Jekyll/Hyde

[jay]

A few realizations, today, largely unrelated.

For some combination of reasons, I've been depressed, almost despondent at times, since we got back Friday evening. And this has spun off my usual depression-parasitic reactions... increased insecurity, defiance, self-putdowns, clingyness. Strangely, my spirits were hugely lifted in a Krispy Kreme shop tonight when the counter guy handed me a warm doughnut... "you look like you could use this." Not on my waistline, perhaps, but that little act of kindness brought me out of a funk. Thankfully, my down periods rarely persist for more than a few days, and soon I'll be back at work (which tends to drag me out of a hole).

At work I feel in charge of myself, competent, capable and I have a track record of accomplishments. Self-confidence. I know my value, and can measure my past impact in a couple of fields. And I enjoy it -- I feel passionately about what I do, and learn. All of those things collude to bring me up and make me fully-functional again.

Personally or socially... I feel adrift, incompetent, and fairly unattractive. Like I have no accomplishments, and nothing much to offer personally. Left idle at home, or without positive external social reinforcement, I'll tend to damp down and gnaw on myself. And I'm not fishing for compliments here... I'm stating my mindset, whether or not it matches reality. One reason that I avoid planning a social calendar during the workweek is that subconsciously I associate it with this mindset. Brian-the-scientist doesn't want to think about turning back into Brian-the-geek, come Friday evening, or the possibilities for failure and rejection therein. Kind of a Jekyll/Hyde flip... and at the same time, I feel internally compelled to go out and find friends and be social. I can't just hide away until Monday morning.

Another realization, coming out of a 2-hour-long chat with my dear friend EA, is that my courting behaviors, manners, and attitudes are much closer to what girls are apparently taught than boys. I wait for the other person to make the first move. I dislike pursuing... I worry about harrassing or annoying women if I show much interest. I'd much rather wait until someone shows some signs of interest, then reciprocate. All of my five past-and-present sweeties kissed me first, probably after running out of patience (wry smile). patgreene claims that I moved first, but she's wrong ;-).

The same thing is true of casual touching... even with partners or close friends. I don't want to seem forward, or make the other person uncomfortable. I almost never reach for anyone. If someone takes my hand, fine, then I can safely assume that that level of touch is welcomed from then onward. But if I touch a woman who doesn't want my touch, I'm a bad person, a boor.

Even in the bedroom... I'm reluctant to be demanding or to impose anything on my partners... so I don't approach my partners unless they first seem interested themselves. Even if I'm really frustrated, myself. Unless I'm running out of time on an LDR visit... (reminisce).

Inculcated belief structure: approaching is aggressive. Aggression is bad...

EA's response was that she was confused, that these are things that women are often taught in this culture... and teasingly asked me what gender I was born ;-).

Comments

jeckle and Hyde moments

[p3aches.livejournal.com]

Many hugs. Sometimes the best comfort for these jeckle and Hyde moments is a long cuddle. I volenteer. T

Re: jeckle and Hyde moments

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(smile) thanks! Although your weekends are pretty full...

Re: jeckle and Hyde moments

[p3aches.livejournal.com]

Not always. Try giving me a call. especially if a cuddle is whats needed.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

I am familiar with a lot of these feelings, and for what it's worth, this post strikes me as much less self-pitying than others you've posted about the same topic. I think that's a hopeful sign. Best of luck. (I am not convinced about the gender thing, but that probably doesn't surprise anyone. :-)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(clueless look) okay, thanks for the feedback... I don't understand you, though. I haven't posted about my own feelings this past weekend previously, except perhaps the gripe about nothing happening Saturday night. And haven't talked about a dichotomy myself, although others have wondered about it. Should I cut or filter this post, if it seems like TMI?

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I think I see what Serene saw, as well.

Good things to mull over, looks like.

[hopeforyou.livejournal.com]

I am with serene and trinker on this. I am so proud of you for writing this entry and being forthright about your feelings and the dichotomy you experience.

I think that what she may have been refering to was that you have indirectly communicated about your feelings of social uncertainty and here is the most open, honest, and direct communication I've seen about it from you in such forum.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sorry; I was unclear. By "this topic" I meant your social patterns in general. I was just trying to say that this post didn't elicit (typo: illicit) the frustration that your posts about your social anxieties/frustrations sometimes do in me. I don't think it's TMI at all. I just think I was unclear.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

I'm sorry you're feeling depressed. Once you get your travel schedule figured out, call or e-mail and we can set up a time to have lunch.

I'm certain you were born male, but I'm also clear that you were enculturated as a wimp/geek/bully-target in the south, where the only "acceptable" way to be "a man" is to be a very particular kind of strong. What you were taught (in the social arena) is how to be submissive. Of course, this will look like female behavior to many folks, because almost ALL women in our culture are taught how to be submissive.

The trick for you, I think, will be seeing how you can extend your naturally more forward/aggressive/dominant behavior at work into your social life. Not that you can port it all directly, of course, but there are things that you do successfully there that you could bring to bear to improve things in your social interactions, I think.


...But if I touch a woman who doesn't want my touch, I'm a bad person, a boor.

Certainly if someone said they didn't want your touch, and you continued anyway, that would be boorish. But in fact, I think you don't get to that point most of the time. You wait for their "signal," which you may or may not be capable of reading (many people do not communicate clearly in non-verbal ways). One way in which I think you could rapidly improve your interactions would be to ASK more. "Would you like a shoulder rub?" gives the intended recipient the option of choosing. Looking longingly at their shoulders but not saying anything, OTOH, might seem polite to you, but could seem creepy to them ("why is he staring at my shoulders? Do I have dandruff or something??")

You know, I think you might seriously want to consider looking into some Tantra training. One of the first things they do in many tantra classes is discuss "intentional touch," and do some work on how it feels to touch and be touched with different mindsets. How it feels different to the touchee depending on where your awareness is as you touch them--in your hand, in their hand, in your head, off in la-la-land, etc.

OK, gotta run. Feel free to ask more questions, or just ask me when we next see one another.

[who-is-she.livejournal.com]

Dawn, you rock!
and have mentioned some of the things I was thinking as I read his entry.
Brian: listen to Dawn -- she is a wise goddess
:)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(grin) she certainly rocks, and I'd probably try to worship her if she'd let me ;-).

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Actually, at the time that I wrote the entry, I was feeling better. After work today, though, I'm back down and full of bitterness for some reason... downright cranky. Battles with my management haven't helped...

Anyway, thanks for taking the time... I find your feedback generally thoughtful and valuable.

where the only "acceptable" way to be "a man" is to be a very particular kind of strong.

Without being too I'm-such-a-victim sounding, I was called "fag" "pansy", etc., and beaten up repeatedly through 7th grade...routinely derided as different and physically attacked by groups of boys. Then it was just continued verbal bullying and a couple of instances of sexual abuse through high school. The upshot of this was that I concluded that whatever characteristics or values that those other 11-year-old boys shared, I wanted to embrace the opposite. Including defying their aggression and attempts to dominate or rule others by fear.

To this day, if someone tries to bully or dominate me, I'll defy them... either directly, or (if I'm actually in their control, as at work) passive-aggessively by looking for opportunities for subversion. If there's a clique or an Establishment trying to dominate some social situation, I'll often tweak it, drawing retribution on myself, just to prove to myself that I'm not afraid of whomever... recent online episodes have had a genesis there.

While I won't *submit* to others, I still have no desire to become a "bad person" myself, trying to impose my will on others. I prefer to neither rule nor be ruled by others.

how you can extend your naturally more forward/aggressive/dominant behavior at work

Ow. Ow. As I replied to who_is_she, that feels to me like misbehavior in a personal or social domain... it's OK at work, because then I'm being aggressive on behalf of an organization, not for myself, so it, not I, bears the ethical/moral burden of aggression or domination.

Granted, there are things from work, like more self-confidence or freely-expressed joy or passion, that would probably improve my social interactions. But if I have to become domineering or aggressive or selfish to do so, I'm not sure that's worth the cost. Maybe there's some middle way.

One way in which I think you could rapidly improve your interactions would be to ASK more.

Asking has its own drawbacks -- incurred debt, else rejection and negative feedback -- but I think that I still need to do more of it. Or at least need to practice asking for difficult things, like rubbing someone's shoulders. It requires willing cooperation from others, unfortunately.

The "intentional touch" sounds fascinating... I was already interested in learning the breathing-modulation techniques. Any suggestions for training?

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

The upshot of this was that I concluded that whatever characteristics or values that those other 11-year-old boys shared, I wanted to embrace the opposite. Including defying their aggression and attempts to dominate or rule others by fear.

That makes sense. Yet I think you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You don't want to embrace domination as your only mode of operation, nor do you want to "rule others by fear." But being assertive is NOT either dominating or ruling by fear. It is possible to "embrace the power of AND" here--be sensitive to others' needs, AND be assertive for what YOU need, at the same time. You are not a "bad person" for stating your needs/desires/wants assertively, nor is ASKING for what you need or want automatically "imposing your will" on them. Only if you failed to take them into account would this be imposing your will. And somehow, I doubt that is even POSSIBLE for you at this point.


Granted, there are things from work, like more self-confidence or freely-expressed joy or passion, that would probably improve my social interactions. But if I have to become domineering or aggressive or selfish to do so, I'm not sure that's worth the cost. Maybe there's some middle way.

Yes, I think there is a middle way. I think it is exemplified in the quote on your info page: "Low key, but passionate." The problem that I see is that you're still stuck in binary thinking here: Either/Or; Yes/No; dominant/submissive. But there's a lot of ground between dominant and submissive, and neither one has to exclude the other at all times. You yourself, at work, can be both "low key" AND "passionate." In order to do that, you bring your whole self to the table. You don't back down. You do what you know to be true and right, up to and including *fighting* for that when it's appropriate, and in WAYS that are appropriate. This is what I mean by there ought to be ways to bring your successful interactions at work into your personal life. Apparently, the idea that "someone else" is in some way ultimately responsible for your actions in that context gives you what you need to be able to move without restriction. I submit that it is NO DIFFERENT in personal interactions than in your work ones. You are able to separate the *person* from their *role at work." If someone else loses a contract because of something you did, you don't think that you've hurt THEM; you're clear that you did what you thought was right, and trust that they can deal with the rejection/loss involved. Your "fighting" for something doesn't mean that you are dominating them as a *person*, and both you and they know that. The same should be true outside of work as well. You must learn to separate the *person* (who they ARE) from their *role* (e.g., what they DO) in any given situation.


The "intentional touch" sounds fascinating... I was already interested in learning the breathing-modulation techniques. Any suggestions for training?

Check out Celebrations of Love in Marin. That's where we took our classes in tantra and intentional touch. In fact, Francesca's Sacred Sensual Dance class might be a good class for you to consider. She's very good with baby steps, and discusses how dancing for oneself differs from dancing for an audience. In at least some of her classes she has done some intentional touch work, though I don't know if that's included in the evening-long (as opposed to the day-long) version of the class. I see that they are listing a Tantric Massage class right now that might address both the touch and tantra-breathing aspects that I mentioned.

Other locations are certainly possible for training as well (Body Electric, for instance), but I don't know the other programs as well.

[firecat]

I'm stating my mindset, whether or not it matches reality.

Fair enough. I also find it useful to do the exercise of whether my mindset does match reality.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Okay, that makes sense. Although both mindsets seem to match reality well -- when I'm in that one. And because they fall neatly into two life compartments (work/career vs. personal) there isn't much conflict between them.

[firecat]

You wrote: Personally or socially... I feel adrift, incompetent, and fairly unattractive. Like I have no accomplishments, and nothing much to offer personally

That seems not to match reality - you have sweeties and friends who care about you, right? They are competent and intelligent people, right? Then they have good judgement, right? So they wouldn't care about you if you were unattractive and had no accomplishments and nothing to offer personally, right?

It probably won't change how you feel by itself, but knowing that how you feel isn't matching reality is a useful bit of information, IME.

(I'm coming out of a couple of years' worth of feeling hopelessly unattractive in certain ways, myself. So this is close to me.)

[who-is-she.livejournal.com]

ok, what you are talking about here is not being "feminine", but it's about avoiding rejection, and being very sensitive to other people's needs. Maybe TOO sensitive.

As Dawn points out, rather than completely wait for a partner's signal (and I as a female have found that the sort of signal men often need is not nearly as subtle as my usual signals. I usually have to hit them over the head with something heavy, or sharp)
:)
you could politely ask if 'this' or 'that' will be ok. THis is also a gift to that person... becuase it allows her/him to practice their boundary skills. They have to respond by saying "yes, a shoulder rub would be lovely!", or "no, that doesn't feel right at this time, but I'd like to sit and talk with you for awhile...". Giving them the opportunity to practice this skill with somone safe (becuase I think you feel like a safe guy...) is very valuable. Neither means you are being rejected: remember, whether someone wants to be touched is as much about THEM as it is about you, maybe more so.

Another thought I had was role playing: can you mutually agree with one of your existing partners that you will 'play' with the idea of you acting on your own authentic assertive/aggressive tendencies? IF done with parameters, safe words, etc... this could be safe but also allow you WITHIN PRE-ARRANGED BOUNDARIES to exercise a different side of yourself,.. the side you normally keep squelched out of fear.

Any of this helpful?
I don't know you well... but I certianly do empathize with the 'geek' mindset. I'm one too, ya know.
:)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the discussion, it is useful and helpful for contemplation.

Being very sensitive to others is one of the best ways to avoid the worst rejections... seeing subtle clues and backing away before getting squashed. Not that it's foolproof...

I need a huge, obvious, unequivocal signal before I'll accept "go forward"... otherwise, I risk misinterpreting something unrelated and causing trouble. But the slightest implied negative signal is usually enough to keep me distant, rather than outstay my welcome.

Asking would be one way to reduce the risks, and hence bring the two extremes in reaction (positive/negative) closer to a single consistent reaction.

But... if one asks for something, and it is granted, one is then in that person's debt. If it isn't granted, then there are negative feelings on both sides. Neither of those are good outcomes.

someone wants to be touched is as much about THEM as it is about you, maybe more so

Maybe. If someone doesn't want to be touched by me in a hot tub, say, but then gladly accepts the same touch from someone else, then it *is* mostly about me. I saw that firsthand recently...
so to speak ;-).

can you mutually agree with one of your existing partners that you will 'play' with the idea of you acting on your own authentic assertive/aggressive tendencies?

Hmm... first, I have to deal with my reaction that all assertive/aggressive (or "overflirty" ;) behavior is bad and oppressive to others. It has been something that I've tried to control or suppress in my personal life, seeing it as a liability. And when I see another person being likewise assertive or aggressive, control my immediate impulse to judge that person negatively, without getting to know them or their circumstances.

At work, it's much less of a problem... there, I'm being assertive or aggressive on behalf of something else, so that other entity bears the moral burden. If my department sends me to battle for our budget, I can be overbearing, dominating and pushy if that's warranted -- because I'm an agent, of sorts, fighting for something or someone else. If the other agents get annoyed with me, they blame my department, not me personally. I'm just doing my job...

As far as role-playing goes, that's an excellent idea! Although impractical at the moment (my other partners are all LDRs). I'd need a local volunteer, over time.

One important point

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

But... if one asks for something, and it is granted, one is then in that person's debt. If it isn't granted, then there are negative feelings on both sides. Neither of those are good outcomes.

No, no, no, no, no! This is simply NOT so! This, I think, is one of the downsides of your Southern upbringing. The world is NOT a huge tally board. If one DEMANDS something and it is granted, then there is a debt incurred, by virtue of the force involved. But simply ASKING does NOT incur this debt, whether or not it is granted. By saying "yes" to an innocuous request like "may I rub your shoulders" the person is allowing you to give them a gift. YOU are the one giving the gift, of your time, your attention, the tension-release of the shoulder rub. You ALSO get a gift in return, of the human contact, and the ability to GIVE those gifts to the other person. It is a self-contained interaction. If both parties enter into it freely, no debt is incurred on either side.

By thinking of it as a debt-incurring situation you are making it be so, because the other person is aware (subliminally) of the imbalance in the equation, making it far LESS LIKELY that they will respond freely in kind. You must be willing to give the gift of yourself, freely, with no expectation of any return. Right now, this is NOT so. You give, but with the expectation of NEGATIVE return (that your gift is not a gift, but instead is a burden on them), which will make the other person uncomfortable.

There is more here, of course, but I must go do other morning stuff.

[who-is-she.livejournal.com]

"But... if one asks for something, and it is granted, one is then in that person's debt. If it isn't granted, then there are negative feelings on both sides. Neither of those are good outcomes. "

From this sentence... I feel expectations and I feel obligations. I think I don't make these kind of connections that you do... with 'debts'... and 'negative feelings'.

for instance: My June visit to Akien and Dawn's -- a friend of theirs asked if he could kiss me. I said "No, but I would like to give you a hug". So.. I didn't 'grant him what he asked for'. I don't believe there were any negative feelings. AND the reason I didn't kiss him was ENTIRELY my reason (that's my boundary with people I don't know well), not anything about him that was lacking. That interaction felt very pleasant, and through our negotiation we were able to find a level of connection that was comfortable to both of us.

"If someone doesn't want to be touched by me in a hot tub, say, but then gladly accepts the same touch from someone else, then it *is* mostly about me. I saw that firsthand recently...
so to speak ;-). "

ah-HA! no.. it STILL isn't about you! If you and me and Akien and Dawn were all in a hot tub..... it would be true that I would be accepting more touch from them than I would from you. Is that becuase ITS ALL ABOUT YOU?? Nope. It's becuase my boundaries (ME ME ME, not YOU) are based on how well I know someone. And I know them way better than I know you.

You can't assume that you know why people make the decisions they do. I totally understand the "it's all about me" mindset... as I have spent a lot of time there myself. I also appreciate your sincere sensitivity to wanting to be a good guy, not invade people's space or ask for things that are inappropriate. I guess I'm just feeling sad......that you seem to make a connection:

others' reluctance to invite or initiate or participate with you
is correlated with
how well you squelch your inner assertiveness or dominating energy.

Have you considered:
There may be those out there that would REVEL in your dominant, aggressive energy... given that you worked out your boundaries in advance. I really encourage you to work on that..(the role playing stuff... even LDRs can help with that..) becuase I believe that you might heave a real sigh of relief if YOU were able to express that part of you as well.

just my 2 cents.
:)

[akienm.livejournal.com]

Brain, if you got an email from the planet Mars detailing how to build a ship to get there quickly, easily, and cheaply, would you ignore it? Even if you didn't understand each bit, if there were detailed enough instructions, would you try and build whatever mechanism and see if it worked?

If the answer is yes, consider this: When you get instructions from women on how to relate to women, why aren't you taking their word as what is so? Why are you instead remaining imprisioned by your fears?

I am not looking for an answer. I am not looking to dominate you with my ideas. But I do see you resisting information on how to relate to women given to you by women. That seems suboptimal to me.

[jemstone.livejournal.com]

A conclusion has already been reached - we often write what the other person could have.

This post hits very close to home for me, because I have been precisely where you are at. I shall decline to comment further, other than to say that I will state (even though you already have), it doesn't have to make sense - it just happens to be what's in your head. I can so totally follow this, it's eery.

-JEM

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Scary, isn't it?

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Woah....... wow... lots to think about here...

I started to post a rather long and involved comment, but realized that would mean sharing some interpersonal details that aren't exclusively mine to share.

Rest assured Brian, you're hardly the only or first man (or woman for that matter) to wrestle with these kinds of issues. *gentle*hug*. A great deal of the minefield that MrCoffee@1 and myself are currently wrestling with are very related to the very issues and concerns you raise. In some ways they can and do manifest somewhat differently, sometimes no. (smiles).

I will make a couple quick suggestions.... do some web searches for resources on theories "EQ .. or Emotional Intelligence" (I don't have my tome handy to give you exact reference book names), and also on "Mind Blindness" ... especially anything by Simon Baron-Cohen, don't be thrown off too much by the discussion of autism included in discussion of Mind Blindness. (Part of a diagnosis of autism, aspergers syndrome, NLD, and PDD or any other autism spectrum disorder, includes difficulty understanding and forming social relationships).

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Thanks... I actually have "Emotional Intelligence". I have a high-functioning autistic child -- my 9-year-old son -- and have a reasonable familiarity with those social difficulties. I don't think that my issues are similar -- again, when I'm at work, I'm used sometimes by JL to assess the emotional states and likely attitudes of an audience. And I'm pretty good -- it comes from threat-assessment as a kid. But somehow I switch it off in overtly personal situations.