You say treated like he treated you when you first went out. Let's just clarify for the general reading public that you were treated well on exactly one first date. Period. End of story.

I hope you mean what you say, but I still say get out of the mess and stay out of the mess. He will never honestly confess his issues to you. Most guys -- and correct me, Mark, if I'm wrong -- don't like to discuss these types of things. Some guys will talk with you about their personal "stuff," but in my experience, only once they know you well. We spend 20 years teaching them to be stoic and then expect them to be open? Doesn't work.

Okay, so last comment on the subject: DO NOT PUT YOUR EGGS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S BASKET. One of my coworkers insists on driving most of the time because, as he puts it, no one else cares about his safety as much as he does. No one else cares about your eggs like you do. Some guy you met online does not care about your eggs like you do. Keep your eggs close. Guard them (we could make some good female comments about eggs and penetration of eggs, but let's just leave the metaphor open and not beat it to a pulp.)

Off to meet a puppy and have lunch.

It's Armageddon, I'm telling you. Boston just went up 3-0 in the Top of the 3rd, and if they win tonight, THEY WIN. The Curse will officially be over. Need more proof? I kissed a girl last night, breaking a two year drought. It's DEFINITELY Armageddon. Still not convinced? I can now honestly say I have a positive online dating experience. IT'S FRICKIN' ARMAGEDDON.

Kate, you're pretty much right. Guys aren't really going to discuss their issues unless they're trying to drive you away or set you up for the old "but he opens up to ME, not those other girls" manuever. OR, they feel like they like you and/or trust you enough to just be honest. Besides, telling someone your weaknesses puts you at their mercy.

So... any final election thoughts? After tomorrow, I'll be in Las Vegas for Halloween, and I get back at 1AM Election Day. Let's hope I'm sober enough to use the new-fangled touch screens.

Sorry, one last question:

You have a history or habit of meeting a guy (and this is ONLY true for guys with you), deciding he is a nice person, believing it against all evidence to the contrary, and letting him walk all over you while you give him second chance after second chance to "be the person you know he can be".

How's that working for you?

Okay, it's good to have you back, but WTF???

Allow me to quote:
"i hesitate here with chris because im sure theres a great person there, someone who has so much potential to be amazing and kind and everything else. id hate to just write him off without a second glance...what would that say about me as a person?"

It says you're a total dumbass about boys. Not to put to fine a point on it. The key phrase here, emphasis added by me in the quote above: potential. It's not about potential. You don't date someone hoping that he will become a good person. He has to start off that way. Okay, not true. There are tons of stupid men and women who delude themselves into thinking that this s.o., despite his/her problems, will turn into a great person like magic, just because of the influence of love. Bull-shit.

It's one thing to go through a rough patch with someone you know and love. I'm still friends with both of you, but there have been times where we've not spoken for one reason or another. (For the record, living with someone you're not speaking to is tough.) To wait around for someone to get his life together, and then make him "pay" for treating you like shit while he was having a tough time is, as Mark said, one of the worst possible ways to start off a relationship. He will never be able to pay-in-full his emotional "debt" to you. You get to be a martyr to "love" or whatever the fuck it is, and hold it over his head forever. You're keeping score. You can't keep score in love. It's like no crying in baseball -- a hard and fast rule. Once you start keeping score, it's over. If you had something, and one or both (it does take two to tango) of you damage it, you might be able to fix it. You and Chris have nothing but bad feelings and b.s. between you right now. Clean break. Mark's right -- you keeping giving him chances to hurt you, so right now, all your pain and confusion is your fault. Yours. No one else's. Chris has let you know, even if not in so many words, that he's not ready, not interested, not whatever. You aren't listening.

Pay attention to him, to yourself, and stop being his whipping boy. You do deserve someone who wants to be with you. You do deserve someone who treats you with kindness, respect, and caring -- ESPECIALLY at the beginning of the relationship when you're trying to make a good impression! If a guy treats you like crap at the "getting to know you" stage, isn't it pretty clear that it's only going downhill from there? Familiarity breeds contempt, to a degree, no matter how much consideration there is. Until you believe that you deserve someone decent, you're going to keep attracting idiots like Chris.

The mere fact that you didn't run for the hills screaming or didn't react in a very negative way to him telling you all that crap about his drama and his exes I would say lets him know you're willing to stick it out and wait for him if he ever decides to exercise the option on you. Now I'm not knocking honesty and coming clean, there are points to be gained for that. But if he really wanted to date you, he wouldn't have busted out with the whole drama bit. Worse yet, he tells you about going out KNOWING you can't. That's either real dumb, or just totally insensitive. He might as well breakdance in front of you.

And having him do penance for all this is perhaps the worst way to start a relationship I've ever heard of. Now I could be wrong, this guy might be alright. But I'm thinking you should pay attention to any of the other potentials and let this guy make the effort to come to you. Anyway, best of luck :)

Yeah, she's definitely back :)

Just remember, Susan--whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Sorry to hear about the accident and the latest entries in your love life. I've noticed in many a blog that people finally realize just how "out there" this web log thingy is. People, you have to understand that in the age of the Internet, we've finally been able to measure how quickly information can spread. You tell just one person about this site, and odds are you'll have hundreds of people looking at it in a week. Not to mention those that just click "Next Blog" at the top and happen on it. I kept a diary on my PC a la Doogie Howser for a year and a half, and NO ONE has EVER seen it. And they never will. But on here, you have to be ready for people to comment on your life, and not all of the comments will be nice. So don't put anything out here you don't want known. So now you know... and knowing is half the battle...

G.I. JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE!!!!!

Man, that NEVER gets old.

So, about this Chris fellow: He's either A) not interested or B) really, REALLY dumb, and possibly both. Once you know more about a man's drama and his sexual past than you do him, you're reached the Friend (with possibility of Benefits) Zone, or the Plan B Zone. And from the way you tell it, you've given him the message that you indeed will be there waiting for him once Plan A goes bad. It's a dangerous game you're playing, much like the one that involves casual sex. You have to be pretty mentally tough to continue on in a situation like that without it bothering you eventually, and although you seemed to have grown a bit in the past couple months, I doubt you're really ready to engage in such a game. So move on to the next contestants. Let him make up his mind what is more important to him while you pursue others that may be more willing to put you first.

Speaking of online dating, I finally found a decent one. Imagine that, a girl that actually came AS ADVERTISED, looks-wise, age-wise, everything-wise. Almost rekindled my faith in the whole thing. Screw the stigma, everyone does it nowadays, so don't even sweat it.

Anyway, welcome back.

Did anyone catch the lesser Simpson sister blowing it on SNL? That was classic :) Someone please send the siblings to the Sidekick Shack... Ashlee, Haylie, whatever Britney's sister's name is... I'm done with it.

She said:

What I did last night:
~went to movie night. Saw The Corporation. Resolved never to shop again, realizing I'd break that resolve almost immediately.
~straightened up my house (stacked the papers on the table and moved the pile to desk)
~made dinner -- if you call making refried bean dip "Making Dinner." It's definitely cooking with a lower case "c."
~ate dinner watching ER. Generally a bad idea, but not so bad last night.
~vacuumed (have company coming, HAD to be done. I've been putting it off for 2 weeks)
~watched the rest of a taped episode of Gilmore Girls (I watched about half last night)
~watched One Tree Hill -- I have got to get better taste in television.
~got ready for bed and cleaned the bathroom
~read 2.5 chapters in Kafka's The Castle
~slept

So I guess I did a little of both -- should and want.

But this is the problem -- I know that IF I schedule things, I will do them. I just can't seem to schedule them. I did 2 years of TKD in grad school, as PE classes. Loved it. I've never done it in a studio, though. Scary. Okay, that's an excuse, too. I'll think about it this weekend. Let you know what I come up with.

You're afraid of commitment?

What to do, what to do with your free time... I like the choice of topic.

He said:

Where's the fun in doing what you SHOULD be doing? When has that ever gotten anyone anywhere? This is what I did tonight:

-- watched Angel rerun on TNT
-- watched two episodes of The Simpsons
-- chatted with someone on MSN, then Yahoo Messenger
-- drove to Popeyes (Love That Chicken!) and got dinner
-- watched the NLCS Game 7
-- chatted up Becca, former roommate of Beth, former girlfriend of Bill, on AOL IM, and caught up for a bit
-- talked to a friend on the phone

The list of what I COULD have been doing is far too long to even attempt to put down.

I've found that the hardest part of getting constructive things done is getting them started in the first place. Once you can get past that, the rest is relatively easy. That obviously has been difficult for me when it comes to doing things around the house, as evidenced by the ceiling fan that still lies on my office floor, where it has been for the last two and a half years. I forced myself into a routine with the laundry, so that hasn't been too bad. In general, I try to make as little of a mess as possible in order to avoid having to clean up as often.

I guess it really all comes down to priorities. But man, you sound like me in that last post in terms of indecisiveness. Perhaps you could turn some of the emphasis you place on some of your opinions into direction for your free time. Take an interest in your own life like you do politics. All mental and no physical is no good. You'll end up a fat, lazy, bloated brain incapable of leaving the couch. I like the Tae Kwon Do idea--I took it for a year when I was 10, have the green belt to prove it. Besides, everyone likes learning how to kick ass. But why stop there? Why not learn something exotic like Muay Thai kickboxing? Maybe they should add that to the Small Steps website.

Anyway, the key is to get some things scheduled and do them a couple times. I know I have flag football on Wednesdays, and tennis on Thursdays. Some of my co-workers go biking on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Once you get into a routine, these things are a lot easier.

I totally understand the sentiment behind "recovering"; however, it's merely an excuse to procrastinate. My Dad likes to remind me that I told him I'd take maybe one or two years off from overachieving after graduating from GT. That was five years ago ;)

Well, I'm all for change, all the time. I've had 8 addresses in the last 10 years. What does that tell you?

Hmmm. My brain feels a little dead. I can't think of any good issue to discuss right now. Okay, not really an issue, but how's this:

SHE SAID:

Free time. What do you do with it? I'm now two years out from finishing my thesis. Two years. For four years, I was in college, lived in a dorm, and between classes, work, and theatre, I didn't have a ton of free time. What I did have was spent bullshitting with friends in the dorm and out. For three years after that, I was in grad school, again working, and hanging out with likeminded folk. Mostly, for fun, we ate. Gotta eat, may as well do it with friends. In grad school, there was always school work you could be doing -- more things to read and know. It was like studying, or feeling guilty because you weren't, 24/7.

So now, I work 8 hours a day, have a part-time job in academia, take a class one night a week (this month), belong to a film club that watches a movie one night a week, and have time I don't know what to do with. I could keep my apartment clean. I could be more proactive about finding a house (how can you be proactive if no one's selling anything good?), could do laundry before I was absolutely out of underwear, could work on my craft projects, could unpack those boxes I moved into the back bedroom's closet a year and a half ago, could read more. But I don't. I don't know what I do. I'm keeping up on what's new in the television world, that's for sure. I occasionally surf.

I guess my question is this: what SHOULD I be doing that I'm not? How do I get it together? I know one thing -- I should be doing something, anything, physical. I should take up Tae Kwon Do again. I'm too much of a lazy couch potato. My grad school roommate used to joke that you had to trick me into exercising -- she's right. I will walk, IF I have somewhere to go. Otherwise, I don't. We used to "play" racquetball -- very, very, very badly. It was fun, more of a workout for all the laughing.

I keep thinking I should be more scheduled, where things get done regularly, I cook more, my place is reasonably clean, and I DO something. But so far, I'm failing. I told myself for a while that I was "recovering" from grad school and then that I was "recovering" from the learning curve at work. Bs. How pathetic!

Okay, got to go finish something before I go home. Big day tomorrow.

Oh, it's only the biggest sporting event of the last 50 years or so, don't worry about it. For those of you scoring at home, it's Boston 8, New York 1, top of the 6th, two out. Looks like the curse may finally have been reversed. Either that, or it will have a new, even more devastating chapter written tonight. Also, even if Boston goes on to win, they still have to win the World Series or it won't even matter.

Nice dodge on the being bitchy issue, but I think that sort of tells me everything I need to know about it. Moving on.

For the most part, I agree with your take on elections, all with the exception of voting for change early and often. Change is not always a good thing. But certainly try to vote informed. The sample ballot just came out today, and most of it is Greek to me. I will definitely need to do some research between now and then, and hopefully I'll be sober enough post Halloween Vegas to vote correctly.

Bush is my boy, and I fully admit he's pretty much an idiot and doesn't appear to much like black people. Unfortunately, Kerry strikes me as the guy who is just saying what everyone wants to hear, and he doesn't seem to recognize that, realistically speaking, many of the things he's suggesting are not likely to work. Believe it or not, he did sorta kinda acknowledge that the whole Iraq thing hadn't gone exactly according to plan. And he is what he is... steadfast in what he believes in. He may make bad choices, but he will run those bad choices into the ground. Is that a good thing? Probably not, but I'm willing to give him four more years. Why? Probably because I'm not very smart. There is one promise I can make, however, and that is to support whoever wins.

We'll let that slide as a "she said", but mostly I wasn't sure if you even wanted to play anymore. Your move. What shall we talk about next?

The what game? I'm predictable, aren't I?

Feel free to call me on whatever. My mother brings out all of my irrational tendencies. It's one of those regressional relationships, but we've been working on it and she no longer CONSTANTLY drives me nuts.

Let's see: celebrities and politics. There are some celebrities who have street cred. Bono, for example. The man is an involved activist outside of his entertainment career. But the majority of them just have the public's ear, and therefore go shooting off at the mouth. They are more amusing than the actual politicians.

Here's my take on elections:
1. VOTE.
2. Vote early, absentee ballot, on paper, so that you can be SURE that your vote is at least recorded (if not counted). No Florida fiasco for me.
3. Vote Informed. Take a few minutes, scan the list of "issue statements" on the candidate's website, choose the ones that are truly important to you, and compare his statements to the other guy's. And yes, they're mostly guys.
4. Read articles about the subjects that interest you. Find out what's going on -- print does seem to be more reliable than visual media (in my opinion).
5. My motto: When in doubt, when one candidate is a rock, and the other a hard place, vote for the challenger. If things are mediocre at best, can't a regime change be a good idea?
6. VOTE.

My problems with Bush are legion, but the thing that bugs me MOST about him: he cannot admit or recognize that he's made mistakes. That his judgement is NOT perfect and that he is not infallible. If, as a born and bred Catholic until 19 or so, do not believe the Pope is fallible (and I was fed that with my bottle), then I'm sure as hell not going to buy a rich, privileged politician's assertion that he's fallible!

Does that qualify as a "she said?"

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but... to respond to your question of why would I put up with you being an irrational pain in the ass, that depends on how we're looking at it:

In the hypothetical sense, a guy might figure it's not worth calling you on it. I can't think of any situation I've ever been in where calling the girl on being bitchy has ever improved the situation. I'll ask around and get some data.

For me personally, let me give you a story that perfectly illustrates my take on it. When I came to visit you in Oregon, you seemed abnormally annoyed by your mother. I was tempted on a couple of occasions to call you on it, BUT, I knew two things: 1) I'm not a member of your family and have no right to say anything 2) I don't know the whole story, so I can't really say if you were justified or not. Instead, I chose to keep my mouth shut, and just listen to what you had to say. And we all had a wonderful time, so I think I made the right move.

My counter to this whole thing is: if you KNOW you're being an irrational pain in the ass, why can't you stop?

Get out of the house? I didn't realize you spent much time at home. You pretty much seemed the out and about type to me... have you been going to Couch Potato Academy(tm)? You should have told me. Ah, the things I could teach you about sitting in front of the boob tube for hours and hours and hours... Alas, Big Brother wants us to try and get healthier, so take heed of Small Step #62: Explore new physical activities.

So you seem be tiring of the relationship drivel, and I can't say I blame you--I have my own reasons for talking about it here recently. I'd ask your take on ALCS Game 7, but you're probably just going to ask me what that is :) We can shift back to politics, if you'd like--I could use more discussion on that to help me figure out where my vote will go Nov 2. Have you guys seen this? Actually, let's discuss something that has been bothering me for a bit, and that's the role of Hollywood in politics...

I hate it when actors decide they have to get involved politically. They get on these political debate shows and start making points like they're on Jerry Springer. People just eat that sort of stuff up. Do these people have any idea what they're talking about? I saw David Cross on Bill Maher's HBO show recently, the two of them were just constantly Bush bashing, seems to be in style in Hollywood these days. Now Maher has been around the political circuit, so I'd wager he probably has some idea of what he's saying. David Cross is one funny motherfucker, however I'm not so sure I would just believe everything he says about political issues... but the crowd just loved everything he said, every little joke he made. There were also two Republicans on the show, one a Lt. Govenor, the other a political journalist. Nobody seemed to like what these guys were saying, I'm assuming because it wasn't funny. So compare and contrast what I'm saying here, with the Jon Stewart video clip I hyperlinked above.

Rough life? Ja, sure, you betcha. What EVER.

Anyway, I can't explain the wedding thing. I don't get it. I think many girls are brought up to believe the fairy tale, the Cinderella, man come rescue me on white horse, thing. The closest they get to it is The Wedding (TM). I don't understand. My parents had your standard Catholic church wedding (required to not get kicked out), but they did it small and paid for it themselves. They didn't constantly reminisce about the wedding day. It happened, and then they were free to indulge in as much togetherness and carnal knowledge as they wanted. Woo-hoo! So my mom never told me about the joys of being a bride. If you asked her, she'd tell you what it was like to be a wife, though. They may have been nuts, but they did get it right.

I was at a wedding a few years ago, watching the single bridesmaids (complete with aching ovaries) fawn over the little flower girl. They told her over and over how pretty she was and how, one day, she could be a bride just like Sally. It was projection and wishful thinking on their parts, but it will leave an impression in the poor kid's mind.

When I was 12, bored at a family party at my aunt's house, I was digging through the books and found an encyclopedia of customs. In it, they discussed the historical nature and reasoning for different parts of the wedding traditions. It explained the idea of woman as property, hence the father "giving the bride away." It explained dowries and goat exchanges. I realized I didn't want my dad to "give me away" -- I wasn't his to give! From that, I've disected the ceremony throughout the long, Catholic mass ceremonies I've had to attend for numerous cousins. I think the tradition means more than the meaning behind it. If I ever decide to make that commitment, every moment of whatever I do needs to be meaningful to US as a couple. In what way are my partner and I comfortable celebrating this commitment? How do we want to share it? Who cares what anyone else does? The day is about us. I guess that's why modern weddings bother me so much -- they are about the bride and not the couple. This seems to miss the point of the exchange of vows, doesn't it?

Anyway, I don't need someone to tell me I'm wrong constantly. But there are times where I know I'm just being an irrational pain in the ass. Why would you, as a guy, put up with that?

Okay, I've worn myself out ranting about weddings. I think I need to get a life outside the house. What do you think?

Welcome back--you didn't miss much.

Well, there sure does seem to be a rather large emphasis on The Wedding(tm) in our culture. Not sure if it's a bigger deal now than in the past, but certainly seems to draw too much attention to itself. I think the cheapest wedding I've been to was the one in Las Vegas, oddly enough. One of my co-workers had a lovely little ceremony at Mandalay Bay, with maybe 40-50 guests. I think it only cost $8,000 (not counting flights for all in attendance). Others went for the big shindig, and put themselves into debt. To be fair, however, I can't think of a single wedding I went to that wasn't pretty good. I still like my parents' method, however, the old Justice of the Peace. Although it wouldn't take much arm twisting to get me to agree to a Vegas wedding :)

Now from what I understand, it's all about the women. They're the ones that have waited their entire lives to put on the white dress (not that they ever really deserve to wear white by that point, but cut 'em some slack, will ya?). Women seem to like the big wedding. Perhaps this is another thing you can help me understand. Why do women place such an immense importance on the wedding day? I've seen brides bare their fangs at the slightest attempt to disrupt the wedding ceremony. What is typically supposed to be the happiest day of your life seems to always be one mishap away from the worst day of your life. For me, I always think the most important thing to take away from the wedding are the vows exchanged before friends, family, and God. That's what marriage is really about, isn't it?

Anyhoo, you're absolutely right, you could do many, many things with the money spent on a wedding. But then again, no one is really going to stop you from doing the old drive through Little White Wedding Chapel style wedding. Then go somewhere cool for your honeymoon. Then shock your friends and family by introducting them to the husband they weren't aware you had.

Partnerships are fine by me, that's what I'm looking for in a potential mate, if I can find it. I'm just struggling with this whole "I need a strong man to stand up to me" concept. I still haven't heard a decent explanation. Also, I'll be more than happy to tell you you're wrong, as often as you would like ;)

Anyway, enough of my soapbox--you asked if I did anything fun this weekend--I went to the Clearwater Jazz Fest Saturday, and could not have had better weather or a more relaxing time. Everyone should really move to Central Florida, hurricanes be damned. I watched all sorts of football on Sunday, taking full advantage of the HDTV powers of the 60". It's a rough life, honestly... but someone has to live it.

Piggy heaven?

Yeah, I know. The ball and chain was enacted Saturday night. On the plus side, I saw people I haven't seen in 15 and 20 years. I've grown up since then, just a little.

Here's the best part:
This was the first wedding I've attended in years where it was evident that the two people at the altar (for the entire hour-plus Catholic ceremony) KNEW WHY THEY WERE THERE! I've been to too many weddings where the couple is so tied up in The Event that it seems they forget that they're supposed to be in love and want to be with each other.

The Wedding has trumped The Marriage in our culture, and hence the divorce rates. It's ridiculous.

Every so often, I wonder what it might feel like to be willing to commit my life to someone else's, make that public pledge, and have friends and family celebrate it. And then I realize that I could take a month-long honeymoon/vacation in some really nice location for what the average wedding now costs (which is close to what my student loans add up to) and realize I'd rather travel than wear a white dress in front of my family and friends (friends who would know the undeserved nature of the "white" symbolism).

So that, plus the beach added up to a pretty decent weekend. I had a good time. I hate airports, but I guess the trip was worth it.

Do anything fun this weekend?

I guess I need an SO who can discuss things with me, who isn't afraid to share his opinion, and who is willing to tell me that he thinks I'm wrong sometimes. I do want a partnership, not just a relationship. Is that too much to ask?

Have fun watching yet another one chain themselves away for perpetuity. Your turn will come.

Enh, everyone is different about casual sex. I certainly didn't mean to imply that women aren't capable of it, because I know better. I've been on the other side of the coin myself once or twice, y'know, had my heart broken by a vicious woman who used me for sex (and I enjoyed every minute of it). I just don't know if some of them are aware of what they're in for... could just save us all a little time and trouble. Then again, what fun is the world without petty drama?

What was this guy's reason for not defending himself to you? You see, it's one thing to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to assert themselves. Being pretty unassuming myself, I see where people like that are coming from. The thought process goes as follows: A decision needs to be made. Who is more likely to bitch about a decision they aren't pleased with, me or her? If it's her, I let her choose instead of having her accept a choice from me that I will pay for later, even though she will swear it's okay. If it's me, I make a suggestion. In my last relationship, in 99% of the cases where this issue came up, I chose to let her decide. The ONE time I laid down the rules, I couldn't even get the little things I was asking for. End result: birthday blow up I posted about way back, end of relationship. I mean, I could easily go around pushing for my way all the time... truth is, I have strong feelings on just about everything. I still don't see the point in it. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Subtle control, my ass. You're just asking to get chopped up into little pieces when you're sleeping. How many people, men and women alike, just take it and take it and take it for years, then wake up one morning and chop their families up like it's a normal day? Not that I've put a lot of thought into that... ;)

Okay, fine--it's not really alternate dimension Wicked Moxie. Truth is, I had been clicking all day, and got tired of it :) I just wish I could have seen your face when you reached Piggy Heaven ;)

PS
I'm off to Virginia for a wedding. They're dropping like flies out there to this whole committment thing. Ugh. Regardless, back to posting on Tuesday, probably. Have a good weekend down there.

There's nothing wrong with your sexuality, dude. But it did make you blush. Susan is ruthless when she gets it into her head to be. You should've heard her on the topic of masturbation. Oh, wait, you knew us in college and probably did.

Well, okay, I see your point. But on the flip side, maybe you need to be thinking like a girl, too, and then maybe we can meet in the middle and work it out. I don't know if I'm smarter or just more full of self-knowledge, but I've known forever that casual sex and I don't mix. Oil and water. So I just skipped it. (Same deal with fraternity parties. Never been, don't care.)

I don't think I'm a particularly bitchy person. Please feel free to "correct" me if I am wrong. But the only time I've gone into full-on, raving Bitch mode (not counting the thing with the drugs --prescription, not illegal -- back in grad school) was when I dated a guy with no backbone. If you, the guy, have a backbone, stand up for yourself, have opinions and beliefs on things, I can respect that. The guy in question didn't ever have an opinion on anything. Politics: nothing. Movies: nothing. Where do you want to go eat tonight: nothing. I started pushing. And then I started creating issues and pushing him around to see if he'd tell me to stop. Nope. So I started fights to see if he'd stand up for himself and his opinion/point of view. Nope. Can't respect someone with no opinion. I would assume this would work the other way, too. It isn't a matter of either side being rude or mean -- it's a matter of being in a relationship with two responsible adults who can, if need be, agree to disagree about a matter. Of course, you're right: some people use this as an excuse to be bitchy all the time.

Nagging and being bossy I think are the remnants of "subtle" control. Back when women had no legal, political, or economic power, what they did have was the power to make their husbands' lives miserable to get him to reconsider decision that affected her. Many settlers to the early Dacotah Territory left in the first five years. In these days, a wife didn't really have the option of saying, "I don't want to leave my nice home, family, friends, and familiar city to be a pioneer with you, honey." She could not leave him and frequently couldn't stay behind. So, they moved from forested pretty Minnesota and Wisconsin, or the cities in the East, to the vast, open, uncharted and uncivilised barren prairie. My theory is then that the wife could be unpleasant enough to make the hard first few years even harder if she really wanted to go home. Would work, too.

She said:
I TOTALLY disagree. I teach grammar, and therefore am not allowed to talk like a piggy. So what's the classification of Wicked Moxie? Where do we fit in the blog-verse? Have we found the question yet?

Maybe that's the blog insight: we may think we are pretty little snowflakes, but we all slog through the same shit on a daily basis and we'd be much better off if we all realized it and shared the experience rather than attempting to go it alone. We are quirky, not unique. We don't need to establish that we are totally bizarre individuals for people to like us and love us and miss us when we die. We can spend too much effort attempting to be that unique, effort that could be directed towards enjoying this mortal coil.

As the cool winds blow and Demeter sinks into her annual depression, missing Persephone's warm presence in her life, we can be assured that the only constant is change and that change, even when it is a repeated pattern, is the reason thate we find our lives worth living. We must find out what happens next.
From Wallace Stevens' Sunday Morning (stanza V, lines 61-65)
She says, "But in contentment I still feel
The need of some imperishable bliss."
Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her,
Alone, shall come fulfilment to our dreams
And our desires

Ah, I am sorry to hear about Susan and her little moto... why do all the good ones die young? Anyway, her presence is missed, and we'll see her whenever she comes back.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH A MAN LIKING HIS ROOTY TOOTY FRESH AND FRUITY (Cinnamon-Apple, please)? I am still comfortable in my sexuality. Besides, I was young... and stupid... back then... ;)

As for my comment about thinking like a guy, it was part of a longer rant I took out of the post. I'm tired of seeing women throw themselves at men thinking they're going to change something about the relationship, sort of a last-ditch "why doesn't he love me?" type manuever. Most men have the innate ability to totally separate sex and love. As a woman, I think you would do well to be aware of this fact. However, it doesn't mean they will always do so. I just haven't met many women capable of handling casual sex, especially the after-effects. In my experience, I somehow misled the woman in all the cases where it fell apart that there was something more to be had... but I didn't realize that I had done so until it was too late--I thought we were both on the same page. Next thing I know, they're crying on the phone wondering why we broke up, and I'm thinking to myself "we were dating?"... Anyway, enough of my dirty laundry for now. I hope that answers your question, and feel free to ask me about any other strange man-activity you've seen.

Actually, let's stay here for one more sec... I have a question for you, the women of the world. I was blog-hopping just yesterday, and came across a blog written by a girl who lamented the end of a three year relationship in which it finally came out that she thought he was a pushover, and he thought she was a bitch. Part of what she had to say caught my eye... she mentioned that she needed a strong man to stand up to her. Now I've heard this from other women, and I can't say I understand it. Does she mean to say she fully recognizes that she is by default bitchy, and that she needs a man to fire right back at her and put her in her place? My latest ex said the same thing to me, said I should call her on it whenever she was being bitchy (problem with that was I'd be doing every five seconds). Is this a common thing among women? Is this some sort of an excuse for being bitchy? Where does the drive to bitch and nag come from? What is it you hope to gain from it? Help a brother out here. I mean, I am a pushover by default, but if you give me the green light, I can make your life a living hell in short order. I just don't see the point in it.

Motion to move on granted...

Next topic: You are not special... You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake... (aka Life's Lessons from Fight Club)

He said: So indeed lately I have been blog-hopping. Just click the old "Next Blog" button up there at the top-right corner of the page and you'll see for yourself. Admittedly, many of the blogs are in languages other than English, so you may have to give it a couple clicks. I think the most alarming thought I had not soon into hopping around was how easily you can classify people's blogs. You have your political blogs, your poetry blogs, your "what is the meaning of it all?" blogs (my personal one falls into this category), your "this is what's going on in my life" blogs (mine also falls into this category), your "why can't I find a man/woman?" blogs, your TeEn AnGsT blogs, your "I'm having more sex than you because I'm a girl and men want me, in fact let me describe to you in brutal detail how much sex I'm having" blogs, and, of course, Miscellaneous :)

So to the point: Kinda scary when you think about how many different people have blogs. Scarier still how they mostly end up saying the same thing. How many clicks would it take to get to the alternate dimension Wicked Moxie? Try it and see. Are we all really different, or are we all pretty much the same? Kinda makes me think of The Hitchiker's Guide, where humans are basically one big distributed super computer whose purpose is to answer the ultimate question.

You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You are not the contents of your wallet. YOU ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING KHAKIS. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

Heh. To answer the question about the how many clicks it takes to get to the alternate dimension Wicked Moxie... It took me three. This is what I found. If that's not Bizarro Wicked Moxie, I don't know what is :)

To tell Susan's secrets, I think she's trying to find a balance between the part of her that wants to hang all the laundry on the line -- clean and dirty together -- and the social sense that maybe, if you don't want the neighbors commenting on your naughty lingerie, you shouldn't hang it out. She's alive, but broken. Alas, as she has not done so, it is my duty to report that Stella, the Mini, is dead. She left the world due to one woman's space cadet moment (a moment which broke Susan, too). Life goes on, I suppose.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm not a trusting person. Ask Susan. I used to drive her nuts because I wouldn't tell her anything. I have a few good friends now that I've known for a long time, people I feel comfortable telling almost anything. This has restored my trust in humanity -- meaning that I now know there are people I can trust, not that I do trust all of them. In return, I've opened up like the vast prairies I live in. That, combined with a general "fuck it" attitude towards what other people think about my life and choices (most of the time -- sometimes I do care, especially if it is the opinion of someone I care about), and I feel more comfortable with my self and expressions thereof.

And there is an instinct. I've learned to trust mine, as they rarely lead me astray. You are part of that proof. So is Susan. And the SO.

Why would anyone's sexual exploits make me blush? How does what you've done in (or out) of bed affect me in a way worthy of blushing? And for making you blush, all I have to say is:
ROOTIE TUTTI FRESH AND FRUITY
'nuff said.

What do you mean about thinking like a guy? Explain. I've gotten far enough into guy land to know that guys do not do subtle and it is not worth my effort to hint. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally try it, but it is worthless. The number of times I've started a hint to the SO and then, mid-stream, changed tactics to say: This is how I feel, this is what I want, here's what would make me happiest, how do you feel about it? is amazing. It's the only way that gets results, though. What else do I need to know? Next lesson, please.

Worse scenario: being single when you see the ex-so again. Being in a bad relationship, you have a reason (even if you don't think it's a good one) to not do anything that could be considered, in retrospect, stupid.

So, despite the fact that we've nowhere near exhausted the topic, shall we move on, leaving the ages old question to continue festering like a pus-filled social wound?

Oh yeah, pretty familiar with the topic :)

In my cases, I used to think that I was so smart, I could just be honest and put everything out there and no one would get hurt. You know, not leading anyone on. What I didn't take into account was the perception of my actions versus what I was saying. So on one hand, I would tell someone "this is a temporary situation". On the other, I would do things that made them feel as if they were in a real relationship. So when it would finally explode, I couldn't understand why it didn't work and we couldn't just go back to being friends. I've inadvertently "dumped" a few girls without even knowing that we were really dating in their minds.

On being friends with ex's: Fortunately for me, the high school relationship ended badly enough for me to not to want to see her again, the college relationship ended on worse terms, and the most recent one is already married, and we were never really friends to begin with. Of the three, the only one I've spoken one word to since breaking up is the college ex. Took me six years to get over what happened between us. But she is married now, happy, and best of all, in Australia, far, far away from here. I honestly believe we could be friends now. Can't say it didn't hurt just a little bit more than I thought it would to see her wedding picture, but enh, whatareyagonnado? Having said all that, I think it is hard to avoid old feelings coming back to the surface if you have to spend any kind of extended amount of time with an ex. This is especially dangerous when things aren't good in your current relationship.

On to loving your friends: I agree. I was going to say that I also believed it possible to love a friend as much or even more than a SO, although that really doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Kind of goes against the definition of Significant Other. Also, you are certainly right to point out that the friend can get away with much more than a SO. The friend gets all of the same love at a fraction of the cost charged to a SO. I think what I'm trying to get at, even trying to explain it to myself, is that we should respect the position of a SO. They are the ones who always have to be there, no matter what. They are the ones that have to deal with your crap on a daily basis. It is far easier to come in as the friend and really brighten someone's life for short periods at a time, especially when you don't have to live with them 24/7. I speak from personal experience here, folks. It is simply not that difficult to steal someone away if you really wanted to. Perhaps if everyone just had "friends w/benefits" type relationships, we could cut out most of the drama. Thing is, it would be difficult to have families under such a system. I don't know how everyone else deals with it, but the best thing I learned from my college ex is that once I give my heart to someone, no one else can have it until and unless it is given back to me. Otherwise, I would be wise to follow the imaginings of my younger self and stay The Eternal Bachelor(tm). Thank you, good night, and remember--Vote Republican. Sorry, caught myself preaching again :)

To the issue of trust: This may be a poor way to look at it, but having had my trust broken already several times, I feel that I have no choice other than to trust those I believe worthy. What I've learned is that you really never know someone. I think it's best to go with your gut feeling, mostly because it's entirely too sad of a world if you can't even do that. Take a shot and hope for the best. That really goes against all my younger, idealistic beliefs, but this is the person I am now. Hopefully, it won't get any worse than that. Honesty can do much to make the issue of trust an easier one. The more open you can be with someone, it would seem the more you can trust them. I sometimes like to operate on the MAD system (Mutually Assured Destruction) on secrets. I tell you something you can use against me, you tell me something I can use against you. Tends to deter the urge to go telling everyone how I still wet the bed at age 29 (I'm kidding, I'm kidding). Some lucky folks get the benefit of my trust from a gut feeling that makes the trust implicit, even when I have no logical reason whatsoever to bestow such trust. Obviously, Kate knows she belongs to that group of people for me. I can not stress enough how much I wish the world operated under different rules. But this is the hand I was dealt, and I plan to play with it.

Yeah, I know you two aren't nymphos. I am, though :) I just can't help but feel if people were more open about these sorts of things, there wouldn't be quite so much drama in the world, or at least in our country... girls, if you're going to bed a guy, you might want to try thinking like one. Might save you some trouble afterward.

Fun to make me blush, eh? You can't even see me. Even if you COULD see me, you still couldn't tell! Perhaps I should regale you with tales of my sexual conquests... that is, if you have one or two minutes to spare ;)

Oh, one other thing... you were talking to Susan? That means she's not dead. If she's not dead, then it is likely she could still type. If she can still type, she may have access to a computer. If she has access to a computer, can type, and is not dead, then WHY THE HELL DOESN'T SHE BLOG ANYMORE? Just curious :)

To answer the "what brought this on" question: For the majority of my life, I've had a good number of male friends. In high school, more male than female; college, obviously I had more female friends. A few of the friendships have "crossed that line" in some small way or another, and in all cases except one, that's ruined or severely damaged the relationship. Am I putting too much out there to say that you are the exception? Those thoughts were brought up when considering, on the phone with Susan, whether you can be friends with an ex, a conversation begun because the SO was visiting his ex (okay, visiting his daughter, but she lives with his ex). So that's where it started.

And so it grows: How much can you love a friend? As far as I can tell, as deeply as an SO, maybe more so. Friends get more leeway -- you let them get away with things you won't let your SO get away with. Why? I haven't a clue. A friend can go off into her world and life and not call you for a while, and you both live, get through it, and move on. Would I be totally pissed if a guy I was dating did this? Hell yes! There seems to be a different depth, and a different kind of emotion involved. Maybe if our romances were more like friendships, they'd last longer.

It can create problems. Trust is an almost universal issue. I don't know why. And you can't get out of by saying of your significant other: I trust you; I just don't trust her (or him). Doesn't cut it. I think that I gain, from my deep mixed gender friendships, knowledge that my women friends just don't have. Insight into the mysterious male mind. I understand women. I fail to understand men. I don't need to understand you, truly, but there is a desire to "solve" the puzzle. Ha!

As for the issue of birth control: I have never left that to a guy, save once. Youth makes one stupid. I think those decision should, ideally, be made mutually, but since the consequences may affect me, I never leave it to someone else. Or to chance. Fate is a fickle mistress, and one I do not care to woo.

And for the record, Susan and I are not nymphos. We just like to talk. About everything. Including sex. So do the majority of women I know. Most of them just don't ever share it with you boys. I guess maybe we're just doing public service for you. I know you're not currently seeing someone, but there is a woman out there who will appreciate you knowing what you know AND being able to talk about it. Also, it's just fun to make you blush. It's worth the hard work it takes to make that happen.

Honestly, you must know a lot about this topic. You have a good number of women friends.

Alright, alright... I forgot about you two nymphos. You still have to remember you two represent a VERY small minority among the women I know. The rest of them would rather die than admit to it :)

What you said about women being more cautious about choosing sexual encounters makes perfect sense. However, guys recognize the danger of pregnancy as well... even though they don't physically have to live with it, it still causes a big enough problem to make you think twice before taking a chance. And not all of us can pay women off like pro athletes. What's funny to me personally is that of the few one-time sexual encounters I've had, I trusted women on at least four different occasions to be the one to make the call about using protection, and each time they didn't seem to mind taking a chance, or letting me know if they were on the pill or not. Go figure. I'm not talking about 18 year olds here, either. Most of these women were plenty old enough to know better.

So here's a question... how much can you love someone that is your friend? Especially when that friend is of the opposite gender? Mixed gender deep friendships are certainly a different breed than that of same gender ones. Not only that, but you're asking for trouble from a significant other when you have a few friends of the opposite sex. Heh. Not like I have to worry about that these days :)

I think another part of the problem is the concept of physical representations of emotional feelings. This is gonna sound gay as all hell, but you can't exactly kiss your guy friends to show them how much you love them (I know, it actually is possible, but not in this country). But if your friend is a girl... well, that kind of opens some doors, now doesn't it?

So what brought all this on for you? I meant to ask that last post.

Good goddess of creation! Are you back on that "Do women think about sex, too?" thing? Did Susan and I not beat that out of you?

For once and for all:
YES, WE DO! And lots. Probably not quite as much as your average, horomonal teenage boy, but still! The conversations we've had that would have (or did) make your ears burn..... well, let's just say they are too numerous to count. And far too X-rated for publication. Oh, wait. I guess they're in the archives.

I think, to a degree, women have been taught that they should be more cautious and choosy about sexual encounters. And if you think about it, who is the one person in a heterosexual liasion that has to bear the consequences if "an accident" occurs? I think it would totally suck to be a guy and know that if a pregnancy occured from a casual encounter, you might never know about it. Women don't ever have that problem. Granted, not everyone considers this. I have a friend who was having a casual relationship with a friend and ended it because she realized that she had no intention of being tied to this person if contraception failed.

Anyway, what makes it hard? I don't know that it is hard unless someone brings it up. I think men and women make great friends unless or until someone brings up attraction. Then things get awkward. And if one person is attracted and the other not, it makes things really awkward. So, in general, it's probably hard to be friends with someone that you're attracted to -- but it can happen if something makes the attracted realize that the attractive is unavailable, as in your scenario with an attached female friend. Or long-distance. That works, too.

You're a boy. I'm a girl. We're friends. You can't deny that we initially got to know each other based on mutual attraction. In the long run, I guess I'm glad that worked out. I've had you as a friend longer than I've dated anyone, and I value that.

My God, do I have my work cut out for me. No more two week vacations for you, missy. Let's just assume you answered my topic and move on with what you've laid out, because I can never get enough of this topic, it being near and dear to my heart. I can't possibly come up with as technical an explanation as you did, but here's my take on it...

He said: I'm only going to admit to this once. For men, sex is the number one biggest problem. The constant desires become too much to avoid. You're always wondering what it would be like to be with this person or that person... and then when you come across a woman that you can have fun with, it makes it that much worse. If most men had any homosexual tendencies, we'd probably have no need for women. I blame women, personally, for being too damned cute and too much to resist, you sexy, sexy beasts.

In the case of a female friend I'm attracted to, what normally settles the issue for me them having a good boyfriend or a good husband. Once I can write off any sexual possibility and know they're taken care of, it's a lot easier to move on to just being friends. Sad, I know, but true. It took me a VERY long time to deal with this issue when I was growing up.

Men and women are bred to enjoy different things. Boys are supposed to like sports and video games; girls are supposed to like dolls and makeup and playing house. I, like most guys, think a girl that is into sports is cool, mostly because they typically aren't. Just like girls like a guy with a sense of style and fashion.

In some cases, it is easier for men and women to be friends if they are part of a group that includes members of both genders. You know, the sort of people that always go out as a group together. It's those intense one-on-one type deals that normally get people messing around. When you're in a group, those type situations don't present themselves as often. Then again, I dunno--I was at a football game this weekend and sat behind four married couples... they seemed very friendly toward each other and I couldn't help but wonder if, between all of them, they had entertained thoughts of being with the other people in the group.

Bottom line, I say it's natural attraction between us that makes it hard for men and women to simply be friends. Also, it is probably for the best that society makes us different in so many ways.

What I am interested in is what makes these relationships difficult for women?

Some clarity on last night's rant:

Going back to the first post of the day, I said something about the difference between seeing one's self relationally (the web of relationships that creates identity) and seeing one's self individually.

According to Carol Gilligan in A Different Voice, boys and girls develop identity differently. The predominent psychological model is based on boys' development, making girls look, from a psychological viewpoint, abnormal. Her contention is that a dual model of development needs to be considered, as both gender move through both patterns, but in a different order and at different times (Gail Sheehey's Passages says the same thing about adult development).

THE THEORY: Boys first develop an individual sense of self in relation to an objective standard of justice (i.e. playing games by the rules, debating the rules according to one's own sense of justice. Girls first develop a relational sense of self, judging the rules by how they affect people, rather than by an objective standard. The boy-model is seen as the more "mature" model by most psychological studies.

THE PROBLEM: Both senses are necessary. As I said yesterday, one cannot be part of a group if one is not an individual. But one cannot be an individual without a group from which one can distinguish oneself. In this developmental model, men eventually have some discomfort with relational issues and women with individual issues.

CONCLUSION: This does not mean that problems are inevitable or insurmountable. What it means is that developmental theory must recognize both senses of self as important. As adults, to be psychologically healthy, I think we need to find ourselves and find ourselves in relation to other people in our lives. We have to relate to others and we have to relate to ourselves.

Would my life be more simple if I started reading chic lit instead of psychology and sociology?

Okay, two posts in one day? Maybe it will make up for almost two full non-blogging weeks. Or not.

Anyway: New Topic. Not that I think I answered Mark's, and not that I shouldn't give him time, but this is one for the ages and we could debate it forever. Literally.

Are men and women different? How? Why? What can we do to solve the cosmic joke of heterosexuality?

Or: Can we really ever live together?

(and, on a side note: Was Harry right? Or was Sally?)

I think I'm going to begin with the last one: they were both wrong. Obviously men and women can be friends. But does sex always intrude? I don't think it necessarily intrudes. I think it exists. I think it is natural to wonder sometimes. I don't think it needs to be an issue -- not unless someone makes it an issue.

Secondly, I haven't a clue what makes men and women different. I'm on the fence about the whole nature versus nurture thing. In some ways, I am my mother. Or turning into her, at least. But there are some fundamental thought patterns that we do not share, and I attribute these to nature.

What is it, though, that gets between us? Or, as some British novelist named Alain (if I could remember his last name, I could find the book again) asked, why is it that we feel the need to correct our nearest and dearest for the smallest infractions -- ones that we let a good friend get off with? Why are we harder on lovers than friends? Is it that lovers reflect on us? I would think friends do, too, but maybe we do not see that we have any control with a friend. Argh. Would that I were simply a lesbian. Okay, I know that that solves NOTHING. It creates a new set of problems. But hey, Susan, if you're reading: still want to be my date to the reunion next year (if I go)?

I guess I'm not looking for a biological or psychological answer. I guess there are just times that it seems like the Supreme Goddesses that created life as we know it (and not the TV show) are laughing their fool heads off. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"

Okay. Reality intrudes. I have a staff meeting in the morning.

It's been way too long to be AWOL, hasn't it?

She said: (personal update after comments)

I think that self-knowledge has to be a goal, but more of a Zen-like goal than an American goal. One can come to be in touch with herself, but not to KNOW herself completely. Why? Because we are not fully formed, fully realized beings. We are in a constant state of flux, ever changing in response to our environments and choices. Like the theory that posits that matter may cease to exist at absolute zero, where it is too cold for molecular movement, when we cease to change, we cease to be. I think on a more metaphysical note this could be true, too. We are relative beings. Our webs of relationships are webs of relativity. To you, I am a writer of a blog. To Mark, I am a friend. To my mother, I am a daughter. And so on and so forth. Part of each of us is defined by who we are in relation to others. This is a combination theory derived from Chinese Confucianism and women's psychology. But I like it.

I think many of our problems, personal and political, would be more easily solved if we remembered that we are part of a larger whole. The United States is part of the world: physically, socially, economically, politically. I am a part of this country, and bear some responsibility for its actions. I am part of my family, my place of work, my friendships, my state and city. And yet, I do believe that there is a me that is a separate entity. For how can we be part of something if we are not also separate from it? And how can we be separate if we are not part? It is the tension between the two that defines us. (I'm having a Rush moment:
"In the silence between whisper and shout/The space between wonder and doubt ....There is a fine line between love and illusion ---A fine place to penetrate" Between Sun and Moon, off the Counterparts album).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Personal update: I've been traveling for work and going nuts attempting to convince freshman college students that learning grammar is worthwhile. Also, we've finally hired someone to fill a position that has been effectively vacant (i.e. I've been doing most of the work associated with it) since December. Argh. Transitions are good, but difficult. I love autumn. Confusion, chaos, and color before death.