the mid-life crisis. we all talk about them--we generally associate them with a balding old man purchasing a hot red sports car and a volumtuous blonde bimbo in the passenger's seat. we also generally associate the milestones with certain ages--usually decade numbers--30, 40, 50. but i don't think it's that simple and i think the idea that we plant, either by media, averages, or just because we count in tens, is off base.
i flew passed 30 with flying colors. it wasn't good or bad or indifferent. the birthday came and went and nothing changed. but 33 was terrifying. maybe it was because of walking in on a conversation with my youngest son. my youngest was a kindergartener. he was on the phone planning to attend his very first sleepover (i prefer the term slumber party, but have finally had it drilled into me that boys have "sleepovers" and "slumber parties" are for girls...hahaha. like it really makes a big difference.)
but back on point, my youngest says to his friend on the phone, "oh no, my mommy's young."
my oldest interrupts, "mommy's not young."
"yes she is," my youngest blurted out adamantly.
"no, she's not." my oldest was firm. "mommy is this many..." and he flashes his hands three times and then another 3 fingers. "you are this many..." he flashes one hand.
my youngest watched, then looked down at the floor. he says in a disappointed voice to the phone receiver, "oh my mommy, is oooohhhld."
i turned around and went to my room. i sat there numb; something had saddened in me. the milestone clock had been ticking, and this had triggered the alarm. the next 3 or 4 months were a bit rough. i had never thought of myself as young or old. age had been just a number. it wasn't that important. now, all of the sudden, i was "old". i was quickly aware that i was the mom. not that i didn't get that already, but now it had sunk into the bone. the quick memories of what it was like at 5. when i was 5, no one was old, but i could never picture them young like i was. you just pictured the adults as instant adults. sprouting out in the size that you saw them at. even when i'd see pictures of my mother or father as kids, it all seemed very surreal. they were mommy and daddy. now, i was the sprout out as an adult, and now my youngest had the epiphany that i was not just some magical shoot out sprout mommy, but a 33 year old who must have been his age some long time passed. i don't know how shocking it was for him, but it was shocking for me.
thirty-three also came with that biological alarm clock ringing day in and day out. i had always wanted a little girl. little girl's clothing would just set me in a longing for another baby--a little girl. how come i had been deprived of a little girl? then the 3 little boys would start fighting, need a lot of my time and i was snapped back into reality. i had to be there for them and no way in hell would i want to have a 4th child to take care of. the mind (and common sense) would kick in and remind the alarm clock that we already had our boys and no way in heck did i want to have more responsibility than i already had. even if the biological clock would get smart and somehow sing a tune of how it would be different with a little girl...the mind would retort quickly what if the next would be a boy? boys aren't made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails, but any idiot can tell you that 3 boys is going to be work. sometimes, quite overwhelming work. it was a no-win for the biological clock. i'd had the wherewithal to cut-off the possibility of the clock overriding common sense after my 3rd son. (in spite of my doctor telling me there was only a 2% chance that the 4th child would be a boy--2% too much, thank you.) still, the fact that the mind and the body were in conflict wasn't helping the fact that i was feeling old. a baby might have made me feel young, but i went back to feeling normal when the clock fully unwound without the added responsibility. the clock stopped, and the mind got over that fact i was no longer young--albeit unwilling to think of myself as old. it passed.
the next milestone--40--came and went. but based on previous experience, i'm not convinced that that's how it works. maybe for some of us, but i think for the majority of us, there is likely some trigger--something that winds up the alarm clock, so we feel the alarm coming as the ticking clock taps out in the back of our minds. that trigger, i believe, is as individual as each of us is. something from our late teens or early 20s that was the path we thought we were on and approximately 20 years later, are very aware that we are not on that path. i could feel my clock ticking. i was trying desperately to figure out how to avoid the alarm. i knew what was wrong, and i'd avoided it for years. however, i believe those alarms are inevitable, and at 42, i was hit right after my birthday.
it was different though. it wasn't about being old or getting old. this time it has been about accepting me. being self-reflective is just part of who i am. so it didn't seem much different than normal--except it was at a much deeper level. it wasn't so much "did i do the right (or wrong) thing?" as it became "who was i? what happened to that bright eyed young woman?" i suppose that's what the bright red sports car really is reflective of. life is a series of decisions that make us who we are. all of the sudden, i was questioning the person that had been there 20 years ago and where that person went. what was i missing? what did i leave behind? was there anything that i left behind that i wish i hadn't? for some people, it might be a little red corvette. for others, it might have been the degree they wish they had gotten. still for others, it might be questioning giving up their own aspirations for the family they raised. for me, it has been questioning how i got here, why i'm where i'm at, what i left behind in that 21 year old, and what i would and could bring back. i suspect that is how it is for all of us--the little red sports car is just a tangible of the memories that we somehow need to recapture--re-connect with who we are by re-connecting with who we were.
what i had to re-connect with is, well to be honest, too personal to share in a blog. but the idea that we have to re-connect and recognize our dreams, both past and present, and reconcile who we are and have become with who we were and who we thought we wanted to be, is likely really what the mid-life crisis is about. it's why women leave husbands of 20+ years after raising a family--they feel they've lost themselves. it's why some men run off with 20 year old strippers in a fancy little red sports car--reconnecting with who they thought they wanted to be. but it varies for all of us. my version of this moment for me, would no more help anyone else, because their moment will not be the same. the only thing we have in common is that clock and the inevitable alarm. like everything else, the crisis passes. the alarm turns off, and mid-life continues on. crisis resolved.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
a confirmed bachelorette?
at Christmas time, well, at the end of the year anyway, i always become a bit reflective. this year being no different i'm reflecting on what transpired this year. my boys are another year older. i was fortunate enough to maintain a promise made to them. i've made some good friends. i finally bought another bike. i got back in touch with a lot of close friends that i have missed. (you can never have enough good people in your life.) but as always, i always reflect on my own shortcomings. perhaps, because when i was younger, it seemed like a family tradition--particularly when it came to my shortcomings.
don't get me wrong (because a couple of my friends would immediately start ranting about all the things that i'm successful at), i'm not discounting all the things that i've done right, accomplished, or any of my strengths. but let's face it, when we talk about men that have never been married or had any type of real long term relationship of any sort, well, at my age, they are generally losers--incapable of really having a good relationship. i've been single since my late 20s. really single. the longest relationship that i've had since i was 32 was a year and a half. i spent from 21 to 32 in 3 relationships, one right after the other, but after that, one real relationship for a year and a half--not even, i'm rounding up. hell, i didn't date at all for over 4 years after that. i may be incapable. i may be chosing people that are just not going to want me long term, because, well, maybe it's me.
i have to admit, that as my oldest approaches 18--next week--i've given my relationship with my ex a heavy duty, long lingering look. i used to joke that when my ex said "jump" that my response was "how high, what direction, and how much hangtime?" it wasn't a joke. it was how our relationship was, but i really loved him. i pretty much would have done anything to make him happy. i jumped through hoops, loops and wires. i thought i had married my best friend--who was cheating on me before we even got married (no, i didn't know until much, much later). i never wanted for anything. he always seemed to be in tune with what i wanted before i even knew what i wanted--only i just couldn't see staying if my ego was going to end up destroyed by the cheating. i remember me telling him that it was over. his exact words: "you can't leave me; you're pregnant." (i was 8 months with our 2nd son.) my exact words back: "i'm not leaving. you are. that's your stuff." (yes, i had actually packed his bag.) to this day, i have no idea where the strength to do that came from. but in those last few days of my marriage, i was altered--permanently.
don't get me wrong. i'm still that stupid cream puff that would do anything for the man i'm in love with. hell, i put up with a lot of crap from the guy that i dated for 7 months this year. i'm not willing to give up on something if it has a tiny glimmer of possibility. but i really have to wonder why i would date anyone that treats me with very little respect. i'm starting to think that maybe i choose these guys that are going to treat me poorly so that i don't have to end up in a long term relationship where i might end up that crushed again. oh, yes, i know i make jokes about the end of my marriage. i make jokes about the two horrible relationships that followed. i make jokes about the relationship that ended in august. (i don't know if it can be considered a relationship when i was in it, and he was in it only til he could find a bigger, better meal deal. well, we'll call it a relationship anyway...)
i've even almost fell in love again. once. years ago. it was a good relationship and i really loved doing things with him, for him, and just spending time with him. but there were complications from previous relationships that just somehow were insurmountable. i've always thought if there really is someone out there for me that it would just work, click, whatever. that relationship was close. too close. i felt that wound for a long time when it ended. longer than the relationship. i joke that guys that are in their 40s or older that have never been married or had kids always have the fish that got away story. that's my fish story--a marine who really had very little in common with me but somehow it clicked and was really good while it lasted. so i've had both. the guy that was my best friend--who cheated on me and crushed the dream that every little girl dreams. and a fish story of the one that got away. frankly, i'm not sure that my little cream puff *ss could handle another major disappointment like those.
so perhaps i'm like one of those confirmed bachelors--a complete loser unworthy of a real relationship. a confirmed bachelorette. whatever. regardless, at the end of year, i have to reflect on some deep sh*t that i've absolutely no answers for, no clue how to deal with it and maybe no desire to. a very close friend of mine, i can hear her now, would say, "you just haven't found the right one. you will." the aspects of that hope are more frightening than just saying there isn't one. perhaps my new years' resolution this year will be to give up on the whole idea entirely. it's not like i put a lot of effort into it right now anyway. giving up entirely couldn't be much less.
don't get me wrong (because a couple of my friends would immediately start ranting about all the things that i'm successful at), i'm not discounting all the things that i've done right, accomplished, or any of my strengths. but let's face it, when we talk about men that have never been married or had any type of real long term relationship of any sort, well, at my age, they are generally losers--incapable of really having a good relationship. i've been single since my late 20s. really single. the longest relationship that i've had since i was 32 was a year and a half. i spent from 21 to 32 in 3 relationships, one right after the other, but after that, one real relationship for a year and a half--not even, i'm rounding up. hell, i didn't date at all for over 4 years after that. i may be incapable. i may be chosing people that are just not going to want me long term, because, well, maybe it's me.
i have to admit, that as my oldest approaches 18--next week--i've given my relationship with my ex a heavy duty, long lingering look. i used to joke that when my ex said "jump" that my response was "how high, what direction, and how much hangtime?" it wasn't a joke. it was how our relationship was, but i really loved him. i pretty much would have done anything to make him happy. i jumped through hoops, loops and wires. i thought i had married my best friend--who was cheating on me before we even got married (no, i didn't know until much, much later). i never wanted for anything. he always seemed to be in tune with what i wanted before i even knew what i wanted--only i just couldn't see staying if my ego was going to end up destroyed by the cheating. i remember me telling him that it was over. his exact words: "you can't leave me; you're pregnant." (i was 8 months with our 2nd son.) my exact words back: "i'm not leaving. you are. that's your stuff." (yes, i had actually packed his bag.) to this day, i have no idea where the strength to do that came from. but in those last few days of my marriage, i was altered--permanently.
don't get me wrong. i'm still that stupid cream puff that would do anything for the man i'm in love with. hell, i put up with a lot of crap from the guy that i dated for 7 months this year. i'm not willing to give up on something if it has a tiny glimmer of possibility. but i really have to wonder why i would date anyone that treats me with very little respect. i'm starting to think that maybe i choose these guys that are going to treat me poorly so that i don't have to end up in a long term relationship where i might end up that crushed again. oh, yes, i know i make jokes about the end of my marriage. i make jokes about the two horrible relationships that followed. i make jokes about the relationship that ended in august. (i don't know if it can be considered a relationship when i was in it, and he was in it only til he could find a bigger, better meal deal. well, we'll call it a relationship anyway...)
i've even almost fell in love again. once. years ago. it was a good relationship and i really loved doing things with him, for him, and just spending time with him. but there were complications from previous relationships that just somehow were insurmountable. i've always thought if there really is someone out there for me that it would just work, click, whatever. that relationship was close. too close. i felt that wound for a long time when it ended. longer than the relationship. i joke that guys that are in their 40s or older that have never been married or had kids always have the fish that got away story. that's my fish story--a marine who really had very little in common with me but somehow it clicked and was really good while it lasted. so i've had both. the guy that was my best friend--who cheated on me and crushed the dream that every little girl dreams. and a fish story of the one that got away. frankly, i'm not sure that my little cream puff *ss could handle another major disappointment like those.
so perhaps i'm like one of those confirmed bachelors--a complete loser unworthy of a real relationship. a confirmed bachelorette. whatever. regardless, at the end of year, i have to reflect on some deep sh*t that i've absolutely no answers for, no clue how to deal with it and maybe no desire to. a very close friend of mine, i can hear her now, would say, "you just haven't found the right one. you will." the aspects of that hope are more frightening than just saying there isn't one. perhaps my new years' resolution this year will be to give up on the whole idea entirely. it's not like i put a lot of effort into it right now anyway. giving up entirely couldn't be much less.
Friday, December 17, 2010
simple rules for the single mom (or dad)...
i am a single mom. there really are all kinds of ridiculous books out there to tell people how to be single parents. a lot written by people that have never been single parents...in fact, some are even written by people that haven't even had kids. as i'm sitting here in the doctor's office with two of mine, it occurs to me as i look at the parenting magazines that most of the stuff i've read really hasn't made my job as a single mom easier. most of it has been crap. however, over the years, i've learned a lot. maybe some funny stuff, maybe some helpful. maybe some outright stupid...
so here goes my top 10 simple rules for the single mom (or dad, for that matter):
1. you are the parent--scene, no scene. it should always more embarassing that they are misbehaving than that people might be mad at you because you told your kid to sit down, shut up and behave...
so here goes my top 10 simple rules for the single mom (or dad, for that matter):
1. you are the parent--scene, no scene. it should always more embarassing that they are misbehaving than that people might be mad at you because you told your kid to sit down, shut up and behave...
2. the most idiotic thing ever said is that single mothers have a lower success rate raising good kids. don't buy into the hype. if you doubt your ability, so will your kids. you do them no justice by accepting a sorry *ss societal excuse tailor made for you to fail your kids, and...yourself.
3. kids are nuts. who else would argue over who got the bigger half of the cookie and turn it into tearfest to gain parental sympathy for the imagined larger half? crazy makes crazy--don't let them suck you into their craziness. make them keep the half they got, threatened to take it away if they continue, and most importantly, follow through with taking it away if they make you.
4. follow through on all threatened potential punishments. if you think they're walking on you at 7, OMG, you will really hate when they stomp on you as teenagers.
5. no always means no. i know people are looking at me like i've lost my mind as my middle asks over and over and over and over and over and...you get the picture...and me saying, "no, no, no, no, no. i said NO!" but truth is like my grams said, "give them an acre, they'll take the farm." since technically they already have the farm (because we know our lives do revolve around our kids), they sure as sh*t don't need to know before the reading of the will. our lives as parents are no longer our own, but no way should they know that until they have kids of their own!! (besides, how else will you get to relish in the fact their kids are as nuts as they were?!?!)
6. make a list of chores--a checksheet. it'll disappear. you'll repost. it'll disappear. but every so often you'll be pleasantly surprised that the checksheet wasn't there and they got the place cleaned up the way it's supposed to be--well, minus the dusting...
7. get the hell away from them once a week, and i'm not talking about going to work or hiding out in your room. kids are nuts; crazy makes crazy. leave the nuthouse and do something, however small, for yourself, around other adults. a couple hours can make all the difference in the world to your sanity.
8. yelling is not optional. especially for teenagers. we've turned the world into a "don't yell at your kids, don't discipline your kids, talk to them, be their bestest friend..." and then we wonder why we have so many of them running around schools with guns. simple: we didn't make sure that they knew there were real consequences for piss poor behavior. you're not their best friend; you're the parent. you have a job to do: turn your kids into productive, decent members of society. suck it up. you can be their friend later.
9. stop buying your kids every piece of crap that they want. you don't have to make it up to them that you're working all those hours to keep a roof over their head. sometimes saying no is actually showing more love than giving in to every single whim. they're kids for crying outloud-they'll move on to the next thing tomorrow and you're just wasting your hard earned money.
10. most importantly, don't let your little monster jump up and down in the booth behind me, grab my hair with his/her greasy little hands and simply ignore it or tell them to stop without actually stopping them. i will embarass your ass. grab your kid, tell him no, apologize for the rudeness of your child, and show the kid how real adults are supposed to act. don't act like it's my fault that your kid is being a monster either, because here's a newsflash: it's YOUR fault!!!
obviously, my overall advice is always, always, always remember you are the parent. (and i do know this is so much easier said than done...) you're going to have plenty of time to relish in your successes and failures down the road. the goal is to produce decent, productive adults who know how to respect themselves and others--anything more is gravy; anything less should be unacceptable. good luck...
Saturday, December 11, 2010
brett farve and the side line reporter...
really? this story has gone on and on for the entire season. so i'm sitting there doing something that required me to not channel check at that moment, and on comes some blurbage of the stupid story (ok, not blurbage, more like droning on crap for 10 minutes...). i really haven't paid any attention at all. when it started in pre-season, she just struck me wrong. not sure why, but she did. and of course, i'm not a brett farve fan anymore since he crapped on the hometown team, the green bay packers (see a previous blog from last season). so truly not interested. until forced to listen basically by a moment of can't get to the damn remote...
so, here's point 1. brett farve is married. almost every woman on the planet knows that considering that he was listed in the top 10 bachelors for years by almost every chick magazine on the planet. yes, we could probably go over what i think of him sending naked pics of himself to this sideline reporter. i don't really doubt it, but it doesn't really seem relevant. (bare with me. there's a reason that i just think it's not relevant.)
point 2. all of the texts that have been turned over were in 2008. 2008!!!! so, ummm, this does actually bring up an obvious point of contention with me. why did this little sideline reporter who's posed for maxim magazine wait until this past summer to "break" her story??? (let's come back to this one, shall we?)
point 3. why are some of his texts telling her that he's going to be late? or coming over? or sounding more like he has something more than just a sexual perv sending rude texts and rude pics to her? i mean she's making it sound like it was sexual harassment.
point 4. all the texts were from his phone, but the naked pics weren't. hmmm. i'm confused. if he's sending naked pics, why send texts from one phone and naked pics from another? how does that work? text from phone a: 'check out my *stuff*' and followed by pic message from phone b...can't brett afford a pic message capable phone? did he inadvertantly drop his phone while getting stripped down and pick up someone else's phone to take the picture? who owns that other phone?
point 5. the other phone's owner is not identified. in fact, one comment lead the listener to believe it was a throw-away phone, based on the comment from her in some interview that brett didn't want his wife to know about the messages was probably why. umm, ok, so he's deleting the text messages, but not the pic messages? (cuz you know i'm not buying that brett farve cannot afford a pic capable cell phone in 2008...)
point 5. the little sideline reporter had her 15 minutes of fame with the maxim spread. she probably thought that would increase her popularity and lead to bigger and better things. she looks like that type (as i stated earlier, she just struck me wrong). so, well, it did likely lead to bigger, better things. ah, yes....wait for it, wait for it, wait for it....
i think this little bimbo was tired of being a sideline sidebar during football games. she did the maxim spread in hopes of boosting her male following and increasing her overall chances of a better job. it did definately catch the attention of a lot of men at the time, i was sure of it as they flashed the pics from the spread on tv. but like every shallow bimbo finds out, it swings her some attention, but the whole package has to be there to keep the attention. she's got the looks, but no meat and potatoes behind it. she's no danika patrick. she's a pretty face, maybe fairly smart, but when it comes right down to it, she lacks the long term umpf. (don't ask me what umpf is...i only know it's like that magic beanstalk bean that you only know it when you see it grow into a beanstalk...)
so the assessment of the points above: bimbo had an affair with brett farve. let's face the facts as presented: he's married, another tiger woods...do we really think the pompous jerk that has reared his ugly head as far as how he views his obligations to the packers wouldn't cheat? lmao, of course we think he would cheat. she's screwing a married man. she thinks she's hot sh*t. and most importantly, she thinks she has the world by the perverbial b*lls. until she realizes her career isn't flourishing from her maxim spread, her married boyfriend won't leave his wife, and now she's turning into psycho whore--smart-ish psycho whore, but psycho whore, nonetheless. she saved all those text messages (that in itself lends creedance to psycho) because she wanted to make sure that she could embarrass her married lover when it suited her. but 2008?!?! really honey? no, she didn't complain about sexual harassment in 2008 because it was mutual. but now, she doesn't want to sound like the ground grubbing whore screwing a married man, but she wants to regain media attention--boost her career. afterall, negative attention is still attention, isn't it? ummm, yea, somehow no matter how we slice that or dice it, she sounds like a ground grubbing skeezer sleezer looking for her meal ticket. oh, and add bonus points that she was able to embarrass that jerk that wouldn't leave his wife for her and bonus super b*tch points for hurting his wife, because afterall, his wife hasn't left him so she could have him--yet.
i'm not fond of womanizers, per previous blog, but i'm equally not fond of money grubbing, sleezes and whores that try to use sob stories to get men (and even other women) to protect them from the big bad mess that they made for themselves. her story reeks holes, because she left out the points that would make her sound bad, because the good news is even whores know they're whores. so, yea, honey, instead of 15 minutes, you got 30. good for you. channel check.
so, here's point 1. brett farve is married. almost every woman on the planet knows that considering that he was listed in the top 10 bachelors for years by almost every chick magazine on the planet. yes, we could probably go over what i think of him sending naked pics of himself to this sideline reporter. i don't really doubt it, but it doesn't really seem relevant. (bare with me. there's a reason that i just think it's not relevant.)
point 2. all of the texts that have been turned over were in 2008. 2008!!!! so, ummm, this does actually bring up an obvious point of contention with me. why did this little sideline reporter who's posed for maxim magazine wait until this past summer to "break" her story??? (let's come back to this one, shall we?)
point 3. why are some of his texts telling her that he's going to be late? or coming over? or sounding more like he has something more than just a sexual perv sending rude texts and rude pics to her? i mean she's making it sound like it was sexual harassment.
point 4. all the texts were from his phone, but the naked pics weren't. hmmm. i'm confused. if he's sending naked pics, why send texts from one phone and naked pics from another? how does that work? text from phone a: 'check out my *stuff*' and followed by pic message from phone b...can't brett afford a pic message capable phone? did he inadvertantly drop his phone while getting stripped down and pick up someone else's phone to take the picture? who owns that other phone?
point 5. the other phone's owner is not identified. in fact, one comment lead the listener to believe it was a throw-away phone, based on the comment from her in some interview that brett didn't want his wife to know about the messages was probably why. umm, ok, so he's deleting the text messages, but not the pic messages? (cuz you know i'm not buying that brett farve cannot afford a pic capable cell phone in 2008...)
point 5. the little sideline reporter had her 15 minutes of fame with the maxim spread. she probably thought that would increase her popularity and lead to bigger and better things. she looks like that type (as i stated earlier, she just struck me wrong). so, well, it did likely lead to bigger, better things. ah, yes....wait for it, wait for it, wait for it....
i think this little bimbo was tired of being a sideline sidebar during football games. she did the maxim spread in hopes of boosting her male following and increasing her overall chances of a better job. it did definately catch the attention of a lot of men at the time, i was sure of it as they flashed the pics from the spread on tv. but like every shallow bimbo finds out, it swings her some attention, but the whole package has to be there to keep the attention. she's got the looks, but no meat and potatoes behind it. she's no danika patrick. she's a pretty face, maybe fairly smart, but when it comes right down to it, she lacks the long term umpf. (don't ask me what umpf is...i only know it's like that magic beanstalk bean that you only know it when you see it grow into a beanstalk...)
so the assessment of the points above: bimbo had an affair with brett farve. let's face the facts as presented: he's married, another tiger woods...do we really think the pompous jerk that has reared his ugly head as far as how he views his obligations to the packers wouldn't cheat? lmao, of course we think he would cheat. she's screwing a married man. she thinks she's hot sh*t. and most importantly, she thinks she has the world by the perverbial b*lls. until she realizes her career isn't flourishing from her maxim spread, her married boyfriend won't leave his wife, and now she's turning into psycho whore--smart-ish psycho whore, but psycho whore, nonetheless. she saved all those text messages (that in itself lends creedance to psycho) because she wanted to make sure that she could embarrass her married lover when it suited her. but 2008?!?! really honey? no, she didn't complain about sexual harassment in 2008 because it was mutual. but now, she doesn't want to sound like the ground grubbing whore screwing a married man, but she wants to regain media attention--boost her career. afterall, negative attention is still attention, isn't it? ummm, yea, somehow no matter how we slice that or dice it, she sounds like a ground grubbing skeezer sleezer looking for her meal ticket. oh, and add bonus points that she was able to embarrass that jerk that wouldn't leave his wife for her and bonus super b*tch points for hurting his wife, because afterall, his wife hasn't left him so she could have him--yet.
i'm not fond of womanizers, per previous blog, but i'm equally not fond of money grubbing, sleezes and whores that try to use sob stories to get men (and even other women) to protect them from the big bad mess that they made for themselves. her story reeks holes, because she left out the points that would make her sound bad, because the good news is even whores know they're whores. so, yea, honey, instead of 15 minutes, you got 30. good for you. channel check.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
the rules have changed, but the end game is still the same...
Dating has changed. Ask anyone--male or female. It's changed drastically. There are a slew of reasons for the changes—internet, less personal, a more open attitude towards sex in general. The game, though, is still a dance around a mulberry bush. The problem I hear from almost all 35+ women is the same too: men don’t want women, they want whores, sluts, they want drama…Well, no, they don’t. Men haven’t changed at all. They are still the same men, but they by their own actions have turned the “game” upside down. Inadvertently, the rules of the game have changed—drastically, and not for the better.
I hear a lot from my guy friends (as we all know, for some reason I have a slew of them—which we could blame on my chosen profession, my obsession with football and hockey, or just plain dumb luck…all for another blog) that women are demanding at “our age”—late 30s to late 40s. That’s not a surprise. Women are demanding at any age for different reasons. We just tend to be more complicated regardless of our morals, professions, family background. That’s nature. Younger women are less demanding, I sometimes hear—ha, no, they’re not. They have visions of Prince Charming, the white picket fence, the Knight in shining armor, the perfect wedding, the perfect family. When I listen to the teenage girls that date my sons, I know this is still true. Nothing has changed there. But, we are more likely to view men with rose colored glasses—overlook flaws (and yes, fellas are flawed regardless of age…we all are; we are human). We are also more naive in our teens and 20s. By our early 30s, we women begin to figure ourselves out. We begin to realize what we will or won’t put up with, but at the same time, we wish we could go back to where we thought the perfect relationship existed. There are even some of us that even may have gotten lucky and found it, but we all know this is so far and few in between—especially by our late 30s. We all know happily married couples, but honestly most can’t say they know many. From my guy friends that I have frank conversations with, I estimate that a lot of men are equally frustrated that there are so few happy marriages out there. The perfect girl or guy becomes more of a fantasy than a possible reality. Add that in our 30s, a large majority of us are divorced or have had several friends that have gotten divorced, we start to feel disillusioned. By our 40s, many women, and men for that matter, begin to, if not just completely, give up. We say it knowing at that moment we mean it. The more often we experience disappointment, the more likely we believe it down to our core. Life is easier without. Each time, the longer time that we take for recovery and the deeper the acceptance is. By our 50s, from what I’ve observed and listened to my friends that are in (or passed) their 50s, they don’t want to bother. Good women, wonderful, sweet, and with a lot to offer still, don’t want to bother anymore. They don’t want to get married, they don’t want to live with someone, they don’t want to have to answer to anyone, they don’t want to be bothered. More importantly, somewhere in those early 50s, they no longer care if they have a man to grow old with. They don’t want to take care of some old man…
So why? That unfortunately seems to be a side effect of the new rules as defined by womanizers in the 90s and earlier this past decade. Remember Mystery? Tucker Max? A slew of other womanizers that wrote books, did television shows, taught classes on “How to get women”. I do. I thought they were hysterical—although most of my female friends thought that they were utterly obnoxious. It was indicative though that men still didn’t understand women. Men, especially the bruised and battered ones, ate it up like potato chips. The problem that really stems from these womanizers is that they had no respect for women, and that is really what they were teaching in their methods, their tactics, their sorted stories of conquest. Yes, Tucker Max is hysterical (if you don’t know him, read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell [no abilty to underline in friggin' bloggin']). Ok, I might be a really rare woman to find him amusing, but he’s honest. He says over and over that he doesn’t have a healthy view of women. He also says on occasion that he knows women (generally the ones happily married to his friends) that shouldn’t be treated the way he treats them. Mystery and the rest though were of the opinion that all women should be treated like crap. Mystery used to say during his show, “Treat the whores like ladies and the ladies like whores.” But these idiots had no idea why that worked. Completely clueless. They advised men to “divide and conquer”, hit on the one friend, then split her from her friend, focusing on her friend, and throwing miniatures insults on the one that they actually wanted. They advised things that often work for the womanizer, but why they work for one of them isn’t why it would work for the average guy. They didn’t know anything about women, just how to manipulate them for a night. More importantly, they put it out there that if you can’t manipulate the one you want, move on quickly to the next one. They never considered the impact of turning good men into jerks. They advised things that work perhaps in the short term, but give women unrealistic expectations and make them bitter.
What did they forget to tell men? Women are complicated creatures that they don’t know how to talk to except when chemically impaired (drunk, drugged, etc.), whores or too young to recognize a shallow play. That by our 30s, most women have fallen prey to at least one womanizer, that all of us have several friends that have been preyed on, and that we can pick them out in a crowd. We love to let them buy us drinks and toy with them. By our 40s, their conversation is so shallow, so direct and so easily picked out as phony that a large majority of women won’t give them 60 seconds of their time, let alone an evening.
Manipulating a woman for an entire evening is a LOT of work. Manipulating anyone for hours is a LOT of work. All that work means that you have to pay attention, and in all honesty, most men don’t have that long of an attention span. Women love to talk and we love to think we’re being listened to. If a guy isn’t interested in a woman, why would he listen? According to these guys, for the conquest, of course. While this advice all sounds good, the flashback is that women expect men to be more complex, listening, thoughtful creatures. I have a friend that always says she wants a man that listens to her. We all do, but women now believe that normal, non-womanizing types should really be listening to every word. Really? Come on. No guy, by nature, is hanging on every little word a woman says. Most of us know to get your point across to a man—simple, 2 or 3 sentences max is the way to go—and yet many, if not most, somehow think men are listening and should be. Why? Because womanizers do actually listen to us, while they are still dreaming of the conquest. The average joe isn’t. It’s a lot of work, and most men would rather focus on the visual, the meat and potatoes, not the vocabulary. Don’t get me wrong here…men can, once they get attached to someone, hang on that woman’s every word on occasion, but the belief that men do it as the norm, well, that's the end result of 20 years of men taking relationship advice from womanizers.
Divide and conquer? Well, women in our 20s are leery of a lot of our closest friends. It’s not hard to convince two 22 year olds to feel diminished by paying attention to another woman. They will often put forth more effort to get the man’s attention—partially because of our own insecurities and partially because we’ve been hurt deeper by other women than we’ve ever been hurt by any guy. We give other women more trust quicker and other women are listening to our deepest fears, desires, and what’s making us tick. When women cut each other up, it’s at a very emotional level. It’s often hard for their friendships to recover. Men just don’t have this. They don’t attack emotionally. It’s cut and dry—two sentences. A week later, no big deal. Women can turn on each other in a weak moment, take every advantage of what they’ve confided in each other, and voila! Decades of animosity. In our 20s, it’s likely the other woman standing there has been friends with us for less than 5 years. But do the math, in our 40s, she’s likely someone we’ve known at least a decade. Divide and conquer will not work with 2 women that have seen each other through marriage, child-rearing, family tragedies, divorce and recovery. No, instead, by our late 30s, women will turn around and chew the womanizer up and spit him out. Turning him into a punchline to the story that they will laugh about until the next time they’re out and approached by a bozo. The womanizer shakes it off, moves on to the next target—the numbers game—his ego is so shallow it just doesn’t have any effect. However, the average man will not know how to take it; he assumes the women are being bitches. Well, yes, in fact they are. They don’t like womanizers, they know that game, and the man has identified himself as one. Womanizers don’t care about a woman’s feelings, and the women, especially 40-somethingers, aren’t going to give a dickens about a womanizer’s feelings. The end result, the women seem bitter to the average guy, when in actuality, they just don’t want to deal with another womanizer.
Finally, my personal favorite piece of advice, and one that all womanizers I’ve ever met go with: “Treat a whore like a lady and a lady like a whore.” LMAO…ok. They tell guys this, and I remember watching the one guy’s show and him saying this was THE fundamental rule. But, the funniest part to me was that he really had no clue why it works. He gave his reasoning—competition; women will eat it up. But women are not “competitive” by nature, so to speak. There’ve been plenty of studies saying that women are more nurturing whether because of social norming or nature. “Competitive” is a natural or social norming of men. It has nothing to do with why this works. It works with whores, well, because a whore is always a whore. She’s going home with someone no matter what. Being nice to her will improve the chances that she will go home with you. Buying her drinks improves your odds too. However, a whore is always looking for the latest womanizer that she’s attached herself to. He will instantly take precedence over you and you’ll have just paid for his guaranteed piece. How am I so sure of this? Because whores are still like every other woman—we all have a focus if we are involved with someone. The difference though is that whores always have a focus. Always--because they are always going home with someone. Womanizers don’t mind being their focus. They love to play one against the other and whores are sufficient to feed their own egos. Womanizers in their 40s, always have 2 or 3 whores, and even better, they love to snap their fingers and pull their whores out of the average guy’s reach after the average guy has spent a small fortune on her.
But that’s only half of their equation. “…treat…a lady like a whore.” Why do they think it works? One womanizer said in an interview once, “ladies always bow to a man if treated like crap long enough.” That’s not it. When we observe a man treating a whore like a lady, even if the guy reeks womanizer, most women will assume that he’s a nice guy. Why?? Well, we assume only a gentleman would treat a whore with respect. Yes, that’s what we think. In our 20s, it takes us longer to convince ourselves that we were wrong when the womanizer starts treating us like crap. In our 30s, we are acutely aware that we might be putting up with more than we want to and will work up to walking away. In our 40s, now we are bitchy about it. We no longer view it as our “fault”. If we misjudged a player, we are not near as angry at him as we are ourselves, but regardless of age, we will almost all direct it at the womanizer. Treating a good woman disrespectfully will piss her off, it will make her bitter, and that is a fact. Men taking this advice are simply pouring gunpowder in the keg with the fuse already lit. The more a woman gets treated disrespectfully, the more ire that will come out when she’s finally had enough. The result is women are less likely to put up with men and their quirks (better known as crap where womanizers are concerned). They are more likely to demasculinate a man who disrespects them; bringing those years and years of emotional warfare experience from being pit against other women to the devastation of men’s egos. Remember women go for the jugular if they feel used.
Now, the weirdest part of all this is the end effect. Women in their 50s. The women I know that have put up with this dating game as it has changed, by their 50s, don’t see the point. Men and women are so drastically different. When women are younger, we want the “happily ever after”. Men, on the other hand, seem to become acutely aware of their age in their 50s--growing old alone. Older women don’t see it as growing old alone. That ship sails permanently in our 40s somewhere. I have no idea where. I just know that as I’ve reached my 40s, observed my friends that are older and listened to the ones in their 50s or older, we just don’t care anymore about having someone. A major difference in women, that the womanizers have right, whores will still be whores and if you were nice to them in the past, you can still get tail. So can every other guy and ironically that thought nauseates most men. A big joke, and a terrifying one at that. But ladies, the good women, have settled in with themselves and their surroundings, and they see no reason to add you if you weren’t there before. (Older women seem more open to other women too…but, as always, that is a totally different blog.) I honestly have started to feel or think this. I remember someone telling me that by 50 I won’t care if I have a man or not—leaning towards not. That was about 5 years ago. I couldn’t imagine. I wanted to have someone to play with and go see all the cool things that I’ve put off. Now, I’m thinking I could go see those things with my friends and have way more fun. Five years ago, I just kept hoping the women telling me that were wrong. Now, at 42, I’m absolutely sure they are right. I still wish I could find someone to do those wonderful things with. However, I’ve also reached a point where I don’t want to have to Photoshop the picture of me on the Great Wall of China, because I’m not dating that guy so-n-so anymore. I have quite a few cool memories that the pictures are nowhere to be seen. I really do not need another picture that I slide in a drawer because that guy wasn’t the right one. More importantly, I’m starting to feel comfortable with the idea of not going with that guy at all, whoever he might have been.
The rules have changed, but the end game is still the same… Women outlive men, and therefore, somewhere to our 50s, women become comfortable with dying without the husband--with our children, grandchildren, friends that are outliving us, and perhaps great-grandchildren around us. It's basic biology, and it's really no different than the biological clock that goes off in our early 30s because bearing children after 35 is riskier. Likewise, biology likely prepares women mentally for the death of men--some biological trigger to ensure that the woman is prepared to stand on her own. Men, on the other hand, could depend on the woman they took care of to take care of them in their moment of need. Most men don't like the idea of dying alone. Yet, with the new rules, the womanizers' rules, that may be what a lot of men are left with--a lonely end with nothing but a bunch of carvings in a bed post.
I hear a lot from my guy friends (as we all know, for some reason I have a slew of them—which we could blame on my chosen profession, my obsession with football and hockey, or just plain dumb luck…all for another blog) that women are demanding at “our age”—late 30s to late 40s. That’s not a surprise. Women are demanding at any age for different reasons. We just tend to be more complicated regardless of our morals, professions, family background. That’s nature. Younger women are less demanding, I sometimes hear—ha, no, they’re not. They have visions of Prince Charming, the white picket fence, the Knight in shining armor, the perfect wedding, the perfect family. When I listen to the teenage girls that date my sons, I know this is still true. Nothing has changed there. But, we are more likely to view men with rose colored glasses—overlook flaws (and yes, fellas are flawed regardless of age…we all are; we are human). We are also more naive in our teens and 20s. By our early 30s, we women begin to figure ourselves out. We begin to realize what we will or won’t put up with, but at the same time, we wish we could go back to where we thought the perfect relationship existed. There are even some of us that even may have gotten lucky and found it, but we all know this is so far and few in between—especially by our late 30s. We all know happily married couples, but honestly most can’t say they know many. From my guy friends that I have frank conversations with, I estimate that a lot of men are equally frustrated that there are so few happy marriages out there. The perfect girl or guy becomes more of a fantasy than a possible reality. Add that in our 30s, a large majority of us are divorced or have had several friends that have gotten divorced, we start to feel disillusioned. By our 40s, many women, and men for that matter, begin to, if not just completely, give up. We say it knowing at that moment we mean it. The more often we experience disappointment, the more likely we believe it down to our core. Life is easier without. Each time, the longer time that we take for recovery and the deeper the acceptance is. By our 50s, from what I’ve observed and listened to my friends that are in (or passed) their 50s, they don’t want to bother. Good women, wonderful, sweet, and with a lot to offer still, don’t want to bother anymore. They don’t want to get married, they don’t want to live with someone, they don’t want to have to answer to anyone, they don’t want to be bothered. More importantly, somewhere in those early 50s, they no longer care if they have a man to grow old with. They don’t want to take care of some old man…
So why? That unfortunately seems to be a side effect of the new rules as defined by womanizers in the 90s and earlier this past decade. Remember Mystery? Tucker Max? A slew of other womanizers that wrote books, did television shows, taught classes on “How to get women”. I do. I thought they were hysterical—although most of my female friends thought that they were utterly obnoxious. It was indicative though that men still didn’t understand women. Men, especially the bruised and battered ones, ate it up like potato chips. The problem that really stems from these womanizers is that they had no respect for women, and that is really what they were teaching in their methods, their tactics, their sorted stories of conquest. Yes, Tucker Max is hysterical (if you don’t know him, read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell [no abilty to underline in friggin' bloggin']). Ok, I might be a really rare woman to find him amusing, but he’s honest. He says over and over that he doesn’t have a healthy view of women. He also says on occasion that he knows women (generally the ones happily married to his friends) that shouldn’t be treated the way he treats them. Mystery and the rest though were of the opinion that all women should be treated like crap. Mystery used to say during his show, “Treat the whores like ladies and the ladies like whores.” But these idiots had no idea why that worked. Completely clueless. They advised men to “divide and conquer”, hit on the one friend, then split her from her friend, focusing on her friend, and throwing miniatures insults on the one that they actually wanted. They advised things that often work for the womanizer, but why they work for one of them isn’t why it would work for the average guy. They didn’t know anything about women, just how to manipulate them for a night. More importantly, they put it out there that if you can’t manipulate the one you want, move on quickly to the next one. They never considered the impact of turning good men into jerks. They advised things that work perhaps in the short term, but give women unrealistic expectations and make them bitter.
What did they forget to tell men? Women are complicated creatures that they don’t know how to talk to except when chemically impaired (drunk, drugged, etc.), whores or too young to recognize a shallow play. That by our 30s, most women have fallen prey to at least one womanizer, that all of us have several friends that have been preyed on, and that we can pick them out in a crowd. We love to let them buy us drinks and toy with them. By our 40s, their conversation is so shallow, so direct and so easily picked out as phony that a large majority of women won’t give them 60 seconds of their time, let alone an evening.
Manipulating a woman for an entire evening is a LOT of work. Manipulating anyone for hours is a LOT of work. All that work means that you have to pay attention, and in all honesty, most men don’t have that long of an attention span. Women love to talk and we love to think we’re being listened to. If a guy isn’t interested in a woman, why would he listen? According to these guys, for the conquest, of course. While this advice all sounds good, the flashback is that women expect men to be more complex, listening, thoughtful creatures. I have a friend that always says she wants a man that listens to her. We all do, but women now believe that normal, non-womanizing types should really be listening to every word. Really? Come on. No guy, by nature, is hanging on every little word a woman says. Most of us know to get your point across to a man—simple, 2 or 3 sentences max is the way to go—and yet many, if not most, somehow think men are listening and should be. Why? Because womanizers do actually listen to us, while they are still dreaming of the conquest. The average joe isn’t. It’s a lot of work, and most men would rather focus on the visual, the meat and potatoes, not the vocabulary. Don’t get me wrong here…men can, once they get attached to someone, hang on that woman’s every word on occasion, but the belief that men do it as the norm, well, that's the end result of 20 years of men taking relationship advice from womanizers.
Divide and conquer? Well, women in our 20s are leery of a lot of our closest friends. It’s not hard to convince two 22 year olds to feel diminished by paying attention to another woman. They will often put forth more effort to get the man’s attention—partially because of our own insecurities and partially because we’ve been hurt deeper by other women than we’ve ever been hurt by any guy. We give other women more trust quicker and other women are listening to our deepest fears, desires, and what’s making us tick. When women cut each other up, it’s at a very emotional level. It’s often hard for their friendships to recover. Men just don’t have this. They don’t attack emotionally. It’s cut and dry—two sentences. A week later, no big deal. Women can turn on each other in a weak moment, take every advantage of what they’ve confided in each other, and voila! Decades of animosity. In our 20s, it’s likely the other woman standing there has been friends with us for less than 5 years. But do the math, in our 40s, she’s likely someone we’ve known at least a decade. Divide and conquer will not work with 2 women that have seen each other through marriage, child-rearing, family tragedies, divorce and recovery. No, instead, by our late 30s, women will turn around and chew the womanizer up and spit him out. Turning him into a punchline to the story that they will laugh about until the next time they’re out and approached by a bozo. The womanizer shakes it off, moves on to the next target—the numbers game—his ego is so shallow it just doesn’t have any effect. However, the average man will not know how to take it; he assumes the women are being bitches. Well, yes, in fact they are. They don’t like womanizers, they know that game, and the man has identified himself as one. Womanizers don’t care about a woman’s feelings, and the women, especially 40-somethingers, aren’t going to give a dickens about a womanizer’s feelings. The end result, the women seem bitter to the average guy, when in actuality, they just don’t want to deal with another womanizer.
Finally, my personal favorite piece of advice, and one that all womanizers I’ve ever met go with: “Treat a whore like a lady and a lady like a whore.” LMAO…ok. They tell guys this, and I remember watching the one guy’s show and him saying this was THE fundamental rule. But, the funniest part to me was that he really had no clue why it works. He gave his reasoning—competition; women will eat it up. But women are not “competitive” by nature, so to speak. There’ve been plenty of studies saying that women are more nurturing whether because of social norming or nature. “Competitive” is a natural or social norming of men. It has nothing to do with why this works. It works with whores, well, because a whore is always a whore. She’s going home with someone no matter what. Being nice to her will improve the chances that she will go home with you. Buying her drinks improves your odds too. However, a whore is always looking for the latest womanizer that she’s attached herself to. He will instantly take precedence over you and you’ll have just paid for his guaranteed piece. How am I so sure of this? Because whores are still like every other woman—we all have a focus if we are involved with someone. The difference though is that whores always have a focus. Always--because they are always going home with someone. Womanizers don’t mind being their focus. They love to play one against the other and whores are sufficient to feed their own egos. Womanizers in their 40s, always have 2 or 3 whores, and even better, they love to snap their fingers and pull their whores out of the average guy’s reach after the average guy has spent a small fortune on her.
But that’s only half of their equation. “…treat…a lady like a whore.” Why do they think it works? One womanizer said in an interview once, “ladies always bow to a man if treated like crap long enough.” That’s not it. When we observe a man treating a whore like a lady, even if the guy reeks womanizer, most women will assume that he’s a nice guy. Why?? Well, we assume only a gentleman would treat a whore with respect. Yes, that’s what we think. In our 20s, it takes us longer to convince ourselves that we were wrong when the womanizer starts treating us like crap. In our 30s, we are acutely aware that we might be putting up with more than we want to and will work up to walking away. In our 40s, now we are bitchy about it. We no longer view it as our “fault”. If we misjudged a player, we are not near as angry at him as we are ourselves, but regardless of age, we will almost all direct it at the womanizer. Treating a good woman disrespectfully will piss her off, it will make her bitter, and that is a fact. Men taking this advice are simply pouring gunpowder in the keg with the fuse already lit. The more a woman gets treated disrespectfully, the more ire that will come out when she’s finally had enough. The result is women are less likely to put up with men and their quirks (better known as crap where womanizers are concerned). They are more likely to demasculinate a man who disrespects them; bringing those years and years of emotional warfare experience from being pit against other women to the devastation of men’s egos. Remember women go for the jugular if they feel used.
Now, the weirdest part of all this is the end effect. Women in their 50s. The women I know that have put up with this dating game as it has changed, by their 50s, don’t see the point. Men and women are so drastically different. When women are younger, we want the “happily ever after”. Men, on the other hand, seem to become acutely aware of their age in their 50s--growing old alone. Older women don’t see it as growing old alone. That ship sails permanently in our 40s somewhere. I have no idea where. I just know that as I’ve reached my 40s, observed my friends that are older and listened to the ones in their 50s or older, we just don’t care anymore about having someone. A major difference in women, that the womanizers have right, whores will still be whores and if you were nice to them in the past, you can still get tail. So can every other guy and ironically that thought nauseates most men. A big joke, and a terrifying one at that. But ladies, the good women, have settled in with themselves and their surroundings, and they see no reason to add you if you weren’t there before. (Older women seem more open to other women too…but, as always, that is a totally different blog.) I honestly have started to feel or think this. I remember someone telling me that by 50 I won’t care if I have a man or not—leaning towards not. That was about 5 years ago. I couldn’t imagine. I wanted to have someone to play with and go see all the cool things that I’ve put off. Now, I’m thinking I could go see those things with my friends and have way more fun. Five years ago, I just kept hoping the women telling me that were wrong. Now, at 42, I’m absolutely sure they are right. I still wish I could find someone to do those wonderful things with. However, I’ve also reached a point where I don’t want to have to Photoshop the picture of me on the Great Wall of China, because I’m not dating that guy so-n-so anymore. I have quite a few cool memories that the pictures are nowhere to be seen. I really do not need another picture that I slide in a drawer because that guy wasn’t the right one. More importantly, I’m starting to feel comfortable with the idea of not going with that guy at all, whoever he might have been.
The rules have changed, but the end game is still the same… Women outlive men, and therefore, somewhere to our 50s, women become comfortable with dying without the husband--with our children, grandchildren, friends that are outliving us, and perhaps great-grandchildren around us. It's basic biology, and it's really no different than the biological clock that goes off in our early 30s because bearing children after 35 is riskier. Likewise, biology likely prepares women mentally for the death of men--some biological trigger to ensure that the woman is prepared to stand on her own. Men, on the other hand, could depend on the woman they took care of to take care of them in their moment of need. Most men don't like the idea of dying alone. Yet, with the new rules, the womanizers' rules, that may be what a lot of men are left with--a lonely end with nothing but a bunch of carvings in a bed post.
Monday, December 6, 2010
strong book cover...
there's not many people that meet me that know me at all. book cover. i appear to be a career minded, strong willed, single mother of 3 boys. i am. the career pays the bills, keeps my mind blooming, and gives me an opportunity to interact with some wonderful people. i'm a single mother--there's been no changing that. i've actually met women that have walked away from the responsibility of motherhood, both on purpose and some by force because of stupid decisions (this being debatable whether it's a choice or on purpose, but as always, another blog). it's the strong-willed part that gives me pause.
i certainly was raised to stand up for myself. God knows that some of the things that i experienced as a child required me to learn to stand up for myself. (this in no means is to insinuate that i've endured more or less than anyone. i know people that i would not ever state their experience was better than mine...) i simply had no one to stand up for me as a mother would. the facts are not in question and certainly not for discussion in this blog. it's just a fact, and the reason that my "strong-willed" side required me to be the parent, the mother, to my boys that i had been untimely deprived of. i've not always stood up for them if i thought they were wrong--i don't believe that's what a mother would do. but by the by, i've always been here for them. this is not an easy job for anyone, regardless of numbers or sex of the children. but the numbers do add up sometimes, and 3 against one does require the ability to stand up and get them to back down. to be honest, i've amazed myself over the years. when people tell me how great they are, well, i may joke that they must've locked them in the closet, but truth be told, i worked very hard to make them the young gentlemen they are and are becoming. that "stong-will" has gotten me through this and made me relatively successful with them too.
but people, just assume that strong-will is who i am. admittedly, it is a part. a part that normally was just a small piece of me. when i was younger, i never really cared what, where, when, why. i became quite pleased just to follow people around if given the choice. really. if my friends wanted to go here or there, i didn't care and saw no reason to make an argument over where we were going if i didn't care. some friends got frustrated because i never had an input. the majority didn't notice. when i dated someone, i didn't care what we did either. i was perfectly content probably 80 to 85% of the time to just do whatever. every so often, i would want to do this or that, but again, if i didn't care what we did or didn't do--why make a do over what, where, when or why. i've gotten to experience a lot of things simply because i've never minded doing something that i may or may not have chosen to do on my own. on the other hand, it always seemed to shock someone if all the sudden i spoke up and wanted to do this or that. my ex was perfectly thrilled that most of the time i just followed him around like a puppy dog. everything made me happy, and those things that i didn't like, well, the next time i would either opt out or say no thanks.
on the other hand, i was/am a wackadoo magnet. honestly, i used to be a magnet for everything--wackadoos were not the majority. my grams used to joke i'd bring home every single stray that needed to be taken care of--my favorite, most beloved dog had been abandoned on the side of the road. it didn't take a strong-will to want to baby a stray puppy or hurt bird or baby bunny. however, a few years back, it was pointed out to me that it was likely not helping me with the wackadoos if i kept being such a bleeding heart. it was opening me up to a lot of stuff that i really didn't have the energy to deal with. there was no arguing that point. the sooner that i've walked away from those types, the better off i've been. but the "strong-will" to walk away from those types was developed over time. i am still proud of the fact that none of my friends fall into stereotypes, certain financial means, or even certain lifestyles. i have friends of all types, sizes and shapes (ha, ok, joke), but i do have a large variation compared to most. for all the wackadoos that i've had to suffer through, i've made more friends of different fabric than anyone else i know. the strong-will has never included judging a book by its cover. i always have taken "judge not less ye be judged yourself" very seriously, so knowing it's time to walk away from nuts--well, that's actually taken practice.
where men are concerned, well, that's just simple, and yet for some reason, so counter-intuitive to my book cover. i told an ex-boyfriend, "you lead, i'll follow." it's that easy. when he asked what if i really want something or don't, my response was simple too, "when that happens, i'll say something." the only disagreements that he and i had were always over women that he was supposedly not dating, which eventually he admitted to that being the problem...(not while we were dating, later down the road, which would've gone over much differently if he had admitted it then, but again, another blog)...but if he wanted to do this, that or the other, i didn't care. if he wanted to hang with his buddies, i didn't care. we all need space to do things that we love to do. honestly, i never asked him for anything in over 7 months, but the one time that i did do something with some expectation, well, suffice to say it didn't go over well. although honestly, i can't see how it was that bad. even when i do "want" something, i will dress it up like a little girl asking for a new toy--with sugar and spice and everything nice. my "strong-will" in a relationship is pretty much limited to anything that pushes my limits, and i don't have many limits to what i'll try. i've eaten escargot (ugh, never again), i've sky-dived, and i've seen ripley's believe it or not (i'll even admit watching someone try and touch their nose with their tongue through a two-way mirror was entertaining). all things that i personally never would've tried, but the experiences aren't something that i'd take back. the guys that i've dated seriously (and the ex) couldn't honestly say that i ever demanded anything--probably the exact opposite. it's not that important to me to have the lead...it's just important that i can trust the person that i'm following. there's where any man will see my strong-will kick in, as my most recent ex-boyfriend would easily attest to.
strong-will is relative with me. no one is so black and white that every aspect of their personality is the primary aspect of their personality. my "strong-will" is such a limited aspect of who i am, and yet, i'm saddened by the fact that anyone would assume it defines me. on the other hand, i'm proud that it allowed me to provide for my boys, and myself, so well. it's an aspect that kept me going and trying even when the world was topsy-turvy and some would've given up. if it is the only aspect of me that someone chooses to see, then i suppose there are worse aspects of my personality that they could focus on...
i certainly was raised to stand up for myself. God knows that some of the things that i experienced as a child required me to learn to stand up for myself. (this in no means is to insinuate that i've endured more or less than anyone. i know people that i would not ever state their experience was better than mine...) i simply had no one to stand up for me as a mother would. the facts are not in question and certainly not for discussion in this blog. it's just a fact, and the reason that my "strong-willed" side required me to be the parent, the mother, to my boys that i had been untimely deprived of. i've not always stood up for them if i thought they were wrong--i don't believe that's what a mother would do. but by the by, i've always been here for them. this is not an easy job for anyone, regardless of numbers or sex of the children. but the numbers do add up sometimes, and 3 against one does require the ability to stand up and get them to back down. to be honest, i've amazed myself over the years. when people tell me how great they are, well, i may joke that they must've locked them in the closet, but truth be told, i worked very hard to make them the young gentlemen they are and are becoming. that "stong-will" has gotten me through this and made me relatively successful with them too.
but people, just assume that strong-will is who i am. admittedly, it is a part. a part that normally was just a small piece of me. when i was younger, i never really cared what, where, when, why. i became quite pleased just to follow people around if given the choice. really. if my friends wanted to go here or there, i didn't care and saw no reason to make an argument over where we were going if i didn't care. some friends got frustrated because i never had an input. the majority didn't notice. when i dated someone, i didn't care what we did either. i was perfectly content probably 80 to 85% of the time to just do whatever. every so often, i would want to do this or that, but again, if i didn't care what we did or didn't do--why make a do over what, where, when or why. i've gotten to experience a lot of things simply because i've never minded doing something that i may or may not have chosen to do on my own. on the other hand, it always seemed to shock someone if all the sudden i spoke up and wanted to do this or that. my ex was perfectly thrilled that most of the time i just followed him around like a puppy dog. everything made me happy, and those things that i didn't like, well, the next time i would either opt out or say no thanks.
on the other hand, i was/am a wackadoo magnet. honestly, i used to be a magnet for everything--wackadoos were not the majority. my grams used to joke i'd bring home every single stray that needed to be taken care of--my favorite, most beloved dog had been abandoned on the side of the road. it didn't take a strong-will to want to baby a stray puppy or hurt bird or baby bunny. however, a few years back, it was pointed out to me that it was likely not helping me with the wackadoos if i kept being such a bleeding heart. it was opening me up to a lot of stuff that i really didn't have the energy to deal with. there was no arguing that point. the sooner that i've walked away from those types, the better off i've been. but the "strong-will" to walk away from those types was developed over time. i am still proud of the fact that none of my friends fall into stereotypes, certain financial means, or even certain lifestyles. i have friends of all types, sizes and shapes (ha, ok, joke), but i do have a large variation compared to most. for all the wackadoos that i've had to suffer through, i've made more friends of different fabric than anyone else i know. the strong-will has never included judging a book by its cover. i always have taken "judge not less ye be judged yourself" very seriously, so knowing it's time to walk away from nuts--well, that's actually taken practice.
where men are concerned, well, that's just simple, and yet for some reason, so counter-intuitive to my book cover. i told an ex-boyfriend, "you lead, i'll follow." it's that easy. when he asked what if i really want something or don't, my response was simple too, "when that happens, i'll say something." the only disagreements that he and i had were always over women that he was supposedly not dating, which eventually he admitted to that being the problem...(not while we were dating, later down the road, which would've gone over much differently if he had admitted it then, but again, another blog)...but if he wanted to do this, that or the other, i didn't care. if he wanted to hang with his buddies, i didn't care. we all need space to do things that we love to do. honestly, i never asked him for anything in over 7 months, but the one time that i did do something with some expectation, well, suffice to say it didn't go over well. although honestly, i can't see how it was that bad. even when i do "want" something, i will dress it up like a little girl asking for a new toy--with sugar and spice and everything nice. my "strong-will" in a relationship is pretty much limited to anything that pushes my limits, and i don't have many limits to what i'll try. i've eaten escargot (ugh, never again), i've sky-dived, and i've seen ripley's believe it or not (i'll even admit watching someone try and touch their nose with their tongue through a two-way mirror was entertaining). all things that i personally never would've tried, but the experiences aren't something that i'd take back. the guys that i've dated seriously (and the ex) couldn't honestly say that i ever demanded anything--probably the exact opposite. it's not that important to me to have the lead...it's just important that i can trust the person that i'm following. there's where any man will see my strong-will kick in, as my most recent ex-boyfriend would easily attest to.
strong-will is relative with me. no one is so black and white that every aspect of their personality is the primary aspect of their personality. my "strong-will" is such a limited aspect of who i am, and yet, i'm saddened by the fact that anyone would assume it defines me. on the other hand, i'm proud that it allowed me to provide for my boys, and myself, so well. it's an aspect that kept me going and trying even when the world was topsy-turvy and some would've given up. if it is the only aspect of me that someone chooses to see, then i suppose there are worse aspects of my personality that they could focus on...
Saturday, December 4, 2010
crazy sh*t recap...ok, just the highlights...
my closest friends joke that i'm a wackadoo magnet. i mean i have a guy friend that seems to attract the "marry me this minute" women. i have a super smart, fantastic female friend that always attracts the "no job, living in his car, living with mama, looking for a sugar mama" men. but me, nope, if there are 50 crazy men in a room of 100, i will attract the 10 craziest of the 50.
this most recent one is sad. if you read his texts to me, you would swear that he and i are having a robust conversation and that we are dating pretty seriously. but honestly, i wasn't paying attention to most of them. i figured if i ignored him, well, he'd go away. besides, i had added a new guy to my facebook, and all of the sudden i got a phone call asking about the guy--well, frankly, that was my focus. i was so miffed about the phone call that it didn't occur to me that this texting guy might have orchestrated the whole thing--sadly, i probably should've if i had actually been reading the texts he was sending me for almost 2 and a half hours following the phone call. but well, when i meet someone that seems "normal" (there's not really anyone that's "normal") and possibly worth the effort (and risk) of actually getting to know better, the idea that i might have misjudged the one i just met really had me upset, with myself mainly. (those of you that know me, know that i can over-analyze anything--particularly if i think i made a mistake.) so it didn't occur to me that this weirdo's texts were grossly inappropriate and making it sound like he and i were in some fairly serious quick-moving practically committed relationship...and the scariest part is it was only one date--the weekend before halloween--the rest of the last 6 weeks have been nothing, zero, zilch, nada, zippadeedooda---ok, other than his sometimes extremely inappropriate texts...geez...
but let's face it; he's not the only one...let's just go through the highlights of why i don't date, shall we?
1. 3, yes, 3, old 55+ men have claimed they're dating me when they haven't ever held my hand, kissed (on a cheek or hand or anything) or even gone on a "date" with me...seriously, how warped is it to claim to date someone seriously when they've never been out on a date with each other? this wouldn't be noteworthy, except for the fact 3, not 1, not 2, three men have done this.
2. the guy that wanted me to do him with a strap-on. no further explanation needed--although probably noteworthy to include the fact that he asked me over dinner in a restaurant...
3. the guy who slashed my tires after a first date because i wouldn't go home with him--really?!?! i'm pretty sure that i don't come off like the type that would go home with someone on the first date anyway...
4. the crazy woman that called me after i went on several dates with a single dad who had custody of his daughter because the mother was an off-on again drug addict, in and out of jail. she called me screaming that as this guy's new girlfriend (like 4 or 5 dates) i was interfering with her getting back together with him (almost 8 years had gone by since he had taken custody). one of my best friends was with me at the time, so i put the nut on speaker phone and told her i was well aware of her history and her dozen or so arrests...her exact words: "shows what you know!!! i've been in and out of jail way more than that!!!" my friend was laughing so hard she almost pee'd herself. (also, good note to self: this sh*t apparently is way funnier when it's happening to someone else...)
5. the guy who i gave the "let's be friends" speech to, who apparently thought that meant "let's be friends and i'll change my mind"...when after a couple of weeks that wasn't working out, he created online profile of me, propositioned men, gave them my phone number and address and invited them over. just what every woman's dream man would do: make her have to spend the next couple of weeks giving statements to police, the fbi and yahoo--not to mention re-do her shooting qualifications...
6. an abusive ex-boyfriend who tried to kill me...
7. an ex-husband who took me back to court for 10 years every year for my birthday...that finally quit when the judge leaped all over him and told him i was entitled to a serious increase in child support. i asked the judge to explain to him that as long as he never dragged me back into court, the peace and quiet would be well worth money i've never seen. it's been very peaceful for the last 4 years...
8. an ex who forgot to mention that he had klan in his friends and family before convincing me to move. something you might want to tell me considering i'm half asian!!!!
although these are definately not in order of heinousness, i think we will chalk this one up to #9....agreed?
this most recent one is sad. if you read his texts to me, you would swear that he and i are having a robust conversation and that we are dating pretty seriously. but honestly, i wasn't paying attention to most of them. i figured if i ignored him, well, he'd go away. besides, i had added a new guy to my facebook, and all of the sudden i got a phone call asking about the guy--well, frankly, that was my focus. i was so miffed about the phone call that it didn't occur to me that this texting guy might have orchestrated the whole thing--sadly, i probably should've if i had actually been reading the texts he was sending me for almost 2 and a half hours following the phone call. but well, when i meet someone that seems "normal" (there's not really anyone that's "normal") and possibly worth the effort (and risk) of actually getting to know better, the idea that i might have misjudged the one i just met really had me upset, with myself mainly. (those of you that know me, know that i can over-analyze anything--particularly if i think i made a mistake.) so it didn't occur to me that this weirdo's texts were grossly inappropriate and making it sound like he and i were in some fairly serious quick-moving practically committed relationship...and the scariest part is it was only one date--the weekend before halloween--the rest of the last 6 weeks have been nothing, zero, zilch, nada, zippadeedooda---ok, other than his sometimes extremely inappropriate texts...geez...
but let's face it; he's not the only one...let's just go through the highlights of why i don't date, shall we?
1. 3, yes, 3, old 55+ men have claimed they're dating me when they haven't ever held my hand, kissed (on a cheek or hand or anything) or even gone on a "date" with me...seriously, how warped is it to claim to date someone seriously when they've never been out on a date with each other? this wouldn't be noteworthy, except for the fact 3, not 1, not 2, three men have done this.
2. the guy that wanted me to do him with a strap-on. no further explanation needed--although probably noteworthy to include the fact that he asked me over dinner in a restaurant...
3. the guy who slashed my tires after a first date because i wouldn't go home with him--really?!?! i'm pretty sure that i don't come off like the type that would go home with someone on the first date anyway...
4. the crazy woman that called me after i went on several dates with a single dad who had custody of his daughter because the mother was an off-on again drug addict, in and out of jail. she called me screaming that as this guy's new girlfriend (like 4 or 5 dates) i was interfering with her getting back together with him (almost 8 years had gone by since he had taken custody). one of my best friends was with me at the time, so i put the nut on speaker phone and told her i was well aware of her history and her dozen or so arrests...her exact words: "shows what you know!!! i've been in and out of jail way more than that!!!" my friend was laughing so hard she almost pee'd herself. (also, good note to self: this sh*t apparently is way funnier when it's happening to someone else...)
5. the guy who i gave the "let's be friends" speech to, who apparently thought that meant "let's be friends and i'll change my mind"...when after a couple of weeks that wasn't working out, he created online profile of me, propositioned men, gave them my phone number and address and invited them over. just what every woman's dream man would do: make her have to spend the next couple of weeks giving statements to police, the fbi and yahoo--not to mention re-do her shooting qualifications...
6. an abusive ex-boyfriend who tried to kill me...
7. an ex-husband who took me back to court for 10 years every year for my birthday...that finally quit when the judge leaped all over him and told him i was entitled to a serious increase in child support. i asked the judge to explain to him that as long as he never dragged me back into court, the peace and quiet would be well worth money i've never seen. it's been very peaceful for the last 4 years...
8. an ex who forgot to mention that he had klan in his friends and family before convincing me to move. something you might want to tell me considering i'm half asian!!!!
although these are definately not in order of heinousness, i think we will chalk this one up to #9....agreed?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
gets old...
honestly, i don't know what to think of some people. since i live in the world where you do what you say, say what you mean, and my word is my bond, i don't get how some people not only don't keep their word, but in fact seem completely shocked if someone doesn't just let their transgressions slide.
some transgressions, granted are smaller than others, and should be easier to let go down the foxhole. for example, a guy that doesn't follow through with plans is much easier to "forgive" than a backstabber that was pretending to be a friend. recently i was reminded how irritating a backstabber is. this woman went on and on about how everyone that she and a guy she works with would've been good together..."everyone" that they work with thought so. umm, fishy part was she was trying to be my friend and i was kinda seeing the guy in the background noise without wanting a bunch of people in my business. (i really don't like people in my business.) so she was all of the sudden wanting to be my friend, almost immediately after i went out a couple of times with this guy. i kinda suspected that he might have asked her about me, but i let that slide. in the meantime, she's telling me how i should date this mid-50-ish guy that they all know, and how everyone they work with thought she and the guy i'm dating should be dating, and best of all, how she's not dating a guy who claims she's his girlfriend, who she gets pissed if he doesn't pay for her drinks at the bar and who takes her on weekend trips where they share a king size hotel room....ummm, ok. but, me being who i am, i decided that i would give her the benefit of the doubt. perhaps she's just an honest, upfront person similar to myself and perhaps, none of this has some more grotesque underlying nasty manipulative motive...perhaps. i stick it out for a month--red flag, after red flag, after red flag...still after other red flags. other acquaintances accusing her of being a drug addict. never saw it myself, so again, benefit of the doubt. still others saying they wouldn't trust her as far as they could pick her up, or how she's using that boyfriend of hers--leading him on, or even some going so far as to call her names. whatever. i'll decide for myself.
in the meantime, as i stated, red flag, red flag...still i had no proof. the guy was all interested in me the first week, then seemed genuinely interested the second--but diminished a little maybe, then still seemingly interested but not following through with plans--once...twice...a third time....she tells me once she's gotten me to admit that i'm dating him that she wouldn't put up with that crap. even though he's her friend, and everyone thinks that he and she should be dating. still wondering what idiots she's talking about--this guy is a professional, clean cut, sweet, and she's a wild ass to the umpteenth degree--let alone the whole "don't poop where you eat, don't date where you work"...there's nothing that would make a normal person think that this would ever happen. it would be like picturing me dating a super nerd with no personality who barely ventured out of the house--like mixing chocolate with poop, might have the same coloring, but smell, taste, presentation, audiance, comfort zones: completely different. anyway, if she were me, she'd drop him like a hot potato.
well, fourth time, and yes, hot potato. granted 2x the guy had good excuses, but he made no effort, none, to make it up to me in any way, shape or form. i'm difficult to upset (obviously if i'm letting him blow me off 4x and twice without any excuse) and i'm not demanding in any way. (really starting to think that i should be--seems like most guys prefer "slutty" or "demanding bitch"--since "slutty" is out, perhaps i should start giving "demanding bitch" more consideration...) so yes, i go with her advice. not really though, two of my real friends were giving the same advice without the how everyone thought they should be dating him routine in the same sentences. still as i stated, i gave this b*tch the benefit of the doubt.
she asked the next time i spoke with her and i told her that i had decided to "take her advice" and stop seeing him. bam!!! she quits calling me, she quits answering my phone calls, she quits everything--well, except bitching on my facebook about pics that have been up for over a month. she had manipulated me--although i suppose i let her, since as i said to friends all through that 4 weeks, red flag, red flag, red flag...we knew, i knew. but, i was giving her the benefit of the doubt. i also know now based on his response to some questions i asked him that she was likely playing both sides of the fence. not sure how long, from the beginning of the 4 weeks or not. don't care.
i suppose she thinks i'm a b*tch because i deleted her from my facebook friends. well, i only keep real friends on there. if you're not, you don't get included or you get dumped. like my grams used to say "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." screw her. she tried to buddy up to me the first time i saw her after i deleted her while i was with real friends. ha! as if. i was polite, but basically ignored her. she flung her chair as she left. wah. tough twinkies. she might even be mad that i dumped her but not the guy off my facebook. why should i? he didn't stab me in the back. he might not be my type if he's that easily dupped, or he might not be my type because he has a lack of follow through, or he just might not be my type because he doesn't make it priority to treat someone right. but he didn't stab me in the back. trying to manipulate me and then completely ignoring me once he'd achieved his goal. no, b*tch, you did that.
she went on and on about how she had no female friends that she trusted. umm, that's a two-way street honey. if you want trust--both trust given and able to give, well, then you don't manipulate a potential friend. especially not for a guy, who you claim you thought/think is a pompous jerk--probably because he wasn't interested in you, who is now friends with your boyfriend and his friends. a decent guy wouldn't touch another guy's woman ever anyway. that horse rode off as soon as she introduced them--at least if he's half the guy that i've observed. the fact that i didn't throw the b.s. flag immediately probably shocked her, but those that know me, know i'm pretty patient with people. to a point. but the truth is she doesn't have any female friends, because she brings it on herself. again, tough twinkies.
as for the guy, well, i've had enough drama in my life to last a lifetime. if he's really that gulliable, that's not the type of man i want anyway. nice friend--perhaps, a good friend. if he's not that gulliable, well, then, perhaps, he's like me. enough with the drama already. but so far, i've always kept my word. like someone i have a lot of respect for told me recently, if you are a certain way, you don't change that just because of someone around you trying to make you act different. you might over-react or under-react, but it'll still be basically how you'd handle a situation. his word should've been his bond regardless, and if he broke his word, then in my world, he should've made up for it. i'm thinking that a lot of people forget that who they are isn't worth much if they can't keep their word anymore. but i'm pretty sure this is why when i find people that do, i form lifelong friendships with them. good people are far rarer than i would like, but when you find them, cherish them like you'll never have another chance to find another. after a while, you find that you have a lot more around you than you imagined possible.
some transgressions, granted are smaller than others, and should be easier to let go down the foxhole. for example, a guy that doesn't follow through with plans is much easier to "forgive" than a backstabber that was pretending to be a friend. recently i was reminded how irritating a backstabber is. this woman went on and on about how everyone that she and a guy she works with would've been good together..."everyone" that they work with thought so. umm, fishy part was she was trying to be my friend and i was kinda seeing the guy in the background noise without wanting a bunch of people in my business. (i really don't like people in my business.) so she was all of the sudden wanting to be my friend, almost immediately after i went out a couple of times with this guy. i kinda suspected that he might have asked her about me, but i let that slide. in the meantime, she's telling me how i should date this mid-50-ish guy that they all know, and how everyone they work with thought she and the guy i'm dating should be dating, and best of all, how she's not dating a guy who claims she's his girlfriend, who she gets pissed if he doesn't pay for her drinks at the bar and who takes her on weekend trips where they share a king size hotel room....ummm, ok. but, me being who i am, i decided that i would give her the benefit of the doubt. perhaps she's just an honest, upfront person similar to myself and perhaps, none of this has some more grotesque underlying nasty manipulative motive...perhaps. i stick it out for a month--red flag, after red flag, after red flag...still after other red flags. other acquaintances accusing her of being a drug addict. never saw it myself, so again, benefit of the doubt. still others saying they wouldn't trust her as far as they could pick her up, or how she's using that boyfriend of hers--leading him on, or even some going so far as to call her names. whatever. i'll decide for myself.
in the meantime, as i stated, red flag, red flag...still i had no proof. the guy was all interested in me the first week, then seemed genuinely interested the second--but diminished a little maybe, then still seemingly interested but not following through with plans--once...twice...a third time....she tells me once she's gotten me to admit that i'm dating him that she wouldn't put up with that crap. even though he's her friend, and everyone thinks that he and she should be dating. still wondering what idiots she's talking about--this guy is a professional, clean cut, sweet, and she's a wild ass to the umpteenth degree--let alone the whole "don't poop where you eat, don't date where you work"...there's nothing that would make a normal person think that this would ever happen. it would be like picturing me dating a super nerd with no personality who barely ventured out of the house--like mixing chocolate with poop, might have the same coloring, but smell, taste, presentation, audiance, comfort zones: completely different. anyway, if she were me, she'd drop him like a hot potato.
well, fourth time, and yes, hot potato. granted 2x the guy had good excuses, but he made no effort, none, to make it up to me in any way, shape or form. i'm difficult to upset (obviously if i'm letting him blow me off 4x and twice without any excuse) and i'm not demanding in any way. (really starting to think that i should be--seems like most guys prefer "slutty" or "demanding bitch"--since "slutty" is out, perhaps i should start giving "demanding bitch" more consideration...) so yes, i go with her advice. not really though, two of my real friends were giving the same advice without the how everyone thought they should be dating him routine in the same sentences. still as i stated, i gave this b*tch the benefit of the doubt.
she asked the next time i spoke with her and i told her that i had decided to "take her advice" and stop seeing him. bam!!! she quits calling me, she quits answering my phone calls, she quits everything--well, except bitching on my facebook about pics that have been up for over a month. she had manipulated me--although i suppose i let her, since as i said to friends all through that 4 weeks, red flag, red flag, red flag...we knew, i knew. but, i was giving her the benefit of the doubt. i also know now based on his response to some questions i asked him that she was likely playing both sides of the fence. not sure how long, from the beginning of the 4 weeks or not. don't care.
i suppose she thinks i'm a b*tch because i deleted her from my facebook friends. well, i only keep real friends on there. if you're not, you don't get included or you get dumped. like my grams used to say "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." screw her. she tried to buddy up to me the first time i saw her after i deleted her while i was with real friends. ha! as if. i was polite, but basically ignored her. she flung her chair as she left. wah. tough twinkies. she might even be mad that i dumped her but not the guy off my facebook. why should i? he didn't stab me in the back. he might not be my type if he's that easily dupped, or he might not be my type because he has a lack of follow through, or he just might not be my type because he doesn't make it priority to treat someone right. but he didn't stab me in the back. trying to manipulate me and then completely ignoring me once he'd achieved his goal. no, b*tch, you did that.
she went on and on about how she had no female friends that she trusted. umm, that's a two-way street honey. if you want trust--both trust given and able to give, well, then you don't manipulate a potential friend. especially not for a guy, who you claim you thought/think is a pompous jerk--probably because he wasn't interested in you, who is now friends with your boyfriend and his friends. a decent guy wouldn't touch another guy's woman ever anyway. that horse rode off as soon as she introduced them--at least if he's half the guy that i've observed. the fact that i didn't throw the b.s. flag immediately probably shocked her, but those that know me, know i'm pretty patient with people. to a point. but the truth is she doesn't have any female friends, because she brings it on herself. again, tough twinkies.
as for the guy, well, i've had enough drama in my life to last a lifetime. if he's really that gulliable, that's not the type of man i want anyway. nice friend--perhaps, a good friend. if he's not that gulliable, well, then, perhaps, he's like me. enough with the drama already. but so far, i've always kept my word. like someone i have a lot of respect for told me recently, if you are a certain way, you don't change that just because of someone around you trying to make you act different. you might over-react or under-react, but it'll still be basically how you'd handle a situation. his word should've been his bond regardless, and if he broke his word, then in my world, he should've made up for it. i'm thinking that a lot of people forget that who they are isn't worth much if they can't keep their word anymore. but i'm pretty sure this is why when i find people that do, i form lifelong friendships with them. good people are far rarer than i would like, but when you find them, cherish them like you'll never have another chance to find another. after a while, you find that you have a lot more around you than you imagined possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)