Denise and I are coming up on a year into our relationship, now, and I find myself looking over its history -- in this case, not our history so much as the history of other people's reactions and attitudes toward our relationship.
Many people have been supportive of the relationship; others have been more opposed to it (I have no idea whether this is usual or not, but I suppose it is). The odd thing I just realized, though, is that the people who are most strongly opposed to it are people who themselves have the most pronounced relationship difficulties. Three, in particular, come to mind -- I name no names.
The first is a man whose relationships typically last about three months, after which there is a huge crash-and-burn (he's done this about three or four times just in the past year alone). The second is a woman who hasn't had any kind of a relationship at all in many, many years, despite wanting one very much. And the third is a woman who is constantly getting involved with abusive, manipulating jerks (e.g., the man who routinely referred to his partner in public, in front of family, friends, and coworkers, by such terms as "whore" and "slut", among others) and who was already twice divorced when she was only 27 years old.
It seems peculiar to me that they would place such a high priority on trying to tear down my relationship with Denise, when they clearly have more immediate and pressing relationship issues in their own lives to deal with. I'm not religious at all, as everyone knows, but even so, I'm reminded of the scripture about tending to the mote in your own eye before pointing out the mote in someone else's.
I spent some time mulling it over on the subway this morning, trying to figure out why anyone would do that. The best answer I can come up with is simply that it's easier. There's very little effort involved in saying, "Denise, you should break up with Parrish," but for these people to take a look at their own problems, and try to solve them, would actually require quite a bit of work. In all fairness, I will add that these three individuals have all, at one point or another, admitted that they do, indeed, have tremendous issues they need to address in the relationship department, and for that I give them credit -- however, difficult as it often is to "kickstart yourself" and tackle such pronounced issues, that still doesn't change the fact that their highest priority needs to be putting their own house in order, not simply sitting idly and making comments about anyone else's -- especially when their own history indicates pretty clearly that they're not qualified to comment in any event.
Posted by Zathras at August 18, 2003 10:36 AMThe thing to keep in mind in a relationship (at least a two person one - of course, there are relationships with multiple partners but that's another story) is that a relationship is between TWO PEOPLE.
Not their friends
Not their parents
Not their next of kin
But two people
In the end, you and you ALONE need to go where your heart lies.
Other than that, everyone else can go to hell.
Posted by: Shaw at August 18, 2003 04:14 PMOf course, who am I to speak? I'm the king of the failed relationships (all one of them).
Posted by: Shaw at August 18, 2003 04:15 PMheh - yet, the only one brave enough to write in the comments section about this.
Semper friggin' fi
Posted by: Shaw at August 18, 2003 10:50 PM"Of course, who am I to speak? I'm the king of the failed relationships (all one of them)."
Hey, all I have behind me is one *total* failure of a relationship...this current one is alive in part because there's no way in hell Parrish would let it die. With that attitude I fear what kind of disasters he'd have gotten himself into if he'd paired up with a *bad* woman. (I'm not great, but I'm not a vicious psychonut either. ;)
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 01:51 AM"Three, in particular, come to mind -- I name no names."
Add a fourth: the one whose abusive partners tend to attack you and with the usual irony has told you to leave me because I'm helping you heal.
"they clearly have more immediate and pressing relationship issues in their own lives to deal with"
In at least a couple of the cases, I'd say they have "immediate and pressing issues" in *general* that need to be dealt with!
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 02:04 AMwell - there's nothing wrong with not lettin' love die. It's just that love takes a long time to work on - twists and turns, lefts and rights, and - hell, I dunno. Love is just a crazy thing...there's no set rules to it.
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 02:21 AM*In at least a couple of the cases, I'd say they have "immediate and pressing issues" in *general* that need to be dealt with!*
And it's neither of u two guys concern! U can let the bastards affect you if you want, but ya shouldn't - let them have their own problems! Just don't let 'em hurt what you two have worked on together...
L'Chaim already!
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 02:25 AM"Love is just a crazy thing...there's no set rules to it"
Well, some relationships have lots of rules. Where people get into trouble is not letting the other person know what your rules are, and visa-versa. Lots of women expect men to be mind-readers :P
Posted by: The Amazing Kreskin (Matt) at August 19, 2003 03:35 AMI have to agree. The last relationship I had broke down explicitly for that reason (that and the lady I was dating ended up playing the exact same games she played on me back in college when I was one of her "lovers"). We never sat down and talked explicitly about things, just assumed.
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 10:07 AMDenise, you'll have to tell me (in email) who number four is... I think I know who you're talking about, but I'm not sure. And I'd argue with you about you not being great, but I know you're not ready to listen. Yet. I'm going to keep working on it, though.
Shaw, I will certainly not deny that you've got relationship issues, but you're the type of person who works on them, rather than sitting around telling other people what *they* should be doing. A healthy attitude, one which not many people have, which was the point of my post. (Hell, for that matter, even I, in the past, have tried to tend to other people's houses instead of my own. I'm learning not to do that anymore). You're right about the communication thing, too... I still remember you telling me that you thought A was your girlfriend because she told you she loved you, and I was thunderstruck, and had to explain to you how it actually works. *chuckle*
And you're right about us letting other people have their own problems -- that's what I've been trying to do, but a lot of the time, *they* don't understand that that's what they need to do.
The Amazing Kreskin...? *chuckle* BTW, Matt, I've been meaning to ask you, do you have a blog? If so, where is it?
Posted by: Zathras at August 19, 2003 11:49 AMWell - there was a lot more than just A telling me she loved me and all of that...a lot more to the story, but I'm not going to talk about it here. (the funny thing is that she emailed me a few days ago . . . )
And no, I never tell people what they SHOULD be doing. Although I might give suggestions here and there, I try to just give an ear or two and try to let them figure things out for themselves . . .
. . . then I take their stories and write it all down for my novel (soon to be a major motion picture!) Ah, fame beckons . . .
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 01:12 PMAlthough, come to think of it, wouldn't you think someone saying "I love you" is a strong thing to say?
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 01:35 PMI mean, think about it - how many times a day do you hear someone saying that?
BTW, be careful - someone has tried to virus bomb me today via email. This might be going around...
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 01:37 PM"Although, come to think of it, wouldn't you think someone saying "I love you" is a strong thing to say?"
Not from most people. :-p It's strong/rare for ME to say it, as I will only use it in romantic situations, but most people throw "love" around like confetti. Especially women (or very femme men)...
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 01:42 PMUh oh, hopefully not the same weirdo that was virus-bombing me last year...blech.
I noticed signs this morning of somebody spoofing one of my YahooGroups listowner accounts to send virii out. Not quite sure what I'm going to do about that yet, though -- depends on if it continues.
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 01:46 PM"but most people throw 'love' around like confetti"
Yeah. I have to agree there...
Since my last post, I have gotten at least 10 more virus bombs with headings like "Your Report" or even "Re: That movie". I have gotten at least 40 or so today, where in an average day I usually get 3. I have an email pre-screener, which means I can delete them before I download them. However, something is up here...
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 02:05 PMYeah, I've been getting a lot of those, too -- plus "undeliverables" addressed to my corporate email account, indicating that this thing is spoofing its return addresses. I've also received a few notifications about the virus being blocked, which indicates that some vendors have already updated their signatures.
A good systems administrator would be working busily to make sure the virus filter at the gateway is up to date. A systems administrator who wants to make himself visibly valuable to the company might prefer to sit and wait, hoping that someone else will infect the company so he can look like an important employee by cleaning up the mess. Or so I've been told, anyway.
Posted by: Zathras at August 19, 2003 02:12 PMHmmmmm. Interestingly, one of my administrative accounts (one I share with Parrish!) is currently being spoofed to send out viruses, targeting a large community that we're both a part of. Another person in the community just commented that she's been getting a small ton of probably-virused attachments *seemingly* from another admin account. That does seem suspicious, now that I think about it, esp. as I did piss somebody off with a history of that behavior recently...
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 03:00 PMNo, never mind, it's just a virus going around, and I was unaware because I have protected mailboxes... I wish more ISPs would just use SpamAssassin as it would all but eliminate the spread of viruses. *grumble*
Posted by: Moggy at August 19, 2003 03:32 PMI'm still experiencing the same thing - at least 20 more virus emails since my last post (maybe much more - lost count), as well as the undeliverables.
>A good systems administrator would be working >busily to make sure the virus filter at the >gateway is up to date.
The thing is, my virus scanner is up to date, and yet I STILL feel pretty insecure.
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 05:17 PMI might be going away to VT. for a few days on Fri. No email or 'net. Damn - my inbox is gonna look like a fuckin' mess when I get home
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 06:12 PM200+ virus emails today, and counting...
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 07:18 PM300 :(
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 08:28 PMick...what a revoltin' development (too many more spams)...
Im gonna have to call my IP and see if these idiots are relaying through my account...
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 09:34 PM(oops - virus emails, not spams)
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 09:35 PM$!@#$!#!$$
I'm just gonna collect all the virus emails in my inbox and take a screenshot of all of 'em 2morrow. This sux raw eggs
Posted by: Shaw at August 19, 2003 11:43 PMThe 'sobig' virus is the cause of a bunch of those emails - rumor has it that it is written by professional spammers. It puts an open mail relay on your computer so that anyone can relay spam email through it. Most mail programs have changed their defaults so that they are closed, so the spammers have to make their own relays using virii.
It also impersonates everyone in the address book of the infected computer, so if you are getting bounce messages, it means someone you have emailed in the past has caught the virus.
No, I don't have a blog. Unless I really concentrate, I have trouble classifying what is ok to be public information vs things I should keep private, so a blog would be risky for me. Besides, I can always post to your and Moggy's blog... ;)
Posted by: Matt at August 20, 2003 12:17 AMYea - these guys are pros alright. $!#!$!#!#
I have spent over 35 minutes with my server's "tech support", and they've barely given me any answers on the "spam filter" they have. In fact, this "dude" has left me hanging for over ten minutes with no answers ....literally. He has just left me hanging here without answering my questions #$!$!#$
Even worse, the tech support guy looks like Bernie the Clerk from a 7-11
http://www.computerheads.biz/badtechsupportBADBADBAD.gif
Posted by: Shaw at August 20, 2003 12:08 PM"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Posted by: Matt at August 20, 2003 12:12 PMbtw, you asked who I am likely to vote for in the coming election -- chances are, it will be Georgy Russell.
Posted by: Moggy at August 20, 2003 01:21 PMcool - she's not a porn star, a bad 80's comedian, or even, well...she's not ah-nold
Posted by: Shaw at August 20, 2003 02:00 PM