Gut Reaction

Now I don't know if I believe in life in the great beyond or in communication between that world and ours but something made me stop and think. I was pondering what happened to me shortly after my engagement to be married. I was struck with a bad case of hepatitis of unknown etiology. I was out of commission for a week but sad to say I recovered without learning my lesson. You see, my brother also contracted this nefarious condition just after he proposed as well. He too recovered but not before praying for his release. Until this day, I thought he meant release from the pain of this world during the darkest moments of his illness but in truth he meant release from the bonds of marriage. I was discussing this with a friend who pointed out that he got pneumonia after his sheva brachot and another of his friends developed diabetes at his engagement party.

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Is it a message from beyond, a warning from a higher being as to the cost of this ungodly enterprise? Or perhaps this is a visceral aversion borne out of evolutionary forces against monogamy. Shall I place my eggs in one basket, I ask myself? I'm leaning towards the latter proposal (if I dare say that word in public).

If you survive the gut wrenching warning klaxons and choose not to heed them, doom is on the horizon. One ritual gives a glimpse into your future. When the bride walks seven times around the groom, it symbolizes his impending downfall like that of the walls Jericho after seven circuits. Whether you fall to the warning message or fall for the bride, you will certainly have your kishkas eaten out of you.

Odd Dog Out

I read my first Dean Koontz book after a few disparate sources espoused his works. Well worth it and I look forward to more. What I like to do when reading fiction is glean words of wisdom or insights into human nature presented parenthetically. Tidbits of reality mixed with an engaging, albeit fictional, story makes for a more poignant message. (I have been saying this about the Bible but that is not the direction I'll be taking this). I first noticed my real appreciation for this method of reading when I began reading Michael Crichton even though sometimes the line between fact and fiction sometimes became blurred. In Crichton's book Prey (not my favorite), in the midst of all the action, there was a 2 page digression that held a fascinating insight into self-reflection. I guess I'm reminded of this because it follows somewhat along the lines of my last post.

"There's one problem with all psychological knowledge-nobody can apply it to themselves. People can be incredibly astute about the shortcomings of their friends, spouses, children. But they have no insight into themselves at all...Psychological knowledge doesn't work if you look in a mirror." He then compares this to a computer procedure called recursion which causes the computer program to loop back on itself. Sometimes the computer gets lost in a infinite regress and is stuck there like "those fun-house mirrors that reflect mirrors, and mirrors, even smaller and smaller, stretching away to infinity...something similar must happen when people turn their psychological insight-apparatus on themselves. The brain hangs. The thought process goes and goes, but it doesn't get anywhere. It must be something like that, because we know that people can think about themselves indefinitely. Some people think of little else. Yet people never seem to change as a result of their intense introspection. They never understand themselves better. It's very rare to find genuine self-knowledge." Nice.

In Brother Odd by Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas, as he is named, reflects on the nature of dogs. "All that is wanted is affection, while all that is offered is everything, symbolized in the defenseless posture of the exposed tummy.
Dogs invite us not only to share in their joy but also to live in the moment,...where the enchantment of the past and future cannot distract us, where a freedom from practical desire and a cessation of our ceaseless action allows us to recognize the truth of our existence, the reality of our world and purpose-if we dare."

It's funny where the circuits of the mind can take us sometimes. When I read this, I was taken back to some previous relationships I had been in. There were a few women, including my now ex, that I felt that I would do anything for them and all I asked in return was to be loved in return. I do not mean to imply that I consider myself or men in general to be dogs but far be it from me to restrict the path which your mind wanders. To these women, I exposed myself (cancel that image, please), I opened my soul, bore out my deepest secrets and desires. I thought women wanted a man to be open about his feelings and be able to share them. Well, that crock of crap I was fed growing up (by TV, other women, magazines, etc) was entirely baseless. Women want their man to be strong and once they see their man as having weakness and vulnerability it becomes an exploitable commodity. They need to respect their man so he needs to maintain his image and aura. As a friend, such levels of openness are OK but not safe for a monogamous relationship. One of the main things I have noticed among the married couples I have had lunch with on many Shabbatot is the lack of respect the wives afford their husbands (yes, it does go both ways but you can write your side on your own blog). There is something about these men that disappointed their wives and that disappointment manifests as subtle and sometimes not so subtle public degradation. "I don't get no respect". Rodney Dangerfield wouldn't be funny if it didn't ring true.

I watched an episode of BBC's Coupling where Sally wouldn't introduce her new boyfriend to her gal pals until "he's finished." A woman has all sorts of visions how she can mold her man only to be disillusioned later because he remains who he is. And what right does anyone have to change another person? If you love someone, love them for who they really are, flaws and all. But don't pay lip-service to the concept and throw it all out the window once the ring is on.

Women feel the need to be empowered, they want to be independent and make their own choices (and they should have every right to pursue success) but in the end they want a guy who will stand up and make the decision like about where to go out. They don't want to hear, "So where would you like to go for dinner?" Rather it should be "I'm thinking about 2 places A & B, do you have a preference?" Thus they feel empowered, part of the decision making but the man has laid out the options available. I was out with a bunch of female friends one night and we went to a party. We suspected it would be lame but I took my cue from the women, 'maybe we should try it, it can't be bad.' So we went in and it was a disaster. Later they told me not to be a buffoon and that they had hoped I would just stand up and say this would be lame, let's not even waste our time. Am I a mind reader? Apparently, I need to be to hang out with them. But what they were really saying was that they want the guy to take charge, protect them, make sure things work out. I can't tell you how many women have told me they are so turned on by a guy who takes charge. So while I believe in equal rights, I do believe that many women are deluding themselves into thinking that they don't have the same instinctual demands on their mates that they have had for thousands of years. As much as they say they want a sensitive man, the reality is they want a strong, take charge man. Women can go to their ladies groups for all the emoting they need. The male's role is different and he should not cross to the other side. They want an alpha male but in the end they settle for you and never let you forget it.

If you want a good laugh on the matter see Chris Rock on relationships on you tube.

Mirroring

I recently was introduced to the concept of MIRRORING as it relates to how individuals act in relations to people they meet. One particular element that struck me was that what makes some people more successful at their relationships and interactions is that they mirror their counterpart. To elaborate further, if I know you like canasta games and shuffleboard and found out that you even go to senior homes to seek out tournaments in those areas, I would unconsciously find myself interested in those areas, talk about it, offer to go play, and perhaps express a desire to improve my own skills. By doing this, you recognizes in me things that are not only familiar to you but also become excited that things that are meaningful to you are also meaningful to me. That makes me more attractive to you than someone who says, "Who the hell plays that shit?"

If I purposely sought out such information and used it with intent to deceive or lure, that would be unconscionable. But there are people that do this naturally and unwittingly. They really assume the qualities of the people they are with, with the side effect of rendering themselves more likable. I have met people like that and they are truly a sight to behold because, "gosh darn it, people like them."

I suspect that we all have some element of this in our personality unless we have Asperger's or Autism. It made me realize that I, too, fluctuate and vacillate between the various levels of my persona. Sometimes I find myself more religious amongst the more frum or suddenly appreciate art more so than I do normally whilst hanging with an art major. In honest reflection, I don't feel that I am out to deceive anyone or myself but that there are levels of appreciation I can achieve and differing aspects of my persona that I can bring to the forefront and still be me. In the past, I actually suppressed important aspects of my personality or desires to please the person I was with. I have since recognized that I still have to be me and true to myself but still have flexibility to broaden my world.

Though, I think I need to reflect on this a bit more.

Battle Stations

Men have been accused of thinking with their secondary head more so than their primary. To this, I liken the battle-bridge of the Enterprise of the Next Generation. Although the main bridge is always exposed and seems to be in charge, it is that hidden battle bridge that is the real force while the main bridge expendable. In fact, it's entirely possible to function with the main bridge totally removed from the body. The battle-bridge is the core, the most sensitive area of the ship, the place you need to be when it comes down to it in an emergency. And in all relations, let's face it, you're on red alert.

The Code

Apparently there exists a CODE, immutable and inviolable. The penalty for its transgression is ostracism, scorn, and perhaps a black eye. The code to which I refer is, 'Thou shall not covet thy best friends EX-girlfriend'. It is of this I write today and let the pieces fall where they may.

What an awkward situation. Over the past few weeks my Bud had detailed to me the troubles in his relationship and how his woman, Cassi, has been at odds with him, pushing for a different level of interaction than he believed he was already providing. She finally ended their few-month relationship.

A VERY short time later I asked her to join me at a club just to get out and have some fun. I had no intentions for anything more, nor did she. We talked extensively about many areas of common interests. As the night progressed and the music held sway, our eyes locked. Unexpected and unintentional though it was, it was, nonetheless, captivating.

Now what? How do I break it to Bud? Obviously he would have liked to continue with Cassi but she didn't feel they were meant for each other (and he didn't seem too upset about it). And what of the Code??? I thought for about a week and could not think of any gentle way to tell him without hurting his feelings but, of course, within a week he found out anyway. He was PISSED to say the least and told me we couldn't be friends if I act this way.

What could I do? Give up a decade of friendship? Risk losing a life partner or was she just another passing fancy? Not an easy call.

So I went to Cassi's house that evening and told her the timing was wrong and a long-term relationship with the intent on merging our families impossible. I couldn't believe that she started to cry, which was odd because we went out twice over the span of only one week. I felt horrible that she became so attached and I know if I had gone out with her a while longer I would have as well. Then I patched things up with Bud but in the end there were no winners here. Cassi won't speak to me or Bud, Bud's feelings trampled, I lost a girlfriend, friends of friends somehow got dragged into things and others don't speak with each other anymore. YIKES, with great power comes great responsibility!

Some unresolved thoughts on the matter revolve around considering a buddy's feeling but at the same time recognizing that he is no longer a contender for a relationship with this woman. Why is it OK for another man to ask her out and have a chance at love but by virtue of my friendship, I am penalized? Does any person have the right to dictate to another who they can or can not date? Obviously, if he was still courting her, pining away for her, or their situation not clearly delineated to the point where it was clear that at least one party was not interested, then of course, no one would sanction a cock-block. But once it is clear that the relationship is over, anyone should be free to date her.

If the situation was reversed and I was put out to pasture, I would obviously mourn my lost opportunity but I would not begrudge him the right to find happiness. Yes, it would hurt but better a good friend of mine than some dumb loser. I would have put aside my petty jealousy or insecurity for his happiness.

Post divorce, with children, increasing in years, limits the pool of datable women. Invariably, we are going to overlap in this area. Further limiting that pool based on some code is ridiculous. Does dating someone somehow confer the right to have ANY say in her future relations or mine, for that matter? To some it does. I don't necessarily agree and every situation must be evaluated on its own merit. What if that fateful evening occurred 2 months, 6 months, one year later? Does that change the rules? How long is acceptable time to wait before asking out a buddy's ex-girlfriend? Is there anytime? Should one have to ask permission? What about here, where it just happened and wasn't even planned? What about if the same thing occurred 6 months or a year henceforth? Would it make a difference if they were going out for a long time? If he had been in love with her? If he had mentioned that he intended to win her back?

I know I'm playing with fire expressing these thoughts so I caution you all to please, remember, during this holiday season, to put the EX back in Xmas.

Check out a great set of articles (17+) at the Nondating Life blog about dating.

Wicked Writer

What a disappointment. I finally decided to READ Wicked by Gregory Maguire after loving the Broadway musical.

There were some memorable quotes like, "I don't comprehend religion, although conviction is a concept I'm beginning to get. In any case, someone with a real religious conviction is, I propose, a religious convict, and deserves locking up."

Or, "I don't really understand the point of frienship...between unmarried people...It seems- distracting."

Or, "She had the nearsightedness of youth. She reasoned that becasue she was beautiful she was significant..."

Or, "Perhaps every accidental cluster of people has a short period of grace, in between the initial shyness and prejudice on the one hand and the eventual repugnance and betrayal on the other."

Or, "They had too much common history to come apart over a pair of shoes, yet the shoes were planted between them, a grotesque icon of their differences. Neither one could retreat, or move forward. It was silly, and they were struck, and someone needed to break the spell."
V'hamayvin Yavin.

The book was awfully painful. Too many big words that one is unlikely to ever encounter anywhere else. I finally gave up with the dictionary and just skipped them. The story was good but it dragged and I felt loose ends were not thoroughly tied up. Not so with the musical. My advice, skip the book but don't skimp on seats.

The Meeting

Well it finally happened. I decided to meet a long time blogger of the opposite sex. My friend had gone out with her about a year ago but the relationship ended. I started following her blog since then and as of late we have been speaking on the phone. She has a great laugh and finds my corny humor warped albeit in a good way. I meant to bring a great BBC series called coupling to watch but I forgot it. She was kind enough to treat me to dinner. We danced to Regina Spektor's music, specifically Fidelity and Better. The music itself was the force behind the following. What was memorable was feeling that we were in a movie where the guy and the girl finally embrace and the music rises to a feeling good crescendo. It was a cool feeling. I don't mean to imply that we were at that level, we had only just met. It was a pleasant encounter.

I made plain my intentions, though, that I wasn't interested in a serious relationship and that we should stay friends. Let's see if that's possible. I really hope not to mislead or cause someone to fall for me (maybe this is just my ego talking now and she never would have had such intentions anyway). She has a quality that many women I went out with don't have, a totally accepting personality. Issues are not complicated, things are understandable, live life and all is cool. NO DRAMA.

This post is unrelated to the fiasco of the upcoming post. Although I suspect that someone will connect the two in an unnecessary, off-the-mark way.