It has been a tumultuous week. Yesterday, my heart was so heavy that all I wanted to do was wallow in my own sadness. There's a certain comfort in wallowing. Perhaps that's why pigs do it.
This week I went to my Uncle's funeral. I did not think it would be as emotional as it was for me...remains for me. I saw family that I usually only see at weddings and funerals. It was nice to see them. It was nice to be together, although I am virtually a stranger to some of them and them to me. Yet, I have known most of them for all our lives. There is some comfort in knowing that you share blood. Odd, isn't it, the power of familial bonds.
After the funeral, my Aunty (the widow) collapsed in the restroom and was taken to the hospital. Later that day, my mom informed me my cousin was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the outlook is rather grim.
I did not experience a tidal wave of sadness -- powerful and forceful. But more along the lines of feeling myself sinking slowly into the depths of the ocean. Overwhelming, not in a dramatic way, but rather, in a quiet, silent, sensory deprivation type of way. No wailing or sobbing, but as my chest tightens ever so slowly, tears silently seep out of my eyes.
I cried out to God. Asked for refuge. To hide in a cave. Wanted to continue wallowing. God is good. He allowed some time for wallowing, then He provided real comfort. Thanks, God.
Today is better. My heart is not as heavy and I have decided wallowing is for pigs. My Aunty is doing well and should be going home today. They believe she collapsed from dehydration, so she received fluids and is feeling better. My parents visited my cousin and said he looks well, although he has quite the battle ahead of him.
I miss my Uncle. He always had a ready smile and "hello," and would ask how I was doing. Even when his health began failing and he was weaker and had difficulty getting out of bed. He was soft-spoken and conveyed a gentleness that was welcoming and comforting at the same time. From family stories, I know he could be strict, but I never saw that side.
They showed a video at his funeral, of my Uncle in his wheelchair, singing "Jesus Loves Me" to his great-grandson. Singing in the halting way that older people sometimes do, as though they cannot get enough air into their lungs. But it was sweet and genuine...childlike in the loveliest, most respectful and complementary sense of that word.
I love you, Uncle. You will be missed.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Chris Brown and Rihanna
This whole Chris Brown and Rihanna abuse incident is disturbing on several levels. Since the story broke, Oprah, Tyra and others have dedicated air time to discuss the serious issue of domestic violence. That is not what is disturbing me. From watching snipets of these shows, it seems the American public thinks that if the abuse is not physical, then it is not really abuse . . . or somehow it is not as bad.
Well, I posit that in general, the bruises, hurts and cuts we carry on the inside heal a lot slower and cause a lot more anguish than the buises, hurts and cuts we experience on the outside. I am by no means minimizing physical abuse, but rather trying to get others not to minimize abuse that is not physical.
Verbal, psychological, economic, emotional, sexual and financial abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse. Many times an abuser will be abusive in more than one area. It is difficult to find physical abuse without verbal and emotional abuse accompanying it. Abuse is abuse and it should always be condemned, no matter what form it may take.
I think it was the Tyra Banks show that showed a clip of a teenaged couple (actors). The boyfriend called the girlfriend fat and said she was too stupid to stick to a simple diet; and in fact, he knew she was stupid when he met her. The women in the Tyra audience did not label that abuse: "What he said might have been mean, but at least he did not hit her or anything."
Aaaauuuuugggghhhh! That type of attitude makes me weep. He was breaking down her self-esteem, making her feel belittled and worthless. Less than. And he is supposed to be her boyfriend?
And people wonder why abused women do not simply leave their abuser!
Can you imagine being made to feel like you are worthless? That you are unable to accomplish anything on your own because you are too dumb and unskilled? In addition you may have (or at least felt like you have) burned all your relationship bridges, because abusers tend to isolate their partners so they must depend solely on the abuser and have no other avenue of support or escape. On top of that, you may have no money of your own. What would you do? Especially if you have children. If you leave, will you be able to take care of your kids, or will you be homeless? Will the State declare you unfit and take your kids away, or worse, give custody to the abuser? Not to mention that studies have shown the most dangerous time for a victim of abuse is after s/he leaves the relationship. That's when most of the deaths/physical harm occurs.
Another bothersome part to this story is that men (especially men in the music/rap industry) have not come out and boldly stated how that kind of behavior is unacceptable. I have heard comments like, "Well, we do not really know what went on between them" and "Even Rihanna's brother said she throws down hard." SO WHAT?
It does not matter if she was in his face or not. He had no right to beat her up. Until men start putting pressure on other men by stating (and believing and acting upon the fact that) abuse is uniquivocally unacceptable; there will be no real revolution in this area. It is not enough to not be an abuser. Men need to actively advocate for non-violence in relationships.
And if she is full of drama? Throwing things and hitting her man? Well, then she's the abuser and she is in the wrong and needs help. Or if she just loves pulling your strings, continually trying to evoke a reaction? Get out of that relationship! It's not an excuse to abuse.
Chris Brown needs help and support. He also needs to understand what he did was wrong and unacceptable and that ultimately the blame rests with him. The abusers in our community (male and female) need the same. If someone is supposed to love and support you, have your back, cherish you, then they should not systematically act in such a manner as to accomplish the exact opposite of all that. Whether it be a relationship between elder and caretaker, parent and child, husband and wife or any other combination.
Abuse is abuse, no matter in which form it may appear. And it is always wrong.
Well, I posit that in general, the bruises, hurts and cuts we carry on the inside heal a lot slower and cause a lot more anguish than the buises, hurts and cuts we experience on the outside. I am by no means minimizing physical abuse, but rather trying to get others not to minimize abuse that is not physical.
Verbal, psychological, economic, emotional, sexual and financial abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse. Many times an abuser will be abusive in more than one area. It is difficult to find physical abuse without verbal and emotional abuse accompanying it. Abuse is abuse and it should always be condemned, no matter what form it may take.
I think it was the Tyra Banks show that showed a clip of a teenaged couple (actors). The boyfriend called the girlfriend fat and said she was too stupid to stick to a simple diet; and in fact, he knew she was stupid when he met her. The women in the Tyra audience did not label that abuse: "What he said might have been mean, but at least he did not hit her or anything."
Aaaauuuuugggghhhh! That type of attitude makes me weep. He was breaking down her self-esteem, making her feel belittled and worthless. Less than. And he is supposed to be her boyfriend?
And people wonder why abused women do not simply leave their abuser!
Can you imagine being made to feel like you are worthless? That you are unable to accomplish anything on your own because you are too dumb and unskilled? In addition you may have (or at least felt like you have) burned all your relationship bridges, because abusers tend to isolate their partners so they must depend solely on the abuser and have no other avenue of support or escape. On top of that, you may have no money of your own. What would you do? Especially if you have children. If you leave, will you be able to take care of your kids, or will you be homeless? Will the State declare you unfit and take your kids away, or worse, give custody to the abuser? Not to mention that studies have shown the most dangerous time for a victim of abuse is after s/he leaves the relationship. That's when most of the deaths/physical harm occurs.
Another bothersome part to this story is that men (especially men in the music/rap industry) have not come out and boldly stated how that kind of behavior is unacceptable. I have heard comments like, "Well, we do not really know what went on between them" and "Even Rihanna's brother said she throws down hard." SO WHAT?
It does not matter if she was in his face or not. He had no right to beat her up. Until men start putting pressure on other men by stating (and believing and acting upon the fact that) abuse is uniquivocally unacceptable; there will be no real revolution in this area. It is not enough to not be an abuser. Men need to actively advocate for non-violence in relationships.
And if she is full of drama? Throwing things and hitting her man? Well, then she's the abuser and she is in the wrong and needs help. Or if she just loves pulling your strings, continually trying to evoke a reaction? Get out of that relationship! It's not an excuse to abuse.
Chris Brown needs help and support. He also needs to understand what he did was wrong and unacceptable and that ultimately the blame rests with him. The abusers in our community (male and female) need the same. If someone is supposed to love and support you, have your back, cherish you, then they should not systematically act in such a manner as to accomplish the exact opposite of all that. Whether it be a relationship between elder and caretaker, parent and child, husband and wife or any other combination.
Abuse is abuse, no matter in which form it may appear. And it is always wrong.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friendship Stew
Making friends.
How does one go about making friends? And I’m talking about real people, not the imaginary, inflatable or cyber types.
I guess the first step would be to put yourself in a position where you would encounter people. But this alone is insufficient. You can be friendly with many, many people, but still not consider them your “friends.”
I remember not knowing anyone in Kindergarten. The friends I had made in pre-school were in other classes or at different schools. I remember being out on the playground during recess and taking my turn on the sliding board. Once I slid down a few times, I stood at the bottom of the slide and watched other kids slide down. I saw a girl with a smiling round face and two pigtails on either side of her head that were braided and tied at the bottom with ribbons that matched her blouse. She looked nice. Once she slid down the slide, I said, “Hi! My name is SweetlyDemure. Do you want to be my friend?” She smiled and said, “Okay!” and we were best friends until 5th grade when she and her family moved away.
I guess that technique could still work today…in Kindergarten, but what about something that will work amongst adults?
Looking at my current pool of friends, I notice that with many of them are long-time friendships. I still occasionally hang out with people I went to elementary school with. I had a tight group of friends in high school, but we drifted apart in college. Funnily, friends that I keep in touch with today from my high school years belonged to a different clique. Also, I still see a couple of people from college and a handful from law school, tennis (I have played adult7 league tennis since college) and church (until recently I attended the same church since elementary school).
Another group of friends actually started out as friends-in-law. A friend-in-law is a friend of your friend. Somewhere down the road we all went out together and eventually the relationships morphed and I ended up seeing the friend of my friend more than my original friend. Then at some unknown point a little farther along, my friends-in-law have become my friends.
A few friendships were built out of the workplace, but the core of my social circle has never emerged from the people with whom I work. We do lunches or dinners and go over to each other’s homes every once in awhile, but while I would consider some of them good friends, they are good friends on my periphery, as I am on their periphery. It would not be strange to call them for a favor, but they are not even buddies I see once every two months.
Friendships develop in different ways. Perhaps my way is the crockpot method, whereby for whatever reason we find we are in each other’s vicinity and realize at some later point that hey, we meld pretty well together. A friendship stew, if you will. I’d like to think of myself as more of a potato, being able to get along with almost any meat or veggie, no matter how exotic. This, as many things in my life has come back to food. Introspection makes me hungry. Well, truth be told, almost everything makes me hungry. Beef stew, anyone?
How does one go about making friends? And I’m talking about real people, not the imaginary, inflatable or cyber types.
I guess the first step would be to put yourself in a position where you would encounter people. But this alone is insufficient. You can be friendly with many, many people, but still not consider them your “friends.”
I remember not knowing anyone in Kindergarten. The friends I had made in pre-school were in other classes or at different schools. I remember being out on the playground during recess and taking my turn on the sliding board. Once I slid down a few times, I stood at the bottom of the slide and watched other kids slide down. I saw a girl with a smiling round face and two pigtails on either side of her head that were braided and tied at the bottom with ribbons that matched her blouse. She looked nice. Once she slid down the slide, I said, “Hi! My name is SweetlyDemure. Do you want to be my friend?” She smiled and said, “Okay!” and we were best friends until 5th grade when she and her family moved away.
I guess that technique could still work today…in Kindergarten, but what about something that will work amongst adults?
Looking at my current pool of friends, I notice that with many of them are long-time friendships. I still occasionally hang out with people I went to elementary school with. I had a tight group of friends in high school, but we drifted apart in college. Funnily, friends that I keep in touch with today from my high school years belonged to a different clique. Also, I still see a couple of people from college and a handful from law school, tennis (I have played adult7 league tennis since college) and church (until recently I attended the same church since elementary school).
Another group of friends actually started out as friends-in-law. A friend-in-law is a friend of your friend. Somewhere down the road we all went out together and eventually the relationships morphed and I ended up seeing the friend of my friend more than my original friend. Then at some unknown point a little farther along, my friends-in-law have become my friends.
A few friendships were built out of the workplace, but the core of my social circle has never emerged from the people with whom I work. We do lunches or dinners and go over to each other’s homes every once in awhile, but while I would consider some of them good friends, they are good friends on my periphery, as I am on their periphery. It would not be strange to call them for a favor, but they are not even buddies I see once every two months.
Friendships develop in different ways. Perhaps my way is the crockpot method, whereby for whatever reason we find we are in each other’s vicinity and realize at some later point that hey, we meld pretty well together. A friendship stew, if you will. I’d like to think of myself as more of a potato, being able to get along with almost any meat or veggie, no matter how exotic. This, as many things in my life has come back to food. Introspection makes me hungry. Well, truth be told, almost everything makes me hungry. Beef stew, anyone?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
An Open Letter to Michael Chang
Michael Chang.
***sigh*** (insert dreamy smile here) ***sigh***
Huan Hsu recently wrote an article for Slate entitled: “Dear Michael Chang: You ruined my tennis career. Thanks for nothing.” Here is the link to the article: http://www.slate.com/id/2194929.
My response: “Dear Michael Chang: You ruined me for other men. Thanks for everything.”
In my formative years, I rarely crushed on Asian guys. My best friend would go ga-ga over Asian dudes, but me, my attention was focused on the haole dudes. The one exception: Michael Chang. He caused my heart to go a-flutter and my eyes to go all dreamy.
Why? Because he is the whole package, baby!
Physical: He is about 5’9”, which is a perfect height for someone who is . . . er . . . 5’ almost 3”. I could wear heels and he would still be taller than me, but if I wore flats (as I always do), he would not tower over me in that weird, uncomfortable way. I tend to feel like a little kid when I am around tall people, which mentally takes me to that kid place. Which, if you are around a romantic interest, can be somewhat creepy, if you know what I mean.
His legs are incredible. Now, I am not one to usually gawk at men’s legs. I’m usually looking a little farther up . . . and I don’t mean their butts . . . I meant their faces. But Michael Chang has exceptional legs. I guess because he relied on his quickness and his ability to chase down every ball, he really built up his lower body strength. A law school classmate was at a tennis tournament and saw Michael’s father and informed me his father had thick, muscular legs, too. She said it boded well that it was a genetic thing and not likely to change once he (Michael) no longer played professionally.
Which leads me to my final physical point…the guy has stamina. He built his fierce reputation around running every single shot down. His opponent could never relax, because no matter how good the shot, Michael Chang would run that ball down, whether it was the beginning of the first set or the end of the fifth. He worked hard to be physically fit. That also gave him a mental edge, knowing that he could stay on that court and run around in the fifth set without being super tired and shaky. Which segues nicely into the second category,
Mental/Intellectual: Michael Chang was a thoughtful player and mentally tough. I believe in an interview, he compared playing tennis to playing chess. You could tell he was constantly thinking on the court. Strategizing. He would set up points, because physically he did not have the height or muscle mass to do what came naturally for other players, Michael had to play smart. He would figure out his opponents’ weaknesses and work it against his strengths. He had a game plan, but adjusted his plan to the capriciousness of the game.
Michael was always very articulate when interviewed. He came across confident, but not cocky, and was always contemplative in his comments. You could also tell he set very high standards for himself; and when he did not meet those standards, he was pretty hard on himself.
Family / Christian Values: Michael Chang has always been clear that he is a Christian. And from the way he conducts his public life, his faith seems like a very important part of who he is. That is very attractive! Much of his time after retiring from tennis seems to be spent on his charities and helping others. He also seems very calm and caring.
And he does this work with his family. Now some may be apprehensive about joining a close-knit family. But once they know you and love you, you become part of their fabric, so to speak. The importance of familial relationships and respecting your parents has been ingrained in me since I was a child. To be honest, I’m guessing his mom will be the most difficult one to win over. But, I’ve always done really well with parents. Heh.
X-Factor: Finally, Michael Chang has that X-Factor. Something that draws my eyes toward him. Something about his intensity and focus. Very intriguing. Maybe it has something to do with traveling around the world and learning about different cultures. Perhaps it was learning how to handle the pressure and attention of being a top athlete at such a young age. Perhaps it is simply innate in him. Whatever it is, he’s got it.
So, Huan Hsu of Slate, do not be jealous of Michael Chang and all he has accomplished. Rather, embrace it…embrace your Asian-American culture of expectation and values and what it means to be an Asian male in America. Let go of your one-handed backhand, net-charging, serve-and-volley ways and accept who you truly are. And take another look at Michael Chang. See that cute dimple in his cheek when he smiles? Perhaps he’s smiling for you, Huan; though I prefer to think he’s smiling for me.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Reality TV Love
I have a confession. (((Deep Breath))) Last night I . . . well, I . . . I watched the last episode and the subsequent season post-mortem of Tila Tequilla’s Shot at Love. And no, VH-1 wasn’t the only channel I could catch that evening. I was channel surfing and there was something morbidly compelling about it that caused me to waste, er, spend two hours of my life watching these episodes. I’m sure it does not speak well of me or my taste in TV.
For the uninitiated, Tila Tequilla is a bi-sexual internet star. For this show, she invites men and women to compete for her affection in full “reality” TV style. It came down to two finalists: one man and one woman. Tila rejects the man, who professed his love and was obviously devastated by her decision.
Then Tila meets with the woman and offers her a “shot at love.” The woman declines and Tila is crying, shaking and in full “why me, what’s wrong with me, why can’t I find love” mode. The woman (I forget her name) says she rejected Tila because she is confused about whether she wants a relationship with a man or a woman and is also unsure if she can meet Tila’s expectations for a partner. She also mentioned she sees Tila more as a friend than in a romantic way. Ouch!
So, as one may be able to guess, the post-mortem / reunion show was strange, awkward and painful. When the man (I forget his name, too) confronts Tila, he is quite civil, but wanted an explanation why she did not pick him. Tila gives some lame excuses, which basically tells me she just wasn’t into him, even though she professed her love to him on several occasions (they showed clips of that).
The big confrontation occurred between Tila and the woman. The woman was explaining why she rejected Tila, but Tila was having none of it. She was obviously still hurt and embarrassed and it quickly degenerated into a screaming, name-calling fiasco.
Anyway, after watching this, I did not feel well. I didn’t feel dirty or anything, but it kind of hurt my heart to see all this pain, anger and selfishness up for public consumption. I was also kind of irritated that Tila seemed to blithely dismiss the man and his feelings and made it all about her – that somehow Tila was wronged and hoodwinked, but refused to see how she had done the same thing to others.
It made me start to wonder about love. What does love mean? What makes anyone think love can be found in the artificial world of a TV show? Have we (society) perverted love? Or have we created something unobtainable in our expectations of romantic love?
So here are some relationship lessons I learned in those two hours (see, they weren't a complete waste of time):
Lesson #1: Loving another person means humbling yourself and truly wanting what is best for them.
I think most of my irritation stemmed from the seeming hypocrisy of Tila going on and on about how much she loved this woman, made herself vulnerable and now is broken hearted, when it seemed more like her pride was damaged than her heart. Tila was mean, vindictive and hurtful when she spoke to the woman on stage.
Compare that with the man whom Tila rejected. The moderator asked him if knowing Tila got rejected after she rejected him made him feel any better. His answer was no. In fact, he said that it made him hurt more, knowing Tila was hurting and did not find her true love. That sounds more like love to me. Even though Tila hurt him, he cared about her enough to truly wish the best for her. Tila was not empathetic or sympathetic towards the woman at all. In fact, she was was not empathetic or sympathetic towards the man, either.
During another part of the show, the moderator created this hypo: what if the man and woman had been together with Tila to hear her decision? And then, after choosing the woman and being rejected, what if at that point Tila turned back to the man? Would he have started a relationship with her knowing he was her second choice? His answer: he was not sure. He said maybe they could go on from that point and forget the past and build something better together.
Wow, that was cool. That's humble love. Love without pride and self-righteousness. Perhaps when I feel that way about someone, I will know I am truly in love.
All this also goes along with Lesson #2: You can learn a lot about a person by how that person behaves and handles a situation in which he or she does not get something he or she really wants.
Lesson #3: Beware of hearing only what you want to hear and forcing everything to fit into the paradigm of your own construction at the expense of reality.
During their last date, the woman expressed her doubts and insecurities to Tila. Tila interpreted that as the woman being afraid to let herself be vulnerable and fall in love. Tila imagined herself being the one person that would make the woman feel safe so she could love Tila and be loved in return. What the woman really meant was, "I do not know if I want this. I do not know if I want to be with you."
Lesson #4: Tattoos are forever, but relationships may not be; therefore, if you choose to tattoo, please tattoo wisely.
Both the man and the woman got tattoos. While the man said he did not regret it, he did wish it was smaller and less gaudy. The woman's tattoo was of a star similar to one Tila has. The woman's brother, mom and dad all got similar tattoos to make it a family thing. Remember Johnny Depp's "Winona/Whino Forever?" A cautionary tale for sure.
Lesson #5: If you find yourself contemplating finding love on a "reality" television show with a bi-sexual internet personality, run quickly in the opposite direction.
For the uninitiated, Tila Tequilla is a bi-sexual internet star. For this show, she invites men and women to compete for her affection in full “reality” TV style. It came down to two finalists: one man and one woman. Tila rejects the man, who professed his love and was obviously devastated by her decision.
Then Tila meets with the woman and offers her a “shot at love.” The woman declines and Tila is crying, shaking and in full “why me, what’s wrong with me, why can’t I find love” mode. The woman (I forget her name) says she rejected Tila because she is confused about whether she wants a relationship with a man or a woman and is also unsure if she can meet Tila’s expectations for a partner. She also mentioned she sees Tila more as a friend than in a romantic way. Ouch!
So, as one may be able to guess, the post-mortem / reunion show was strange, awkward and painful. When the man (I forget his name, too) confronts Tila, he is quite civil, but wanted an explanation why she did not pick him. Tila gives some lame excuses, which basically tells me she just wasn’t into him, even though she professed her love to him on several occasions (they showed clips of that).
The big confrontation occurred between Tila and the woman. The woman was explaining why she rejected Tila, but Tila was having none of it. She was obviously still hurt and embarrassed and it quickly degenerated into a screaming, name-calling fiasco.
Anyway, after watching this, I did not feel well. I didn’t feel dirty or anything, but it kind of hurt my heart to see all this pain, anger and selfishness up for public consumption. I was also kind of irritated that Tila seemed to blithely dismiss the man and his feelings and made it all about her – that somehow Tila was wronged and hoodwinked, but refused to see how she had done the same thing to others.
It made me start to wonder about love. What does love mean? What makes anyone think love can be found in the artificial world of a TV show? Have we (society) perverted love? Or have we created something unobtainable in our expectations of romantic love?
So here are some relationship lessons I learned in those two hours (see, they weren't a complete waste of time):
Lesson #1: Loving another person means humbling yourself and truly wanting what is best for them.
I think most of my irritation stemmed from the seeming hypocrisy of Tila going on and on about how much she loved this woman, made herself vulnerable and now is broken hearted, when it seemed more like her pride was damaged than her heart. Tila was mean, vindictive and hurtful when she spoke to the woman on stage.
Compare that with the man whom Tila rejected. The moderator asked him if knowing Tila got rejected after she rejected him made him feel any better. His answer was no. In fact, he said that it made him hurt more, knowing Tila was hurting and did not find her true love. That sounds more like love to me. Even though Tila hurt him, he cared about her enough to truly wish the best for her. Tila was not empathetic or sympathetic towards the woman at all. In fact, she was was not empathetic or sympathetic towards the man, either.
During another part of the show, the moderator created this hypo: what if the man and woman had been together with Tila to hear her decision? And then, after choosing the woman and being rejected, what if at that point Tila turned back to the man? Would he have started a relationship with her knowing he was her second choice? His answer: he was not sure. He said maybe they could go on from that point and forget the past and build something better together.
Wow, that was cool. That's humble love. Love without pride and self-righteousness. Perhaps when I feel that way about someone, I will know I am truly in love.
All this also goes along with Lesson #2: You can learn a lot about a person by how that person behaves and handles a situation in which he or she does not get something he or she really wants.
Lesson #3: Beware of hearing only what you want to hear and forcing everything to fit into the paradigm of your own construction at the expense of reality.
During their last date, the woman expressed her doubts and insecurities to Tila. Tila interpreted that as the woman being afraid to let herself be vulnerable and fall in love. Tila imagined herself being the one person that would make the woman feel safe so she could love Tila and be loved in return. What the woman really meant was, "I do not know if I want this. I do not know if I want to be with you."
Lesson #4: Tattoos are forever, but relationships may not be; therefore, if you choose to tattoo, please tattoo wisely.
Both the man and the woman got tattoos. While the man said he did not regret it, he did wish it was smaller and less gaudy. The woman's tattoo was of a star similar to one Tila has. The woman's brother, mom and dad all got similar tattoos to make it a family thing. Remember Johnny Depp's "Winona/Whino Forever?" A cautionary tale for sure.
Lesson #5: If you find yourself contemplating finding love on a "reality" television show with a bi-sexual internet personality, run quickly in the opposite direction.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Dating Pursuits Part 2, Further Thought
After reading my last post, a female friend remarked that I had not addressed fear. Fear also seems to play a large part in why men do not take the initiative to ask a woman out. I can see that. We all fear rejection, ridicule, potential “public” humiliation (if you run in the same circles). We all have pride. Women get that. All of us have been rejected in some way, at some point in our lives…and it sucks.
Which brings me back to the point of my previous post. One way a man can communicate to a woman that he knows she is worthy to be chosen / pursued / whatever word you want to place here, is to overcome that fear and ask her out anyway. It tells her that he must feel it is worth getting rejected to have a chance with her. That’s a powerful step, which will (generally) cause her to reciprocate in kind. She will communicate to the man that she sees him as worthy / pursuable by being vulnerable and investing her time, energy, and feelings in him.
In fact, because women empathize with men regarding how difficult it is to ask someone out, we tend to accept behavior that we ordinarily would not. In intermediate school it would be the “head jerk.” Instead of asking a girl to dance, some guys would just go up to a girl and jerk his head toward the dance floor, turn around and walk to the dance floor. Even though I thought this was rude at the time (hello, they have mouths, can’t they verbalize?) no girl “rejected” that. She would follow him and when he turned around, she’d be there. We accept invitations so vaguely cobbled together that we’re unsure if we’re even been asked out, or so aggressive that the man comes across like a jerk that we know he is not, or so mumbled we can barely decipher what he is saying.
But this empathy can have a dark side that may lead to more miscommunication than spared feelings at some point.
What do I mean? If women do not want to go out with someone, we try to “let him down easy.” We know how much courage it takes; how it can make a person feel quite vulnerable and exposed. Especially if we already care about this person as a friend…we do not want to just shoot him down. So we end up making excuses like: (1) we’re too busy / not ready to date; (2) this isn’t a good time; (3) we are already seeing someone; (4) we already have plans for that evening; etc.
The problem is that these are legitimate excuses. So now the poor guy is in a quandary. He is left to wonder is this woman rejecting me but is trying to let me down easy (save my pride); or is it a legitimate reason, leaving the door open to future invitations?
Of course, I am speaking in generalities here…so here is something specific. I have done the “excuse” thing when I was younger. In my defense, it was the only way I knew how to be nice and say no at the time. (Saying no was a big deal in itself, as little girls are taught accommodating and saying “yes” to others are valued…but that’s fodder for a future post.) Frankly, I did not have the skills or the confidence to handle it any other way and I was too myopic to see how this could be confusing / frustrating for the guy. So, when a guy would vent his confusion / frustration, I would be at a loss thinking to myself, “Hey, I tried to be nice. Why are you being a jerk about it?” I would consult with my girlfriends who would be just as clueless as I and we would conclude that the guy was lashing out because of a dented ego.
Being older and somewhat wiser now, I can see how what I thought was a reasonable rationale at the time, really was unfair because of the inherent mixed message in my response. In college, I actually “made up” a boyfriend to get a guy to stop bothering me. (He was the type to ask out everyone. It’s just because I turned him down that he became more interested, it’s not that he was so into me.) I asked a friend attending a mainland college to pretend to be my boyfriend. And we wonder why men and women have trouble communicating?
Anyway, now I would handle it much differently. I would be honest and straightforward and nice. These things are not mutually exclusive; I believe they can work in harmony. I would say something like, “Thanks for asking. I am so flattered you would think of me, but no thank you.” I would say it sincerely and look him in the eye and make sure he understood that I thought it totally rocked and I am genuinely flattered that he asked, but it’s not going to happen. Very few guys would push for more of a “reason” after that.
That would work for guys who are asked out by women, too. No lying, prevarication or confusion. Just no thank you.
Let’s keep the lines of communication open, honest and flowing among men and women. If we keep maturing, learning and talking, who knows what may happen? Dare I say it…possibly…understanding?
Which brings me back to the point of my previous post. One way a man can communicate to a woman that he knows she is worthy to be chosen / pursued / whatever word you want to place here, is to overcome that fear and ask her out anyway. It tells her that he must feel it is worth getting rejected to have a chance with her. That’s a powerful step, which will (generally) cause her to reciprocate in kind. She will communicate to the man that she sees him as worthy / pursuable by being vulnerable and investing her time, energy, and feelings in him.
In fact, because women empathize with men regarding how difficult it is to ask someone out, we tend to accept behavior that we ordinarily would not. In intermediate school it would be the “head jerk.” Instead of asking a girl to dance, some guys would just go up to a girl and jerk his head toward the dance floor, turn around and walk to the dance floor. Even though I thought this was rude at the time (hello, they have mouths, can’t they verbalize?) no girl “rejected” that. She would follow him and when he turned around, she’d be there. We accept invitations so vaguely cobbled together that we’re unsure if we’re even been asked out, or so aggressive that the man comes across like a jerk that we know he is not, or so mumbled we can barely decipher what he is saying.
But this empathy can have a dark side that may lead to more miscommunication than spared feelings at some point.
What do I mean? If women do not want to go out with someone, we try to “let him down easy.” We know how much courage it takes; how it can make a person feel quite vulnerable and exposed. Especially if we already care about this person as a friend…we do not want to just shoot him down. So we end up making excuses like: (1) we’re too busy / not ready to date; (2) this isn’t a good time; (3) we are already seeing someone; (4) we already have plans for that evening; etc.
The problem is that these are legitimate excuses. So now the poor guy is in a quandary. He is left to wonder is this woman rejecting me but is trying to let me down easy (save my pride); or is it a legitimate reason, leaving the door open to future invitations?
Of course, I am speaking in generalities here…so here is something specific. I have done the “excuse” thing when I was younger. In my defense, it was the only way I knew how to be nice and say no at the time. (Saying no was a big deal in itself, as little girls are taught accommodating and saying “yes” to others are valued…but that’s fodder for a future post.) Frankly, I did not have the skills or the confidence to handle it any other way and I was too myopic to see how this could be confusing / frustrating for the guy. So, when a guy would vent his confusion / frustration, I would be at a loss thinking to myself, “Hey, I tried to be nice. Why are you being a jerk about it?” I would consult with my girlfriends who would be just as clueless as I and we would conclude that the guy was lashing out because of a dented ego.
Being older and somewhat wiser now, I can see how what I thought was a reasonable rationale at the time, really was unfair because of the inherent mixed message in my response. In college, I actually “made up” a boyfriend to get a guy to stop bothering me. (He was the type to ask out everyone. It’s just because I turned him down that he became more interested, it’s not that he was so into me.) I asked a friend attending a mainland college to pretend to be my boyfriend. And we wonder why men and women have trouble communicating?
Anyway, now I would handle it much differently. I would be honest and straightforward and nice. These things are not mutually exclusive; I believe they can work in harmony. I would say something like, “Thanks for asking. I am so flattered you would think of me, but no thank you.” I would say it sincerely and look him in the eye and make sure he understood that I thought it totally rocked and I am genuinely flattered that he asked, but it’s not going to happen. Very few guys would push for more of a “reason” after that.
That would work for guys who are asked out by women, too. No lying, prevarication or confusion. Just no thank you.
Let’s keep the lines of communication open, honest and flowing among men and women. If we keep maturing, learning and talking, who knows what may happen? Dare I say it…possibly…understanding?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Dating Pursuits, Female Perspective
In response to a conversation within his church body, a friend of a friend recently posted some thoughts about dating and relationships. Can I be more obscure? (My homage to Chandler). Anyway, it got me thinking about how men and women communicate (or fail to communicate, as the case may be). It all seemed to start from a joke that led to a female’s lament regarding males (Christian males in particular) not asking out rockin’ Christian females (her as an example).
At this point, I wish to pause in these proceedings to apologize for my…inelegance…in expressing my views regarding this topic. I swear, it would be better if we were actually having a conversation, but as it is…I am probably the only one reading this, so who cares?
This is not an anti-male/male-bashing post. On the contrary, I found the church discussion compelling, honest and much needed. There are so many resources dedicated to post-marriage relationships (i.e., how to keep your marriage alive), but not much about dating in the church (whether or not it leads to marriage, because where is it written that every single person wants marriage? Marriage is not always the endgame. I mean, many people are single by choice. It’s easy to hookup if you have no standards and just want to be in a “relationship,” just look at Jerry Springer and shows of that ilk…oops, sorry. Mini rant.) Anyway, it is like the church expects married couples to just pop up without having gone through the single/dating process. (Disclaimer, I know I am lumping all of Christendom together, which may not be fair, but I generalize to make the point that this is a neglected area in the church).
Ok, no more tangents for disclaimers or further explanations. Just assume I am coming from a good place, okay? Like those great episodes of Eli Stone say, “sometimes you just have to take things on faith.”
The male response to her lament seemed to be saying that they do not ask women out for one/some/all of the following reasons:
1. They were (not) taught what a healthy relationship should look like in their formative years (no one to model or teach that to them);
Response: Read, look around you now, seek guidance from spiritually grounded married men.
2. Insecurity (often based on some prior personal experience, or an experience of someone he knows);
Response: Put past experiences into perspective, pray, carry on/get over it
3. Happy with their non-dating, single state;
Response: Nothing. That’s awesome!
4. Only wants to date a person he thinks he may want to marry (rather than dating for “fun”);
Response: How are you ever going to know what you really want if you do not get some dating experience? Many times what one thinks one wants and what one discovers what one really needs are two different things.
5. They do not want to potentially ruin a great friendship if things do not work out romantically; and
Response: One of those risk vs. reward / balance sheet issues. If you are both of the same mindset, why not explore a deeper relationship? Nothing ventured, nothing gained…
6. They do not understand their role as “males” in that they have been given conflicting messages by women/society/media: (don’t) be macho, (don’t) be sensitive, (don’t) let your emotions show, (don’t) talk more about your feelings, etc.
Response: While I feel your pain, (most) women have somehow managed to meld traditional “male” and “female” traits successfully, why can’t men?
I am sure this is not a comprehensive list, but hopefully it is a good beginning. Many times these guys would appreciate it if the woman would make the first move. And that is fine. In fact, many couples I know were instigated by the female. I think this was part of what the original poster was lamenting about.
Women want to feel wanted. (I know men want to feel wanted, too…ah, wait, I said I was not going to get bogged down in disclaimers/explanations…grrr…). We want the man to make a conscious decision that he wants that particular female. We want him to choose, not to fall.
Let me explain. A lot of guys I know “fall” into their relationships. Either out of convenience or things just kinda worked out that way. Examples: everyone else in the group was hooking up, and there were just the two of them left, so he gets together with the last single girl. Or she is the one he doesn’t think will reject him, rather than she is the one he wants to be with. Or she was pursing him, so it was just a matter of giving in. Or they hung out together so much as friends, they unconsciously became a couple.
In any case, the male barely expends any serious effort. Of course, it takes effort to keep a relationship going and sometimes the female doesn’t expend any effort either and there are two sides (ack! I’m doing it again. Frankly I think it is inherent when one talks about this type of topic, one feels like one is walking on eggshells or in a minefield…oh! Or like diffusing a bomb. Heh.) Let’s try again…
In any case, the male barely expends any serious effort. Women want to feel chosen. Special. We do not want to feel like if any warm female body had been there, then said male would have been just as happy hooking up with that woman instead. Maybe it is because people generally treasure things (and relationships) that they had to work for. That they invested themselves in. That they had to sacrifice for. (I hate writing sentences that end with prepositions!) That some time and effort was expended into choosing and winning her…not like a prize or chattel, but that a relationship with her is worth fighting through your insecurities and battling past any other obstacles put in your path.
Don’t men want the same thing? To know the woman chose him specifically? Well, women tell men that kind of stuff. Women (in general) are more verbal and more willing to verbalize their emotions than men. How do men let women know? Through their actions. Which is why women want to be pursued. Not for the sake of being pursued, but because of what the pursuit represents: a conscious decision that this man wants a relationship with this woman because of who and what she is and can become.
Just don’t be all obnoxious about it.
(SweetlyDemure pauses for male groans and shouts of disapproval to die and for eyes to stop rolling).
Seriously, you can choose and pursue in a non-obnoxious way. In this circumstance, I do feel bad for guys, because you are taught to pursue and overcome and not let anything get in the way of what you want. Yet you are also told to respect women’s wishes and that being told, “no” once should sufficient. If you are unable to integrate both, then go with the latter. A woman’s refusal should be the end. If she is playing games with you, then I say it is her loss. Move on to someone who is not into that kind of game playing or at least is more self-aware. Trust me, we’re out there!
At this point, I wish to pause in these proceedings to apologize for my…inelegance…in expressing my views regarding this topic. I swear, it would be better if we were actually having a conversation, but as it is…I am probably the only one reading this, so who cares?
This is not an anti-male/male-bashing post. On the contrary, I found the church discussion compelling, honest and much needed. There are so many resources dedicated to post-marriage relationships (i.e., how to keep your marriage alive), but not much about dating in the church (whether or not it leads to marriage, because where is it written that every single person wants marriage? Marriage is not always the endgame. I mean, many people are single by choice. It’s easy to hookup if you have no standards and just want to be in a “relationship,” just look at Jerry Springer and shows of that ilk…oops, sorry. Mini rant.) Anyway, it is like the church expects married couples to just pop up without having gone through the single/dating process. (Disclaimer, I know I am lumping all of Christendom together, which may not be fair, but I generalize to make the point that this is a neglected area in the church).
Ok, no more tangents for disclaimers or further explanations. Just assume I am coming from a good place, okay? Like those great episodes of Eli Stone say, “sometimes you just have to take things on faith.”
The male response to her lament seemed to be saying that they do not ask women out for one/some/all of the following reasons:
1. They were (not) taught what a healthy relationship should look like in their formative years (no one to model or teach that to them);
Response: Read, look around you now, seek guidance from spiritually grounded married men.
2. Insecurity (often based on some prior personal experience, or an experience of someone he knows);
Response: Put past experiences into perspective, pray, carry on/get over it
3. Happy with their non-dating, single state;
Response: Nothing. That’s awesome!
4. Only wants to date a person he thinks he may want to marry (rather than dating for “fun”);
Response: How are you ever going to know what you really want if you do not get some dating experience? Many times what one thinks one wants and what one discovers what one really needs are two different things.
5. They do not want to potentially ruin a great friendship if things do not work out romantically; and
Response: One of those risk vs. reward / balance sheet issues. If you are both of the same mindset, why not explore a deeper relationship? Nothing ventured, nothing gained…
6. They do not understand their role as “males” in that they have been given conflicting messages by women/society/media: (don’t) be macho, (don’t) be sensitive, (don’t) let your emotions show, (don’t) talk more about your feelings, etc.
Response: While I feel your pain, (most) women have somehow managed to meld traditional “male” and “female” traits successfully, why can’t men?
I am sure this is not a comprehensive list, but hopefully it is a good beginning. Many times these guys would appreciate it if the woman would make the first move. And that is fine. In fact, many couples I know were instigated by the female. I think this was part of what the original poster was lamenting about.
Women want to feel wanted. (I know men want to feel wanted, too…ah, wait, I said I was not going to get bogged down in disclaimers/explanations…grrr…). We want the man to make a conscious decision that he wants that particular female. We want him to choose, not to fall.
Let me explain. A lot of guys I know “fall” into their relationships. Either out of convenience or things just kinda worked out that way. Examples: everyone else in the group was hooking up, and there were just the two of them left, so he gets together with the last single girl. Or she is the one he doesn’t think will reject him, rather than she is the one he wants to be with. Or she was pursing him, so it was just a matter of giving in. Or they hung out together so much as friends, they unconsciously became a couple.
In any case, the male barely expends any serious effort. Of course, it takes effort to keep a relationship going and sometimes the female doesn’t expend any effort either and there are two sides (ack! I’m doing it again. Frankly I think it is inherent when one talks about this type of topic, one feels like one is walking on eggshells or in a minefield…oh! Or like diffusing a bomb. Heh.) Let’s try again…
In any case, the male barely expends any serious effort. Women want to feel chosen. Special. We do not want to feel like if any warm female body had been there, then said male would have been just as happy hooking up with that woman instead. Maybe it is because people generally treasure things (and relationships) that they had to work for. That they invested themselves in. That they had to sacrifice for. (I hate writing sentences that end with prepositions!) That some time and effort was expended into choosing and winning her…not like a prize or chattel, but that a relationship with her is worth fighting through your insecurities and battling past any other obstacles put in your path.
Don’t men want the same thing? To know the woman chose him specifically? Well, women tell men that kind of stuff. Women (in general) are more verbal and more willing to verbalize their emotions than men. How do men let women know? Through their actions. Which is why women want to be pursued. Not for the sake of being pursued, but because of what the pursuit represents: a conscious decision that this man wants a relationship with this woman because of who and what she is and can become.
Just don’t be all obnoxious about it.
(SweetlyDemure pauses for male groans and shouts of disapproval to die and for eyes to stop rolling).
Seriously, you can choose and pursue in a non-obnoxious way. In this circumstance, I do feel bad for guys, because you are taught to pursue and overcome and not let anything get in the way of what you want. Yet you are also told to respect women’s wishes and that being told, “no” once should sufficient. If you are unable to integrate both, then go with the latter. A woman’s refusal should be the end. If she is playing games with you, then I say it is her loss. Move on to someone who is not into that kind of game playing or at least is more self-aware. Trust me, we’re out there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
