Letting what go?
posted by The Chair
While I’ve been enjoying the cartoon irreverence the ESIs have been excelling in lately, I want to comment on 5M’s latest posting regarding her encounter with C at her java joint.
In embracing her new “let it go” attitude, our muse has decided that she does not want to maintain friendships with people who are “selfish, hurtful, and inconsiderate”. In this context, she has decided to not associate with C. Good for her, I think. Though, this begs the question why she is still hanging with M.
I had forgotten the exact details of the C story, so I reviewed her archives (last October to December for those interested) to get the background. Here’s the brief:
- C is an academic who 5M had some chemistry with but nothing was going on since he had a girlfriend with a brain tumour (later revealed to be benign)
- eventually the two get it on after C decides he’s got no future with “benign tumor girl”
- C and 5M go through a few intimacy problems (the big one being his inability to "raise the mast", so to speak – apologies to 4D – at the right moment)
- they last for a couple of months, then C finally bails on 5M
So I was trying to find exactly where C was being selfish and inconsiderate, and I must say, it wasn’t evident in 5M’s posts. In fact, throughout the whole two months of their courtship, the 5M seemed more pre-occupied with what was going in M’s life as evidenced in her blog. Now maybe I missed something or the 5M never presented her case against C but I can’t find anything indicating C merits the inconsiderate label. The only case against C that I could find was that he might have been a bit of weak soul for the 5M. His acquiescence to her every whim made him too much of a Casper Milquetoast for her liking. Negative attributes for sure, but not necessarily inconsiderate or hurtful. To be honest, 5M comes off being far more inconsiderate in that episode.
I'll now throw it out to the ESIs for comment. Can someone come to the 5M's defence on this?
Posts
9 comments:
I'm not prepared to defend the lass, but thought I'd add this excerpt from Jan. 25, 2005
I thought he was great, now I think he's incredibly weak-minded and willed, a coward. I really do. I should have known this from his whining ... but I kept trying to overlook that. Now, I keep trying to recall whatever good feelings I had for him, and they are just not there. Whenever I think about him or talk to him, I just feel loathing. I'm not exactly sure why ... but I think it is because he's a liar. He really sold me on him, and then proved he was completely unreliable. Anyway, I have to cut off contact. It just isn't worth it being reminded of my poor judgement.
Another interesting observation from January occurs on the 15th. It appears M carries a post-it notepad, sort of a variation on the Hipster PDA, and 5M looks through it and types out a cryptic list included in it.
No, Coyote, I'll not be exposing my index cards and notebooks to her perusings.
Or rather, Agatha, she's stuck by him, and he's tolerated that. I'm not sure that counts as loyalty on his part, exactly.
Another issue re-arising here is the sheer number of people she's shed. I am on occasion a great admirer of well-placed ruthlessness, and C. sounds rather deserving. I feel somewhat troubled about the larger pattern, though.
Is her emotional world not becoming smaller and smaller through these wholesale cleansings? Does she isolate herself?
Relatives, friends, work associates have not been spared, yet M., strangely, is. Perhaps she thinks to draw him closer to her by excluding others? Strange gambit... M. may notice this, or not, but I doubt it will alter his (lack of) feeling for her, nor his casual abuse.
Sorry, Agatha, I agree with Coyote regarding M. She's sticking by him more so than the converse. M only rears his head when she starts diverting her attention away from him. There's a good conversation they have on December 7th about who carries the relationship.
And as for C carrying some burden for bailing, I'm not sure if that was such a bad thing for him to do. Basically, she seemed to have lost her patience with his e.d. problem and he didn't find her supportive. In addition, it's at this same time she's in a rage about what is going on between M and Y. Shouldn't she be focusing on her own problems? I think C saw where this was going, and got out before his self-esteem got any worse.
Ahh, now regarding C and the ED problem. A critical thing to consider is what occurred on Dec. 10, 2004.
It would appear from her Dec. 11th posting that C was able to raise his mast, but wasn't carrying any canvas. Culminating in a result that involved considerations on the taking of Accutane.
This is the sort of thing that could harden a lassy's heart.
And we know their options were limited given her issues about the poop deck...
There you are, Agatha. And reading my mind, too. As entertaining as today's shipboard analogies have been, I'm going to take a pass on the naval gazing, and get straight to the point: She sure finds a lotta dud dudes on which to lavish her care... this has got to be becoming more than mere coincidence. What drives this?
Regarding your second posting, Agatha -- we seem to be reeling out of order just now -- could it be as simple as the guy doesn't know how (or doesn't have the guts) to stiff her? Er. Unfortunate choice of words...
C of Love: Guy Lafleur Faces Off Against Tough Issue to help the 5M score
"Sexual wellness is a key component of a man's self-esteem at any age," says 51-year old Lafleur. "I've been involved in diabetes fundraising for many years and there's a strong link between diabetes and ED that a lot of people are not aware of. In fact, half of Canadian men aged 40-50 who suffer from diabetes also suffer from mild to complete forms of ED. I hope that by speaking out, I'll encourage men to get the facts and get help."
Words to the wise, Observer.
And Agatha; what I'm trying to get across here is that M's so-called 'involvement' involves no commitment on his part. She does the work, and he continues, comfortably, in a relationship that isn't.
There are, in a certain religious world view, (Which attempted 100-odd years back to sweep aside the reality in which I exist, and yoohoo Father Lacombe, I'm still lurkin' animistically behind this here hoodoo...) sins both of commission and omission. M. is guilty of doing nothing -- (ever-so) guilty because doing nothing benefits him to the Muse's detriment. That's not loyalty or involvement, that's convenience and inertia. Mayhap we need to step back from our diverting obsession with Einsteinian physics and bone up on a little Isaac Newton.
Post a Comment