NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/singles/38296

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.9 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: soc.singles
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!news.acns.nwu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsd!nance
From: [e-mail] (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: (LONG) Re: Living alone and liking it
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:45:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> Walter writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> I write:
>>If you have endured a set of similar relationships, consider the only real
>>common denominator in each situation.  (Hint:  Mirror mirror on the
>>wall ...)
>Er.. Nance, the last time I suggested the same to you (two women that have
>had bad relationships feeling the same way about men....remember that one?),
>I distinctly remember you flying off the handle. How times change.

No Walter I specifically do NOT.  I have held the common denominator theory
for a long time and if you've seen evidence that I've wavered from that opinion,
by all means email (or post!  What the hell) me the file, and if you're right
then I'll munch crow.  But I have serious doubts about that one.  I might stay
away from a certain "type" (by my own personal classification) of man because
I don't think he and I would put the same into a relationship, but an entire
gender?  Show me.

And I have NEVER flown off a handle.  I don't think I've ever even been
on one.  ;-)
>
>>People see only what they want to see.  When you are emersed in a situation,
>>it's near impossible to step away from it to see the whole picture.  It's
>>like trying to examine an oil painting with your nose pressed up against it.
>Besides I am convinced that more involved one is in a relationship, less
>introspective one becomes.

But that too is a generalization.  It depends on the relationship and those
involved.  It's possible to have some kind of personal breakthrough when
you're between relationships where you realize you've been defeating yourself
by acting one way when you feel another.  When another opportunity comes
along, you have learned to be more honest with yourself and the outcome can
be completely different than before.

Example?  Long, long ago in a relationship far, far away, I spent a lot
of time convincing myself that it was best just to be NICE, and not get
angry when he broke a date at the last minute, or told me I was stupid, or
insisted on calling me in the middle of the night when he was drunk and
telling me he wished my hair was another color.  He ended the relationship
by calling me at work to tell me that he had met someone wonderful and was
going to marry her.  For some pretty self-defeating reasons, I hated him.
Not ALL men.  HIM.  I also hated myself for not telling him off the thousand
times I felt I should have.  I had lost my "introspection."

I learned from that.  I learned that in a *good* relationship, you don't
stop being yourself.  You don't stop growing and learning about yourself.
You don't stop thinking about yourself.  You don't give up who you are to
please another person.  You don't become obsessed; it's not healthy.  To be
obsessed is to be afraid and you can't expect someone you're afraid of
to fall in love with you.

Yes relationships are give and take.  If you allow yourself to consistently
do more one than the other and the relationship fails, it may likely be
your own doing.  So might the next time and the next time after that.

A relationship that never loses it's passion is one where both parties
haven't lost touch with themselves.  I'm in one of those now.
--
-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+
Nance Colucci                                      att!ihlpl!colucci
"In the next life, I should like to come back as your trousers."-BPC
-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+