thelinsee:
E-mail has better formatting abilities than a text message, and it doesn’t cost me extra to write more in my reply. Problem solved for “daily.” Besides, the quote referred to sending a text or no communication happens…
Okay, true - the original reblog DID refer to texting and I twisted it into communication in general.
This culture fascinates me: ¿When do we get around to presuming that, in spite of all the learning properties of the brain, that we are somehow helpless in our decision-making abilities and just “good” or “aren’t good” at things? For a philosophical system from the last two centures, existentialism seems a hell of a lot more bloody modern than this un-American defeatist attitude that we have towards involvement with each other. My whole response placed me as someone who doesn’t “give good phone.”
I’ll have to do some more reading on existentialism and philosophy because it’s not something I know a lot about and so for the moment refuse to speak to that element of this response. However, I don’t really accept that calling myself or anyone calling themself good or not good at something is universally indicative of a helplessness in decision-making. In my particular case and this particular instance, I choose to call myself “not good” or not able to “give good phone” not out of a helplessness to make a decision to get better at something rather as an acknowledgement of a weakness I possess, could I strengthen that weakness? Sure. But it would require a level of interest in doing so that I don’t possess at the moment. I suspect it stems from too many years working jobs that required me to be on the phone 10 hours a day 50 hours a week. That history is also a big factor in why, aside from not giving good phone, I just flat out don’t LIKE talking on the phone for long periods of time, I prefer other methods of communication, one of which yes, is text messaging. Though in my defense on the text messages, I do not pay extra for them and I am not limited to 140 characters for them. So there’s that.
Romance is awkward, even though movies and television that aren’t comedies refuse to acknowledge that most of the time. But that nerve-wracked sense of it does communicate at least that there’s something mattering. That push beyond what feelings and reactions would deter from long-term happiness is what makes things like that work longer than a short while, so it might as well make its way into communication methods to eliminate any chance of pretense otherwise (then again, I prefer transparency the whole way through [or as close as possible] for any intimate relationship, friend or romance).
Romance is awkward may just be the largest understatement ever. Romance isn’t just awkward, it’s complicated, it’s scary sometimes, it’s difficult as well at times (because no, I don’t really actually buy into the idea that true love or real romance isn’t littered with conflict and difficulty, despite the fact that I may enjoy thinking about sentiments that might make this claim). And sure, movies and television are certainly no way to measure a real life relationship of any kind, but their permeation into our particular culture in America makes it nearly impossible to avoid at the least a subconscious desire to make things happen in the world the way we epitomize them in our media (but that’s another diatribe altogether). Bottom line here is romance is work. If you want it bad enough, you make the effort regardless of which gender you are. Sure the original post all of this is response to would seem to make the opposite point, but I believe it’s okay to say to someone (in the interest of transparency) this is how it works - “you want daily communication? Fine. But don’t expect me to be the one to initiate it on a daily basis. I’m cool with every other day communication or whatever and I’ll initiate as I feel like it, if you want more then grow a pair and go for it.” - That’s my opinion, it doesn’t have to a universal truth.
Well yeah, I’m a Loner: I can sign off on not necessarily having contact every single day, nor was I saying that in-person interaction had to occur every day. That’s a between-the-partners thing to hammer out though, really, in terms of what the desires are, and hopefully they’re both willing to compromise on some level. But then again, that’s something that was neither in my previous remark, nor the subject line for this, so no need to ramble about our agreement on this part.
Ditto.
I’d be careful saying something like “I’m stubborn,” but because I’m feeling generous, I’ll let it slide this time. “I’m stubborn” is something dangerous for the individual to say about himself/herself, as it removes that personal responsibility. Even if not in their own heads, it communicates that to the listener: That they are shirking their own responsibility to change and grow, by dictating and reinforcing their own issue with adaptation to a world unlike them.
I take a little issue with this. I see your point, I don’t think you’re wrong. But I don’t think admitting that I can be (or anyone admitting that they are or can be) stubborn communicates and unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions/inactions. I think statements of “I’m Stubborn” in excess certainly indicates that lack of willingness to take personal responsibility and I would definitely steer clear of anyone I found to be doing just that. But I’ll give you that it’s something to be careful about.
Now the trick is, it’s one thing for you to say that you don’t expect that men make the first move here, but how realistically often do you think that it’s said out there? (I am pointing out the window. I have my red scarf on, again, and coupled with my beard, it looks goddamn majestic) There’s only so much that men can just presume (such as that it doesn’t all depend on them, especially when that camp tends to be more vocal about it being the man’s responsibility to ______) in a vacuum, or that anyone can just presume. I know that it won’t change your reaction and view on the matter, but be a bother in order to clinch being honest… that way, at least you’re a polite bother by making sure that things are clear. That’s me: A polite sort of bother. (Worst tombstone…)
I’m sorry I got lost at the “majestic scarf” statement. But look, here’s the deal sure we can all say “Oh no… I don’t expect the man to always make the first move” until we’re blue in the face as women, but the fact of the matter is, it’s a concept so ingrained into our very beings that even if we are telling the truth - in a vacuum or in the world out there - we’ll never be taken seriously. And you’re right, there are many vocal women out there who really DO believe men should make the first move and it drowns all us other out!
As for presumption - you’re correct. There really is a limit to what we men AND women will presume. And sure, my hangups about “being a bother” are MY hangups and I think there’s a lot of merit in being a bother in order to clinch being honest.
Of course it can enhance it. However, I am referring to something more baseline, here: ¿Where do we get good at communicating with others, really? By communicating. The more the subtle cues come in, whether in real time on the phone or in person, the more that certain less-conscious learning mechanisms are allowed to record and notice all of those nuances that our closest friends and our lovers can pick out, because they’ve been paying so much attention. We don’t need to be as terrified of each other, because frankly, we don’t have to feel so in the dark about these mysterious people who we manage to correlate as people who we originally met as having typed that one thing on that one site a few days ago, ¡before they had a face that all of these terrifying new things to take in that we’re so unused to seeing… AAAAAAGH!
Ah… and here we really get down to it… COMMUNICATION. Yeah. Communication seems to be the root of most of the problems in most people’s lives. Lack of communication. You’re absolutely right that only by communicating can we improve at it. The subtle cues that we can pick up through actual communication, non-interwebs, are vital to the success of any kind of relationship, those ARE the things that we need to really understand and know one another. This is why there is an entire field/discipline devoted to Interpersonal Communication. But, I don’t actually think that precludes the ability to really communicate virtually - virtual communication can in many ways help up reveal so much more about ourselves to other people, from the safe zone of our homes or wherever we are - but we cannot rely on only virtual communication. I think there’s a real need for all of us to find some kind of a balance to our virtual and interpersonal communication with others. Ideally we simply supplement our daily interactions with the virtual.
Text messages rely a LOT on inference, due to their short length and lack of formatting options on the average phone. ¿Where do we get that ability to infer? Before any of you answer, think on your text-messaging life. Perhaps I’m weirder than all of you, but I have an insane life of having straightforward sentences (as in, what they would mean if you knew all of the words, their definitions, and grammar rules that you had trouble with when they came up on the test that you didn’t study for because you were about to graduate high school, so fuck it) turned into convoluted mess (I’m somehow inferring about 3-4 things that I could not possibly infer, by neither dictionary definition or by what people who know me better can see when I inevitably show them my text message to demonstrate what horrid thing I said to make the moment so awful). Text messages can be great for a couple that has gotten to know each other, ¿but how long does that take, and how often do we manage to get to that point, really?
Good points here, all of them. In regard to the original post - which I keep straying from - let me just pause and say, that post is equivalent to NOTHING I would ever say to someone I didn’t already know and feel somewhat comfortable in my communication with. I may be blunt about things, but let’s get real - it’s one thing to post that on a blog for random people to ignore, like, or hate - but it’s quite another to say that to a semi-stranger in person, talk about alienation.
(Let me just pause here to mention one tiny detail that I’ve avoided because I find these diatribes entertaining - that was reblogged with my own comment as a bit of an “inside gag” toward a specific person. Of course I didn’t make that public, because who cares really - but it popped up in my dashboard on the heels of a conversation [a real phone converstaion- GASP!] that had addressed just that kind of thinking)
Um, yeah, and I should know… I’m insecure, I’m awkward, and I’m so uncommon that, instead of being valued as an impossible find, like with my closest friends, I am believed to be a fluke to be tossed aside (However, I realize that this occurred due to my decision to not play pretend, and to be upfront and honest, even when noting aloud that I find the other’s insistence on Invisible File-Cabinet-ing me to be unproductive). The thing about boys is that we suffer that fear so strongly that we have to retreat into some really fucking stupid jokes, because who the hell is going to teach us a damn thing so that we can make any progress (well, me in my case and some very valuable people along the way, but not everyone ends up taking my route)? Not the perching sniper for the feminist army, who shoots the “Pig!” shell-rounds that never manage to do more than graze our body armor (c’mon, we can’t just let ourselves be slaughtered). Males are scared, we don’t know what the fuck to do no one will tell us what to do in a way that isn’t going to be directly contradicted in any instance that we utilize this advice, because if we say something it can be creepy, while some hunky no-chest-hair jocko fuckhead can say the exact same thing the exact same way and get away with it (go on… picture a bad pickup line that you’ve hated. Okay, now imagine a crush saying it the exact same way… ¿Did you really slap him in your imagination… really? I’d bet you at least hesitated, if you did.). By the way, forcing one side to make the first moves and then scolding their behavior for what they do while sitting on all of that unresolved, unassisted fear is fairly shitty either way.
Bwahahahaha! I’m sorry, I am not laughing at your frustration - more at the truth of your small rant there. The fact is, you’re right. All of that is true. But don’t forget that girls/women/females often have the EXACT same frustrations from seeing perky, skinny, tan blonde girls get everything they point their pouty lips at and blah blah blah… the plight of the average woman. Let’s face it, men and women - we’ve got issues. Lots of issues. Whether we’ll ever solve them I don’t know -but we’ll never get on our way toward at least overcoming them without figuring out how to communicate better, that’s for sure. And YES I realize this statement seems completely contradictory to whole reason this whole exchange is even taking place, but what can I say? I’m often contradictory and I often argue for things I disagree with just to argue or because I find it entertaining. But quite frankly, I’ve exhausted way more energy on one ridiculous reblog than I want to think about. So that’s what you get right now.
Life and love are not that complicated.
I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Because I find life and love to often be incredibly complicated.
They require a lot of effort for all of the wonderful endless variations that we experienced, but its our decision to make it so unnecessarily complicated in ignorance of basic principles such as honesty and upfront communication, leading to discussions where we come to understand each other.
All I really want to do is insert an mp3 file right here of Billy Joel’s ‘Honesty’.
Oh yeah, and exercise, try not to take too many pills, know your family history, get a job that makes a bit more than you would need at any moment, don’t do anything too dangerous, get some sleep sometimes, drink water, eat well, save up and have a financial plan for retirement, don’t make any spawn quite screwed up the same way as you, and eventually either die or get your consciousness transferred to a machine, whichever comes first.
OR: Get plenty of sleep, don’t exert too much energy on things that don’t inspire you, take the pills you need but don’t come to rely on them for daily living, know your family’s story - where you came from and who you are, get a job that inspires you and if it doesn’t pay that well make sure it’s worth the sacrifices you’ll need to make, do something dangerous at least once a year, stay up all night driving around listening to music and looking at the stars at least once every three months, plan for tomorrow, but don’t forget about today, laugh as much as you can, find joy in the smiles of your kids and have adventures because you can’t take any of this with you.
Of course you haven’t encountered such a Man: Such a man does not need your approval of him being a man. He’ll tell you it, honestly, perhaps help explain what one is, and then he won’t fret too much, because that’s one thing that he’s not insecure about to the point where your judgment of it isn’t exactly make-or-break on it. He’ll go do whatever it is that’s next, because he has shit to do, like a Man would (being a Loser and doing jack-all isn’t exactly so Manly).
I think our definition of “Man” is probably quite different. That’s fine. I certainly don’t EXPECT a man, let alone ANYONE to need my approval. What is my approval? In the grand scheme of things - very little. My statement about using the word boy instead of man was actually me finally reaching my point of “fed-up” with being told by “men”, “guy”, “boys” whatever… with that stupid smirk on their face everytime, that my problem is I don’t need a “boy” I need a “man”. WhatEVER. Anyone who wants to say that to me, to my face, to my blog, to my Facebook status, to my twitter, to my voicemail… is NO ONE I want to waste any time being around. It’s condescending. It’s a cop out. Shut Up.
(Clearly, my “fed-up-ness” is still hanging around - sorry for the hateful tone there, but I won’t take it back).
Hey, if your life’s goal is to be dead wrong on a regular basis, that’s your call. I just happen to be positively locked into not accepting falsehoods unless it’s 100% necessary, and happen to find discourse engaging.
Here’s my problem with terms like “dead wrong” - WHAT IS DEAD WRONG? What is that even supposed to mean? It’s nothing more than your interpretation of right and wrong. It’s subjective. So sure, maybe I’m dead wrong, maybe I’m dead wrong on a regular basis. That’s fine. That’s your perception.
As for accepting or not accepting falsehoods unless necessary. Again, true and false, to me - totally subjective terms. I’m not saying I don’t accept falsehoods or I don’t accept maxims or sayings or thoughts or feelings or whatever that aren’t 100% accurate or that can be interpreted in many ways, but what I’m saying is that if I find comfort, humor, beauty, something to think about etc. in an expression, thought, picture… then it’s probably going to show up here. And just because it may or may not be a “truth” or even a valid statement, etc. doesn’t make me “dead wrong.”
Having said all of that. ALL of that… geez… let me just say this, in light of some of the emotion that seemed to run through your comments - I am constantly surprised by the random reblogs I post that end up getting heated responses. It’s cool, because like i said above somewhere, I can be entertained at length by discourse/arguing… but seriously, my opinions on all of this, all of these ideas and such are just my opinions. I won’t apologize for having them, but I do want to say please don’t internalize them as some kind of personal attack!
No, you didn’t say that it’s indicative of helplessness, but then again, you also didn’t say what it meant that you didn’t “give good phone” (although now, I thank you for having done so). My point was that I find myself very blatantly in the same boat, but I just approach it a different way entirely, in spite of my disappointment with my own abilities (All of you who talk to me on the phone, Shhhhhhh… you forgive too much out of me and my intensely irregular conversational rhythms, and you know it). To say that there can be no inference attached to the assertion of not being one who can “give good phone” would be nice, but does not readily sync up with interacting with other humans. I’d rather tell you what inference I get out of it, though, and hear you correct me, it’s true. Now that’s out of the way.
Also, I got to find out why you’d have a hangup about using a phone, which does provide entirely relevant context to this particular matter. I mean, anything beyond that involves a much-deeper conversation about you and I exchanging how we deal with our own levels of interest about something, and how relevant the reasons WHY that interest occurs prove to be, etc.. Also, most of us have to get a data plan tack-on of some sort up through a certain range of usage, particularly with text-ing, and it does take two people to have a text message sent and received, so I found it related. I’m happy for you not having to pay more at any point, though. After a certain number of characters (probably not particularly 140 like Twitter or any number of related things, but after a very low number it starts being considered a second text message, and thusly counts for more on the plan.
Seriously though, you yet again include a lot of other things that make perfect sense, but were hardly in the original message of relevancy. It basically asserted that the boy was supposed to initiate the exchanges on any day that talking occurs, and that initiating them would occur by text message. That’s not even remotely as even as what you were saying. It also didn’t say anything about frequency preferences or how the girl being referred to didn’t want to start communication everyday: These are all inferences that you are taking from the thoughts that it apparently triggers in you, but if we follow the statements as they are, and not how they are supplemented invisibly. It’s NOT wrong to say that you don’t want to do something all the time and to be upfront about it. The start of this was how wrong I found it to hold communication outright hostage in the name of some quaint show of sass and attitude for all such occasions, as it didn’t say “we won’t talk every day,” it said “today,” which has a lot more weight and impact. So basically, yeah, ditto.
“I’m stubborn” begs a statement to clarify which utilization of it is meant, whether that statement can be easily found on the pages worth of dialog on such matters (such as mine that easily highlight the context of most matters that I say, and when they don’t my eagerness to answer questions that proves legendary outside of Tumblr, whether Carbondale, Northward in Illinois, or across these United States), or just something said at the time. If it’s not available, then the “Um, so…?” question is invisibly asked (as “whadya MEAN, ‘I’m stubborn’?” doesn’t go off so well at parties). As the other party in the conversation, I am taking responsibility for my encounter with the statement, in absence of ready clarification, by noting my concern so that you can address it, or at least know that it’s a concern. The absence of me doing that is what I quaintly personally have termed the employment of an Invisible Filing Cabinet system.
That’s just it, though: I am taking you seriously by noting that my brethren and I just don’t hear it that often. I know that you won’t compensate for your opponents on the antiquated ideas, I’m only asking that you speak for yourselves and let the rest of the statistics take care of themselves (because I promise you, we men mean well, but we’re kind of dim to these realizations. Either we’re terrified about all of the inferences that are so subtle that they can tend to completely contradict the assertion, or we’re dumbly thinking that we’re doing okay [Whoops, we’re basically not! I wonder if it’s me? NAH.]), basically. For what it’s worth, though, there are plenty of fellows as patient as me for people “being a [productive] bother,” I am certain of it.
Ideally we do supplement such interactions with the virtual, but I’m not unreasonable in finding the original statement to be a very scary encouragement away from such a fair balance. Virtual communication as a mandatory intro by one side, every time? Um, the number of men who would be okay with that before much talking occurs (because why would the original statement be said if talking was occurring with decent regularity) is fairly low/slim.
AH, ¡here’s where you acknowledge that you’re straying! Thank goodness. I mean, I’m not too unreasonable in thinking that it seemed very certainly like you were agreeing with the original statement when you reblogged it, ¿am I? However, if you said that statement as it was typed to someone you know more than a semi-stranger in that way at a non-initial junction, ¿doesn’t it sound a little bit like something’s gone horribly awry already, by that point (albeit something that is unlikely to be fixed too readily by that course of action)?
I feel a touch suckered, now: Surely this phone conversation must have been delightful (or left some impression), to warrant this related Internet activity…
The thing about women (on average) is that you culturally are much more likely to talk out those feelings with a support structure (unless you’re going to tell me you’ve never snickered or made fun of the last-ditch little affair that is the “drum circle.”) than males. My point that is relevant here is that it’s why my objection is so strong: Apart from average facial expressivity, men are insanely entrenched in nonverbal communication. As a rule, when the boy is in a relationship with the girl, he is clearly capable of really communicating what he thinks. Unless the distrust is so much that one believes that the fellow is sneaking off at random hours, it’s pretty certain that his physical interest in you, let alone the way that body contact occurs, clearly says that the skinny bitch isn’t that interesting, that he doesn’t want a blonde, and either wants someone paler or doesn’t want to stick with someone who’s going to start wrinkling earlier from all the tanning… because he’s not with her, and thusly that’s not where his attention lies. It’s one of the many ways that the fellow not sitting around being scared (see previous explanations) can feel a little less scared himself and communicate why the girl shouldn’t be quite so scared. The interest isn’t normally quite taken that way, though…
Well, they aren’t that complicated: I clarified the basics between this and another recent blog. The details are the details, but blowing them out of proportion to imagining them as the core of the matter is just a defeatist attitude all its own. I mean, allowing for all communications (as we both have been now proven to agree) is one of the most basic things about it, let alone both parties compromising, shedding the extraneous stuff for a bit, and really getting to know the basic character of each other, before over-complicating the matter with minutiae and rubbish (which hopefully get addressed constructively, slowly, and in a timely fashion). Life has its requirements, so apart from a bad genetics hand, the recommendations are fairly simple, the economy is watchable, and most of it involves investigating just what “why do you like this?” really actually means when we say it, let alone how much (and in what direction) influence it has on how we end up spending most of our waking hours in a way that allows us to sustain ourselves.
I was going fairly universal with my recommendation paragraph, instead of narrowing it down in any real way. Doing something dangerous at least once a year doesn’t work any better than my equivalent. I’m basically trying to talk about taking calculated risks, and then adjusting towards the center a bit in relation to whether you take too MANY or too FEW risks, to have a more fair judgment on the matter when you finally DO decide to do something risky. Besides, I think that the amount that I place as what someone would need at a given moment is probably much lower than what your estimate was, in terms of making even a tiny room to save and/or invest. I wasn’t trying to incorporate an overarching view on the role of family history (that really is allowed to be up to the individual), I was making it a health issue. The rest of the generalities sound fine.
I prefer not to drive around in a car if I’m going to do some fun star-gazing, apart from getting out far enough from the city. Even the little dashboard lights ruin some of the fun of looking up at night.
Pffft, if you think that I am one of those blokes, then I cannot assist you in correcting said vision beyond what I regularly write, honestly. I declared myself a Man for knowing when something is not the definition of closeness, and this is informed by context. I didn’t say what you need out of a Man, actually. You seriously expected to take a jab at me for saying that, taking what I said out of context, and expected me not to fence back within the fair rules? You brought the words “deserves” and “prove” into this, and that indicates approval being brought into the matter. The only way that I brought “need” into this was in terms of the dividing words that I did not introduce into this. As someone who herself said that she didn’t think that it was right that this had to be the case, I found no issue with suggesting that a proper Man shouldn’t care then about such one-way hoop-jumping, but he’ll do it anyway in order to move things along. In fact, I never suggested that you need anything short of instigating whatever you want for yourself, so you’re actually actually fundamentally wrong in what you are accusing me of being condescending about to you, and it’s quite blatant that I take responsibility for everything I’ve actually said, as opposed to the things that I have not typed at all, so that there is no cop-out to call me out on. Your later portion of the post seems to take more than a brief cursory glance at your own particularly tangential outburst, though. You’re basically reacting to something that used a word that people have used in entirely different sentences, and proceeded to creatively edit my own sentences in your head to resemble those, so you have made yourself fed up, effectively. I apologize for touching a sore nerve, but not for saying things that I did not: My typing cleared up all such blind alleyways from being options on the main path of my assertions. If I DO say something that IS on those lines, then go ahead and be hateful, but I don’t bow to lies about my own statements that I have made.
Sexism of any sort (I almost typed “either,” but that really wouldn’t encompass all of the gender degrees that are there in the natural human world) is wrong, and was in a glib remark that was met with an equally glib retort. That explains the “wrong” part. The “dead” part in this case refers to the cold-stop death that such a remark brings to discourse. The idiom is taken to mean an absolute nature to the wrong being declared, as we consider death to be an absolute in the modern world at-large (with the afterlife definitions being scattered and more varied, at best, albeit pervasive themselves). Therefore, the fence-back in question provides an absolutely irreverent counterpart to the equivalent portion of the previous blogging. Also, I find it interesting that so many fuzzy and accepting midway statements on my part would prove to not frame a finishing statement like the one noted in a different light, unless my theories of colored interpretation have more validity than mere conjecture on my part.
But that’s just it: Despite everything that I put into my overall statements on this topic, there was the presumption that I only wanted you to be shown to be wrong, which shows a great distrust on a basis that I have little anchor for, at present. If I wanted to believe that you were just wrong, instead of the idea that there was clearly something missing, and that I didn’t care about knowing more, I wouldn’t have said a single thing, and no excitement would be necessary.
Your opinions were mostly fine and good, even though almost every single one of them was a surprise by the time this post came up, considering that they had to be elicited two reblogs later to bubble to the surface upfront. Once they were in view, there was little issue, even though they required tangents from what I was actually responding to (what was visible). Your opinion on the whole “Man” definition would have been fine and well, if it actually spoke to the words that I was saying, rather than inserting several words to it, while also failing to acknowledge it as a directly derived response to particular words that I took at direct value. I went with a parry (deflection of “deserve” and “prove,” to devalue any requirement for being judged), and you assumed it to be a thrust (saying that you “need” something, which in fact was not suggested) of attack. I therefore cannot interalize the remarks as an attack, because they have little relevancy to me and my personal actions. As a result, the main person you’d have to apologize to, if you did, would be yourself for letting your “fed-up” mentality mangle sentences that weren’t addressing you (as you yourself finally proved when your own opinions surfaced) when they were clearly frustrated shield blocks from an actual imposed requirement.
It’s therefore not necessary to guess my intentions, because they’re all visible.
