or possibly just one lover... all her life so far. Then along comes Mike, and somehow, she magically finds herself in love with both John AND Mike. Its the first time its ever happened to her, and she had NO WAY of giving John any advanced notice that she was polyam, because she couldn't ever imagine such from herself. Now John, who was taught to "share" by his teachers and parents... is GLAD to share his woman with Mike, right? Yeah...you bet! And a monkey just flew out of my butt! REALLY! Onward... John, in his selfless nature, SHOULD think of Mary's happiness above his own. Actually, he should think of the TRUTH above EVERYTHING. He has every right to inform Mary of his truthful feelings about sharing Mary's time with Mike, and he has every right to voice his preferences to her, and he has every right to end relations with Mary if he feels like doing so... although breaking off relations with Mary is a bit selfish, because Mary loves John, and will miss spending time with him... thus John is not looking out for Mary's happiness above his own. John does NOT have the right to try to control Mary's life, nor, once he has spoken his preferences, does he have the right to CONTINUE to take actions to convince her of something when it is deemed to be
harassing by Mary. Careful here! There is a VERY FINE LINE between
occasional romantic gestures (flowers, notes, convince-attempts) and
harassment/stalking. I've had personal experience in it! An innocent
flower with a note that says "I miss you!" under a windshield
wiper... can get you a restraining order in return. The quicker John can get a selfless attitude about Mary's split-love... the quicker John will
get over his broken heart and crushed self-esteem. It ALWAYS works! Again, easier said than done. Many of us have had broken hearts and crushed self-esteem. The stomach knot, the loneliness, the feeling of impending doom... definitely one of the least-enjoyable things in life. Selfless, selfless, selfless! John needs to get downright COCKY and PROUD of how he was able to "let" Mary run off on her "half-cocked little love-chasing adventure"! John stands tall and brags to his friends... "you know these gosh dern ladies these days... gotta cut 'em loose to keep 'em comin' back. Hell, I got more girl opportunities out there than I can shake my stick at... so heck, I let Mary run free and keep herself happy, ya know?"
Notice how John, by saying this to himself and those in his peer group, has put himself and Mary in more of a father/daughter light? AND... if John has convinced himself into actually BELIEVING this way, then John has become a highly noble, selfless, honorable, chivalrous man. Not bad for someone who started out with a broken heart and low self-esteem! Mary... TAKE NOTE! When it comes time to divvy up your free time between John and Mike, make sure you take a look at just how wonderful John really is. This man never shows an ounce of jealousy or possessiveness, though he DEARLY cherishes the hours he gets to be with you. Nobility is a highly sought-after trait, both in one's friends, and in one's self. Its rewards... the warm feeling of giving, the pride, the stardom within one's peer group, and the knowing that
Mary has NOW seen John's BEST attribute. If anyone around John is smart
enough to notice his selflessness... including Mary... then John will be looked up to as a wonderful person.
Yeah, right! Idealistic, you say? Yup! GOOD IDEAlistic! There are LOTS of people out there with LOTS of love and cuddling to give, and everyone could have everything at any time without any bullshit... if we dropped the plastics. It is SO hard to get lonely people in touch with other lonely people, so they won't be lonely anymore. Maybe the internet will fix this, maybe not. I suppose it doesn't matter WHICH medium we use to transmit our personal "image", if its bullshit, its bullshit. If its selfish, its selfish. And is it "human nature" to be a selfish bullshitter? Everyone's doing it... it must be normal. Normal is ok... it must be good! Good feels great... it must be right!
Top/Bottom
Pout
POUT, (often called hurt) is often a predecessor to anger. If Mary's pout is not addressed by John in short order, it will often turn into anger.
Anger will often turn into pout as well. If you've ever had a "heartache", you understand how pout (hurt) and anger can "share the stage" with each other. Mary's pout "demands" an apology from John, but this is the wrong approach. When John does not notice a pout condition in Mary, it is best for Mary to tell John that she has been hurt. This is because mis-understandings and lacks of communication are some of the most frequent causes of pout. Often, John says or does something that hurts Mary, and then fails to realize it caused hurt. Most times, the action was not meant in the way that Mary perceived it, and if Mary is not willing to point it out or ask John about it, the hurt will fester into anger. John will probably not understand why Mary is suddenly sad or angry. If it DOES turn to anger, and if John asks Mary why she is angry, Mary must GENTLY tell John of the offending action. Discussion and honesty will prevail, as always.
Top/Bottom
Sex
Sexual pressure and expectations have caused ALL the feelings listed above. Generally, it appears that most people draw the line between friendship and romance at the tongue. In other words, a kiss without tongue usage is a friendship kiss, and French kissing is romantic. This could vary widely and I'm far from an expert. A certain amount of physical contact is tolerated in a friendship, but touching key body parts or tongue kissing are viewed as romantics. I believe these lines can be carefully crossed if total honesty and consideration is used, and if both partners are following their feelings and WANT to pursue sex. The thought that two people will kill a friendship if they have sex together, is truly outdated. Two friends who are totally honest, and considerate of the others wishes and feelings, can have a wonderful, sorta part-time sexual relationship. Both partners will bask in the security of knowing that no one "expects" more or less than the other's TRUE FEELINGS, and if sex "fails" one night, the reason will be understood and the friendship will never be in jeopardy. Some may say this theory is too idealistic and because of the pressures to "perform", along with jealousy and envy, the system cannot work. But understand that when TOTAL HONESTY OF FEELINGS happens between two people, along with total honesty to each one's self, the partnership becomes very, very strong. Most couples can never reach this level of trust with each other, because somewhere along the line, a breakdown in communications takes place. Both partners begin a never-ending nightmare of hiding true feelings from each other, usually using excuses such as "I don't talk to him/her about that because it would hurt his/her feelings." So each live in a shroud of secrets, and nobody know's anyone's true feelings toward each other or toward a situation. Yet, my small survey group all seem to agree that sex is best when no one is hiding ANYTHING from their partners, when the partners can talk about anything with one another, including their sexual desires. To me, this sounds like sex between two very close and dear friends, doesn't it? The quicker we, as a society, drop this notion that friends can't be lovers, we will all be better off. Maybe what we should be saying to ourselves is... that a totally trusting friendship should be solidly in place before we consider sexual relations. As with many of the problems couples deal with these days, sex problems often arise from dis-satisfaction, feelings of inadequacy, and fear of hurting the other's feelings. Sex works best when the two partners can trust each other totally, and both will NEVER "use" sexual failures as a weapon. Sexual failures between two totally sincere partners, is ALWAYS understood by both to be a sometimes-unexplainable circumstance which need only be discussed if one partner or the other wishes to do so.
Top/Bottom
Tact
Tact: (Webster's definition)
1. Orig., the sense of touch.
2. Delicate perception of the right thing to say or do without offending;
Skill in dealing with people.
3. Delicate sensitivity, especially in aesthetics.
Tact implies the skill in dealing with people or difficult situations of one who has a quick and delicate sense of what is fitting and thus avoids giving offense.
Tact may be one of the most complicated and troublesome actions to ever be dealt with by human beings. Related subjects include ethics, diplomacy, poise, love, honesty, humanism, as well as a thousand more. This writer was never much for using tact, and so, I apologize if I offend anyone by my bias toward avoidance of using tact. Now that I've tactfully covered my ass, we can move on.
Since I'm the one doing the writing here, I will explain my feelings on this subject. (Maybe that's what writers are "supposed" to do, yes?) Too bad I can't hear all my reader's opinions about tact... I'm sure there
are many things that I'm not taking into consideration. After all, tact is a VERY large subject. Tact is used often in the world these days, for
all sorts of situations and reasons. I can't cover them all, and I'm not
sure I need to. No matter when and where tact is used, it still seems to be the same action. What DOES vary widely is the motivation and reason for the use of tact. I believe there are three main types of tact motivation (reason for using tact). They are: human caring (hc), self serving (ss), and the grey area (ga).
Reasons for tact usage:
HUMAN CARING (hc): This type of tact reasoning could also be called
"true tact", though it is FAR from truth in most cases. There IS nobility and honor in using this type of tact... which often overrides the user's need for self-honesty. (nasty sentence, eh?) To explain it further,
let's go back to our friends John and Mary. Let's say that John decides
that he wants to take an offramp (see offramps). In other words, he wants
to try life without Mary, at least for awhile. John WANTS to be able to go
to Mary and tell her just that. And... he would like her to understand and
wish him luck, and be happy for him. But if Mary has a (over-)sensitive
heart, she will be hurt. If John knows how sensitive Mary is, and he will,
then John will start devising a "tactful" way to tell Mary his true feelings. At this point, John is lying to himself, because he is doing something that he really feels he shouldn't have to. He says to himself "I'll do it for Mary... because I care about her." In this line, he has intentionally overridden any wants he might have to be self-honest. But if he WANTS to use tact when he breaks the news to Mary, then has he been self-dishonest? Now, does he WANT to be tactful to Mary so he doesn't have to deal with Mary's emotional reaction? Or does he want to be tactful because he thinks he can come up with a way to be self-truthful AND lessen Mary's emotional reactions? Is it ALL for Mary's benefit? Is it to keep the peace? Is it so he "doesn't have to hear it"? Are Mary's feelings worth John coming up with a blatant lie about his "real" intentions. After all, I think Mary will figure out what John's "real" intentions are, once she realizes that he's 3 months late for dinner. Maybe John WANTS Mary to explode emotionally so it makes his leaving easier on him... or her. Is a mad Mary better than a sad Mary? Better for who? Is John a liar if he doesn't reveal his EXACT intentions? How exact should he be? In who's opinion?
As you can see, we got lost in the grey area (ga). We have come back to the
classic battle between GOOD and RIGHT. In most cases, John would prefer to
be able to tell Mary the straight truth, and Mary would smilingly understand
and send John off with a warm kiss and hug, saying "stay in touch if ya can". To John, this is GOOD, and it would also be RIGHT if John and Mary had a "honesty above all" type of relationship. Unfortunately, there aren't too many of those to be found these days. So John probably will think using a bit of tact with Mary is the RIGHT thing to do. And with so many people these days... RIGHT = GOOD and GOOD = RIGHT. But we sometimes forget that RIGHT is often GOOD sprinkled with bullshit or ass-kissing. (They're one in the same, aren't they?) Ok, I guess ass-kissing isn't always bullshit... not until un-true statements or actions are made. And I guess true statements or actions are called compliments if they are viewed positively, and are called reprimands or "slams" if negatively viewed. Weird, eh? (see Embellishing)
SELF SERVING (ss): This is the type of tact used most often by corporate
embellishment (I mean marketing) departments. Maybe I shouldn't use the
word "embellish" here, as Webster's definition of that word includes the line "often fictitious in nature". "OFTEN" doesn't mean MORE THAN HALF THE TIME... that's "MOST OFTEN". Get me a statistician, quick!
There are numerous other types of self serving tact... but they can all be
grouped into one main type... SELF SERVING! So all in all, only two types
of ss tact exist... one for money or status, and one for ALL other reasons.
We still come back to the honesty question, somehow. And there's no need to
discuss the honesty part, because its the exact same process and questions
revealed in the HUMAN CARING (hc) paragraph above (remember the gray area?).
The use of flowering, embellishment, disguises, half-truths, withheld info,
bull-shitting, ass-kissing, marketing ploys, subliminal advertising,as well
as the famous outright lie, are all potential viewing grounds for ss tact.
Greed, status, insecurity, and probably 400,000 other reasons... are the
motivations. What's good? What's right? What's good AND right? What's
neither? Should we turn to our religion to guide our good vs right decision
making? How about what our parents have taught us? What about those pesky state and federal laws... and the school board and PTA? Scouting? Maybe you could ask your friends... they're sure to know what's good and what's right, and the difference between the two. Does that opinion agree with my brain? Does it agree with Salesman Stan's opinion? What about the feelings of my own heart? Who was it that taught my heart to feel those things? Do others' hearts agree with mine? Who taught my brain to apply this certain style of logic to this question? Do other peoples' brains agree with mine? Is there money to be made here?
Whew! Nasty, eh? Christmas is on the horizon as I write this. It's one of many holidays that, even if you don't claim to be Christian, you party along with the rest of the gang. Its that "right thing to do" time of the year, when folks often show love via the giving of gifts to "loved
ones". Christmas is the time of year that I get my best research done. If you take a moment to watch people during a holiday season, you'll see heart strings getting tangled in tact engines, and human vulnerabilities
beyond belief. Most of you know what I'm talking about, and the rest of you
can go and start whining about how much Christmas is going to cost you
THIS year. These are those who never have a holiday feeling other than...
"What a fuckin' hassle the holidays are". We are now going to talk about the other group... those who have AT LEAST noticed a "feeling" during a holiday period. Those of you who are in this group know about holiday feelings... and understand why holidays are good observation times for viewing humanistics. (Is that a word?) As you watch other humans doing their good/right/tact dance, you will find yourself travelling through the emotions felt by the person you're watching... because, as observers, we try to relate their feelings and actions to our own... and we end up doing much SELF-OBSERVING. In my other writings, you may have heard me mention "mirror duty", which is what is done when you ask a friend "How do I look?" or "Did I act stupid back there?". Its much more complicated than this example, but generally, mirror duty is when you ask a friend to tell you if at ANYTIME... you have a booger hanging out of your nose. (I'm alluding... read the book!) Observing other humans is an interesting way to get mirror duty from a total stranger, without making contact at all. My natural want to relate other people's actions to my own, gives me a very clear view on why I do certain actions or say certain things. And somewhere along in your people-watching, you may come to a conclusion. This conclusion, if it is as powerful with you as it was with me, will affect ALL of the good/right decisions you make for the rest of your life!
(So, I bet you want to know what that conclusion is, eh?)
The conclusion is... that just because something is NORMAL... it DOESN'T
mean that it is GOOD or RIGHT or BOTH. Heard that before, have ya?
HERDING... a term used in cattle ranching, could apply quite easily to the human race. Herding animals tend to follow each other, for lack of
individual initiative or for the "safety in numbers" thing, or for many other reasons, including maybe, stupidity. That's why someone invented
shepherds... because if one sheep walked off a cliff, they'd probably all follow. When people need to make a good/right/tact decision of some kind, they base their decision on all information available... which could come from MANY sources. Sources of guidance could include their heart (feelings), their mind (logic), their parents will, their friends will, the situation's environment, and... WHATEVER MOST PEOPLE WOULD DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS! In other words... what a "normal" person might do. Do you see where this is headed? SO MANY TIMES we compare ourselves and our decisions and situations to what is "normal". But remember that what is NORMAL... may not be GOOD or RIGHT or BOTH for YOU. And don't forget that YOUR religion or beliefs will RARELY match others'. And your
parents and upbringing was like nobody else's... and your experience and knowledge differ, and you look different and smell different, and live different... so why do we turn to others to help us make decisions? Is it a tactful thing to do?
Do you know where we are right now? That's good... the gray area! The third sub-category of this whole tact thing... is where BOTH of the other areas (human caring and self serving) lead to. Just because I write about these things... doesn't mean I have any answers. I believe there is no one single place to look for guidance on using tact, or information about making decisions involving WHAT IS good, and WHAT IS right. I have tried such advice as "put yourself in THEIR shoes" and "most people would do this or that"... it never applies to all situations. Diplomats (diplomat is derived from diplomacy which is skill at dealing with humans) use a balance of ass-kissing and bull-shitting in their roles, as do salesmen. Some will argue that they are just showing proper respect. Can one respectfully and tactfully bull-shit? My girlfriend recently reminded me that I hurt her when I lie to her, and I hurt her with the truth about my feelings. She doesn't want me to bullshit her, but be tactful and respectful... but don't kiss her ass... and asks why I'm always hurting her feelings... and wonders why I'm sometimes unkind... although she prefers me not to "flower" the things I say to her. Should I be confused?
My advice? Try to remember that just because MOST of the people do something a certain way, doesn't mean that it's good or right.
Top/Bottom
Tolerance
TOLERANCE is loosely defined as the ability to accept views, practices, beliefs, etc. of others that differ from one's own. It might also be defined as "acceptable incompatibilities." Unappealing traits in one partner, as viewed by the other partner, necessitates tolerance. Early
in a relationship, both partners tend to overlook unappealing traits in each
other, because both are often "caught up" in the newness of the relationship. Passion is at its high point, and unfortunately, logic is at its low point. Let's tangent off, as I SO love to do.
I am far from a worldly scholar, and I cringe when I think of the damage I could inflict on another human by giving them the wrong advice. That's why I disclaimer my butt off early in this guide, and that STILL isn't enough to make me stop worrying about hurting someone. But I can't stop writing about what I believe in, or believe to be true. So now, I want to reluctantly and clumsily comment on some human psychology traits which, in my opinion, apply to relationships.
It APPEARS that women have a (natural?) tendency to want to "play out" roles similar to those found in those dashing, daring romance novels. Guess what ladies... men do too... they just don't read romance novels as much as the ladies. Oh... you can tell, eh? Yeah, men are not the most romantic creatures in the world, are they? Many men think it is un-macho to be too romantic. A man will RARELY tell another man about his romantics, or he will be verbally pummeled, and viewed, or at least feel as though he is being viewed... unmacho. This seems terrible, and most women I've polled have said they prefer a man who can be BOTH ways, macho AND tender. But men rarely show tender, because its unmacho or unmanly. This is slowly changing, as women become more macho and men more tender. But due
to a man's physical size difference, men will probably always be viewed as the more macho gender. So, whether it be social pressure, physical size, or
natural feelings, men will generally "play the role" of men, and women will generally play the role of women. There are SO MANY factors which have affects on human thinking, that I could not even start to address them all here. We are individuals, yet we are all the same, yet we can be categorized, yet we're unpredictable, yet predictable, yet isolated, etc. There is NO sure-fire way to predict someone's actions or reactions, and I will not try. But, to get back to the point here, women have come to enjoy being dominated or "swept away" to a degree. (I can just hear the women screaming bloody murder right now!) Ok, I'm stereotyping, deal with it. And in the same breath, I will say that men tend to try to deal with women as if they were a trophy bass that a fishermen hangs on his wall with pride. To a man, pride is important to machoism, because men need to look manly in the eyes of his fellow men. "Landing" a good women, for whatever reason, is a duty that men have bestowed upon themselves... to fulfill their machoism requirements. It is much like a "woman-landing" merit badge. (See Scouting! RCD 6 only!)
So now that I've stereotyped both genders, both should hate me equally. Good. Let's go on! Women have the need for both a secure, loving, warm,
family-type relationship with a man, AND a dashing, daring, dark, swept-
away-in-the-night-type adventure lover. There's nothing wrong with this,
and again, men have the same wants. Men only SAY they don't need security,
because it is unmacho to have a need for security. "Oh... the little boy needs his mommy so he's not scared of the dark." Well I'm one man here to tell you ladies that yes, us men sometimes DO need our mommies to keep us from being scared of the dark. But men are under all sorts of
(self-inflicted?) pressure to be courageous and tough, and it is VERY
difficult for men to let their true feelings show, ESPECIALLY in the presence of another man. This causes women to RARELY know what their new
boyfriend is TRULY like, until much later in the relationship, and often,
never at all. Women, on the other hand, are under the very same
(self-inflicted?) pressure as men, just in a different "flavor".
Women feel a need to "land" a man too, and they need to feel prideful about their "catch" in the eyes of their friends. But generally, women are much less driven by the macho thing, and they tend to let their need for security show a bit more than the men. This is why women are generally more honest than men. One could believe that this is the great gender equalizer... i.e. women have the extra hassle of periods and baby delivery pain, and men have the extra hassle of the multitude of ways machoism keeps him bullshitting himself and others. But since the women have less need to bullshit, the men have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting the truth when he asks "Where do I stand with you."
Everyone I polled believes that a man is more likely to lie than a woman. This puts the man in a less scrupulous light, and thus, it is left to the woman to "lay down the law" as far as what is "proper" or "right" behavior for BOTH partners in a relationship. Women often feel men need to be controlled, for men are the most lying, cheating, mean-mistreating slugs that ever crawled the face of the Earth. Women enjoy being able to lay down the law for their men, and they accept that extra duty willingly. I suppose it could be another way for a woman to feel needed by her man. For whatever reason, this is often the case. But by doing this, women have taken on yet another HUGE responsibility, and that is having to
establish "laws" for what is proper, right, moral, sound, upstanding, valid, allowable, and tolerable. Men generally allow a woman to play that role in their lives, and will often lie to themselves or to their
partner to assure her that he will abide by her rulings. Ladies... go back RIGHT NOW and read that sentence again! NOW! Women have established a general belief that men are "sleaze-bags", and women KNOW that men are likely to lie, so why are women convinced that the morals and standards they have set forth for their man, will be adhered to? Where do the ladies get their ideals for what is "proper behavior"? Well, their primary source is from other women... often mom, or Sally Jesse, or their peer group. Yet if women have lied to themselves in believing that men will voluntarily live up to their standards, then the lie is just passed down, generation to generation, and men will always be the way they are, and women will always be the way they are. But the divorce rates say differently. Men are slowly becoming less independent, and women are becoming more independent. Men are beginning to be able to say "Hey, I have wants to be with many women, and I don't think I'm going to be able to live up to your moral standards!" And women are beginning to be able to say "Hey, I guess I have wants to be with many men too, so I guess I can't expect my man to live up to my moral standards!" Holy shit, this sounds a whole lot like honesty! Hell, women have a hard time living up to the standards that other WOMEN put on them... like mom, and friends! And men have a hard time living up to the standards that other MEN put on them... like dad, and friends! None of us need extra moral standards to try to live up to. We just need to be able to tell our partners ANYTHING, whether its a want to be with another, or whatever. That way, we can ALL try to live up to our PERSONAL moral standards only. This is where the need to establish one's own moral standards comes into play. And this is where the adage...
"To thine own self be true!"
...becomes so very important. Your author LIVES and BREATHES by those six simple words. Every human needs to set standards for themselves... or else we won't be living our own lives. This is not to say that a person cannot have similar moral standards as another. But each person must establish their own. Establishing your own moral standards is a very difficult task. We immediately go searching for information on the subject, usually by talking to others about it, and/or remembering actions taken by friends or family members, and/or using religious guidance, and/or looking deeply into our own heart. Their are millions of other contributing factors in self-establishing self-morals, most of which can be found in one's own heart.
To tangent off of a tangent, I must heavily comment on the phrase...
"The battle between what's GOOD, and what's RIGHT"
In my experience in attempting to apply this to real life situations, I have generally come to the conclusion that this is also the battle between heart and brain. Logic, which tends to be a product of the brain, is a reality-based phenomenon, and is used to establish what is and isn't RIGHT. Love, which tends to be a product of the heart, is a fantasy-based phenomenon, and is used to establish what is and isn't GOOD! Yes, this may be over-simplifying, too bad, deal with it. So, the battle between what is good and what is right, comes down to a battle between heart and brain. A true "want" is a feeling that needs to be acceptable to both heart and brain. A "want" needs to be desirable, or in other words, something that is GOOD. It also needs to be morally OK or RIGHT. If the brain says its OK, and the heart says it's desirable, then the "want" can exist. Guilt from an action happens when the heart has overridden the brain's logic reasoning, or when the brain has overridden the heart's loving reasoning. An example might be the case of "cheating spouses". The brain might have been intentionally ignored as the heart was followed more dominantly than the brain. In an attempt to illustrate how the brain can override the heart, a person may keep theirself from following a love desire, because "they know better" than to get
involved with this or that person. The brain just says "It would never be RIGHT with that person". I really have no advice on balancing GOOD and RIGHT. It is something that is best left up to each individual. I am only trying to illustrate how it can be applied to real life situations. What I HAVE found, is that when men establish personal standards, by analyzing what's good and right for them, and when women do the same, the two end results are often drastically different. Men generally think its OK to spend time with many different women, and women generally think that this is NOT OK. Again, there are many exceptions to this rule, on both sides... but the majorities say this is true. Therefore, there is a need for tolerance between men and women. A man has to be willing to tolerate her WANT to have him exclusively, and a woman has to be willing to tolerate his WANT to be with other women. That doesn't mean that either HAS TO impose such rules or lack of rules on each other. It just means that some sort of understanding would maybe help smooth the roads of their relationship. Women, if you try to impose rules that are too "strict" for what your man has established as morals for himself, you are asking for a lie. Men, if you go too far beyond your woman's "preferences" for "proper" conduct with other women, you are asking for a massive loss of respect. You can see by those last two sentences, how a difference in moral standards will kill a relationship. So what do we do? The only two things we CAN do... we tolerate, or we are lonely. Most times, we lie to each other. It seems that we can convince ourselves to feel good and right about nearly ANYTHING, as long as our partner tells us its ok to do so. But rarely will a woman wholeheartedly trust her man, seeing men have this general reputation as being liars. And I've found that men generally trust their woman UNTIL the woman has had a few too many whiskey sours. At that time,
the man tends to become domineering and over-bearing, much the same way he
feels his woman is to him most other times. Again, there are always
exceptions. The AMOUNT of tolerance exhibited by both partners, versus
"throwing in the towel" on a relationship, is something that can only be determined by each individual involved, and the strength and nature
of the union of those two individuals. The strength and nature of a
relationship is totally based on any "agreement" that those two
individuals have made with each other, thus the relationship is established. I've found that the best starting agreement of any relationship is that neither individual lie to each other, thus never deceiving one another. Unfortunately, this is often impossible, because to be honest with a new partner, a person must display the bad traits as well as the good. Because of human nature, or lack of self-confidence, or for whatever reason, we tend not to display our weaknesses or shortcomings during the times when it is most important to impress our new-found partner. After all, we don't tell the trophy bass that we're trying to "land"... that our lure is artificial and has a string attached to it, do we? And once we hook onto that bass, it fights us all the way, and something always loses the battle.
Sometimes the fish, sometimes the fisherman... but always lost. Try to be honest with your new partner right away. You may find that your partner is willing to be honest in return, and a very deep and honesty-based relationship (mutual agreement) can be obtained right away... and both of you will always know where each stands.
Top/Bottom
TeeterTotter
TeeterTotter syndrome: Briefly, this is the balance between selflessness
and selfishness. People often SAY they are a "nice" person. It seems to me that whenever someone is questioned as to whether they consider
themselves to be a NICE person, a certain amount of weighing and comparing
goes on, as I suppose is the case with ALL decision making. There seems to be two prominent factors.
The first is FRIENDLINESS. This is simply the amount and conviction-level of outward appearance and interaction. More simply, it is how
"cordially" a person talks and acts around others... and it is RARELY based on feedback from others. SOMETIMES, if friends have "brought to light" ways that the person HAS NOT been nice in certain situations, then those "incident memories" might also be used to weigh a person's self-analysis of how nice he/she is. But mostly, the FRIENDLINESS amount and conviction-level of a person's self... is made based on THAT person's self-opinion... sometimes called "identity" or "self-image".
The second factor used in determinating one's self-niceness is MUCH more complicated. In simplest terms, it is best described as the amount and quality of "nice gestures" that someone does for OTHER people. Nice gestures can be ANYTHING; helping a friend move, changing a flat tire,
giving money to charities or desperate friends, letting a loser hang around, asking how someone is doing, jump-starting a stranger's car, etc.
Before we go on here, we have to talk about some terms that will affect our discussions. One is "inconvenience". Inconvenience is the act of "going out of one's way" to accomplish a task. The definition of
the word is fairly straight-forward, and the motivation (reason) for inconvenience is always TO GET THE TASK ACCOMPLISHED. The varied part of inconvenience comes from the person's "mind set" or attitude
toward it. Comments that show a person is evaluating their inconvenience
attitudes might include... "Ok, you owe me after all this" or
"Boy, I better be appreciated for this" or "I wish someone else would take care of this crap. They expect ME to do this, and what am I gonna get... just shit on!". Other's might include... (saying othing), or "I don't mind doing this at all" or "I enjoy doing this" or "I owe them" or "I would do just about anything for he/she/them" or "by doing this, they had BETTER do THIS or THAT in return". As you can see, there are many comments that people say that indicate the mind set of the inconvenience.
Another term we must look at is "obligation". Webster...
More to come soon! Stay tuned!
Top/Bottom
Bottom
OH... so you want to know what ever happened to John and Mary, eh? They both have a SPECIAL love for each other, where Mary's devotion lies in making sure that John is happy, and is always free to leave her and follow any path, and she will always keep a place in her heart for him, and will never be angry with him for ANYTHING other than intentionally hurting her... which John would NEVER do. Because John feels the same way about Mary, and would never hurt or lie to Mary, for he has no reason to. He knows Mary understands everything, because they have talked about everything, and they are both proud to love each other, no matter what each other's faults and preferences are. Maybe there IS such a thing as a happy ending.
None of this is hardened law or good advice. This is just a documentation of my observances of my small world.
Copyright (c) 1994 Larry "Wingnut" Wendlandt
(Copyrighted... but only for proudness! Please re-publish this work as much as you like, with no need to send any money. Just keep my name on it! Non-commercial use only.)
Top
Wingy's Home Page
I always highly welcome comments to my writings. Please feel free to drop me a line, for a quick comment, or a full-blown debate if I have time.
* Send a comment to Wingy *