Splinterings
Nov. 9th, 2005 12:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksThoughts and opinions wanted specifically, once more.
The background is this: Meghan and I are talking once more, again wrestling with the whole dating bit; I can't bear to be misunderstood. We finally get to a point where she seems to understand that, yes, I like her and, yes, I would want to date her but, no, I really have no confidence in whether it would work or not and, no, I can't really say what it is that seems to be 'missing.' The following, well, followed. (My commentary will be set apart; there are things here I can't not comment on.)
[22:00] Meghan: *sigh* but there is another little bit, that I guess is a bit of the root of some of my worries. Because I feel like I've talked an unwilling man into this, and because of that, he will easily drop the idea if faced with a challenge / demand / request.
[22:02] Meghan: but if that request isn't met, then . . . well . . . that's going to make things very hard, if not end it all together.
Another little bit that I keep trying to impress on her is that I never under any circumstances do anything unwillingly; if I really didn't want to do something, I wouldn't do it, and nothing that could be said would change that. She says she understands this, but her behavior doesn't follow suit. I also tell her not to worry, because it's beyond foolish to worry over something that should be a support for you, but she doesn't seem to pay any mind to that, either.
[22:03] Andrew: And what demand would you make of me?
[22:04] Meghan: well, it echoes back to a conversation that we had a long while ago back in March. About friends.
[22:04] Andrew: Mmm?
I don't appreciate demands being made of me, and anything which deals with my friends, especially when noted from a potentially-romantic context, is highly suspect.
[22:05] Meghan: do you remember when you were going to come to my house for the afternoon, and then my dad canceled our plans?
[22:05] Andrew: Aye, I think so.
[22:06] Meghan: Well, if you want to date me, then you are going to have to convince my dad, as well as reassure me, as to the exclusiveness of our relationship.
[22:07] Andrew: -laughs- You mean that I won't be dating anyone else?
This was amusing not only for the supremely ridiculous idea that I might try to date two girls at once (I can hardly handle then 1-on-1, let along in groups!), but also in the ridiculousness of 'convincing' someone of noble intentions; if you don't trust someone, nothing they say will make a difference, and if you do trust them, they shouldn't have to say anything at all.
[22:07] Meghan: That is not at all to say that you can't have other friends who are girls.
[22:08] Andrew: I should hope not. You'd never get that.
Authors call this foreshadowing.
[22:08] Meghan: well, yeah. Though, I know that you wouldn't be doing that, but rather not anything that would be like going on a date with them.
[22:09] Andrew: And how might one define a date? Would you deny me having dinner with Leslie?
I always use Leslie as an example; she's like the penultimate Platonic friend, because everyone (except Mr. Blandin) knows that there'd never be anything between us. This is a rhetorical tactic; once she says "of course not," as Leslie is one of my best buddies and there's nothing between us -- once that is stated, I move to Claire, my first love who is now a good friend but, assuredly, not a romantic possibility. Once it's established that having dinner with Claire is allowed, the question becomes what is disallowed? It never gets that far, you'll see.
[22:12] Meghan: Well, people usually define dates as going out alone with a member of the opposite sex for social purposes. (I gave up trying to convince my dad that our own friendly outing were not dates. Even Steph has declared such outing as in the same genus as dates, just a different species as a romantic date)
The double-standard hinted at here is almost enough to set one aflame; it doesn't yet become apparent, or it didn't to me.
[22:16] Meghan: Personally, I don't really think that I would have that much of a problem with you getting together with Leslie, you've never been interested in her at all. Though . . .
[22:19] Meghan: is it not any occasion of any kind of temptation at all to be alone with one who is not the person to whom you have made a commitment of some kind to? Would you want you girlfriend, or your wife to go out to dinner with another man? Even if you knew that you could completely trust her? Would you like it? Particularly if he was someone whom she used to really like, or date, or if they liked her?
[22:21] Andrew: Would I want her to? Yes. If this man was a good friend of hers, I would insist she see him, regardless of if they had been romantic before. I'd want to know him myself, as I think it's important that couple share their circles of friends. But if she's with me, she's with me by choice, and I trust her to do the right thing. If I keep her from seeing people, how free and willing is that?
[22:22] Andrew: It would hurt if she were unfaithful or if she left me, but I'd rather a painful truth than a happy lie.
Really, this is the crux of the whole situation.
[22:23] Meghan: The way I was raised says that is just simply isn't proper
[22:24] Andrew: The way you were raised, I believe, would deny me 85% of my friends, remember?
Point of fact: 85-95% of all my friends are girls; I can count my guy-friends on one hand, and most of them are rather loose friendships. Meghan's father doesn't believe that guys and girls can (or maybe it's just "should") be friends, which is why, as noted before, he canceled our plans' -- I was supposed to go over to her house for dinner before a dance at Christendom.
[22:25] Meghan: that you wouldn't certainly know the other male friend, and that she certainly shouldn't have to give up her friends, but that the three of them should all spend time together, or she should at least go visiting with her friends in a group, or something like that, not she and the other man out alone.
[22:26] Andrew: -shakes head- And I don't see why not. If she were to be a serpent, she'd find some other way to do it, regardless.
[22:27] Meghan: it's not because you need to keep an eye on her, but it is done out of difference and respect to you.
[22:28] Andrew: IF it's done out of respect for me, then I need not mandate it.
[22:28] Andrew: She's free to do as she will.
[22:29] Andrew: But even at that, I don't think that her seeing friends, however she chooses to do it, is disrespectful to me.
[22:29] Meghan: It acknowledges that you are her boyfriend or husband, that she belongs to you.
Here is where I become infuriated.
[22:29] Andrew: She doesn't.
[22:30] Andrew: She is a friend and a companion and a dear one; she is not property, is not owned, and does not 'belong' to me.
[22:30] Meghan: okay, perhaps belongs isn't really the right word, but rather that the two of you are one.
[22:31] Andrew: Then I fail to see the reasoning behind it.
[22:31] Meghan: hmm?
[22:31] Andrew: What does how she interacts with her friends have to do with our relationship?
[22:36] Meghan: It is the way that she interacts with other men. You should be the primary man in her life, the one that is closest to her, the one she leans on when she needs you, you should be more important that any other man in her life. You also have privileges of always being first, with her time, love, support, and affection. You should be more important to her than anyone else. You should be her primary source of all that she needs from a man in her life.
I didn't get to respond to this, as I got a phone call about here, and when I got back she and I agreed that we should go to bed; she was up to late, and I had little inclination to continue the conversation (though I just said I was tired; no need to unduly upset her before bed). The response would have been about the same as above: I fail to see how being 'more important' or 'having privledges' means I should deny her access to her friends. If it's to be this way, let it be by her own will, I'll not mandate it. This sounds even more like the "she belongs to you" philosophy, having 'rights' to my 'property', and that infuriates me to no end. It just... argh!
The bit about friends is one of the bits that can make or break a romance for me. I will not have someone dictate to me who I can or can not be friends with, or how I should conduct those friendships. Friends are the family you choose for yourself; few things are quite as personal.
And I'll leave off here, and I've rather little more to say intelligibly, and I should look into getting some sleep, anyways.
The background is this: Meghan and I are talking once more, again wrestling with the whole dating bit; I can't bear to be misunderstood. We finally get to a point where she seems to understand that, yes, I like her and, yes, I would want to date her but, no, I really have no confidence in whether it would work or not and, no, I can't really say what it is that seems to be 'missing.' The following, well, followed. (My commentary will be set apart; there are things here I can't not comment on.)
[22:00] Meghan: *sigh* but there is another little bit, that I guess is a bit of the root of some of my worries. Because I feel like I've talked an unwilling man into this, and because of that, he will easily drop the idea if faced with a challenge / demand / request.
[22:02] Meghan: but if that request isn't met, then . . . well . . . that's going to make things very hard, if not end it all together.
Another little bit that I keep trying to impress on her is that I never under any circumstances do anything unwillingly; if I really didn't want to do something, I wouldn't do it, and nothing that could be said would change that. She says she understands this, but her behavior doesn't follow suit. I also tell her not to worry, because it's beyond foolish to worry over something that should be a support for you, but she doesn't seem to pay any mind to that, either.
[22:03] Andrew: And what demand would you make of me?
[22:04] Meghan: well, it echoes back to a conversation that we had a long while ago back in March. About friends.
[22:04] Andrew: Mmm?
I don't appreciate demands being made of me, and anything which deals with my friends, especially when noted from a potentially-romantic context, is highly suspect.
[22:05] Meghan: do you remember when you were going to come to my house for the afternoon, and then my dad canceled our plans?
[22:05] Andrew: Aye, I think so.
[22:06] Meghan: Well, if you want to date me, then you are going to have to convince my dad, as well as reassure me, as to the exclusiveness of our relationship.
[22:07] Andrew: -laughs- You mean that I won't be dating anyone else?
This was amusing not only for the supremely ridiculous idea that I might try to date two girls at once (I can hardly handle then 1-on-1, let along in groups!), but also in the ridiculousness of 'convincing' someone of noble intentions; if you don't trust someone, nothing they say will make a difference, and if you do trust them, they shouldn't have to say anything at all.
[22:07] Meghan: That is not at all to say that you can't have other friends who are girls.
[22:08] Andrew: I should hope not. You'd never get that.
Authors call this foreshadowing.
[22:08] Meghan: well, yeah. Though, I know that you wouldn't be doing that, but rather not anything that would be like going on a date with them.
[22:09] Andrew: And how might one define a date? Would you deny me having dinner with Leslie?
I always use Leslie as an example; she's like the penultimate Platonic friend, because everyone (except Mr. Blandin) knows that there'd never be anything between us. This is a rhetorical tactic; once she says "of course not," as Leslie is one of my best buddies and there's nothing between us -- once that is stated, I move to Claire, my first love who is now a good friend but, assuredly, not a romantic possibility. Once it's established that having dinner with Claire is allowed, the question becomes what is disallowed? It never gets that far, you'll see.
[22:12] Meghan: Well, people usually define dates as going out alone with a member of the opposite sex for social purposes. (I gave up trying to convince my dad that our own friendly outing were not dates. Even Steph has declared such outing as in the same genus as dates, just a different species as a romantic date)
The double-standard hinted at here is almost enough to set one aflame; it doesn't yet become apparent, or it didn't to me.
[22:16] Meghan: Personally, I don't really think that I would have that much of a problem with you getting together with Leslie, you've never been interested in her at all. Though . . .
[22:19] Meghan: is it not any occasion of any kind of temptation at all to be alone with one who is not the person to whom you have made a commitment of some kind to? Would you want you girlfriend, or your wife to go out to dinner with another man? Even if you knew that you could completely trust her? Would you like it? Particularly if he was someone whom she used to really like, or date, or if they liked her?
[22:21] Andrew: Would I want her to? Yes. If this man was a good friend of hers, I would insist she see him, regardless of if they had been romantic before. I'd want to know him myself, as I think it's important that couple share their circles of friends. But if she's with me, she's with me by choice, and I trust her to do the right thing. If I keep her from seeing people, how free and willing is that?
[22:22] Andrew: It would hurt if she were unfaithful or if she left me, but I'd rather a painful truth than a happy lie.
Really, this is the crux of the whole situation.
[22:23] Meghan: The way I was raised says that is just simply isn't proper
[22:24] Andrew: The way you were raised, I believe, would deny me 85% of my friends, remember?
Point of fact: 85-95% of all my friends are girls; I can count my guy-friends on one hand, and most of them are rather loose friendships. Meghan's father doesn't believe that guys and girls can (or maybe it's just "should") be friends, which is why, as noted before, he canceled our plans' -- I was supposed to go over to her house for dinner before a dance at Christendom.
[22:25] Meghan: that you wouldn't certainly know the other male friend, and that she certainly shouldn't have to give up her friends, but that the three of them should all spend time together, or she should at least go visiting with her friends in a group, or something like that, not she and the other man out alone.
[22:26] Andrew: -shakes head- And I don't see why not. If she were to be a serpent, she'd find some other way to do it, regardless.
[22:27] Meghan: it's not because you need to keep an eye on her, but it is done out of difference and respect to you.
[22:28] Andrew: IF it's done out of respect for me, then I need not mandate it.
[22:28] Andrew: She's free to do as she will.
[22:29] Andrew: But even at that, I don't think that her seeing friends, however she chooses to do it, is disrespectful to me.
[22:29] Meghan: It acknowledges that you are her boyfriend or husband, that she belongs to you.
Here is where I become infuriated.
[22:29] Andrew: She doesn't.
[22:30] Andrew: She is a friend and a companion and a dear one; she is not property, is not owned, and does not 'belong' to me.
[22:30] Meghan: okay, perhaps belongs isn't really the right word, but rather that the two of you are one.
[22:31] Andrew: Then I fail to see the reasoning behind it.
[22:31] Meghan: hmm?
[22:31] Andrew: What does how she interacts with her friends have to do with our relationship?
[22:36] Meghan: It is the way that she interacts with other men. You should be the primary man in her life, the one that is closest to her, the one she leans on when she needs you, you should be more important that any other man in her life. You also have privileges of always being first, with her time, love, support, and affection. You should be more important to her than anyone else. You should be her primary source of all that she needs from a man in her life.
I didn't get to respond to this, as I got a phone call about here, and when I got back she and I agreed that we should go to bed; she was up to late, and I had little inclination to continue the conversation (though I just said I was tired; no need to unduly upset her before bed). The response would have been about the same as above: I fail to see how being 'more important' or 'having privledges' means I should deny her access to her friends. If it's to be this way, let it be by her own will, I'll not mandate it. This sounds even more like the "she belongs to you" philosophy, having 'rights' to my 'property', and that infuriates me to no end. It just... argh!
The bit about friends is one of the bits that can make or break a romance for me. I will not have someone dictate to me who I can or can not be friends with, or how I should conduct those friendships. Friends are the family you choose for yourself; few things are quite as personal.
And I'll leave off here, and I've rather little more to say intelligibly, and I should look into getting some sleep, anyways.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:16 am (UTC)Woah.
Date: 2005-11-09 01:21 pm (UTC)I'm totally with you on this one. I'm sorry this took such an unpleasant turn :( < hug >
1
Date: 2005-11-09 01:33 pm (UTC)I think the notion that going out with a friend of the appropriate sex, even alone, is a threat or "temptation" displays a deeply unreasonable understanding of relationships. A serious relationship (or even most frivolous ones, for that matter) shouldn't be primarily about some immediate attraction that needs to be carefully corralled (er... I would think that would be lust, now wouldn't it?). What's important to me about my relationship with M is not whether she does or does not ever feel attraction to other men or women. It would be irrational for me to expect a ring on her finger to magically turn off her biology and psychology. It would be even more unreasonable to expect her to stop enjoying being with male friends, etc., in a non-romantic manner. What's important is that we comport ourselves towards each other, and towards other folks, in a way that lets us keep the life we've been building together working. Sexual monogamy, in the sense of not sleeping with anyone else, not never ever ever being attracted to anyone else, is often an important part of that sort of thing - but you're right: forbidding someone to see people to whom they might be attracted isn't going to keep them faithful if they're not committed to it personally.
Now, there *is* something to be said for avoiding unnecessary temptation. If M and I were totally monogamous, it would be pretty reasonable to say, "hey, hey, now - no skinny dipping with the Swedish bikini team in the hot tub near the condom and oyster factory." So I could even *maybe* see there being a reason to be uncomfortable if, say, you were going to go watch DVDs alone at your ex's apartment and crash there for the night. But that's not the sort of thing you're talking about.
The deep problem I have with all of this is the model of (for lack of a better word) 'strong exclusivity' built in here. Even assuming monogamy, I think it'd be a rather stunted kind of relationship that would expect your partner to be the 'primary' person in your life in the way that the conversation implies. Yes, in some ways it would make sense to say that M was more important to me than other folks in my life. I wouldn't, e.g., make major career choices based on whether I'd be able to live near my other friends. But I'd balk at the formulation. Plenty of other people are important to me, and my life would be less rich without them. If M had asked me, as a condition of marrying her, to give up all my other friends, I'd not have done it. And I'm not about to try to set a substitution rate (how many other friends is M worth? 3? 4?). Relationships are incommensurable goods - they're good in different ways - and it's morally odious to rank-order them in any strong sense.
2
Date: 2005-11-09 01:33 pm (UTC)Anyway. /soapbox
Re: 2
Date: 2005-11-09 02:04 pm (UTC)Andrew, another point ... she seems to be having some trouble trusting you, without even giving you time to earn the trust, or to earn being untrustworthy. (Looks like she gets that from her Father.) You both should just step back a minute, think... have either of you done anything to cause a lack of trust? Probably not, so why cross that bridge now? Even if the relationship does not work out long term, it may be a good chance for you to teach her other aspects of trusting than what she has learned from her Dad.
Frankly, I would trust you more than I would trust her father, because this sort of response usually comes from being one who can't be trusted. You know, a liar thinks that everyone lies, a theif thinks that everyone steals .... He is assuming that you can't be trusted with other females, why is that? Because he can't be?
::shrugs::
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 06:27 pm (UTC)That having been said, I think I agree with every point you present here. (The only possible exception being, perhaps, that bit about 'auditioning for a life partner,' but that is itself a concept I would need to unpack and examine before I could say with any certainty: arguably, I think I recently went on a dinner date, followed by a walk on a beach, with a girl I knew I only had friend-type interest in.)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 08:46 pm (UTC)Now, I wouldn't at all want to defend Meghan's position here - but. The one thing that does seem notable is that if going out with a woman for dinner and a walk on the beach a) counts as a date for you and b) isn't much different from what you'd do with Meghan before your wedding night, then I can see how some confusions might set in. In particular, it might not be immediately obvious when some woman with whom you were hanging out as a friend crossed over into date territory, which would make problematic a rule that friends are OK, but dates aren't (seems to be part of what was going on maybe with her saying it was cool for you to have female friends, and then basically defining "female friend" in such a way that most of your friends aren't covered).
Not that that means you should change your views. Courtship is pretty much gone, so we've now got these ambient social categories of friend-date-marriage, where dates are distinguished from friendships (speaking loosely) by the smooching and from marriages by the level of exclusivity. Go away from that either way - whether it's by expanding marriage or constricting dating, and you're going to have to do more explaining about where you draw the line.
Hmm.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:33 pm (UTC)And yes, outwardly, there can be some confusion between 'friend' and 'girlfriend' in my world-view -- I openly admit it and, actually, I'm quite unsure what the difference is exactly, myself. This is the other bit of unpacking, I think. (As a general basis, I don't believe you can build a 'romance' without first having a 'friendship,' and it's my general inclination that a friendship holds more importance between the two, but there's a lot more unpacking that would go into a full analysis of that...)
But if this is a case, and the time I spend with my friends becomes suspect, then it is a matter of trust, which can be dealt with appropriately. I'm an honest, up-front, honorable man; I've no intentions of doing anything that would compromise that, and the time I spend with my friends is as friends and nothing more. If you can't trust me to hold to that then (1) you don't really know me, or understand how I function and (2) nothing can be said or done, no rule can be mandated, to improve the lack of trust; mandating rules of behavior don't improve trust, they just remove the possibility of fears coming to fruition.
RED FLAG! RED FLAG!
Date: 2005-11-09 03:26 pm (UTC)Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!!!!!!
Date: 2005-11-09 04:21 pm (UTC)Not to mention, I tend to let the claws come out a little bit when anyone threatens my friendships, so I'm going to go ahead and say...PSYCHO! I'm not talking Norman Bates, although that is a scarey kind of Pshyco. I'm talking Glen Close in "Fatal Attraction" pshycho (if you haven't seen it, rent it).
All of this causes me to say RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-10 02:58 am (UTC)Many things which should have been done have not been done out of fear of impropriety. The meeting fo a close friend should not be one of those things.
Though it may have been the case in, say, the 1800's that someone meeting with a member of the opposite sex was highly suspect, this is the frickin' 2000's, and society is alot more tolerant (in some cases, I would say too tolerant, but that's another subject).
It must be kept in mind that there are essentially two aspects to a meeting. The internal and the external. The internal being that which is perceived by those meeting, the external being that perceived by witnesses thereof. the more important, and the most True, of these two aspects is the internal. Regardless of appearences, if the meeting is internally non-romantic, then it is non-romantic.
However, alongside this, it must be said that appearences do affect society, like it or not. And so, a certain amount of awareness should be lent towards how a given meeting appears to the unbiased observer. No sense needlessly arousing the gossip mill.
All that aside, in this relationship in question, that is, the one between You and Meghan, there seems to be a lot of work that still needs to be done. Not to say that she is not the "right girl," simply that she is not fully prepared to be so.
I hold no such irrational, or fantastical, opinion that there is a "right girl," "soulmate," "one," or what have you. What I mean is that anyone can be the "right one," so long as a proper relationship exists between the two--that is, You and the "right one." This is something which can and, indeed, must be nutured and developed; there is no such thing as "love at first sight," nor even at second sight.
Some have said she has an unhealthy idea of what a "marriagescent" relationship is supposed be like; I just think she's not quite ready.
That said, I think, if your serious about this relationship, there's still more time that needs to be given for it to develop, and it'd be the best thing for you to do to just be patient and give it time.
So many thoughts....
Date: 2005-11-10 03:53 am (UTC)Shawn has a ton of friends who are girls, it is a natural thing. I have plenty of male friends. We try not to do much going out separatly because we enjoy being together and knowing eachothers friends, but that is not always possible.
I agree with you when you say if she/he is going to be unfaithful to you it will happen one way or another. I guess not going out with the oppisite sex may prevent the temptaion being their more often. But if you truly love one another(mutually) neither one of you would allow that to happen. Love is a chocie you have to make and you HAVE to work HARD at it in order for it to last. There definitly has to be trust. If there is none how do you know that the late night meeting at work is not an appropriate metting with a member of the oppisite sex. You have to be able to trust that it is not and that it never will be. If you have not even started dating and she is already nopt giving you the benifit of the doubt, then she is probably not the right person for you. That could be the very thing that you say is "missing". It is a sence that you get from her, there is probably a real reason you are having that feeling. I hope all that makes sense and helps.
Two cents for Andrew
Date: 2005-11-10 07:53 pm (UTC)From what I did gather, I'd say she's not--how do I put this--grounded in her perception of how life actually works?
She sounds very young. And very, very inexperienced.
Life is going to slap her one day and she's never going to see it coming.
I'd say, for your own sake, don't be that slap. Take that however you'd like.