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

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't describe this as a case of going without communication

But it sounds like you and who_is_she didn't communicate beforehand about boundaries, nor did she explain her comfort levels afterward (until her LJ comment). You, Dawn, and she all seem to advocate *asking* more often, and defining boundaries explicitly -- but this sounds like an example where boundaries were never actually discussed, before or afterward. And without that knowledge, how could you know for certain that it wasn't a personal rejection?

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.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

You, Dawn, and she all seem to advocate *asking* more often, and defining boundaries explicitly -- but this sounds like an example where boundaries were never actually discussed, before or afterward. And without that knowledge, how could you know for certain that it wasn't a personal rejection?

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?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

from the sounds of it, it was negotiated quite well. It's just the reasons behind it that weren't discussed.

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.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

Negatively-arrogant? I can't imagine assuming that everybody wants me (yeah, right! LOL), but the converse seems reasonable.

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

For any given person, I agree with you -- it could be due to other possible factors, and assuming that it is necessarily about me would be unwarranted. However, over groups of individuals, the chances that they will all have different factors unrelated to me, for rejecting me, dwindles as the number of people considered increases. At some point, it is more credible that it is my problem, rather than 17 different individual unrelated issues in 15 different people. So with enough negative past experience with enough people, assuming the converse is justified and not mere arrogance.

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.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

[First paragraph cite cut for length]

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that I even could quantify all of the subtle interactive markers that go into my building a rapport with someone ... These are things are generally not formally negotiated.

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.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

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.

Which is exactly why dawnd, who_is_she, and I do "advocate *asking* more often, and defining boundaries explicitly". But my point is that even right now, you don't explicitly ask about and negotiate on every point of social contact you make. As one gains comfort/confidence in these nonverbal cues one learns to rely on them more and more. You have these skills and this experience.

---

Well, you asked how I could know for certain that who_is_she's counteroffer wasn't a personal rejection without having talked it through with her. I accept that one cannot know with certainty. But how does it benefit, me or her, for me to assume that it was meant as rejection? I can think of many ways in which it benefits us both for me to assume that it was not. And so, I accept on faith that it wasn't. We continued to share and appear to enjoy one another's company. And that was enough.

---

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?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

You have these skills and this experience.

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...

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

Nope. You do have the skills and experience to successfully manage some social negotiations without explicit verbal processing and negotiation. You may not be as comfortable with these as you would like or as others may seem, but you have them none the less. Likewise, you may not has as fully developed a set, as you would like or as others mas seem to, but you have them none the less.

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...

Yes! Exactly. That is a huge benefit that people gain from religion. It's not a counter to what I was saying, it's the point!



But, in the time that you don't know - when there isn't yet a what is true - when considering the cost/benefit trade for assuming a snub vs. assuming no snub - in what circumstance does it come out ahead to operate from the assumption of a snub rather than assuming none until demonstrated otherwise? Incorrectly assuming the snub is just as reality defying AND results in more unhappiness - in the immediate reaction to the perceived snub, in the long term expectations of people to be snubbing, in the long term reactions to broadcasting a worldview full of assumed snubbing, ...



Your choice, your preference, your level of confidence in your interpretation of what information you have and all that... but...

I included this specific example after you were earlier asking if who_is_she and I went back for explicit processing on our negotiation, and how we could both know for certain without checking in that one another weren't snubbing/rejecting each other. And I think my direct (rather than by illustration) answer is that we both seemed to operate from a belief that in a non-hostile non-coercive circumstance adult humans are generally capable of consenting to what they're okay with and declining what they are not, and an assumption that if there was problem something would be said. (An expectation for people to prove the negative rather than a hope that they'll sufficiently display the positive for proof by inference.) Maybe that's just projection on my part. Either way, I'm happy working with it until proven wrong.



A something to consider (with all the usual disclaimers, YMMV, etc) - I am vastly happier when I let people live down to my expectations of the best and am more frequently disappointed by them falling below even that than I am when less frequently disappointed, but letting them live down to my expectations for the worst.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It's not a counter to what I was saying, it's the point!
(grin) okay, I'll concede that one.

Incorrectly assuming the snub is just as reality defying AND results in more unhappiness

Hmm... you have a useful point, but I'm not sure that it results in more unhappiness. After all, the point of setting low expectations of others is to be able to accept apparent rejection or other setbacks from them, with minimal adverse emotional impact.

an assumption that if there was problem something would be said

There's a large difference between us... I don't assume that others would necessarily say something, so I could be causing a problem and not realize it.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

Hmm... you have a useful point, but I'm not sure that it results in more unhappiness. After all, the point of setting low expectations of others is to be able to accept apparent rejection or other setbacks from them, with minimal adverse emotional impact.

Then let me ask you this - are you happy - not just okay or content or satisfied - but happy with and about your interactions with the people around you?

I don't assume that others would necessarily say something...

Hmmmm... my beliefs require the given that adult humans are (outside of violent, coercive, or other abusive situations) capable of consent (both in choice and expression) - and as a result, have an obligation to express their choices with regard to consent issues. I don't believe that one can simultaneously both accept that a person is capable of consenting to a behaviour AND not expect them to be able to exercise/express that consent.

I have very little patience for coddling that sort of expression out of people who act reluctant to do so - and generally don't spend much attention on them. (For the converse reason - anyone not readily able to exercise/express their consent choices may not actually be capable of consenting - and that's a mess I don't want to be in the middle of except by very special, and vastly more carefully negotiated exception.)

But that's my belief set and world view; and I know that not everyone believes/operates that way.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Happy? Happiness is a transitory emotion, not a steady-state one. "Cheerful" is as close as I can get to "happy-for-longer-period" or equivalent. I don't grok "happy" in the context of interactions with those around me.

Most of my strategy has been "minimize suffering and pain in relationships" rather than "increase happy episodes." If things are going well, I'm not on anyone's blacklist or being attacked. Or getting negative feedback (like rejections).

accept that a person is capable of consenting to a behaviour AND not expect them to be able to exercise/express that consent.

I expect that any person who is capable of consenting to a behavior may:
(a) exercise that consent (yes or no)
(b) withhold the expression of that consent either way, whatever they may have decided internally
(c) be afraid to express that consent around me, and hence say/do nothing
(d) be afraid of hurting my feelings, and consent to something they don't/didn't want to do, without telling me such, or
(e) be afraid of hurting my feelings, and nominally consent while in fact doing the opposite.

It is left up to me to figure out which (a)-(e) response is in effect for any given request I make.

and generally don't spend much attention on them.

That's a luxury, in my view... if I took that stance, I wouldn't ask anything of anyone, or pay attention to anyone other than a tiny handful of people.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

I don't grok "happy" in the context of interactions with those around me.

Most of my strategy has been "minimize suffering and pain in relationships" rather than "increase happy episodes." If things are going well, I'm not on anyone's blacklist or being attacked. Or getting negative feedback (like rejections).

Then why are you bothering to deal socially with people at all?! This view sounds a lot like you've chosen for recreation a losing game with a best case success criteria of merely breaking even. Perhaps I'm projecting since I consider happiness a fundamental criteria for personal fulfillment, and you seem to define your own fulfillment in different terms.

What is it that you hope, best case, to be getting out of interacting socially with people in general? In specific?

I explicitly mention socially, since you've stated that you don't generally have these interpersonal relations issues in a business-relationship context, leaving you free to interact as necessary with other people in a non-strictly-self-sufficient world.

Or is this another case of me thinking I'm projecting and merely minimizing suffering is your best case goal? In that case - wouldn't a best case zero-suffering result be optimally approached through not having those relationships? (Shades of a routine with no output can be optimized to zero instructions.)

And backing up to my earlier point - assuming a (not yet factually confirmed) snub on the part of others seems to provide more (at least an increased frequency of) opportunities for your own needless pain/suffering than would a case of assuming (until sufficiently demonstrated otherwise) that no snub was intended. Which was my point earlier, phrased within my own context assumption that one's goals are motivated by happiness rather than the this-case minimum of suffering as motivation.

It is left up to me to figure out which (a)-(e) response is in effect for any given request I make.

First off - my reaction to this is that in cases c) through e) above you don't trust the person to be able to express consent on their own behalf. And as in the earlier post - I just don't trust people who I can't trust to be able to express consent on their own behalf.

But that's all aside the point: you don't /have/ to guess which response they're promoting -
If you assume a) then it seems they've chosen to clearly express their consent(state).
If you assume b) then it seems they've chosen to not express consent at this time.
If you assume c) then it seems they've chosen to not express consent at this time.
If you assume d) then it seems they've chosen to express consent despite having some reservations.
If you assume e) then it seems they've chosen to express consent despite having serious reservations.
(Where "it seems" might also be interpreted as interchangable with "one might reasonably conclude" and the expression "at this time" rightfully carries the implication that that expression may change at a later time, duration not specified, reprompting not required.)

In an earlier comment in this discussion you talked about your own policy to go along with something you're uncomfortable with for fear of hurting another person's feelings, and then later expanding on that by stating that if you were sufficiently uncomfortable you would of course hurt their feelings rather than compromise your boundary. Sounds like cases d) and e) above until it got to a "Not consenting" outcome of case a).

I don't actually recognize much difference in your b) and c) cases above except that you state clearly in c a motivation that could be assumed as one of many for case b. Likewise d) and e) except the magnitude of the discomfort.

There is of course a huge gaping difference between not liking something one chooses to do and not consenting to doing so - but in an example of recognizing that - we have laws protecting people from having to handle (relevant classes of) consent issues in the workplace because of the strong coercive element of workplace relationships. Most of the time, socially interactive relationships aren't bound by such easily coercive forces.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm projecting since I consider happiness a fundamental criteria for personal fulfillment

Bingo. If I were internally-motivated (as I interpret your stated motivations), then yes, it would look like zero-discomfort would be the best possible outcome, and hence why bother? But I'm motivated more by external feedback than my own emotions. So I can be mildly unhappy in a given relationship or friendship, and still consider it a net positive if I'm receiving external validation of some sort, or meeting my promised obligations, or making others happier as a result.

And I do get an energy boost and sense of well-being by being around other people socially, and respond adversely to the lack of that in my life... so I have to have *some* social interactions.

as in the earlier post - I just don't trust people who I can't trust to be able to express consent on their own behalf.

(nods) which wouldn't work for me, because I don't generally trust others to be able to express consent on their own behalf... I worry that I'm unknowingly oppressing them, any time I make a request.

you don't /have/ to guess which response they're promoting

Roughly speaking, I have to guess within [b,c] or within [a,d,e], depending on whether it is an expressed consent or refusal.

Sounds like cases d) and e) above until it got to a "Not consenting" outcome of case a).

If you mean getting to an outcome of case (b), then I agree. I might very well agree initially to something I disliked, hiding that discomfort to protect the others' feelings, then have to bail out later when I discovered that it was just too much ickyness to handle.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

It seems incredibly unlikely to me that the majority of people who surround you are not in the habit of freely or clearly expressing their consent. Granted - the people we know in common may be a severely unrepresentative sample of vastly over expressive people relative to your population of acquaintances. What I have to go with on that assumption though is my own interaction with people in the habit of freely and clearly expressing their own consent and their representative distribution among the sample of people we know in common.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

This may be one of those Southern cultural influences... I'm not used to social directness.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

No. However... I have a need to feel valued and respected by my friends and partners.

Fair enough. I think everyone needs that. It's what makes putting up with people worth it. But I think we've a fundamentally different view of how to measure that. I don't think I could ever be happy even trying to measure my fulfillment from a relationship by the other person's other relationships or interaction with others.

That doesn't stop me from noticing when a bunch of my friends are regularly going out [bowling] and I'm not invited. But if it's something I'd like to be doing, especially if with them, then I ask about it. (As you said you've worked lately to do as well.)

But it's important to me to not let what (my friends) A & B (who are also friends of similar importance/intimacy/duration/etc) do when they're together change my perception of my relationship with A or with B. I suspect that operating in your model, I would take it as a snub or rejection when they increased their frequency of get togethers from monthly to weekly while I stayed on roughly monthly terms with each (or either) of them. But it seems perfectly contrary to (what is at least for me) one of the core tenets of polyamorous identity - the believe that my relationship[love] with X does not diminish my relationship[love] with Y.

And in my view, E's bowling excursions, even with random strangers visiting from Indianapolis, should not diminish E's relationship with me, even if I'm not invited to participate in said bowling excursions, or don't manage to go bowling ever with E, as much as I may adore going bowling as much as I do E's company. I feel the same way about being on sexual, kissing, dinner, bdsm, road trip, late night IM, and even lj commenting terms. It may seem a pretty extreme level of abstraction to put all of these things on the same plate; but in my view they are.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

measure my fulfillment from a relationship by the other person's other relationships or interaction with others

But their other relationships/interactions provide the only valid, independent metrics and calibration for that person's behavior. What does a kiss mean to them? Or volunteering to babysit? Or going bowling? Without these external metrics, I have no way to figure out where I currently stand in a given person's favor (or not).

And symbolism is critical to my self-esteem, in relationships and friendships. I need to be treated as the equal of B, with respect to A, if B and I are supposedly at a similar level of relationship or friendship to A. Not everything has to be identical, but there must be balance overall or I'll feel taken-for-granted.

would take it as a snub or rejection when they increased their frequency of get togethers from monthly to weekly while I stayed on roughly monthly terms with each (or either) of them.

Sort of... I'd interpret that my relationship was now less relatively important to A or B than the one between them. Which is likely to be true, in that case. It might leave me feeling reduced and thence rejected-in-part, or just as likely neutral or compersive (if my absolute position hasn't worsened WRT A and B individually).

I don't decouple each relationship or friendship from others... we don't exist in dyadic bubbles, but in dependent, ripple-prone networks. The eigenvectors are complex. (smile)

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

And symbolism is critical to my self-esteem, in relationships and friendships.

I still don't get why these tokens need to be interpreted in terms of what they mean to A or to B rather than in what they mean to you? Why does it devalue to you a sincere offer to babysit if you know that similar offers are made to others?

I imagine that following your system I'd spend a lot of time paying attention to ranking everyone else's behaviour and being jealous of all the ways in which I wasn't ranked as highly as I'd like and generally dissatisfied with all of my relationships rather than happy for what time, attention, and affection I was freely given, and the ways in which that nourished and fulfilled me and thankful to my friends for providing that. I hope that's not the case for how it works for you - but that's why I can't make sense of your approach.

Glasses at half capacity with water and all that.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Why does it devalue to you a sincere offer to babysit if you know that similar offers are made to others?

(grin) it doesn't! That's not my context. My context is: if offers to babysit are made to others, but not to me, then *I'm* devalued (not the offer) with respect to whatever set of others, in the network of the person making the babysitting offers.

If the given person makes babysitting offers to a stranger-with-kids he's just met, but I'm supposedly a close friend of his and he's never offered (or refused my past request), then my estimation of the value of my friendship in that person's eyes is placed lower than that of someone he's just met -- i.e., practically zero.

In a third-grade context... (grin)

If mommy gives all the other kids a cookie but won't give me one, that means that she must love all of them more than me... If she gives one to the new kid that just moved in down the street, but not to me, then she must not love me at all, because she doesn't love the new kid at all (and I'm even less important that he is, because he gets a cookie and I don't).

That's over-simplified, but how I feel about symbolism... especially for publicly-displayed things. The "cookie" may be unimportant in itself, but as a token it conveys information about the state of a given friendship or relationship.

kissing

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(part 2, because of length)
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 grynz for the first time, briefly. But she and I had interacted a half-dozen times before, had cuddled, had talked one-on-one at various times for cumulatively a couple of hours... and we both leaned towards each other. But I had had enough prior contact to view her as a friend, and hence kissing her was non-casual -- within my personal policies.

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

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

I can wrap my head around all that.

I do have one observation on this post to share though:

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.

Would you consider that the later might be a result of people picking up on the former.

As several of the women participating in commenting in your journal have pointed out - you are seen as a smart, interesting, caring, handsome, valuable individual. If it is that case, given all that, that no one (figuratively) has expressed wanting to kiss you - might, it be that they've stood back in respect of their perception of your boundaries?

Just the reaction that sprang immediately to my mind.

Re: kissing

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Would you consider that the latter might be a result of people picking up on the former

Undoubtedly some effect... also because I'm frankly inexperienced in expressing physical affection. That's something I've only successfully navigated a handful of times... so I'm cautious and tentative. I probably seem almost withdrawn, except to my existing partners (who see a completely different side). Add to that my worries about trampling others' boundaries, and it practically takes a parting-of-the-waters or special circumstances to spark anyone else's interest.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

And lastly,

it would require patience, lots of communication, and probably patches of drama

What relationships don't?