February 21st, 2015

Montecristo Captain Quixote

Was the Skype status incident an instance of asymmetrical dealing or not?

OK. Is this truth? Laurel cannot be called on her bullshit. It seems like she calls everyone else, but she religiously believes that she simply does not do bullshit, which is patently false. Case in point: she got upset when I hid out from my parents by setting my Skype status to Away. On the other hand, she thinks nothing of hiding out from the physicist by setting her account status to Invisible and I am magically supposed not to notice this? What gives? It occurs to me that I couldn't even have brought the issue up. She would have immediately invoked a supposed "deal" we had whereby I would set my Skype status to Available if I was around and to otherwise if I was not. She would say that she made no such promise herself as part of this "deal" in her mind. Therefore, it would be OK for her to hide out from the physicist, and consequently not show me her true status either, simply because she hadn't promised to do so. Question: Isn't she the one who believes that it is always important to keep in mind that deals can be renegotiated? In fairness, I did not offer to renegotiate. In hindsight, it looks like she invented a retroactive unilateral "deal," based upon her presumptions, and I simply swallowed it. When she first told me the terms I accepted them because I did realize that it was an act of timidity and duplicity to be hiding out from my parents. The thing is, I presumed also that she was more honest than I and would not do what I had been doing: hiding out behind a Skype status. That assumption turned out to be false. The question is, would she have renegotiated had I requested it? I'm not so sure of that. If I were to renegotiate our deal, I would have said: If I must always keep my Skype status set to conform with the actual state of my true availability then I require that you do the same. Would she have taken that deal? I'm not so sure. I'm suspecting that she would have come up with some facile rationalization for why what is good for thee is not good for me. That seems to have been a pattern in our relationship.
Montecristo Captain Quixote

The importance of containers...and the absence of same

I've got to figure this thing out. It's driving me baty. I keep coming up with little pieces of things, insights, patterns. This morning in the shower I tried to find a sense of loss or grief that she wrote me and told me not to contact her AT ALL [her emphasis]. I couldn't feel it. Was there an anesthetist guardian sub-persona that was preventing me from accessing my feelings on this? It would be par for the course. Should I expect it to hit me suddenly, some time in the near future when I am not expecting it? Should I go looking to see where the grief is?

On the other hand, is it possible that I have come to think of our relationship as one that was not really workable? Were Laurel and I really good for one another, as a romantic couple? I do know that there were things wrong. Some of these things were certainly my own doing. Were there things she should not have done or should have done differently?

Laurel always was speaking about "containers" and how important they are. From what I understand so far, a "container" in the context of human interaction, is a set of rules or protocol for communication. I asked her about this concept before, and the discussion never really gets beyond a discussion of what they are. She talks about establishing them with all sorts of other people, most notably, with men with whom she went to therapy. Why did the two of us never establish anything like that? Does this seeming omission mean anything?