I have a working theory that anger is often the emotion we feel after someone has broken the illusion that we were in control. Of anything. Even as I kid I was angry when I didn't get what I wanted, but it's probably because I expected to get it because I thought I had some influence over the outcome. Yeah, that was a control issue, too.
So I'm truly at my happiest when I realize I'm not in control of things. I have some control over my own life...when I'm not at work. I cannot seem to control the outcome of me with other people, though. I'm still single because I have no influence at all on how or what boys think of me. It doesn't matter what I try, so I've stopped trying. I haven't given up, mind you, but I've stopped trying to be someone other than geeky ol' me. I can't pull off glamorous or mysterious. Nerdy, yes. Awkward, check. Lots and lots of friends who are girls who think I'm awesome and wonder why the boys are blind, and how!
I do have a temper. I don't like it one bit and I get angry at myself when I let my emotions get the best of me. It's because I've realized Once Again that I'm not as self-possessed as I'd like to be or even thought I was. Some people just go with the flow and appreciate their life just as it is. I am often unable to achieve that level of zen. I worry a lot. A LOT. My mother taught me that skill and I've kept it up with lots of practice. I'm hoping to get to a point when I'm rusty at it, but it hasn't happened yet.
But back to not being in control at work. I do have my tiny sphere of things-I-can-do-without-being-told-to-do-them, but those duties are in my job description and are expected. But sometimes, sometimes no one who makes the bigger decisions is around and someone else wants an answer ASAP. This is where I have not learned to let go of the decision. I get mad when someone asks me for permission for something and I say "no" because it's against policy, and then they go around me and ask the person who wasn't presently here so they can try to get a "yes." And if they get a "yes" it infuriates me. Because I tried to take control and I really didn't have it and why can't everyone say "no" so they'll stop trying to go above my head? Sigh. Note to self: don't ever make the decision yourself, be vague, and take your time getting back to them. Ha!
It's probably a good thing that I'm in a good place mentally as I write this. If I wrote it during an angry tirade I'd probably come off as petty and peevish. My anger is usually about the "I" of things. I didn't get the part I auditioned for and I think I'm a better actress than the one who did. I thought I was going to marry that boy who decided to choose someone else. I thought I told you "no" and that would be good enough and that you'd trust my judgement with that answer. You are purposely undermining me in front of everyone when you gave me the authority to make these kinds of decisions. "Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera." That's the second time I've quoted that line from Rodgers & Hammerstein's The King and I in a week's time (the 1956 musical with Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr).
Does anyone else have this issue and anger/control? Is it just me? I can't be *that* unique. Somehow I've got to be just like the rest of humanity....
I have some friends who don't like to make decisions. This used to annoy me to no end when it was "their" turn to choose things like a place to eat or a movie to see. But now instead of being angry when they won't choose a restaurant when it's their turn, I've figured out a solution: offer them the choice of a place and if they can't think of one after a certain amount of time, make the decision yourself. If they felt strongly about anything in particular they should state it up front instead of making us drag it out of them after who knows how long. And if you're annoyed that your friends never let you choose what you want to do, you should make a decision on something BEFORE you get together so your wish can be made known. Okay? I always have a place in mind, but I was trying to be courteous and fair. Don't hate me because you can't assert yourself even when you're asked to, begged to, and/or expected to.
Just so we're clear, I'm not relinquishing all decision-making in my life to achieve a state of happiness, I'm just admitting that even when I make a choice that there's a possibility that it won't end up like I expected. I should have lower expectations...in some aspects of my life. I realized with the last boy I dated that my expectations were too low as far as the male species was concerned. So, higher expectations in the behavior of a guy I might like and lower expectations in general of any outcome whatsoever.
Well, I'll give it a try or three and hope for a better me.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Why is it not okay to admit what you want?
As children we are trained to ask for what we want politely, though sometimes we'd say "pretty please with sugar on top" while maybe hopping up and down because we want it so much. Just pointing and saying "want" didn't work after age 2. Pointing and grunting was also discouraged.
So, tell me, when did it become not okay to admit that we want things? Why is part of the passage into "adulthood" often not being able to be honest with one another? If I am on a first date at a restaurant, I am NOT ordering a salad. That's not what I want to eat and if you wanted someone who actually wanted to eat salad for dinner you wouldn't have asked me out anyway. It's true that in the past I would have (secretly unhappily) ordered a salad as I heard that it's what you were supposed to do, but it's silly and I'm not doing it anymore. I'm also more self-possessed than I was years ago, so am not really interested in doing everything the way you're supposed to.
I am not allowed to utter the following phrases in a mixed company of singles: I would like to date, I would like to have a boyfriend, I would like to be married one day. Apparently, saying such things out loud is highly scandalous. Once you say anything close to that single men treat you like a pariah and you might as well have leprosy. Don't they also want to date, find someone to date exclusively, and then one day be married? So, why isn't it okay to say it? I didn't say I wanted to marry them in particular, I just would like to be married someday.
Yes, it's true that when I was in kindergarten I chased around a boy during recess and told him that I was going to kiss him. He was very good at running away. Poor thing, I probably scarred him for life. What I did take away from the experience, though, is that I am a coward at making first moves. When I finally caught him and I was in prime kissing position, I freaked out and let him go. I didn't chase him after that. My bluff had been called. It was many, many years after that when I was first kissed.
I think it is problematic of my faith that there are many more single women than men who regularly attend. This means that the men that do go, regardless of wealth or even if they are attractive, are consistently swarmed by women who would like to date them. Why choose just one woman when you can have an unofficial harem at your beck and call? This is to the guys' advantage, however, and they get asked out and have dinners cooked for them and if they do date exclusively and then break up, there's no proper waiting period before they're dating someone else.
I am never one of those girls on the arm of those guys who are dating. I'm more like that funny girl that everyone likes to be around but no one knows why they're still single (because no one is asking me out, genius). That's great that my friends think I'm awesome and they don't know who is good enough to set me up with. Just greeeeaaaaaaaaaaat. Again, I could date if I didn't care who it was or whether they were in my faith or not. But that's not me. Besides, I'd annoy any guy who was only occasionally religious as I am very much so. I'm about as straight-laced as you can get. So, yes, my dating options are limited and the older I get the sparser they become.
I also don't like to compete. So you won't find me joining the hopeful entourage of the very popular guys. I'll be in the fringe flirting heavily with guys who *aren't* being swarmed. This hasn't worked so far. I'll have to work up a new strategy, like being just me, but being emotionally available for whatever may or may not come. And asking my friends to set me up. Or putting up a dating profile on one of those sites. Yep, I think it's about that time.
So, tell me, when did it become not okay to admit that we want things? Why is part of the passage into "adulthood" often not being able to be honest with one another? If I am on a first date at a restaurant, I am NOT ordering a salad. That's not what I want to eat and if you wanted someone who actually wanted to eat salad for dinner you wouldn't have asked me out anyway. It's true that in the past I would have (secretly unhappily) ordered a salad as I heard that it's what you were supposed to do, but it's silly and I'm not doing it anymore. I'm also more self-possessed than I was years ago, so am not really interested in doing everything the way you're supposed to.
I am not allowed to utter the following phrases in a mixed company of singles: I would like to date, I would like to have a boyfriend, I would like to be married one day. Apparently, saying such things out loud is highly scandalous. Once you say anything close to that single men treat you like a pariah and you might as well have leprosy. Don't they also want to date, find someone to date exclusively, and then one day be married? So, why isn't it okay to say it? I didn't say I wanted to marry them in particular, I just would like to be married someday.
Yes, it's true that when I was in kindergarten I chased around a boy during recess and told him that I was going to kiss him. He was very good at running away. Poor thing, I probably scarred him for life. What I did take away from the experience, though, is that I am a coward at making first moves. When I finally caught him and I was in prime kissing position, I freaked out and let him go. I didn't chase him after that. My bluff had been called. It was many, many years after that when I was first kissed.
I think it is problematic of my faith that there are many more single women than men who regularly attend. This means that the men that do go, regardless of wealth or even if they are attractive, are consistently swarmed by women who would like to date them. Why choose just one woman when you can have an unofficial harem at your beck and call? This is to the guys' advantage, however, and they get asked out and have dinners cooked for them and if they do date exclusively and then break up, there's no proper waiting period before they're dating someone else.
I am never one of those girls on the arm of those guys who are dating. I'm more like that funny girl that everyone likes to be around but no one knows why they're still single (because no one is asking me out, genius). That's great that my friends think I'm awesome and they don't know who is good enough to set me up with. Just greeeeaaaaaaaaaaat. Again, I could date if I didn't care who it was or whether they were in my faith or not. But that's not me. Besides, I'd annoy any guy who was only occasionally religious as I am very much so. I'm about as straight-laced as you can get. So, yes, my dating options are limited and the older I get the sparser they become.
I also don't like to compete. So you won't find me joining the hopeful entourage of the very popular guys. I'll be in the fringe flirting heavily with guys who *aren't* being swarmed. This hasn't worked so far. I'll have to work up a new strategy, like being just me, but being emotionally available for whatever may or may not come. And asking my friends to set me up. Or putting up a dating profile on one of those sites. Yep, I think it's about that time.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Don't Judge Me Because I Was A Scheduled Surgery
My mother has told me the story that around the time of my birth there was a betting pool going around with expectant mothers guessing when their child would be born. As I was a scheduled surgery, my mother felt it would be wrong to participate. I'm assuming that the cesarean section (c-section) was scheduled around 8:00 a.m. as I was born at 8:06 a.m. Again, just guessing. Never been pregnant (haven't had that opportunity). I was the fourth of the five children my mom had by c-section. She couldn't deliver us naturally and, boy, she wanted children!
People will always find something to be prejudiced about. I'm really big on free will. I think everyone has a human right to do what they want...provided that they are well-informed that no matter what they may choose there are consequences to those choices and that they are willing to live with whatever may happen next. For example: I like cakes and cookies. I know that when I eat them too often I will gain weight. I can workout to keep off the pounds from such indulgences, give up eating the sweets, or do something drastic to try to remove the consequence of weight gain, such as surgery. If I decided to get liposuction ONLY because I didn't want to work to lose the weight or prevent the gaining of it in the first place, then that would be irresponsible as there is a chance of death from the surgery. I mean, I might feel like my lungs are going to explode if I run for any length of time, but they won't. My asthma isn't *that* bad. Don't get me wrong, you are allowed to have liposuction just as I am allowed to think it's risky to do so.
So, if you're allowed to do what I deem "extremely weird" by having your childbirth happen in a kiddie pool in your living room and then eat the placenta afterwards, then I should be allowed to have a c-section if necessary, as that will most likely be my outcome of ever getting pregnant. Yesterday I read an article about a non-protest on childbirth (held on Labor Day, no less) which has me very, extremely, frighteningly concerned. Despite the protestations of the website claiming that the people gathering nationally with picket signs wasn't a protest, this only opens the door to judginess. If you are doing your best to educate people on not having voluntary inductions and cesareans, you also run the risk of people judging others on their birthing choices who have chosen differently than you have. Though it may be true that some women want to get out of being pregnant earlier than their due date or their child's own internal clock, it is also true that some of those inductions and c-sections were necessary.
When you don't actually know the history of such a choice, are you sure you can properly look down upon someone who makes it? My mother would never ever have been able to pass any of her children the "normal" way. Surgery was necessary for the first through fifth child for our mutual survival. Due to genetics, there would be a high probability that if my mother couldn't deliver vaginally, then it was likely that the same would happen to any of her daughters. Of my three sisters, only one has not had to have a c-section. Of the one sister who has birthed both ways, her doctor cautioned against a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) for her third child as her second had to be removed via c-section for health reasons. Yes, it was for a legitimate emergency. She didn't have the highly risky (for her and her baby) VBAC. All my sisters, as well as their children, are alive and well.
Because my sisters share some of their life stories with me, I know that one had to sit through a very uncomfortable conversation where someone else was sharing their horror story of almost having to have a cesarean as if it were an evil thing, but prayer saved them in the end. Good for you! However, my sister felt diminished from having had to do such a thing as having her children surgically removed, though none of them would be alive if she hadn't. A different sister had to hear how feeding your child formula was irresponsible (actually, not having enough colostrum is also common in my genetics and not supplementing breast milk with formula may have led to my sisters' children starving, but let's not take something like *that* into account).
But people are passionate. They are passionate that others should be just like them. You may have noticed such behavior in politics. Can I just say that I'm soooooooo happy that a) I can't afford cable or satellite, b) digital television by antenna simply doesn't work, and c) watching television over the Internet really cuts down on political blechiness. I don't like muckraking and never have. Stop being not nice to each other (this means even on facebook). I am abstaining from being overtly political online because 1) I have had to sit through many, MANY political discussions where the party I usually align myself with has been thoroughly dissected and insulted by family members that assumed I was part of their political belief system and 2) hating groups of people because of their personal beliefs makes me uncomfortable. So I will do what I always do and vote according to my conscience, which includes learning candidates' political platforms by researching online directly from their websites. If you don't have a website or if your political goals are not clearly stated on them then I am not voting for you. Tres simple, non?
I am already aware that I will have to have surgery during childbirth if I want living children. It would not matter how much I researched other options and alternative birthing methods. It would be irresponsible of me to not have good prenatal care or go to the hospital when it's time. But I may never have to make such a choice as I'm still single and am not going to purposely go the single-parent route. And if I pass along my genetics, then my children will also run the risk of having to have a c-section. So, you see, it could be that there are more cesareans performed in the USA because we have been performing them longer than a lot of other countries and allowing children such as I to live and procreate, therefore passing along the same health issue (this has led to my concern about those who have to use fertility treatments to conceive--will their children be even less fertile--I don't know). So, to recap: child birthing is a miracle no matter how you do it. Don't mistake it for anything other than that. And don't judge me for leaning on modern medicine for my survival. I'm going to do it anyway and I'd rather not have someone trying to make me feel guilty for doing so. That's what consequences are for....
People will always find something to be prejudiced about. I'm really big on free will. I think everyone has a human right to do what they want...provided that they are well-informed that no matter what they may choose there are consequences to those choices and that they are willing to live with whatever may happen next. For example: I like cakes and cookies. I know that when I eat them too often I will gain weight. I can workout to keep off the pounds from such indulgences, give up eating the sweets, or do something drastic to try to remove the consequence of weight gain, such as surgery. If I decided to get liposuction ONLY because I didn't want to work to lose the weight or prevent the gaining of it in the first place, then that would be irresponsible as there is a chance of death from the surgery. I mean, I might feel like my lungs are going to explode if I run for any length of time, but they won't. My asthma isn't *that* bad. Don't get me wrong, you are allowed to have liposuction just as I am allowed to think it's risky to do so.
So, if you're allowed to do what I deem "extremely weird" by having your childbirth happen in a kiddie pool in your living room and then eat the placenta afterwards, then I should be allowed to have a c-section if necessary, as that will most likely be my outcome of ever getting pregnant. Yesterday I read an article about a non-protest on childbirth (held on Labor Day, no less) which has me very, extremely, frighteningly concerned. Despite the protestations of the website claiming that the people gathering nationally with picket signs wasn't a protest, this only opens the door to judginess. If you are doing your best to educate people on not having voluntary inductions and cesareans, you also run the risk of people judging others on their birthing choices who have chosen differently than you have. Though it may be true that some women want to get out of being pregnant earlier than their due date or their child's own internal clock, it is also true that some of those inductions and c-sections were necessary.
When you don't actually know the history of such a choice, are you sure you can properly look down upon someone who makes it? My mother would never ever have been able to pass any of her children the "normal" way. Surgery was necessary for the first through fifth child for our mutual survival. Due to genetics, there would be a high probability that if my mother couldn't deliver vaginally, then it was likely that the same would happen to any of her daughters. Of my three sisters, only one has not had to have a c-section. Of the one sister who has birthed both ways, her doctor cautioned against a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) for her third child as her second had to be removed via c-section for health reasons. Yes, it was for a legitimate emergency. She didn't have the highly risky (for her and her baby) VBAC. All my sisters, as well as their children, are alive and well.
Because my sisters share some of their life stories with me, I know that one had to sit through a very uncomfortable conversation where someone else was sharing their horror story of almost having to have a cesarean as if it were an evil thing, but prayer saved them in the end. Good for you! However, my sister felt diminished from having had to do such a thing as having her children surgically removed, though none of them would be alive if she hadn't. A different sister had to hear how feeding your child formula was irresponsible (actually, not having enough colostrum is also common in my genetics and not supplementing breast milk with formula may have led to my sisters' children starving, but let's not take something like *that* into account).
But people are passionate. They are passionate that others should be just like them. You may have noticed such behavior in politics. Can I just say that I'm soooooooo happy that a) I can't afford cable or satellite, b) digital television by antenna simply doesn't work, and c) watching television over the Internet really cuts down on political blechiness. I don't like muckraking and never have. Stop being not nice to each other (this means even on facebook). I am abstaining from being overtly political online because 1) I have had to sit through many, MANY political discussions where the party I usually align myself with has been thoroughly dissected and insulted by family members that assumed I was part of their political belief system and 2) hating groups of people because of their personal beliefs makes me uncomfortable. So I will do what I always do and vote according to my conscience, which includes learning candidates' political platforms by researching online directly from their websites. If you don't have a website or if your political goals are not clearly stated on them then I am not voting for you. Tres simple, non?
I am already aware that I will have to have surgery during childbirth if I want living children. It would not matter how much I researched other options and alternative birthing methods. It would be irresponsible of me to not have good prenatal care or go to the hospital when it's time. But I may never have to make such a choice as I'm still single and am not going to purposely go the single-parent route. And if I pass along my genetics, then my children will also run the risk of having to have a c-section. So, you see, it could be that there are more cesareans performed in the USA because we have been performing them longer than a lot of other countries and allowing children such as I to live and procreate, therefore passing along the same health issue (this has led to my concern about those who have to use fertility treatments to conceive--will their children be even less fertile--I don't know). So, to recap: child birthing is a miracle no matter how you do it. Don't mistake it for anything other than that. And don't judge me for leaning on modern medicine for my survival. I'm going to do it anyway and I'd rather not have someone trying to make me feel guilty for doing so. That's what consequences are for....
Monday, August 27, 2012
Being Cheap Means Never Choosing The Lowest Bidder
For some reason we humans loooooove to believe we're getting a deal. Why else would counterfeit and faux clothing/accessories be such a booming business? Personally, I don't care what the brand is on the clothes I wear as long as it's made well. I really don't like wearing a piece of clothing once or twice and having it shred or tear or, heaven forbid, fall apart the first time it's washed. And I really hate pulling on a pair of of hosiery and getting a run AS I'm putting them on. Stupid hose. I would prefer to pay a little bit more to get good quality. So I prefer tights. They're more expensive because they're thicker and stretchy and last a really long time. Why don't more women wear them? Is it because they get baggy at the ankles? Maybe so, but I get to buy them less and I'm happier with that.
I know that in today's economy a lot of manufacturers have tried to cut back on quality so they can keep the same price. I say that's silly. If the consumer is trying to save pennies on toilet paper by already buying one-ply, manufacturers are just cheating them by making the toilet paper even thinner, therefore forcing people to use more of the product which they will then have to buy more often. The same goes for making the cardboard tube bigger. You're forcing the consumer to buy more anyway, so just make it like you used to and make the price higher (but not unreasonably so). I'd rather you cut back on the packaging budget.
Plastic grocery bags got thinner. I understand the reasoning, but having my grocery bags splitting halfway to my front door and dumping out what I just bought makes me a bit frustrated. Now I will have to go back and consume more and hope that the bagger doesn't overfill those plastic bags (because I left my reusable bags in the house...AGAIN).
There's a saying: you get what you pay for. I wish that were true. I thought I was paying for my favorite frozen dinner, but then you had to add cheaper ingredients, like peanuts, that I don't think should be in the green beans with my glazed chicken. More expensive slivered almonds, sure, but not peanuts. Besides, when did you add nuts at all? Also, several of my fave frozen dinners have added mushrooms as fillers. I love mushrooms, so I'm actually thrilled by that change. But adding wood (cellulose) to food: that's not fiber that I'd ever thought I'd be eating on purpose. Oh, wait, it's NOT on purpose. Who thought THAT was a good idea. Thanks, FDA, for not stopping that.
At the place I work at, I get to live with the result of choosing the lowest bidder. I understand the company has a bottom line, but I have come to believe that you should always throw out the lowest and highest bidder and go for one of the realistic budgets in the mid-range. I've heard Mike Holmes say it time and again on Holmes on Homes. I also heard it twice in Armageddon. Steve Buscemi's character says to Bruce Willis' character, "You know we're sitting on 4,000,000 pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon, and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" I also have to add another favorite line: "Back off, you don't know the components!" "The components: American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!" Gets me every time. Especially Lev (Peter Stormare in real life) using the wrench to hit the components to get them to work. Hee hee hee.
In the long run, you have to pay more for the cheapest bidder because there are always, ALWAYS, things somebody didn't take into account and you have to shell out more money than if you had gone with the company that thought ahead and already had a good deal built into their bid. Sigh. So, look at the long run, not the short. What's that old adage about if something seems too good to be true? Right? Or are they not teaching that anymore. Pity.
I know that in today's economy a lot of manufacturers have tried to cut back on quality so they can keep the same price. I say that's silly. If the consumer is trying to save pennies on toilet paper by already buying one-ply, manufacturers are just cheating them by making the toilet paper even thinner, therefore forcing people to use more of the product which they will then have to buy more often. The same goes for making the cardboard tube bigger. You're forcing the consumer to buy more anyway, so just make it like you used to and make the price higher (but not unreasonably so). I'd rather you cut back on the packaging budget.
Plastic grocery bags got thinner. I understand the reasoning, but having my grocery bags splitting halfway to my front door and dumping out what I just bought makes me a bit frustrated. Now I will have to go back and consume more and hope that the bagger doesn't overfill those plastic bags (because I left my reusable bags in the house...AGAIN).
There's a saying: you get what you pay for. I wish that were true. I thought I was paying for my favorite frozen dinner, but then you had to add cheaper ingredients, like peanuts, that I don't think should be in the green beans with my glazed chicken. More expensive slivered almonds, sure, but not peanuts. Besides, when did you add nuts at all? Also, several of my fave frozen dinners have added mushrooms as fillers. I love mushrooms, so I'm actually thrilled by that change. But adding wood (cellulose) to food: that's not fiber that I'd ever thought I'd be eating on purpose. Oh, wait, it's NOT on purpose. Who thought THAT was a good idea. Thanks, FDA, for not stopping that.
At the place I work at, I get to live with the result of choosing the lowest bidder. I understand the company has a bottom line, but I have come to believe that you should always throw out the lowest and highest bidder and go for one of the realistic budgets in the mid-range. I've heard Mike Holmes say it time and again on Holmes on Homes. I also heard it twice in Armageddon. Steve Buscemi's character says to Bruce Willis' character, "You know we're sitting on 4,000,000 pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon, and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" I also have to add another favorite line: "Back off, you don't know the components!" "The components: American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!" Gets me every time. Especially Lev (Peter Stormare in real life) using the wrench to hit the components to get them to work. Hee hee hee.
In the long run, you have to pay more for the cheapest bidder because there are always, ALWAYS, things somebody didn't take into account and you have to shell out more money than if you had gone with the company that thought ahead and already had a good deal built into their bid. Sigh. So, look at the long run, not the short. What's that old adage about if something seems too good to be true? Right? Or are they not teaching that anymore. Pity.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Grandparenting: Just Say No
I have some not-so-fond memories of one of my grandfathers. He enjoyed sitting me down and lecturing me on how I was living my life all wrong and that I needed to improve (when I was young and a good-ish child, mind you). I remember one particular instance where I was in view of a large plate glass window and I could envision myself picking up the small ottoman and throwing it through the window at that gorgeous view. I didn't do it. I really wanted to, but I didn't follow through on that fantasy. More than one sibling has reminded me that free advice should go in one ear and out the other, but also to be kind to the person giving it. However, because I have to carefully consider everything that people tell me, I am unable to do the "water off a duck's back" part.
I feel things deeply and don't know how not to. So, when a roommate lectures me on what a horrible person I am, I tend to listen and feel really poorly about myself. After the lecture I go to my room and think. And maybe cry. Do I really do the horrible things the roommate accuses me of or is this just their perception? Are they wrong? Do I need to work on this thing they have issues with? Or am I fine as I am?
This is the same process for my yearly job review (I hate these and believe they are counter-productive and only exist to make you miserable, and I do NOT think they're a "necessary evil"), advice from friends and family, things yelled at me by rude passers-by when I'm trying to lug my groceries into my house, the insults from the panhandlers when I pass them by, though I do have to mention that I laughed internally when someone seriously tried to insult me by calling me a "God-monger" under their breath.
Being raised in a family that had to be Right was a multi-generational issue; hence my grandfather trying to be the family patriarch and insulting me to my core whenever possible. He truly believed he was helping. It was his job, so he thought, to "grandparent" me. But he wasn't my parent. If he thought I was that horrible, he probably should have spoken to my parents about how they were raising me. I don't see that ever going over well, though, so this grandfather took it upon himself to guide me. My parents didn't stop it, as far as I knew. So I felt really guilty when my grandfather died because I loved my other grandfather so much more. My other grandfather just loved me. He just loved all of us. And we knew it. There was no question of his love. He never sat me down to tell me that I should dress differently or always wear my hair up or whatever. He just radiated love.
This is what I wish all grandparents did. So, whenever I hear anyone complaining about their grandchildren and how they're living horrible lives and someone has to do something, I ask them not to lecture and share my experience. Lecturing won't help. And if the parents have been lecturing their children, a generation older really ain't gonna help. If the grandparent is raising that child because of absentee parents, then that's different. They have to stand in that parental role. But don't "grandparent." It's not a thing and it will never be popular in this culture.
Ask yourself: when and if my grandparents lectured me, did it stick? Did I respect them for it? Did I love them more for doing it? If all those answers are "yes," then you'll probably do it anyway. But I'd wait for the grandchildren to come to you for advice because when people ask for advice they are more apt to take it. And if you don't like what's going on with your grandchildren...isn't that a reflection of your own parenting skills in a roundabout kinda way?
As an aunt, I've never been allowed to parent my siblings' children (though I'm sure I tried a few times before I got that well-deserved talking-to and I apologize if I am still perceived as doing it as I really don't mean to). I'd like to stay not-the-parent of other people's children. But I do love discussions and conversations. NOT lectures. And living by example: that's a great one. And loving my siblings' children unconditionally. And giving hugs and telling them I love them no matter what. And embarrassing them by hugging them a ton whenever I see them because I don't see them that often. Love, I believe, is what we should do. Leave lecturing to professors and parents. And it's easier to lecture grandchildren, I think, then to believe that maybe you failed as a parent with your own children.
As for my grandfather that I don't love as much as I'd like: I still sometimes think about that advice, but only on rare occasions like a little over a week ago as I was walking to church. In my head I remembered that when I wear a skirt and blouse they apparently "cut you off in the middle and make you look shorter." Probably, but dresses don't fit me well and I'd rather look like I have a figure, even if it makes me look shorter, than look like I'm wearing a variation of a potato sack. So there. Hmph. Yeah, gotta let. that. go.
A major surprise when I was no longer a young child: my grandfather did love me more than I thought (though he did start saying "I love you" first when saying goodbye on the phone near the end of his life, which was a HUGE accomplishment). When living with a cousin my freshman year of college we discovered that our grandfather would praise us to our cousins, but not to our faces. I would have preferred being praised to my face instead of behind my back. All of us (cousins, too) didn't personally know that he was proud of us.... Well, maybe the cousins that lived nearby. Maybe they knew. But those of us that lived states away? Nope. And for any of my sibs who were directly told he was proud of them, please don't tell me. I don't want to KNOW that he loved you more, even though I may suspect it. Please forever keep me in the dark about that favoritism.
I feel things deeply and don't know how not to. So, when a roommate lectures me on what a horrible person I am, I tend to listen and feel really poorly about myself. After the lecture I go to my room and think. And maybe cry. Do I really do the horrible things the roommate accuses me of or is this just their perception? Are they wrong? Do I need to work on this thing they have issues with? Or am I fine as I am?
This is the same process for my yearly job review (I hate these and believe they are counter-productive and only exist to make you miserable, and I do NOT think they're a "necessary evil"), advice from friends and family, things yelled at me by rude passers-by when I'm trying to lug my groceries into my house, the insults from the panhandlers when I pass them by, though I do have to mention that I laughed internally when someone seriously tried to insult me by calling me a "God-monger" under their breath.
Being raised in a family that had to be Right was a multi-generational issue; hence my grandfather trying to be the family patriarch and insulting me to my core whenever possible. He truly believed he was helping. It was his job, so he thought, to "grandparent" me. But he wasn't my parent. If he thought I was that horrible, he probably should have spoken to my parents about how they were raising me. I don't see that ever going over well, though, so this grandfather took it upon himself to guide me. My parents didn't stop it, as far as I knew. So I felt really guilty when my grandfather died because I loved my other grandfather so much more. My other grandfather just loved me. He just loved all of us. And we knew it. There was no question of his love. He never sat me down to tell me that I should dress differently or always wear my hair up or whatever. He just radiated love.
This is what I wish all grandparents did. So, whenever I hear anyone complaining about their grandchildren and how they're living horrible lives and someone has to do something, I ask them not to lecture and share my experience. Lecturing won't help. And if the parents have been lecturing their children, a generation older really ain't gonna help. If the grandparent is raising that child because of absentee parents, then that's different. They have to stand in that parental role. But don't "grandparent." It's not a thing and it will never be popular in this culture.
Ask yourself: when and if my grandparents lectured me, did it stick? Did I respect them for it? Did I love them more for doing it? If all those answers are "yes," then you'll probably do it anyway. But I'd wait for the grandchildren to come to you for advice because when people ask for advice they are more apt to take it. And if you don't like what's going on with your grandchildren...isn't that a reflection of your own parenting skills in a roundabout kinda way?
As an aunt, I've never been allowed to parent my siblings' children (though I'm sure I tried a few times before I got that well-deserved talking-to and I apologize if I am still perceived as doing it as I really don't mean to). I'd like to stay not-the-parent of other people's children. But I do love discussions and conversations. NOT lectures. And living by example: that's a great one. And loving my siblings' children unconditionally. And giving hugs and telling them I love them no matter what. And embarrassing them by hugging them a ton whenever I see them because I don't see them that often. Love, I believe, is what we should do. Leave lecturing to professors and parents. And it's easier to lecture grandchildren, I think, then to believe that maybe you failed as a parent with your own children.
As for my grandfather that I don't love as much as I'd like: I still sometimes think about that advice, but only on rare occasions like a little over a week ago as I was walking to church. In my head I remembered that when I wear a skirt and blouse they apparently "cut you off in the middle and make you look shorter." Probably, but dresses don't fit me well and I'd rather look like I have a figure, even if it makes me look shorter, than look like I'm wearing a variation of a potato sack. So there. Hmph. Yeah, gotta let. that. go.
A major surprise when I was no longer a young child: my grandfather did love me more than I thought (though he did start saying "I love you" first when saying goodbye on the phone near the end of his life, which was a HUGE accomplishment). When living with a cousin my freshman year of college we discovered that our grandfather would praise us to our cousins, but not to our faces. I would have preferred being praised to my face instead of behind my back. All of us (cousins, too) didn't personally know that he was proud of us.... Well, maybe the cousins that lived nearby. Maybe they knew. But those of us that lived states away? Nope. And for any of my sibs who were directly told he was proud of them, please don't tell me. I don't want to KNOW that he loved you more, even though I may suspect it. Please forever keep me in the dark about that favoritism.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Don't Be A Lemming: or Mob Mentality Leads To The Extinction Of "The Common Good"
In college I learned that some cultures were shame-based while others could be honor-based. If I remember correctly, shame-based means you don't do things that the majority shuns because you don't want the shame and if you're shameless and do it anyway, you lose all your friends. So then honor-based means that you do what is right to maintain your honor because no one wants to lose that because then you're shunned. The Puritans, I think, started our lovely shame-based society many aeons ago (I think some parts of Asia, and maybe the Klingons, are or were honor-based). But now we seem to be both shameless and baseless. Today, anybody is allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want and there ain't nothin' you can do about it. Apparently laws, shame, common sense, and honor are completely ignored.
Bike riders who switch from vehicle to non-vehicle and back again when it's convenient for them. Hey, people on bikes, when you're on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk, you're supposed to be off your bike and walking beside it, not almost running over pedestrians, taking unfair advantage of your ability to traverse crosswalks to create a shortcut and beat the cars, and For Shame, riding blissfully through red lights as if they don't apply to you. Because you can. It's not right and you should be ashamed. But you're not. And I'm NOT supposed to judge you. So...I find your behavior despicable, especially when my life is in danger due to your lack of kindness towards others. And bikes are not allowed in the house! Or on the elevator next to others dressed in their dry-clean-only office clothes. You are dangerous and just because your motor is human doesn't mean that you or an unsuspecting pedestrian can't get really hurt. And if you accidentally knock over an older lady in your haste to get...somewhere, stop and help her instead of leaving her in the middle of the crosswalk with a broken hip (hoping that someone else will have the time to help her or convincing yourself that a woman in her 80's is probably okay from that brush-by that left her on the ground).
Peeing in public. Fortunately for me, I have never been around when someone does this. I *have* seen, though, that someone or some people like to urinate on the flower boxes outside the office building I work in. You can be partially shielded from the street, I guess. But I have two things to say 1) Ew. and 2) EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! I have to step over those darker spots (because they head towards the drain nearby) to get into my building. I also do not enjoy stepping over human excrement just lying there on the sidewalk, or, horror of horrors, the "gift" someone left at the midway level of an escalator. Gross. And WHY?!?! It's possible any of these people were inebriated or otherwise chemically-altered, but that really doesn't make it okay. If you're so drunk or high that you don't know it's not appropriate, well, there are no words. Stop drinking or doing whatever makes you unaware of proper waste evacuation etiquette. If not for your own health, then to prevent the recurrence of the Black Plague that ran as rampant as the human waste that everyone emptied into the streets and gutters. Let's not go back to the Dark Ages. Really bad things happened then. And it was dark...and apparently stinky.
Smoking where it boldly says "No Smoking." I get it. The world has decided that the doctors are right and smoking really is bad for you. Now you can't smoke inside, there are less ashtrays for you to throw your cig in, and, hey, who cares about other people who may have breathing issues who have to walk through your cloud of smoke that's being puffed way too close to a building entrance, right next to the air intake for a building, or anywhere where it clearly states that your smoking habit is not welcome. By the way, open grates may seem very convenient to throw your butt into, but you don't know where it leads...like the electrical vault of the building you work at and enough trash thrown down there can start a fire and damage the building and maybe you'll be liable if they find your DNA on the thrown out butts. Maybe. (Also, grates are not good trash receptacles for your fast food remnants that you can't walk 20 feet to the trash bin to throw away in case you might miss your bus that you can see coming from a mile away.)
Cussing in public. Please stop. Please. It's really not okay and have you ever really thought about what that long string of words really means? You don't make sense. And your mind must always be in the gutter. And it's usually hateful.
So, what happened? Why is it okay to behave badly just because other people are doing it and you aren't alone in (usually) acting foolhardy? I fear that our society is leaning towards a new base: mob-based, that because enough of us act a certain way, then it's okay. It's been slowly creeping into our society for centuries, I guess. Perhaps it's part of the "base" part of human nature, to be out for one's self and to ignore the needs of others. I think we all tend to the selfish sometimes and being nice and good can be hard. It reminds me of that movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when Spock sacrificed himself to save everyone and both he and Kirk say the lines "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." Come to think of it, I think Gene Roddenberry made Vulcans honor-based, too. Of course Captain/Admiral Kirk had to go save a resurrected Spock in the next movie...but that's beside my point.
Too often we allow the needs of the few to outweigh the needs of the many. You can still love people and be disappointed in their behavior. Isn't that a lot of parenting right there? Again, I'm not a parent, so I'm just guessing. But today it's not even okay to say you're disappointed in someone else's behavior because that's not "right." Well, what you were doing wasn't right and not enough of us are standing up and saying either "for shame" or "you are without honor." Making something legal doesn't make it right, even if a lot of people think it is. And the mindset of wanting it to be right so that you're not doing wrong and being offended at the slightest whiff of someone else not agreeing, well, didn't your mom give you a time-out, spanking, or wash your mouth out with soap for behaving naughtily with no thought for others? And now you're an adult with no authority figure to answer to. Note to self: keep trying to be good, even when it's not popular, even if I know my mom isn't going to fly out and give me a time out. To mothers who follow through with threats of punishment: thank you for teaching us rather than just trying to be our friend. Children need boundaries so they realize when they're adults that those boundaries do exist and are necessary. Society would be better for it. Needs of the many, people. Needs of the many.
Bike riders who switch from vehicle to non-vehicle and back again when it's convenient for them. Hey, people on bikes, when you're on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk, you're supposed to be off your bike and walking beside it, not almost running over pedestrians, taking unfair advantage of your ability to traverse crosswalks to create a shortcut and beat the cars, and For Shame, riding blissfully through red lights as if they don't apply to you. Because you can. It's not right and you should be ashamed. But you're not. And I'm NOT supposed to judge you. So...I find your behavior despicable, especially when my life is in danger due to your lack of kindness towards others. And bikes are not allowed in the house! Or on the elevator next to others dressed in their dry-clean-only office clothes. You are dangerous and just because your motor is human doesn't mean that you or an unsuspecting pedestrian can't get really hurt. And if you accidentally knock over an older lady in your haste to get...somewhere, stop and help her instead of leaving her in the middle of the crosswalk with a broken hip (hoping that someone else will have the time to help her or convincing yourself that a woman in her 80's is probably okay from that brush-by that left her on the ground).
Peeing in public. Fortunately for me, I have never been around when someone does this. I *have* seen, though, that someone or some people like to urinate on the flower boxes outside the office building I work in. You can be partially shielded from the street, I guess. But I have two things to say 1) Ew. and 2) EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! I have to step over those darker spots (because they head towards the drain nearby) to get into my building. I also do not enjoy stepping over human excrement just lying there on the sidewalk, or, horror of horrors, the "gift" someone left at the midway level of an escalator. Gross. And WHY?!?! It's possible any of these people were inebriated or otherwise chemically-altered, but that really doesn't make it okay. If you're so drunk or high that you don't know it's not appropriate, well, there are no words. Stop drinking or doing whatever makes you unaware of proper waste evacuation etiquette. If not for your own health, then to prevent the recurrence of the Black Plague that ran as rampant as the human waste that everyone emptied into the streets and gutters. Let's not go back to the Dark Ages. Really bad things happened then. And it was dark...and apparently stinky.
Smoking where it boldly says "No Smoking." I get it. The world has decided that the doctors are right and smoking really is bad for you. Now you can't smoke inside, there are less ashtrays for you to throw your cig in, and, hey, who cares about other people who may have breathing issues who have to walk through your cloud of smoke that's being puffed way too close to a building entrance, right next to the air intake for a building, or anywhere where it clearly states that your smoking habit is not welcome. By the way, open grates may seem very convenient to throw your butt into, but you don't know where it leads...like the electrical vault of the building you work at and enough trash thrown down there can start a fire and damage the building and maybe you'll be liable if they find your DNA on the thrown out butts. Maybe. (Also, grates are not good trash receptacles for your fast food remnants that you can't walk 20 feet to the trash bin to throw away in case you might miss your bus that you can see coming from a mile away.)
Cussing in public. Please stop. Please. It's really not okay and have you ever really thought about what that long string of words really means? You don't make sense. And your mind must always be in the gutter. And it's usually hateful.
So, what happened? Why is it okay to behave badly just because other people are doing it and you aren't alone in (usually) acting foolhardy? I fear that our society is leaning towards a new base: mob-based, that because enough of us act a certain way, then it's okay. It's been slowly creeping into our society for centuries, I guess. Perhaps it's part of the "base" part of human nature, to be out for one's self and to ignore the needs of others. I think we all tend to the selfish sometimes and being nice and good can be hard. It reminds me of that movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when Spock sacrificed himself to save everyone and both he and Kirk say the lines "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." Come to think of it, I think Gene Roddenberry made Vulcans honor-based, too. Of course Captain/Admiral Kirk had to go save a resurrected Spock in the next movie...but that's beside my point.
Too often we allow the needs of the few to outweigh the needs of the many. You can still love people and be disappointed in their behavior. Isn't that a lot of parenting right there? Again, I'm not a parent, so I'm just guessing. But today it's not even okay to say you're disappointed in someone else's behavior because that's not "right." Well, what you were doing wasn't right and not enough of us are standing up and saying either "for shame" or "you are without honor." Making something legal doesn't make it right, even if a lot of people think it is. And the mindset of wanting it to be right so that you're not doing wrong and being offended at the slightest whiff of someone else not agreeing, well, didn't your mom give you a time-out, spanking, or wash your mouth out with soap for behaving naughtily with no thought for others? And now you're an adult with no authority figure to answer to. Note to self: keep trying to be good, even when it's not popular, even if I know my mom isn't going to fly out and give me a time out. To mothers who follow through with threats of punishment: thank you for teaching us rather than just trying to be our friend. Children need boundaries so they realize when they're adults that those boundaries do exist and are necessary. Society would be better for it. Needs of the many, people. Needs of the many.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Why do men say that they're uncomplicated?
I admit, freely, that women are ultra-complicated. None of us think exactly alike and we all have different motivations for why we do what we do. This makes it hard to generalize that "all women" do this, that, or the other. Gross generalizations about the female psyche aren't true, which is why categorizing women as a whole is nigh to impossible. Your best bet is to try to understand one woman at a time. Also, never assume that any woman is exactly like one you've known before; because it really isn't true and is rather unfair to the current woman you're assuming things about.
I try to be as honest as possible and say what I think and try to say what I mean, though that's really hard sometimes. However, because women have gotten a stereotype over the years of NOT saying what they think, people tend not to believe me. When I say that I'd rather not be group leader, I didn't mean "I'm only saying that I don't want to be the leader because I really want you to show that you like me by picking me, despite my protests." What I meant was "People often choose me to be the leader because I'm good at presenting, but I always tend to be the leader and I'm weary of it and it's someone else's turn."
So I have the impression that I'm simple. But I'm not. I'm sure I'm complicated to others because my motivations are not the same as theirs. So, I've concluded that men think they're simple, but they are also ultra-complicated because their motivations are different from mine. If I flirt, I wouldn't mind being asked out, even if I didn't think it was going to go anywhere. If I avoid you like the plague, I'm not interested. Yet, I've had a few guys happily flirt with me (because, face it, it's fun) that had no intention of ever asking me out. I have also been mistaken (sadly, more than once) when I thought I was on a date, but apparently a guy can ask you out, pick you up, take you to dinner, and pay for you both without considering it a date. What are their criteria based on? I had one guy tell me it was all about his intention whether it was or wasn't a date. Um, could you clue me in and all the other girls you also weren't dating that you weren't dating them? Thank you muchly.
Perhaps I will have to ask next time I'm invited to a dinner for two whether I'm being asked on a date. Do you think that would go over well? I would LOVE for a definitive way to tell if a guy is interested or not. Apparently, "not my Mr. Darcy" doesn't go for women who look like me. So, again, why does he stare? I will do my best to sit where he can't see me, because, really.
Here's my question: can a guy be attracted to a girl they don't usually go for, but, because society says they shouldn't be, they don't realize they are? Anyone follow that logic? I am not a cookie-cutter female. If my hair color isn't "right," when so many blondes come from a bottle, why does hair color even matter? I get the weight thing, I do, but when did thinness become necessary criteria for wife- and motherhood? Women's bodies change and pregnancy usually causes weight gain, so requiring thinness seems shallow, especially when the guy is also physically unfit.
What I would like, but may be a rare find, is a guy whose motivations are more like mine. One who says what he thinks and tries to mean what he says. So flirting would be an indication of interest and asking me out would be even more proof of interest. I think that's the way dating used to be, but maybe that was only in black & white movies, and definitely not so in today's modern, highly confusing and difficult to navigate society.
Another issue I have is that I'm clueless when it comes to boys. Again, because I attempt say what I mean, it's hard for me to discern that you want to put your arm around me when you ask me if I'm cold. To me, you're actually asking if I'm cold. I'd prefer you just put your arm around me. If I don't want you to, believe me, you'll know. I don't know how to play the dating game because none of those coy rules make any sense. Hmmm. Perhaps that's reason 435 of why I'm still single: can't make sense of typical human dating rituals. Would someone please make a proper dating manual that has translations in it? Then I could study entries like these:
"Are you cold?" Translation: I would like to put my arm around you, but I'm too nervous and/or scared to ask you directly, so I'm using this roundabout way for permission in case you say "no" and I can then shrug it off as no big deal.
"I wonder if she'll kiss me at the end of the night." Translation: I'm asking in third person and phrasing it like a joke because I'm nervous and/or scared because I want to kiss you, but I also want to find out if you would like to kiss me, too.
"Have a nice life." Translation: I'm being honest and not stringing you along by saying I'll call, because I'm really not interested and I don't want to lie. Please lose my number as I've have already forgotten yours.
"I'll call you." Translation: I won't call; I just don't want to hurt your feelings right now when you're in front of me, even though, for some reason, I can tell that you're hurt as if you know this is code for "I'm not really going to call."
"Can I get your phone number?" Translation: I'm actually interested in your roommate, but as you are less intimidating I'm going to eventually hurt you by making you believe I'm going to ask you out, but I will ask for someone else when I call. Not you.
"I'm only dating you." Translation: I'm tired of you asking about all the other girls I am deceiving that I go on non-date dates with and so I'm being honest, for the hour during this conversation, that truly, the only girl I'm dating at this moment is you...until tomorrow, and then I will just be dating that girl. Until you and I have another date, and then I'm only dating you non-concurrently as there's no second girl on that date....
I would so buy that book!
I try to be as honest as possible and say what I think and try to say what I mean, though that's really hard sometimes. However, because women have gotten a stereotype over the years of NOT saying what they think, people tend not to believe me. When I say that I'd rather not be group leader, I didn't mean "I'm only saying that I don't want to be the leader because I really want you to show that you like me by picking me, despite my protests." What I meant was "People often choose me to be the leader because I'm good at presenting, but I always tend to be the leader and I'm weary of it and it's someone else's turn."
So I have the impression that I'm simple. But I'm not. I'm sure I'm complicated to others because my motivations are not the same as theirs. So, I've concluded that men think they're simple, but they are also ultra-complicated because their motivations are different from mine. If I flirt, I wouldn't mind being asked out, even if I didn't think it was going to go anywhere. If I avoid you like the plague, I'm not interested. Yet, I've had a few guys happily flirt with me (because, face it, it's fun) that had no intention of ever asking me out. I have also been mistaken (sadly, more than once) when I thought I was on a date, but apparently a guy can ask you out, pick you up, take you to dinner, and pay for you both without considering it a date. What are their criteria based on? I had one guy tell me it was all about his intention whether it was or wasn't a date. Um, could you clue me in and all the other girls you also weren't dating that you weren't dating them? Thank you muchly.
Perhaps I will have to ask next time I'm invited to a dinner for two whether I'm being asked on a date. Do you think that would go over well? I would LOVE for a definitive way to tell if a guy is interested or not. Apparently, "not my Mr. Darcy" doesn't go for women who look like me. So, again, why does he stare? I will do my best to sit where he can't see me, because, really.
Here's my question: can a guy be attracted to a girl they don't usually go for, but, because society says they shouldn't be, they don't realize they are? Anyone follow that logic? I am not a cookie-cutter female. If my hair color isn't "right," when so many blondes come from a bottle, why does hair color even matter? I get the weight thing, I do, but when did thinness become necessary criteria for wife- and motherhood? Women's bodies change and pregnancy usually causes weight gain, so requiring thinness seems shallow, especially when the guy is also physically unfit.
What I would like, but may be a rare find, is a guy whose motivations are more like mine. One who says what he thinks and tries to mean what he says. So flirting would be an indication of interest and asking me out would be even more proof of interest. I think that's the way dating used to be, but maybe that was only in black & white movies, and definitely not so in today's modern, highly confusing and difficult to navigate society.
Another issue I have is that I'm clueless when it comes to boys. Again, because I attempt say what I mean, it's hard for me to discern that you want to put your arm around me when you ask me if I'm cold. To me, you're actually asking if I'm cold. I'd prefer you just put your arm around me. If I don't want you to, believe me, you'll know. I don't know how to play the dating game because none of those coy rules make any sense. Hmmm. Perhaps that's reason 435 of why I'm still single: can't make sense of typical human dating rituals. Would someone please make a proper dating manual that has translations in it? Then I could study entries like these:
"Are you cold?" Translation: I would like to put my arm around you, but I'm too nervous and/or scared to ask you directly, so I'm using this roundabout way for permission in case you say "no" and I can then shrug it off as no big deal.
"I wonder if she'll kiss me at the end of the night." Translation: I'm asking in third person and phrasing it like a joke because I'm nervous and/or scared because I want to kiss you, but I also want to find out if you would like to kiss me, too.
"Have a nice life." Translation: I'm being honest and not stringing you along by saying I'll call, because I'm really not interested and I don't want to lie. Please lose my number as I've have already forgotten yours.
"I'll call you." Translation: I won't call; I just don't want to hurt your feelings right now when you're in front of me, even though, for some reason, I can tell that you're hurt as if you know this is code for "I'm not really going to call."
"Can I get your phone number?" Translation: I'm actually interested in your roommate, but as you are less intimidating I'm going to eventually hurt you by making you believe I'm going to ask you out, but I will ask for someone else when I call. Not you.
"I'm only dating you." Translation: I'm tired of you asking about all the other girls I am deceiving that I go on non-date dates with and so I'm being honest, for the hour during this conversation, that truly, the only girl I'm dating at this moment is you...until tomorrow, and then I will just be dating that girl. Until you and I have another date, and then I'm only dating you non-concurrently as there's no second girl on that date....
I would so buy that book!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)