Jekyll/Hyde
Aug. 18th, 2003 12:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayA 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 ;-).
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 ;-).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-04 04:42 pm (UTC)And a lovely connection it was. I daresay it is an assertive introduction method, mustering the moxie to offer to introduce myself with a kiss. And I didn't take it at all personally that you declined, and I don't believe that we spent any attention on communicating what the boundary/headspace/preference/environmental background was for why you chose to decline my offer. But we did share a happy connection that I've been grateful for in the months since.
There'd definitely been no perception of rejection or lacking on my part from the encounter, and it hadn't occurred to me to think specifically on that particular exchange since. It was only in reading this comment today that I was reminded that we'd shared that particular negotiation result. I remember instead that we shared a happy bit of time, space, and connection - some of it actively with one another, and lots of it merely in comfortable proximity sharing the feeling of that day's community.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-04 04:58 pm (UTC)*waves*
Hi there!
nice to see you again.
!!!!
I'm glad you felt completely positive about our interaction. I did too.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 12:37 pm (UTC)I believe the most that Bryan has ever heard about my boundaries is what he read in the course of viewing this thread.
Am I right, Bryan?
It was just a perfect exchange, which
Much as you may find it difficult to approach people and initiate contact... it is equally frightening for me to have someone initiate contact... and know that I will have to decline... for whatever reason. I am petrified of hurting that person. That
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 12:57 pm (UTC)That isn't saying that you didn't do very well in practicing your boundaries -- you did -- but that in your place, I think that I wouldn't have done nearly as well :-).
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 05:41 pm (UTC)Wow. Brian, have you considered how many different ways you are inviting unhappiness on yourself by choosing this approach?
Coming immediately to mind:
* compromising your own policies on how you interact with people, and having to live with yourself for choosing to do so.
* compromising your boundaries to comply with someone else's request - seemingly inviting feeling coerced, and having to live with yourself for choosing to do so.
* accepting your own discomfort for reluctance to perceiving imposing the above situations on others that may make requests of you
* (and this one inferred) reluctance to ask for what you want for fear of rejection, and if not rejection, fear of coerced compliance for want to not hurt your feelings (expecting people to have the same reactions you've described here).
All stemming from your choice to try and not decline requests.
And what gains does this approach have?
Is what you're getting out of it worth the borrowed upset?
no subject
Date: 2003-09-07 03:16 pm (UTC)However, if I'm not losing much, or if I'm simply going along with something otherwise-uninteresting, then others' feelings have a higher priority. I can live with self-reproach for compromising my own policies or boundaries -- because I'd also be self-reproaching if I thought I'd hurt someone else.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 07:12 pm (UTC)After all, if you HAVE policies... you owe it to yourself
and your loved ones to adhere to them.....
others WILL respect you for it, you know.
and, if you have policies but dont adhere to them,
generally ( I speak from experience) it will be confusing to
ohters.. and end up causing you grief in the long run.
A good thing for you to honestly consider.
You seem very able to honestly consider.....so, what is it
that prevents you from adhering?
what do you think would happen if you said "no" to
a request?
no subject
Date: 2003-09-07 03:23 pm (UTC)But if I say "no" to a fairly-innocuous request, I feel like I'll be rejecting that person, and then responsible for their negative feelings. Rather than entangle myself with that kind of responsibility, it is often easier to just give them whatever they want.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-07 03:41 pm (UTC)For instance, many might think that a request for a kiss is 'fairly innocuous'. But I consider it very meaningful, and would never dole one out JUST to make sure someone didn't feel bad.
Consider the concept you mentioned "rejecting".
If I have boundaries... I may have to make choices about who and what I want to step inside those boundaries. THat is not rejection... that is simply me choosing who steps into the 'inner sanctum', so to speak.
That's not pushing someone away... .that's choosing who to let step IN, and when.
I have lots of reasons for who/how I allow in..... as we have discussed before on other threads... it often doesn't have to do with the person as much as my own internal policies, and/or pre-existing agreements with loved ones.
If you give everyone a hug whenever they ask for one.... regardless of whether you like them or want to... .does that dilute the meaning of 'getting a hug from Brian'? Knowing this now about you... I will never be sure when I'm in person with you... whether you truly like me.. or whether you're just hugging me becuase I seemed to want a hug.
This seems to me to be unclear communicating.
I respect that you're saying what is currently true about how you feel.. becuase I've been there myself.. for many years. It IS scary to think about saying "no" to someone and fear that "it's all my fault now that their feelings are hurt". But: look at the healthy way the boundaries worked between me and
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-05 01:34 am (UTC)Hmmm... true. If I'd been nearby, I would have winced, averted my gaze, and probably avoided making eye contact with either of you for the remainder of the evening.
I don't believe that we spent any attention on communicating what the boundary/headspace/preference/environmental background was
Without communications, then... how would you have known to not take it as a personal reflection?
And then there's the receptivity-gauge... a woman that was OK with that assertive introduction method would conversely probably miss out on me altogether, as I'd figure that anyone whose boundaries were that permissive probably wouldn't work out as a friend or relationship prospect. And then I'd stay at a distance from her...
no subject
Date: 2003-09-05 12:22 pm (UTC)Without communications, then... how would you have known to not take it as a personal reflection?
First off - I wouldn't describe this as a case of going without communication - just that it did get any active attention, and went without explicit verbal communication.
It was a casual request where I didn't have my self worth wrapped up in somebody else's response. Despite declining my request we continued to get along well and were enjoying one another's company, and did include an explicit invitation to continue in and around her personal space. So - the particular why's of declining the kiss weren't necessary to continuing our interaction, nor were they a crippling blow to my ego.
I think that's the key right there - that I didn't let it hit me as an ego damaging affront. Because, obviously, for whatever reason, there is some part of any reaction to me that is a personal reflection on me.
And then there's the receptivity-gauge... a woman that was OK with that assertive introduction method would conversely probably miss out on me altogether, as I'd figure that anyone whose boundaries were that permissive probably wouldn't work out as a friend or relationship prospect. And then I'd stay at a distance from her...</cite And that too I find to be an interesting projection - since I have seen similar levels of permissive boundaries at one time or another in most of our common lj friends. I point this out because it seems that there must be some genuine friends of yours in that list. So in at least some cases (most of the ones I've seen) your suspicion that it "probably wouldn't work out" appears incorrect. Maybe that premise needs reworked? Perhaps an opportunity to note that the motto "embrace the power of AND!" applies quite broadly, and could help decouple the notion that someone who appreciates my approach to socializing wouldn't automatically be a bad match for yours?
on formatting
Date: 2003-09-05 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 03:30 am (UTC)But it sounds like you and
I didn't let it hit me as an ego damaging affront
That's great... I don't see how it works, but it is good that you can dodge the impacts yourself.
your suspicion that it "probably wouldn't work out" appears incorrect.
Perhaps... but I haven't ever seen that level of permissiveness with strangers evident in our common friends, myself. Maybe they have their own Jekyll/Hyde transformations, and I only get to see them when they're being well-behaved (chuckle). So there's been nothing in my experience to contradict that suspicion, at least not thus far.
decouple the notion that someone who appreciates my approach to socializing wouldn't automatically be a bad match for yours?
If I tried your approach, I'd expect a woman to freak-out or slap me ;-). If she doesn't do so, then I conclude that she must not have well-defined personal boundaries, or else she already knows the person trying to kiss her.
Some personal context, here: I've kissed far less than 20 people, lifetime, including relatives. Including simple pecks.
So kissing is proportionately a big deal for me. The people who I've kissed thus far have generally had (or acquired) ongoing ties or commitments to me of some sort... so to me, introducing oneself with a kiss is similar to saying, "Hi, I'm Brian, and can I be your life-partner?" ... and actually meaning it. Or I'd regard it as certainly equivalent to "wanna-f&^k" as an introductory line...
Given that, anyone who is comfortable with kisses-on-introduction is going to give/receive wildly-confused signals to/from me... anything's possible, but it would require patience, lots of communication, and probably patches of drama before I could work out a mutual understanding with someone that was comfortable with your socializing style.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 10:50 am (UTC)First of all, the boundary was discussed; from the sounds of it, it was negotiated quite well. It's just the reasons behind it that weren't discussed.
In any case, you don't. But if nothing else, Brian, you act like a scientist or engineer and figure the odds. :-) Someone's possible reasons for not being interested in a specific social interaction are myriad: headache; bad day leading to feeling anti-social; feeling disconnected, over-stimulated, tired, or lazy; the body part in question itches :-) ; they had a bad experience with that kind of social interaction just yesterday and are still trying to figure out what went wrong; personal policy; they missed the cue or were distracted.
The reasons that don't reduce to "they just don't like me" are both more numerous and much more likely than those that do.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but assuming that you are being personally rejected in most social interactions that don't go the way you'd hoped is exactly as arrogant as assuming that everybody wants you.
If I tried your approach, I'd expect a woman to freak-out or slap me ;-). If she doesn't do so, then I conclude that she must not have well-defined personal boundaries, or else she already knows the person trying to kiss her.
Are all boundaries that don't match yours not "well-defined", or just this one? I hug complete strangers who ask me for hugs; if you don't, does that mean that the boundary I've just explicitly stated is not well-defined?
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 11:47 am (UTC)Agreed, it sounds like there clearly was a negotiation. I was more concerned with the before-and-after parts, and how one wouldn't take it personally absent a discussion afterwards.
[list of possible reasons for not interacting in some context]
Maybe it reflects *my* lack of boundaries (smile), but in all of those (except missing the cue/distraction, which I can't help) I will force myself to interact, rather than risk having the other person feel that I'm snubbing them. I'll put on a brave face and try to struggle through, even if I feel uncomfortable or physically ill.
is exactly as arrogant as assuming that everybody wants you
Negatively-arrogant? I can't imagine assuming that everybody wants me (yeah, right! LOL), but the converse seems reasonable.
all boundaries that don't match yours not "well-defined", or just this one?
Bad choice of terms on my part. If someone is open to initial kissing by strangers, then from my viewpoint potentially-anything-goes with that person, and it is hard to guess appropriate behavior around them. Public handshakes or A-frame hugs are socially supported in the mainstream, and so are reasonably-safe defaults.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 02:01 pm (UTC)Excessively self-centered, in any case. It's still an assumption that their motivations for action or inaction contain you as the primary factor. Which, to my mind, completely discounts all other possible factors: their mood, their generic boundary policies, their current dynamics with the other people in their life, and so on.
Bad choice of terms on my part. If someone is open to initial kissing by strangers, then from my viewpoint potentially-anything-goes with that person, and it is hard to guess appropriate behavior around them. Public handshakes or A-frame hugs are socially supported in the mainstream, and so are reasonably-safe defaults.
Yet, from my point of view, this is a really strange argument from someone who is polyamorous, yet admits that they don't kiss people often. It's my perception that 1) kissing a lot of people is socially supported in polyamorous culture and 2) polyamory itself isn't "socially supported in the mainstream". Therefore, given that you deviate from both your broad cultural norm and your alternative cultural norm, it shouldn't be so much of a stretch that other people's boundaries are going to be odd and unpredictable and seemingly arbitrary from your perspective, and so the only sensible thing to do is negotiate about them constantly and not pass any judgments about others' boundary sets being inconsistent with respect to your prior experience.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 03:33 pm (UTC)kissing a lot of people is socially supported in polyamorous culture
Perhaps, but at the same time I've gotten a few "me too"'s in my post last night. So I'm not the only one...
I'm not averse to kissing, per se... it's fun. But I never assume that anyone wants me to kiss them! *that* would seem arrogant, IMO.
only sensible thing to do is negotiate about them constantly
Agreed, again... which comes back to the original question about the need to negotiate others' boundaries explicitly rather than relying on nonverbal hunches.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 10:57 am (UTC)I don't believe that I even could quantify all of the subtle interactive markers that go into my building a rapport with someone. I don't take active explicit note of each. And even if I could enumerate a significant number of them - it would take volumes to describe their situation meanings, how those are derived, and what information from comes from their interaction. Likewise, I also couldn't likely quantify each of the interactive markers that gets negotiated in an introduction to a new person.
Some that come immediately to mind though include how far each of our person-space boundaries extend and their mutual management. Appropriate frequency and intensity of eye contact. Comfort around hand waving gestures. Tone and volume of voice. Choices in diction. Appropriate topics of conversation. These are things are generally not formally negotiated. I'll even go so far as to include a hot-button item in this list and suggest that some physical touch fall here. What portion of the time do you explicitly ask to define boundaries about salutary handshaking? Or following up about comfort levels afterward?
So, sometimes, some people do (prefer to) formally explicitly cover these points. Similarly, while for many folks there are interactions that are generally formally and explicitly negotiated, there are times places and people for whom they are not.
The advocacy to ask more questions and to carefully define boundaries I think is best applied to circumstances where one is not comfortable with their confidence level for a given set of interpreted boundary markers.
In this circumstance, through our interaction up to that point, and our mutual observation of one another's interaction with others, we each had some confidence in our relative comfort with one another. There was a point that was sufficiently uncertain that I both felt it appropriate to ask and not offensive to ask. We checked and went from there. This is not particularly different than that social dance around establishing salutary hug bounds with a new person.
And without that knowledge, how could you know for certain that it wasn't a personal rejection?
It's something that I take as an article of faith.
Without checking in, do you take it as a personal rejection when you ring someone's phone and it goes to voicemail? Why or not? When and how might that vary?
Do you find it necessary to explicitly check back and let people know that you weren't snubbing them when you find that you missed their call? Or is continued interaction sufficiently implicit?
Given that, anyone who is comfortable with kisses-on-introduction is going to give/receive wildly-confused signals to/from me... anything's possible, but it would require patience, lots of communication, and probably patches of drama before I could work out a mutual understanding with someone that was comfortable with your socializing style.
I think you're thinking in immutable absolutes again. Is it not possible, or even likely that someone who is sometimes, with some people comfortably permissive to a level you aren't in other situations perfectly content, more compatible with and even desirous of yours?
Different times, places, people, attitudes, alignment of the planets, day of the week, or health of the family pet each may play a part in how one sets their boundaries with any given other person, and needn't imply consistency of placement from person to person, or even moment to moment.
And again, I submit that there are people with whom you appear to have ongoing social relationships with, that you seem to consider among your friends that also sometimes have this other level of boundary comfort that you hold up as incompatible.
Even if you haven't been witness to the particular moments, take for a moment it as given - does this information actually change the previous interactions that you've had with these people? Do you think less of your relationship with each of your friends as you consider if they too might be one of those people? What about if you were witness to such an interaction.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 12:34 pm (UTC)Sigh. I'm glad that you've developed an approach that works for you. But nonverbal markers are ambiguous and processing such is a skill that is individually learned. Any social strategies that others recommend to me that require nonverbal negotiations are likely to fail. Explicit negotiations can be managed, nonverbal is mysterious and not objective.
What portion of the time do you explicitly ask to define boundaries about salutary handshaking? Or following up about comfort levels afterward?
Social conventions define handshaking as a default-OK interaction, so it is an opt-out -- if the other person isn't OK with it, they'll need to say so in advance or risk having it considered a deliberate snub.
It's something that I take as an article of faith.
Which is great, but prevents its applicability elsewhere...
Without checking in, do you take it as a personal rejection when you ring someone's phone and it goes to voicemail? Why or not? When and how might that vary?
I classify it as "possible personal rejection" until I have more evidence, either way. If I find out later that they weren't home, then obviously not. If I find out later that they were home watching TV and they simply screened my call, then I will probably interpret it as a snub.
Do you find it necessary to explicitly check back and let people know that you weren't snubbing them when you find that you missed their call? Or is continued interaction sufficiently implicit?
I feel obliged to return all calls from friends, yes. Continued interaction isn't enough for me.
someone who is sometimes, with some people comfortably permissive to a level you aren't, in other situations perfectly content, more compatible with and even desirous of yours?
I agree that people's boundary comfort levels may vary over time due to lots of factors.
consistency of placement from person to person
Ah... but there's the rub! I expect consistency of placement among the set of people at the same level of closeness or interaction. If I'm a close friend of A, and a close friend of B, then I should treat A and B equitably in terms of access and affection, over the long term. If B always gets privileges that A doesn't, then either the underlying friendship has changed for A, or I'm rejecting A to some extent (because of the closeness-behaviors mismatch).
Do you think less of your relationship with each of your friends as you consider if they too might be one of those people?
If there's a mismatch, then yes. If friend-and-confidante C doesn't kiss me, but sometimes kisses random strangers that C just met at a party, then clearly I'm being rejected by C -- in that case, not only am I not treated comparably to other similarly-close friends, but I'm being kept at a distance greater than strangers!
What about if you were witness to such an interaction.
So given ongoing rejection by C, if I saw this I'd likely ask C why I was being kept at a greater distance than casual acquaintenances... if there wasn't a situational answer ("I was drunk that night") then I'd devalue my friendship with C to fit C's apparent (lack of) level of interest in me. Or end it altogether over time, as future similar public expressions on C's part with others would feel humiliating.
So yes, someone whose boundaries are drawn more permissively with some strangers than around me would find themselves having to either equalize treatment over the long term, or accept that I'd probably disappear eventually.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 06:41 pm (UTC)Which is exactly why
Well, you asked how I could know for certain that
I classify it as "possible personal rejection" until I have more evidence, either way.
How does /that/ benefit you, or the person being called?
If I find out later that they weren't home, then obviously not. If I find out later that they were home watching TV and they simply screened my call, then I will probably interpret it as a snub.
And then, after deciding that it was a snub cause they were home watching tv and screening calls, do you ask to verify later that it was indeed a snub, or just accept it as an article of faith that people are out to snub you? How can you know for certain without asking after that information?
Only somewhat related: how easily swayed back from that conclusion are you if later you learn that they'd been eating supper at the time? Or happened to have been unable to answer? Or hadn't heard the phone/machine/whatever? Is the agitation and upset of having concluded that you rightfully felt snubbed just as easily removed and good graces restored? If you need to make conclusions about other people's motives, why assume the worst? Why not assume the good in them instead. Why would you interpret their failure to answer as being about you?
If I'm a close friend of A, and a close friend of B, then I should treat A and B equitably in terms of access and affection, over the long term.
Should? Why? According to what?
What's the exchange rate for email vs IM vs post cards vs telephone time? Or does this construct require that since you spoke to A by phone but sent an email to B, that reciprocity requires that A get email until you get a chance to speak live w/ B?
So yes, someone whose boundaries are drawn more permissively with some strangers than around me would find themselves having to either equalize treatment over the long term, or accept that I'd probably disappear eventually.
So, in this example, because your close friend C enjoys being casually kissy with people that also enjoy being casually kissy but is not casually kissy with you (as someone that has clearly explained is not casually kissy) you would extort being on kissing terms as a requirement of your ongoing friendship?
And how would the on-kissing-terms terms be negotiated since, again, you've described that you aren't a casually kissy person, and have also pointed out that if witnessing an introduction including such kissing, you would likely avert your eyes and spend the event avoiding eye contact with either of the participants?
Do you really offer your ongoing friendship with the condition that you get some degree of aggregate "same level" treatment as other friends? Do you judge the quality or depth of each of your relationships by their other relationships?
no subject
Date: 2003-09-07 05:24 pm (UTC)Eh? Was that a typo?
it benefits us both for me to assume that it was not. And so, I accept on faith that it wasn't
Okay... but in other contexts, taking things on faith (which things may or may not be true) for the sake of beneficial side-effects is not uncommon. Many religions are based on that concept...
How does /that/ benefit you, or the person being called?
At some level, I don't think that matters... what matters is what is true. If there's a possibility that it was a snub, pretending that it couldn't be is just defying reality.
do you ask to verify later that it was indeed a snub
Probably not, if I've already confirmed that they were home and screening calls. I don't want to sound whiny, or like I'm pressuring them.
If you need to make conclusions about other people's motives, why assume the worst?
Historically? Because then I'll rarely be disappointed? (grin)
reciprocity requires that A get email until you get a chance to speak live w/ B?
Not the way I see it... it's about both symbolism, and time/energy balancing. If A and B are nominally equal friends or equal sweeties in my view, then I shouldn't deny anything to A that I give to B, and vice-versa.
But logistics may make speaking-live a rare opportunity with B living in Singapore, and A may rarely get in-depth email if I see her locally twice a week. But if I'm investing the same time and energy into both relationships, then neither A nor B is a second-class citizen. And when B visits the US, he gets lots of live-speak if he wants it... maybe temporarily bumping A's access to the same. That's where I'm going with "reciprocity."
Do you really offer your ongoing friendship with the condition that you get some degree of aggregate "same level" treatment as other friends?
No. However... I have a need to feel valued and respected by my friends and partners. I need to not feel like I'm treated as a second-class citizen.
And symbolism is very important to me... I may not regularly want to go bowling with E and E's other friends, but if I'm never-ever invited even once (and then some visitor from Indianapolis is invited) then that feels to me like a slap... like E isn't really my friend, or that I'm just there when it is convenient for E and E's priorities. Now, if E invites me, I decline, and it is mutually acknowledged that I'm not interested in bowling, then future bowling invitations to others imply nothing about the friendship between E and myself. No problem, then.
But if I don't feel respected and valued, and my expressed needs aren't being met, and I feel second-class or taken-for-granted... then, yes, that friendship or relationship is likely in danger if that situation persists over the long-term.
One difference over the past few years is that I will nowadays try to bring this up explicitly with the other person, at least once. Earlier, I would have probably just gone all passive-aggressive and glowering until E finally figured out that something was wrong...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:kissing
Date: 2003-09-07 05:26 pm (UTC)as someone that has clearly explained is not casually kissy
(smile) Kissing is not something I do lightly, granted. But that doesn't mean that I don't like kissing! Or would turn it down if a "casual" opportunity arose. Our definitions of "casual" may vary... I see "casual" as "with a non-friend" (which applies to the initial-introduction case). I *like* kissing friends, especially closer friends ;-). For example... at last night's PPP, I kissed
Other folks may define "casual" as "with a non-partner", in which case I may kiss casually or not. Having kissed 21 (now 22) people implies as much about fear of giving offense or bothering others, as it does about my kissing boundaries. Bluntly, no one has *wanted* to kiss me, or those lifetime totals might be doubled.
you would likely avert your eyes and spend the event avoiding eye contact with either of the participants?
Two strangers kissing, yep, I'd probably maintain a distance from them. Just like I do from couples at the PPP who make out on the side, bordering on foreplay...
Re: kissing
From:Re: kissing
From:no subject
Date: 2003-09-06 10:58 am (UTC)it would require patience, lots of communication, and probably patches of drama
What relationships don't?