Something about this time of year. Seven-thirty, mild late-April evening, nowhere near cool enough for a jacket. Still light enough for me to see well-enough to write this on paper in my car, but the steel grey clouds promise rain tonight. No, not just yet, I can't smell the rain, but it's there.
At the house we owned just outside of the large Midwestern city, there was a lilac tree just like this one. It always smelled so good. When people talk about loving spring, it's usually because it's the end of winter, there's sunshine again, and everything is growing. May flowers and all of that. But I can't remember this tree without seeing it against a stormy sky, can't remember the smell of the flowers without also smelling a coming storm. It's not just the growth. It's the chaos and destruction that brings the growth. As a Midwestern girl, spring means thunderstorms and tornadoes. Autumn is lovely, with crisp fall days, the sound of rustling leaves, and the fear in October storms. But it is is all death, leading to a long cold winter. The fear in spring comes with the promise of life. It's probably no coincidence that this is usually when my depression eases up.
Last night, I sat out on the step in front of our house until the rain started. It felt like the wind was blowing in a huge storm, looked like the new green leaves were about to be pulled from the trees. But I felt peaceful, like I was the eye of whatever storm might roll through.
Spring has also always meant open windows for my family. The humid heat of our summers demands air conditioning and then of course there the heater in the winter, always gas, sometimes a roaring fire as well. But spring and fall call for open windows. The bedroom windows in our house outside the large Midwestern city were placed higher up in the wall, long but no more than 2 feet tall, if that. The roof hung over enough that, most of the time, you didn't have to worry about rain getting in the windows, so we left them open through all kinds of rainstorms and thunderstorms. No matter how bad the lightning and thunder were, it lulled me to sleep like few other things can. Still does. But, for a suburban girl who doesn't much like camping and the like, liking with the windows open in my house, with them rolled down in my car, feeling the breeze, makes me feel closer to whatever is out there. It can be soothing. But it can be scary too. Opening up to the things you like also opens you up to things you might not like.
I don't know how to end this, so I'll end it with a song, the one the title is drawn from, which seems quite appropriate for this post.
Upon further reflection, the other problem with using the word "dominate" in how you handled the relationship is that it implies I submitted. There might have been times when I surrendered or just plain gave up, but I never submitted.
Maybe I'm feeling lazy today, but here is a sort of basic outline of what is expected of a submissive:
The behaviour/expectations of a submissive are that they should be open, honest and respectful, polite at all times as your actions will reflect upon your Dom/me and if inappropriate can lead to loss of trust, a break down in communication, or punishments and in severe cases your service terminated. A submissive should be able to carry out instructions and obey his/her Dominant. Desires and needs should be discussed at all times and a realistic solution will be negotiated with the Dominant. If you are in a 24/7 D/s relationship then you will have had specific training, acquired knowledge on how to carry out your every day duties and have a contract in place. Communicating with a Dom/me is not an open reason to "whinge or whine" they are there to guide you and their word is final. Share your concerns in a respectful manner and remain calm, sharing is good but done in the right way will lead to positive solutions. If further training is required then your Dom/me can put this in place. Accepting your Dom/mes decision if they feel scenes are dangerous or unsafe, remember they know best and you need to respect this. If there is any disrespect, you must accept that you will be dealt with directly and to take whatever punishment is seen fit. Understand your levels of submission and what is expected of you, this is all part of your training.
Someone who is submitting is not, unless it's part of the established play, going to actively disobey or disrespect zir Dominant, or violate the existing agreement. A submissive should not attempt to push past the Dominant's own hard limits. Negotiations are not arguments and should not result in the submissive yelling, screaming, crying or threatening because ze did not get zir way. A submissive would work hard to be a good reflection on zir Dominant. A submissive would realize that zir Dominant is human, makes mistakes, and not nag them to death about every little thing. Or nag them at all. A submissive would strive to understand zir Dominant's particular and specific expectations and either strive to meet them or renegotiate in a calm and respectful manner. A submissive would know that zir Dominant loves zir, even if the Dominant cannot or will not give them everything ze wants the exact moment they want it. A submissive would not manipulate or cheat on zir Dominant because of that. Even in a relationship where one partner is dominant and the other submissive, both partners are equal in their humanity and adulthood and should treat each other as such.
So I guess there are a great many words and phrases that describe me better than someone who was dominated.
You think it's funny that I bitched about your lack of dominance in bed but that I also still bitch that you dominated our relationship.
I think I misspoke when I said the latter part of that.
Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. Maybe you think that my desire for dominance in the bedroom means I, naturally, also actually want dominance in my romantic relationships outside the bedroom. I can understand how someone who's never felt the desire to dominate or be dominated sexually, much less who's been involved in the lifestyle as it's typically practiced, could feel that way. Even if that was true, the way I use the word in the first context is not the way I use it in the last. Even so, I feel the need to clear things up, though I will not be using that word in the second context again.
Dominants do not actually set the limits in a relationship. Ze might have things ze will not do, which ze are upfront about during open vocal negotiations, but ultimately, no matter how far out zir limits are, ze cannot go past the hard limits of the submissive. Dominants test a submissive's capabilities while respecting limits, while paying close attention to a submissive's state of mind in the moment. Dominants express their expectations and swiftly voice when a submissive has transgressed, as well as set up ways for that transgression to be made right again. Dominants enthusiastically take on the responsibility for the safety and well-being of zir submissives.
Though I might have once used the word this way, dominance is not deciding the parameters of a relationship without the input of one's partner and without telling even telling that partner. Dominance does not expect something that has not been expressed. Dominance leads gently, but firmly. Dominance does not lie. A Dominant is not ashamed of zir submissive or ashamed of what others think of them being together. A Dominant does not all the relationship to devolve into chaos or equivocate about the relationship. Like all humans and like zir submissive, a Dominant is fallable and will make mistakes, but, just as ze quickly corrects zir submissive, ze takes responsibility for zir own transgressions and corrects them.
Through therapy, I currently know quite a few straight Christian women who believe the Biblical command that a woman should submit to her husband in all things just as people should submit to God in all things. Whenever someone mentions that, my mind fills up with all the shitty, unethical, immoral abusive things that people do to each other and wonders how one person could submit to another in the context of husband and wife. In those moments, I usually forget that the other side of that is that the husbands also have an ideal that they are supposed to live up to, which includes not doing those shitty, unethical, immoral, and/or abusive things. These husbands are supposed to lead, love, cherish, and pull their weight in the relationship, just as the wives are supposed to submit, love, cherish, and pull their weight in the relationship. (In Biblical times, the division of labor was different from now, but I think it's safe to say that both spouses had to work hard and the phrase "breadwinner" would have been pretty meaningless.) In fact, there actually is a Christian-based Dominance/submission movement.
In the end, I think there are probably several other words I should have used instead of the second usage of a variation of dominance. All of which I'm not feeling mean enough to write, but are probably quite apparent at this point.
In case you didn't believe me in the previous post, and you don't watch "Sex and the City" or read chick lit books, the us vs them in the straight dating world is alive and well. Obviously, I'm a little out of touch with popular music, as I was told this was a pretty popular song last year and I've never even heard of this band though all their albums have gone platinum. I think I prefer the hair bands to current rock, if this is it's pinnacle.
Ugh. I can't even bring myself to embed this song that I find pretty misogynistic in my blog. Here's the link if you dare: Theory of a Deadman "The Bitch Came Back" . Sample lyrics: "She's so fuckin' stupid bet she's singing along. The trouble with girls is they're all the same. Forget the diamonds and pearls they just want a ring...The bitch came back the very next day." blah blah blah.
Look, I'm all for a "he/she/you did me wrong" song, whether their conclusion is just "now I hate him/her/you" or "now I'm stronger and with someone way better than you." But those are very specific to individuals. I find less enjoyment in anything that says "all x are y." I know that people (mostly) write their experiences. These rockers have obviously had bad experiences with female partners in their lives. Rappers who's songs are mostly about crime and violence grew up seeing that. BT tried to convince me that all the violent, "women are all bitches only good for blowing me" songs from some band on the ICP label was tongue-in-cheek about the harsh, abusive world they grew up in. That's swell. And I'll defend their right to say, sing, make art about that. But that also means that I get have the right to not like their art and to think their art makes them seem like misogynistic, violent, abusive, criminal assholes (or some combination of those things.)
Also, if it didn't come across in my last post, I don't think that either side of the "us vs them" straight dating world divide is right. Everyone is different and shouldn't feel like they have to be squeezed into roles or desires. Straight men and women should feel free to want to get married or not want to get married, to want or not want children, to feel like the current ideal straight relationship roles are too constraining or are just right or something else along that spectrum. But, in case you hadn't figured this out about me, I think it's more important for an individual to figure out what they ultimately desire, and what they can work around, and for couples (or more-ples) to be honest with each other about those desires, find ways to for everyone to be as satisfied and happy as possible within reason, or to realize that they just aren't a good fit, without it being anyone's fault. Women, in general, are not bitches. Men, in general, aren't dicks or assholes. We're all just people living in this messed up world, trying to be as happy and fulfilled as possible given our cultural pressures and our unique histories. I think most of us want love, want loving relationships which nurture and support us. But those things mean different things to all of us and we have to find a way to make friends out of frenemies.
So I've been thinking quite a bit about relationships, romantic and friendly, lately. Analyzing past relationships to learn from them, trying to figure out what people I'm currently in relationships with can give and what I can or should be giving in return, how I want all this to translate into future relationships. As evidenced by previous posts, Moneypenny and I are still having trouble navigating our friendship, which really isn't anything new, though I do think that we're being more candid earlier than we used to be.
I got this song in my head:
Official video won't embed but here's link: http://youtu.be/5mO2K-qkMU4
Completely complacent So decidedly vacant I keep waiting for something to give But that something is always me You consume what you’re able I get crumbs from your table You call this comfortably normal But I call it getting by Baby, it’s a fine line I’m holding on, you’re holding back Baby, it’s a fine line Can’t you hear me knockin’ at your door? But you’re taking your sweet time In love, out of touch Baby, it’s a fine line Baby, it’s a real fine line Do you feel the distance Like I feel resistance? If I pulled any farther away Would you even come after me? But the one thing I’m fearing Is that I’m disappearing How can I keep believing If you won’t prove me wrong? Baby, it’s a fine line I’m holding on, you’re holding back Baby, it’s a fine line Can’t you hear me knockin’ at your door? But you’re taking your sweet time In love, out of touch Baby, it’s a fine line Baby, it’s a real fine line
Now the current situation with Moneypenny isn't that desperate by a long shot, but just a few weeks ago, this is pretty close to what I was feeling. I think that our biggest problems lately have come from the a simple misunderstanding. Moneypenny will tell me that he wants to do x or wants to be x, which I misunderstand to mean that x is his goal right now. What he really means is "I want to do/be x, BUT I'm not really able to." What makes it a bit more confusing is that sometimes he'll do/be x for a bit after saying that, but then things go back to how they were or go in the opposite direction, like yo-yo dieting. Then I bring it up, he tries really hard for a bit, then it goes back. The biggest area this has shown up in lately is our level and frequency of contact. He's said time and again that I'm his closest friend, that this is the biggest relationship in his life, which I am not denying is true, but for me that means fairly frequent contact, responding when someone asks you something in text or email, not disappearing for days at a time without a single word. (Yes I know this sounds more like I'm his girlfriend or his mom, but those of you out there with someone you call your bestfriend, what do you expect?) Now when he says he can't do that, when he's sick, when he's working lots of overtime, when he's got a busy week or weekend, I don't expect that. But, as we live in different cities and he's not one of those people who puts his whole life on Facebook, I don't really know that stuff. Maybe I do expect too much, but I feel like I try to expect something along the lines of what he says he'll do. (Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.) He's thought a bit about this too and thinks that it would be easier if we saw each other more often, as he's more connected in that way to local friends who he sees regularly. Of course, we're having a bit of trouble finding times when we are both free at the moment.
For a few years now, I've tried to both be aware of how I feel about other people, what I'd like from them or with them, but ultimately to know that they can only be who they are at that moment and they can only give what they can give at that moment. I'm not saying I always do this successfully, but I try. Even though it can be really awkward at times, I do try to ask the other person instead of making assumptions.
Looking back at my relationship with TyRoy, both the romantic period and the friendship period, I think that both of us being as honest as we could be about what we expected and what we could give, and accepting where the other person was, is what allowed us to stay together. I think most of the rather few, considering how long we've known each other, times we clashed were precipitated by my negative BPD coping skills getting the best of me and him having no clue what the fuck was going on. These always started with some crazy little thing that upset me way more than it justifiably should have, but at the time I didn't have the knowledge or the skills to take a step back from it. But looking at my relationship with TyRoy, the biggest thing it brought to my life was consistency. He is a very consistent person, lives a very consistent life, was present in my life in consistent ways, had consistent expectations of me, was consistently honest about who he is and what he wants and how I do or don't fit into that. It can't be overestimated how helpful this is for someone who has never felt consistent or stable.
Bipolar disorder is largely believed today to be a brain chemical imbalance that switches a person between depression and mania. Then let's add to that borderline personality disorder, which has a great deal of black and white thinking, living on the extremes in my personality, where I'm either experiencing unrelenting crisis or inhibited feeling, look completely competent or practice active passivity. I'm one crazy chick, right? Then you put me together with Moneypenny, who can easily get carried away in the early part of a new romantic relationship, but, in the long-term, is governed by a Ben Stiller's actuary character from "Along Came Polly." This means that once he's gotten over the heady falling in love period and knows a lady a bit better, he determines what risks there are to being with her, and, so far at least, those risks always outweigh the uncertain reward. So he pulls away, except not quite far enough away to actually leave, because he still does have hope, hope that she'll grow out of that risk. Not surprisingly, she doesn't. Usually, his pulling away only magnifies the qualities or behaviors he found risky in the first place. I'm not writing this to be judgmental or put him on blast. Honestly, while he has many qualities that are extra-ordinary, this all-in then pull-out seems to be rather typical (romantic) relationship behavior for many people, especially men, of our age and I think that cultural and socioeconomic factors, as well as being able prevent pregnancy, tend to allow it to go on longer without it being questioned. I'm not saying that any of those things are wrong or that I would want those contributing factors to change. Just that this is what is. But when culture still pushes (straight) women to think that their highest goal is to get married and have children, when their friends and family put pressure on them to get married, when they are barraged with stories about how not making babies as young as possible after their teens because they start losing fertility, but, on the other hand, pushes even harder on men to not get trapped, to not be invested, to put their male friendships first, to be the cop making sure that feelings don't speed in the relationship, to not feel like they can lose this woman if they don't act to shore up the relationship, well, for better or worse, this creates two people in a relationship with completely opposite motivations and goals. It's not a romantic partnership. What you have here are romantic frenemies.
After my romantic relationship with Moneypenny ended, I really thought that all straight men were like the above. BT showed me that a man my age could jump right in, all the way in, though maybe he only jumped right in because he knew he was physically leaving. On the other hand, he was from a completely different cultural and socioeconomic place than my previous boyfriends. TyRoy had jumped in completely to a fairly new relationship when he was my age and had done all he could to stay in it, though it ultimately didn't last. A bit older than me (or Moneypenny) and much farther along in his life goals than either of us, he seemed to be past the bullshit. More self-assured, he laid out what he wanted, didn't like to waste any time, apparently still felt that it was better to go for that relationship than let the potential (or obvious) risks get in the way. I think this came from age, experience, and, because of his career, not being allowed the extended adolescence post-college that many of us have today. Though I know of plenty of (straight) couples that seem to get engaged and married more out of the push of the female partner and the male partner's feelings of inevitability, this weekend, one of my uncle's close friend's boyfriend of five months surprised her by proposing to her while they were visiting her family for Easter. He wanted to get married as soon as possible, to start this new life together as soon as possible, but because he also wanted them to have a party to celebrate it, they're crunching the numbers to balance that out. She told my mom that he's already been out tasting cakes. Seeing both people so excited about it just makes me all criemy-wimey. It's nice knowing it's not all one way.
They say that the only constant in all your failed relationships is you. Looking back, I see how the tango between my poor BPD and bipolar coping skills and my partner's extreme all-ins then pull-back-outs spelled disaster for us. But I picked these guys, didn't I? So why was TyRoy different, so I can try to repeat the success of that one? Honestly, I think it's because I didn't really pick him. At least not for that. If I'd just went on a regular date with him, a romantic date which I hoped might become a romantic relationship, I honestly probably wouldn't have gone on many more. Gods love him, but he's a pushy, aggressive, stubborn, not traditionally romantic bastard. We became e-mail friends because we had shared losses at the time, with no intention to meet in person ever. We met in person because I also answered a kinky casual encounters ad that I didn't know was his. We were just supposed to be a sexual stop-over relationship for each other, so all those things that I would have rejected him for if I was going to date him didn't really matter to me. I think that we became closer as we found more and more common ground and the more the relationship proved to work for us in real time. While his consistency might have been a no go in someone I sought out for dating, I think it was a large factor in how successful we were. So I think my choosing is all of.
Of course, this doesn't help the situation with Moneypenny, now does it? *Sigh* Except that maybe I should work to be more consistent and to see the ways in which his behavior is consistent in itself, even if it's not consistent with what he says. Though I'm not a huge Oprah fan, I take lessons where I can find them. One of her favorite sayings, which is from Maya Angelou, is "When someone shows you who they are, believe them." I also remember a further quote from a relationship expert that she used to have on her show all the time, but had developed a rift with, just about the time the expert's own romantic relationship fell apart. When the two reconciled in Oprah's last season, the relationship expert said that she completely agreed with the quote, but would add, "And when someone TELLS you who they are, go to the other side of the street," meaning when someone tells you that they are in a negative sense, if that is something you don't want in a relationship, instead of thinking they're going to change or that you can fix them, don't proceed with that relationship. I don't think that the Maya Angelou quote has to be taken negatively though. TyRoy has shown himself to be very good at day to day life, to be completely open and honest and without guile with me, though, while he's never turned me away, he's also shown that he does not have a clue what to do with me when I'm in an emotional crisis. Moneypenny has shown that he's not very good at the everyday, but he's amazing when I'm in a crisis, knows just how to cut to the heart of the matter and make me see things in a different, more helpful light. If I could put the best parts of them together.... Nevermind. I can't control other people, so I always try to find what I can do to make situations more tolerable for myself. Here, I think I need to keep working on accepting and making the best us of who Moneypenny really is right now, and ignore anything he says that's not backed up by actions.
Finally, a closing number, by the Boss himself. How I often feel in life and relationships, but am trying to develop the skills to change, because time only moves one way, away from yesterday:
Woke up this morning the house was cold Checked the furnace she wasn’t burnin’ Went out and hopped in my old Ford Hit the engine but she ain’t turnin’ We’ve given each other some hard lessons lately But we ain’t learnin’ We’re the same sad story that’s a fact One step up and two steps back [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bruce+springsteen/one+step+up_20025276.html ] Bird on a wire outside my motel room But he ain’t singin’ Girl in white outside a church in June But the church bells they ain’t ringin’ I’m sittin’ here in this bar tonight But all I’m thinkin’ is I’m the same old story same old act One step up and two steps back
It’s the same thing night on night Who’s wrong baby who’s right Another fight and I slam the door on Another battle in our dirty little war When I look at myself I don’t see The man I wanted to be Somewhere along the line I slipped off track I’m caught movin’ one step up and two steps back
There’s a girl across the bar I get the message she’s sendin’ Mmm she ain’t lookin’ too married And me well honey I’m pretending Last night I dreamed I held you in my arms The music was never-ending We danced as the evening sky faded to black One step up and two steps back
"People love that cliche, time heals all wounds. But live long enough and you'll realize that most cliches are true. It's amazing what even the smallest passage of time can accomplish, the cuts it can close, the imperfections it can smooth over. But in the end, it comes down to the size of the wound, doesn't it? If the wound is deep enough , there might be no way to keep it from festering, even if you have all the time in the world."
From an intro voice-over on Being Human, US, emphasis mine
I keep finding myself coming back to the same old questions. How do we know when it's time to give up? Where is the line between sticking to your guns and just being stubborn? How long can you ignore the advice of people you do think are wise, wiser than you? How do you figure out if your wound just needs time to heal or if that wound is just festering and will never heal?
Last week, my favorite afternoon dj's had a discussion about staying friends with ex's. (It's the third section down, with the offensive Asian caricature. The first streaming audio is their overall opinion. The rest are discussions with callers, the final caller being the most interesting to me.) Lazlo, the older, more experienced man, who I usually, begrudgingly, agree with, asserts that no one can be friends with their ex because that ex will always have some control over you and your emotions (or vice versa), your current friendship will interfere with one or both of you's current romantic relationships and one of you is always more emotionally involved, (unconsciously) only does it because you still LOVES that person. This is why Lazlo says that an ex is dead to him. Slimfast, the younger, more idealistic of the two, wants people to call in and prove Lazlo wrong. Lazlo makes some exceptions for people in open relationships and people who have children with ex's and keep a cordial relationship with that co-parent. Of course, Lazlo rips all the callers excuses to pieces. The first two callers were men who still hung out with their female ex's and the ex's new boyfriend/husband, men who couldn't say what positives they got from their friendships with their ex's. Lazlo declared that these men were the ones who still cared and that they needed to cut the cord and move on. The last caller was on the opposite end. He was the only close friend that his ex-girlfriend had. She had not had a serious romantic relationship with another man since they'd broke up, though he'd had other girlfriends and even been engaged for a bit of time. The caller was on his way to have an after-work drink with this woman and Lazlo asserted that the best thing the caller could do for this woman was to not show up to it, to, figuratively, kill himself, so she would be forced to move on. "She's not a friend. She's a hostage," was Lazlo's closing salvo.
And I'll be damned if that didn't ring true. One of those harsh truths that you want to deny, deny, deny, but the words get under your skin, play on a loop in your head.
My friends and relatives don't get why I'm still friends with you. They think being friends with you is so hard that it might not be meant to be. They see that we have very very different values systems, goals, and outlooks on life. And for everyone of your friends or relatives who thinks I'm a crazy unstable jealous bitch, I have a friend or relative who thinks you're a moralistic asshole who needs to take the stick out of his ass and live a little. And I'm pretty sure there are times we agree with that assessment. We also have complaints with how the friendship currently is. Ok, well, I know I do and I'm pretty sure you do, though I couldn't say what yours are at this point. You're great in a crisis, but you kinda disappear for the everyday, though you keep saying that isn't how you want to be. In your own words, "A man shows how he feels in his actions." Though I'm trying to get over it, I know that I'm the ex who stayed on, at least in part, because I thought we'd get back together. And I know I'm the person who feels more wounds more acutely, because it's in my nature to do so.
She's not a friend. She's a hostage.
Now I don't feel that with my other bff who's an ex. But our romantic relationship was far from traditional and we both kept our distances, for a variety of reasons. And while neither of us have plans on being in a romantic relationship with the other, we still relate to each other in much the same way as we did when we were involved. I guess neither of us has felt rejection from the other just because we aren't pursuing a romantic relationship with the other. Maybe my parting with him was not as brutal as my parting was from you.
I thought it would be easier than this, you know? But few things are easy, at least not with me. I had lots of reasons for accepting you back. I have lots of reasons for keeping you in my life. But probably none so strong as sheer stubbornness, the idea that this is one thing that I can make work through the sheer force of my will, that the things we do have are stronger than all the obstacles that lay in our way, that I want to see who you'll be and I want you to see who I become.
So I'll find antibiotics for the deep festering wounds. Call it Stockholm syndrome. I'll be your hostage, at least for now. Gods know you've been mine before. And you can be the symbol of my rebellion, even if you never have one of your own.
So I feel like I'm kinda a "ride or die chick" when it comes to my family. I'm going to be there, no matter what, if someone I feel is family needs me. I might not keep track of extended family the way that my mom does and I might not have a day to day relationship with some family members, but, if something happened to them, I'm pretty sure I'd be there in a heartbeat. Even family members that I'm estranged from, for this or that reason. If my black sheep uncle actually needed me, like he was sick or injured or dying, I'd be there. No matter how crazy my grandma got, I couldn't break that relationship. I know that isn't how many people feel. Moneypenny and his parents have severed their relationship with most of their extended family, which serves them well in many ways, and I don't judge them for that. TyRoy, no matter how much he does love his family, doesn't put the same premium on being with them for holidays, for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't love his parents or that he wouldn't give both his kidneys to his niece if she needed them. Once again, different strokes for different folks. And I'm sure that my way hasn't always served me well, has prevented me from saying 'no' when I should have. Right now, I have the future-anxiety of how much I'll be involved in caring for my step-dad's parents, if/when they need more care, and how I'll be able to balance my desire and obligation to care for them with doing the other things I want to do in my life, especially when that means not living in the metro area where I live. The same is also true when I think of my parents growing older, as I'm the only child.
Family is also not defined strictly by blood or marriage for me. I have a few close friends that I think of as family. This very much includes Moneypenny and TyRoy. I think that anyone who I've been romantically involved with who is involved in my day to day life afterwards and has been there 3+ years seems a shoe in for being family. If my uncle showed me anything, it's that you can make your own family and keep your blood family too, and that it helps everyone if you all have others to carry your burdens.
On the other hand, I know that I rely heavily on my close blood relatives, especially my parents, to the point of taking them and their generosity for granted sometimes. They don't have to let me live here, rent free at the moment. They don't have to help me financially when I'm unemployed or in a tight spot. I'll probably never be able to repay them all they've given me, though I'm sure that can be said of most child/parent relationships.
But I'm a bit ambivalent about taking help, especially financially, from others, especially non-blood/marriage relations. Though the family on my mom's side was always close and leaned on each other, my mom pushed me to have my own money and be independent. This is good advice for anyone, but was important advice for her to pass on to me after her experience being married to my father, not being able to leave the relationship when she wanted to because of the financial situation. While I've not been as great at this as I've wanted to be, the principle/aspiration stuck. In the realm of dating, even living together, until I was married, I never had a significant other who regularly paid more than half for things. I'm not faulting them for that. At the time, those people and I were usually pretty broke. Unless it was a birthday, dinner out was usually fast food and whoever had money that week paid. When I first got with BT, I was a bit flush with cash and paid for almost everything until he was getting full pay from the army. While we were married, theoretically, he didn't see any need for me to work and we could make all the necessities and have money left over to save for after he got back (though that was purely theoretic.) I tried to be a good wifey, spend my time taking care of his needs, be available at crazy hours to talk to him online, etc. (Honestly, that was mostly theoretical too.) But I (mostly) didn't feel bad about "mooching" off of him. In fact, the way Army pays, a part of that money was supposed to be JUST for his spouse, even if we were legally separated, up until any divorce was final. The next person I was involved with was TyRoy, who I've never seen let anyone pay for a check in my life. In the day to day, he didn't really spoil me while we were living together, but he paid the general bills. There I didn't really feel bad either because I knew he'd pay the same amount on the bills if I was there or not. I tried to contribute as much as possible in other ways and, in all honesty, I knew he just didn't want to be alone in that big ol' house, so I didn't really think he minded me being there.
But now I'm not romantically with any of these people, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm ambivalent about them helping me financially. I'll be honest- I'm probably not going to turn them down, but will try to be grateful and gracious in accepting their help. What I'm wondering about is if I should feel guilty about that. With the exception of letting them pay for gas to go see them or dinner/concerts/movies when we're together, the things that people have offered to pay for, already paid for, are...well, not necessities, but quite helpful. Like parts for my broken computer so I can look for work online at all hours, not worry about my parents needing their computer or having the light or noise wake them up. Or recharging the A/C in my old car, so I can go to interviews without being remembered as the sweaty woman. These were things they offered, not something I asked for, though I'm not currently turning down. But I worry that accepting this financial help goes against the principle of being self-sufficient and independent that I really want to work on, though am falling woefully short of at the moment. I'm not necessarily the kind of person who can't accept help and gods knows I've tried to help others when I could, even financially. But this feels different.
This week, when I told Therapist (yes, that's her pseudonym!) about TyRoy buying me the components for my computer, which weren't cheap, she asked why I thought he did that. Maybe my ambivalent feelings are coming from that fact that I'm not really sure. I've never really been sure why he was so generous, but I guess I was always afraid that asking would stop that behavior, so I didn't. At the time, I told Therapist that he's just generous. I'd like to say that TyRoy and Moneypenny are generous financially because I'm generous in other ways. Maybe it's that they love (small l love, like you love your family, not in love) me. Maybe it's because they love me (again small l) and want to take care of me. Maybe it's because they're men and they see a woman in distress, know they can help financially so they do. I kinda shoot down the idea that they are trying to get into my pants because that's completely free and neither of them is currently trying to take advantage of that pay in.
I suppose it's difficult for me to think that these friendships, which I view as family, these (male) people that I would do anything for, but have no plans of current or future romantic or sexual relationships with, are actually as deep for them as they are for me. My commitment is that I'd go running to their non-local home to care for them if they needed it, though I can't contribute to their lives financially. Their commitment is that they can contribute financially to these specific one time things that will help me right now, but they can't drop their jobs, their life, where they are now to come take care of me. On both sides, I think it shows that we dedicate what we have, what we can do, what we can give up, to help the other, to demonstrate that we're in this, that we aren't going anywhere. And to me, that's family. Thanks guys. I'll try to pay it forward (and maybe back) when I can.
So my therapist says that I care a lot about what others think about me.
Well, actually she asked, "Do you think you care a lot about what others think about you?" in that leading way that therapists do.
Well, shit, of course I do! Who doesn't? Don't you? I don't see you coming to sessions in your sweatpants or pajama bottoms.
Look, no matter how much I try to do things just for me, just do thinks I like, just "be me," it's my opinion that it's often difficult to draw the line between what I do because I like it and what i do because it gets me the desired results, whatever they may be.
My primary example in this is how one dresses and behaves in work and social settings. When I have a job, I try to obey the dress code. I don't usually wear any piercings, other than earrings, to job interviews and, unless the boss says otherwise, I don't wear them on the job. "Work me" is completely fine not being "all me" while at work. I try to dress according to the social situation and have the proper manners. I might not really want to put on some slacks to go to a cabaret show at a fancy (to me) bar. I might really want to stay in my pajama pants, but I don't. Now I might not get kicked out of a place for wearing them but I'd feel even more awkward than I already do in my skin, so I try to dress accordingly.
At the time, we were talking about how I had acted, as well as how I said I had not wanted to act at a get-together for to remember my uncle's passing, on the one year anniversary of it. Everyone else was acting happy, trying to enjoy the company of other people that they had only known because of my uncle. We told funny stories about him, but no one was crying. I find it very hard not to cry when I talk about him, even just when I think about him. I think my therapist was trying to get across to me, or remind me, that crying is a valid response to thinking and talking about a dead loved one and I shouldn't have felt prohibited from doing that. But I just didn't want to be that person. However valid an emotion might be, even however justified an emotion or the reaction to that emotion might be from a psychotherapy point of view, even from my point of view, it isn't necessarily seen that way culturally and I get tired of being seen as the crazy or overly-emotional or overly-sensitive one that everyone has to walk on eggshells around. I might know that experiencing that emotion that I'm feeling isn't the end of the world, that justifiably being angry or sad and reacting to it isn't going to make me hurt myself, but others don't. Or it just makes them feel uncomfortable in a way that can't be resolved then and I get tired of being the one that does that.
And I do care a lot about what the people I care about think of me and, unless I think it's just way out of bounds or outside my character, I do things that will please them. Take dating and romantic relationships. First date, I dress sexy in my opinion and place/activity appropriate. When I first start dating someone, I try to lay my cards out fairly quickly, so we can part if we aren't suited to one another. If someone doesn't want to be in a relationship with someone who's living with a mental illness, I get that and I'd rather tell hir now and have hir say that, than months in when I have an attachment to them. (Only one example of many.) But, after I'm with someone, especially on the things I could go either way about, I'm happy to oblige. I try to be GGG (good, giving, and game, from Dan Savage) not only in the bedroom, but everywhere in our relationship, within reason. I had one someone who, as the country song says, likes his women just a little on the trashy side, when they were their clothes too tight and their hair is dyed, with too much lipstick and too much rouge. When we went out together, like 'date night' out, I wore tight slacks, very low-cut tops, and full make-up. Now, another someone I was with for awhile, has completely different ideas of what makes a woman look sexy. When we went out on dates, I wore (almost) no makeup, and clothing that left something to the imagination. Now both of these men had seen me in the morning as well as sick as a dog. Ultimately, they'd go out with me no matter how I looked, within reason. They never asked me to look a certain way, but I didn't really care either way so I did what had the best results, which was looking in a way that they found sexy. But they also do things that they know I'll like. Neither took me to a football game, because I don't like football. Both try to pick out movies that I won't think are completely stupid when we go to movies. When I've asked them to wear certain things, they have. We both care about what the other thinks of us, which isn't always a bad thing.
I am also very aware that I do things specifically to get negative reactions from people. When I was younger, I used to think that I did these things just because I liked them. Now, I do like them, or at least most of them, but I know I'll get specific kinds of not-positive reactions and I'm either ok with that, or, usually, trying for that reaction. As I've said before, I share many things that others might save for a later date, or for never, specifically so people can decide to leave if that doesn't suit them. I really like weird shoes. When I was a freshman in high school and I felt invisible, I wore the weirdest, funkiest, chunkiest shoes I could find. I might not have had any romantic admirers, but I was no longer invisible in those black lace-up shoes with the two inch platform and the five inch heel. I still have, and wear, the black and white wingtip Doc Martin's I got my junior year. I just bought a pair of purple and lime tennis shoes. I have piercings and tattoos, which I flaunt proudly (as long as I'm not in a work environment.) If a person is on the more conservative side of public presentation, it might come off as mean or scary.Though this means less in some circles than in others, I still feel like it makes me seem tough. I still feel like I've earned my stripes, in a way. Moneypenny has suggested, in as nice a way as he could find, that it also makes me less approachable, which I'm ok with. I'm overweight and I don't really feel like I want to be what is considered a normal weight for me. When I was eighteen and still pretty close to that normal weight, I was robbed in my home. I've been overpowered and sexually assaulted. I have hopes that the piercings and tattoos which make me seem unapproachable and my weight itself make me a less desirable target all around. Last but not least, I have my hair cut short, not quirky manic pixie dreamgirl short, but short short. Though I'll date anyone on the gender spectrum, I hope that it is a bit of a dogwhistle to other queer women (hey, you can hit on me.) Also, until I really want to grow it out or I fall for someone who wants me to grow it out or Moneypenny finally gets me that neck tattoo, I'm going to wear it short because my ex-husband said he'd never fuck me again if I cut it short and I never want to fall back into that situation.
So, yeah, I care about what other people think. I think about, wonder about, what other people think. Maybe I do it too much. But, until the reality is such that not caring, or not caring as much, about what other people think is a problem, I don't see a need to make it a problem.
The first in a series of posts where I try to sort out my own feelings on things my therapist has put forth...
So my therapist says,
Disordered Eating is Self-Harm
and my mind does it's best Keanu Reeves' impersonation, "Whoa...."
I've been having lots of different eating issues lately and it seems like every time I accept the current problem, it changes to a new problem. But the things that never seems to permanently leave me are that I overeat and that I eat more food out than is healthy or currently affordable.
It was about a month ago that I realized how out of control the problem was, as it was something that I was lying about, sneaking around with, and overall making myself sick with. So I brought it to my therapist, said that I wanted to work on figuring out why. I wasn't, and maybe still am not, ready to change it. I just wanted to figure out why. She suggested I start using a modified diary card (another DBT thing, used to track your emotions and harming habits over the week) to track my emotions and when I binged. (Man, writing that word suddenly makes this feel way more personal. But what's the point in shame if it's not public, right?) The first week that I used the modified diary card, I thought it might help for me to write down what I had eaten. For me, it helped me get a better idea of exactly what I was eating, instead of forgetting the things I had mindlessly eaten. My therapist suggested that I continue with this as long as it wasn't triggering, which I can see how it could be, is for some people, but that isn't an issue I currently have.
After several weeks, sorta out of the blue, the big reason I was doing this hit me, the one I'd been missing. I'm educated about anorexia and bulimia, have watched the Intervention episode on them, with the best of them. In theory, I know that, at the core, they all seem to be about control, exerting control over your life in an area you have control over, your eating. Also, in theory, I know all about emotional eating, about eating habits we learn from our families growing up, all of that. But it's another thing to a) say "yeah, that's me" and b) figure out what it is you are trying to get control over. Because it is about control, at the heart of it. But I don't feel it as control. What I feel is that I don't want to feel poor. Saying it outloud, writing it here, makes it seem silly, but that's what it is. Personally, I don't have any money. In the last several months, I've gotten and quit two jobs. I'm lucky enough that my folks are both still able to work and both still have jobs and I'm living off of them. There are lots of reasons for this situation, some from my mistakes, some not. Even if I got the best paying job I could probably get right now, I would have just enough money to continue my therapy, pay my bills, and start paying back my student loans, and that's it. I would not have enough to move out. For awhile, I wouldn't even have enough to help out financially around my current household. My financial situation seems out of my control. But there's this weird culturally-trained voice in my head that asserts that poor people can't eat out at restaurants or fast food joints, can't even buy sorta lavish stuff like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, so if I do that, I must not be poor. Hey, I never said that it was good logic, but there is a logic there and I can't change the pattern until I know what starts it.
Warning: Kinda gross, sharing even more than I've already shared ahead
In all honesty, looking at it now, this has probably been going on longer than I previously admitted to myself. I had finally gotten to a place where I was moderating my eating, when my uncle and my grandfather became ill and I said "fuck it, I'm going to eat whatever fast food I want." Which I could, because I'd often vomit after any fast food meal, caused by the gallstones I didn't know I had at the time. I wasn't purposely purging, but one followed the other, so I can't exactly say I wasn't aware of the outcome. Within a couple of months, my gallbladder was removed at which point the after meal outcome switched ends. My primary care physician at the time suggested I just eat better and lose weight and that would stop, though she gave me a prescription for a powder to use when eating well was unavoidable, like Thanksgiving dinner. I never found any way of eating that allowed me to avoid the problem. Finally, after several very embarrassing accidents, I started using that powder everyday and the issue quit. I also started blowing up like a decomposing whale on the beach, baking in the sun. For awhile, especially while I was grieving heavily, my weight was the last of my problems and I didn't care. Last fall, all of that fast food and overeating started to aggravate what I'm assuming are stones that have developed in my bile ducts. After a few weeks of pain, I finally accepted the situation and changed my diet. After the two weeks in which I was very cranky, it seemed to all be under control. Except that it made my lithium levels go crazy which lead to the hospitalization. The stones must have gotten dislodged in all the mayhem, because I could eat however I wanted to, pain-free, when I got out. And I did, with a vengeance. After the hospitalization, I felt horrible, guilty and ashamed about what I'd done, and worried all the time about how much it was going to cost. Hell, you could go back further if you wanted, to my big after-mono weight loss, largely caused by not wanting to eat during the mono, then going to a therapist a few months after who told me that my real problem was chronic fatigue caused by Epstein-Barr and that I needed to cut all processed flour out of my diet, which meant just about everything I liked to eat.
When I brought my big reason to my therapist and she said, "You know, disordered eating is a form of self-harm," I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. Fuck. I had no rebuttal, didn't even think she was wrong, but I had just never thought about it like that. And FUCK. I thought I'd stopped the self-harm. I'd been suicide-thought free for months, hadn't cut or anything in even longer, didn't misuse my medication, rarely drank alcohol, and had even stopped drinking Coke after dinner. I thought I was doing so fucking good with not harming myself. Being told that this issue I had just started dealing with, this thing I wasn't even saying I was going to stop doing yet, was more self-harm was like having my balloon popped. A very necessary and true balloon pop, don't get me wrong, but...fuck.
Now I said in the last post that all that DBT shit would be coming into play and here's where it does. To change this, I feel like I have to not only accept the situation itself, but to figure out and accept where the line gets drawn, what I believe is healthy and what I believe is unhealthy, what is the right way to handle this particular disordered eating and what isn't, what a good and achievable goal looks like at this moment.
Because I have this thing with "diets" and "dieting." First of all, my personal (familial) experience, as well as scientific research, has shown that "diets" are unsustainable and, the majority of the time, result in the dieter gaining back all the weight ze'd lost and then gaining some more on top of it. Scientific research shows that this yo-yo-ing is very unhealthy for the body, probably even more unhealthy than staying the original, overweight weight. "But all it takes is determination, willpower, stick-to-it-iveness, counting calories, keeping smaller portions, pre-making all your meals, working out to offset any desserts and you'll be able to lose that weight and keep it off," you say. And that all might be true and I might just take you up on that offer someday. I know one of the precepts of Buddhism is not harming any living things and, when I was first getting into that, I knew that someday I might feel so hardcore about Buddhism that I stopped eating meat. But I also knew that, at that moment, it was not something I was willing or able to do and it wouldn't stick. My willingness can only go so far at this point. Also, if I spend every waking moment fighting my mind and my body over what I'm going to eat or not going to eat, I'm not going to have any time, energy, or mind-space to think about anything else. Maybe, someday, I'll be that minority of people who lose weight and keep it off, but there is nothing pointing me to that being the reality now.
So where does that leave me? I guess the answer is that I'm still looking for an answer. Not necessarily from you, gentle readers, but within myself. As someone who has never been convinced that we aren't in the Matrix, that we aren't brains in a vat, reality has never been very clear or fixed for me and I'm still trying to figure out what the reality in this situation is that I need to radically accept, so that I can work for change. And I'm not sure if that's a for of willingness, that I'm looking at all, or willfulness, because I'm not doing anything yet.
Hello, Gentle Readers. As some of you may know, I'm currently participating in DBT therapy, both group and individual. Unless you are in DBT or close to someone who is, you probably have no idea what that is. Here's a sorta dry but accurate description of what DBT therapy is:
Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is a treatment designed specifically for individuals with self-harm behaviors, such as self-cutting, suicide thoughts, urges to suicide, and suicide attempts. Many clients with these behaviors meet criteria for a disorder called borderline personality (BPD). It is not unusual for individuals diagnosed with BPD to also struggle with other problems -- depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, eating disorders, or alcohol and drug problems. DBT is a modification of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In developing DBT, Marsha Linehan, Ph.D.(1993a) first tried applying standard CBT to people who engaged in self-injury, made suicide attempts, and struggled with out-of-control emotions. When CBT did not work as well as she thought it would, Dr. Linehan and her research team added other types of techniques until they developed a treatment that worked better. We’ll go into more detail about these techniques below, but it’s important to note that DBT is an “empirically-supported treatment.” That means it has been researched in clinical trials, just as new medications should be researched to determine whether or not they work better than a placebo (sugar pill). While the research on DBT was conducted initially with women who were diagnosed with BPD, DBT is now being used for women who binge-eat, teenagers who are depressed and suicidal, and older clients who become depressed again and again.
While one of my group members likes to describe it as its own little cult, to me, this great combination of psychotherapy and Buddhism, which provides and reinforces coping skills for living with the mental illness issues that I am dealing with. Oh, and despite what it seems like at the end of the previous paragraph, it is not just helpful for women, teenagers, and old people. I honestly think that many of the life skills can be helpful for anyone and my particular group has (has had) quite a few men who have found DBT helpful for them.
When I started the therapy, honestly, I just wanted to be able to make it through the day, or even just an hour, without crying. It was several months after my uncle's death. Everyone else seemed to be moving on. Mom and I had done a grieving support group. But I was still crying all the time, as well as backsliding into other behaviors which I knew were just negative coping skills. But I didn't know what else to do. It lead me to this.
But now I'm past 'just getting by,' past just wanting to make it through a day without crying, past wanting to JUST not hurt myself. I want to move forward with my life. I want to flourish. I want to deal with my problems (so I can get all new ones.) I want to turn mistakes into opportunities, instead of making them crisis. And, in DBT, the skill for making that transition, the basic skill for accepting reality, since you can't change something you don't acknowledge, is...drum roll please... RADICAL ACCEPTANCE. But what does that mean?, you might ask. Well, let's start off with the bullet point description in my book (capitalizations are the book's):
Freedom from suffering requires ACCEPTANCE from deep within of what is. Let yourself go completely with what is. Let go of fighting reality.
ACCEPTANCE is the only way out of hell.
Pain creates suffering only when you refuse to ACCEPT the pain.
Deciding to tolerate the moment is ACCEPTANCE.
ACCEPTANCE is acknowledging what is.
To ACCEPT something is not the same as judging it good.
All of this reminds me a great deal of Oprah's views on forgiveness. Forgiving is something a person does for themselves, not the person ze feels has wronged them. It is done to stop fighting that something has happened, to stop wishing that it was different, but to acknowledge the truth of the situation as it is and move forward from there. It does not say that something is good, alright, ethical, or legal. But the concept of radical acceptance moves beyond just things that others have done to you to encompass something one can do in all situations.
It also revolves around this very Buddhist distinction between pain and suffering. Pain is not only unavoidable, but it is helpful and necessary. Pain tells you when to stop. Pain draws your attention to damage and hurt. But pain is not suffering. We suffer because we refuse to accept the painful reality we are faced with. But the greater the pain, the more difficult it is to accept, because we don't want it to be the reality, so we fight it, deny it, wish for it to change, which is where the suffering comes in.
It isn't easy though. For bigger, more difficult situations, a person usually has to keep radically accepting again and again, which DBT calls TURNING THE MIND. (It has it's own bullet points but I think it's fairly self-explanatory.) Just like in Buddhism, meditation in DBT works, in part, as an exercise in radical acceptance. You just let everything be what it is. In a video we watched a few weeks ago, the creator of DBT, Marsha Linehan, suggests that you start trying to radically accept little things before you try to tackle big things. For example, radically accept that, though you don't like it and it may make you late, traffic on the highway will go at it's own pace. Maybe, if you are travelling at the same time of day again, now accepting the traffic for what it is, you'll leave earlier or bring a better cd to listen to in the car. But don't learn the idea of radical acceptance and make the first thing you try to radically accept be that you've been very damaged because your biological father has abandoned you. It's a good one to work on, but, if that's the first and only one you have in your mind, it'll be much harder to do without the other experience and you have much more on the line if you feel like you have failed.
Radically accepting things also requires WILLINGNESS, not WILLFULNESS. This sometimes gets me into trouble, as I'll talk about in a later post really soon. It's about having the right attitude, not being stubborn or obstinate, blah, blah, blah. They each have their own bullet points so I'll let those help me:
WILLINGNESS
Cultivate a WILLING response to each situation.
Willingness is DOING JUST WHAT IS NEEDED in each situation, in an unpretentious way. It is focusing on effectiveness.
Willingness is listening very carefully to your WISE MIND, acting from your inner self.
Willingness is ALLOWING into awareness your connection to the universe- to the earth, to the floor you are standing on, to the chair you are sitting on, to the person you are talking to.
[vs.]
WILLFULNESS
Replace WILLFULNESS with WILLINGNESS
Willfulness is SITTING ON YOUR HANDS when action is needed, refusing to make changes that are needed.
Willfulness is GIVING UP.
Willfulness is the OPPOSITE OF "DOING WHAT WORKS," being effective.
Willfulness is trying to FIX every situation.
Willfulness is REFUSING TO TOLERATE the moment.
So, if you weren't already, I bet you're asking yourself just why the hell I'm telling you all this. I am not trying to bring you into the cult. But all this knowledge will come in handy in the next couple of posts. See, all of these ideas are well and good, but, like Buddhism has always done for me, putting them into use means asking myself what the reality is that I need to accept, what it is that I need to be willing to do to accept that and then to change it if needed. That judgment has to come from inside me or it won't really be very effective, but sometimes there are complicated situations with no simple answers. (In fact, DBT works to steer us away from black & white thinking, challenges us to realize that there are many times when seemingly opposing things can be true at the same time and that is fine.) My next post will look at this dilemma in terms of food, eating, and weight issues, but there are many big situations in my life where, though I want to do what it takes to move forward or make things better, I'm not always sure what those things are, what things I might be not accepting right now which are blocking my ability to find the answers to. So just take the ideas for what you will, but they are meant as groundwork for the next couple of posts.
