More Weirdness. Different this time.

Ok. More weirdness. Different this time. No word for it. Just weird. I sent the post to Monk. I wasn't expecting a response. If there was going to be one, I figured it would be about how I was feeling. But in general wasn't expecting or looking for a reply. I just wanted him to know what I was thinking. My phone was on silent which it normally isn't. I went to bed late and I knew my friends were going out to breakfast and I knew they were going to call me at the buttcrack of dawn to ask me where I was. The phone would have woken me up, I wouldn't have been able to go back to sleep and I would have been grouchy. No fun. I knew I wanted to sleep in so I turned it off. I woke up. I saw that I had six missed calls and some text messages. I'm thinking, "Who is calling me?" Most of them were from Monk. Weird. I called him back. Found out that he wasn't interested in what I was feeling. Not necessarily trying to understand where I was coming from. But he wanted to express how he felt that my blog was solely about him and could affect his business. Also how mentioning a tragedy in his life was exploitative and "heartless". That threw me for a loop. I mentioned something he used to do (which I removed), that he said could negatively impact his business. At first I thought he might have given this blog too much power, but I understood what he meant. I mentioned, simply mentioned, that he told me about some personal circumstances. No details about it. (I changed it). And that, to him was heartless. I think that was pretty harsh. An inappropriate term. But that's the way he felt. Those are his feelings and I don't want to discount them. (Kinda like he did mine but, I'm not too concerned. He can't say he didn't know). Anybody who knows me, know that I'm not heartless. If anything, I tend to care too much and express too much emotion. But people will say, can say, anything when they don't know you. And we really didn't know each other. He believes I was out of line for even mentioning it. I guess, for him, that is a possible consequence for sharing information with someone you only intend on having a shallow interaction with. It wasn't my intent.

 

So since my phone was off and he couldn't wait for me to respond, he calls a friend of his and my friend to try to get a hold of me to discuss something none of them would have ever learned about if he hadn't called. Its kind of weird because if you don't want something to spread, why spread it? It defies my logic, but ok. He gave his justification. I can see how that is understandable to him. So, as we are talking I attempt to discuss the blog, my intentions, and my thoughts. But he was more interested in telling me how he felt. We were both trying to express our thoughts to each other but we both had our deflectors up. Don't think the conversation was too productive.

 

I express myself best through writing. More so, in situations where I have feelings I want to express and I want to make sure I am as clear as I possibly can be, I don't want to be interrupted, there can be no mistakes in what I said, and I can be held accountable (because they can always go back and refer to what I said). I really only use this method with people I am not close to. I think its because writing to someone is a distance way of interacting. It limits vulnerability. But its still direct and unassuming.

 

But what I am trying to muddle through is the exploitive uncaring "heartless" intellectual he sees me as. It's not because I believe it, or that it was a little hurtful, but more so because I'm interested in how me, a "heartful" person can be perceived a heartless? A tad intriguing I must say. I explained to him how I saw us functioning differently. He appears to regret sharing information with me. As if I didn't handle knowing that information properly. I equated the way he feels about how I "exploited" that information to how I feel about sex. (Its not a direct correlation, but I attempted anyway.) Meaning, he felt that I misused the information given to him. I had no qualms about how I discussed the information, at the moment I wrote it. I feel as though sex was misused in our interactions. Here is the difference. He told me he was going to misuse our sexual interactions. For me, misuse means engaging in sexual intercourse for mere shallow entertainment. Speaking of exploiting, is that not a form of exploiting women? Just because you tell someone that your only real goal is to have sex with them, doesn't mean it isn't a form of exploitation. We could get into feminist ideas of women's bodies but let's not go there. Anyway, back to the subject. I also allowed myself to be misused. The only way the two situations would be the same is if I told him, "hey, if you give me this information I might use it in a way that could hurt your feelings." But I didn't. I didn't because I didn't think it would and I never thought that information would be relevant later on. But interestingly he wanted me to be careful and hold sacred information about him, but he does not think to adjust his actions based on information about me? Which begs the question again, WHY did he disclose that information to me? During another conversation about this blog, he told me he is going through things, and disclosed yet another piece of information. Why are you telling me this? Now, often people share information with me. They feel that I am a safe space and can offer interesting insight. But ummm, I'm not sure that is what Monk was thinking. Weird. Isn't that something you share with friends? I'm having a hard time understanding the motives and actions of someone who only wants to establish a shallow interaction. Another element that makes this weird. And women are supposed to be confusing?

 

Because I perceive him as egotistical (he enters into conversations already believing he is right and wanting me to agree with him, feeling that people should acknowledge him for things he has done and not being a good listener) it makes sense that he will continually privilege his own thoughts. From our conversations, it sounds like he thinks he is the most "wronged" person out of this. Now…I don't feel wronged. Umm, that's not the word I would use. I have to think of one…And I'm not going to attempt to try to have him understand my point of view. Why put so much energy in someone who sees you merely as a shallow fantasy? He's not worth that much time. What IS worth the time is me figuring out why all this happened in the first place. Anyway…with the sex-personal info comparison, he somehow thought that I was equating my thoughts about sex to how he feels about his personal tragedy. Sigh, that's not what I was saying. But oh well. I tried.

 

This situation is weird. I haven't been in a situation like this before. I am used to there being different feelings involved that may or may not equate to commitment. With Todd, Clarence, Miles, or Med, each of them I am not/was not committed to, thus the Nola Darling-ness, but I know our intimacy wasn't/isn't completely random and empty as mine was with Monk. The random-emptiness is what has me feeling weird. Not sad, but uncomfortable. Maybe a little disappointed in myself for giving energy to someone like Monk. The closest I have felt to this is my interactions with my son's father. But I went into that situation differently. I was getting out of a situation. I wasn't emotionally stable. With Monk, I was fully aware of the terms of our interactions. But I wasn't fully aware of how it was going to make me feel, or the assumptions and stories I was going to formulate in my head. He said, "did you really think that I wasn't having sex with anybody else?" Ehh… I didn't want to think about that. (And why would you ask that? No everyone has sex all that time as you imply you do.) I was having sex with other people as well. But my interactions with them were different. The me-and-Monk interaction is weird. I think it was/is a lost cause to try and explain to him what I was/am thinking, feeling. He doesn't listen. Thus, with our last conversation I simply replied to his statements with "Ok". I don't think he is trying to understand. Not sure why I wanted him to. He says I am asking him to validate my feelings. That's not what I am asking him to do. I don't need him to do that. And he continues to "give" me feelings and assume that he knows how to better articulate what I am trying to say than I can. Which is a tad frustrating. The only reason I sent him the post about my thoughts was because he mentioned that I was "acting funny" which said to me that he has decided the my behavior is unfavorable…funny. So I decided to tell him WHY, I was acting funny. Something he still has not addressed. Sigh, lol. Again, oh well. For him validation appears to mean hearing, listening, understanding coupled with having whatever he would call an adequate response. As he said, "what do I say to that?" (meaning my feelings) I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO SAY ANYTHING. Thus the reason for me not expecting a response. It would be interesting to hear one but I don't need it. I simply wanted to inform.

 

So that brings me to the question of the evening… why do I even care to share my thoughts? Why do I want him (and others I have addressed) to know especially since I'm not looking for a response? I don't want and never requested a relationship with Monk. My thoughts…I assumed that he is having intimate interactions with the female I saw him with. I'm pretty sure I'm right. But that ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is why did I jump to that conclusion and why does that make me feel…weird. Jealousy? Hmmm, if it is jealousy, it could be because I would like to think that he isn't interested in other women. But, I don't buy that. I don't think I'm thinking that. More thought on that. Ultimately it is a defense mechanism. The first mechanism was not thinking about the consequences of our interactions (how I am going to feel knowing that he is having sex with other people). The second is, creating a story (a set of assumptions like, that's his girlfriend) to help me figure out how I am going to deal with him and my feelings about the situation. I don't REALLY believe that's his girlfriend. I did, though, construct the story that he is intimately interacting with her. Again, I'm pretty sure I'm right, which is why I'm ok with this assumption. I'm sticking to it because, it makes me think about what I was attempting to ignore: Having sex with Monk was a really poor choice. And not well thought out. I excused it, ignored it because I made excuses for ignoring it because I was dealing with other things.

 

Still trying to solve this heartless thing… Don't think it can be solved because I simply don't believe it. My heart gets too involved at times, in every aspect of my life. It's unfortunate that he can't see that. It's unfortunate that he wants to believe that and… it is what it is. As predicted, when we talked again the conversation was not about what I'm thinking or feeling. Maybe heartless people don't think or feel. LOL. It seems pretty self-centered. Arguably my blog is self-centered but its my blog. It's supposed to be about me. He didn't make that argument but…sigh, just sayin'. I don't understand how a blog post that completely talks about my battles with intimacy, (or as he says "my tale of issues", …that was mean…and who's the heartless one? Sigh, people say the darndest things) can be seen as a rant about dissing him? Weird. Wow, that's got to be really egotistical. When, I'm talking about myself and my feelings and he only pulls out the information about himself. Interesting. He not a good listener. Attentive reader, rather. Obviously both. But I guess its understandable if his thought process during the whole time he was reading was this information was that he believed the post could damage his business or referencing personal information was being exploitive. (Don't people exploit people and things for personal gain? Umm, if the purpose to the post was to sorts out my thoughts and have him understand those thoughts then why would I use information about him, directed to him, for the personal gain of having him understand me? As confusing as that sentence was, lol, that how much sense his assumption doesn't make.) He has me all wrong. Oh, well. I have to give more thought to this…

 

SIDE NOTE RANT: "Did you really think I was only having sex with you?" What was the purpose of the question? I already told you I didn't want to think about it and when I did it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Why bring it up? Even more so, when I attempted to answer it you really weren't looking for an answer. I am attempting to reconcile these feelings of weirdness without thinking about that so why rub it in my face? Hmm, weird. If you read the blog post then you would have seen my thoughts about intimacy and you would have known that saying that is heartless, uncompassionate, and thoughtless. But, just as I can't expect you to think about how I am going to feel about things you say and do, why do you expect the same consideration from me? I'm the one who feels uncomfortable about the situation. Maybe you feel uncomfortable too, (not talking about the business concerns) but honestly. Do you think I have the energy, when interacting with you, to keep my defenses up, deal with this regret, all the other things in life that don't deal with this situation AND be sure to adequately deal with your feelings? For real? That's might be a lot of expectation from shallow interactions. That's selfish. Especially sense you have yet to address the purpose of the post. Sigh… end of rant. Moving on…

 

So why would I want him to know how I feel if I'm not interested in being with him or interested in attempting to provoke a response?

I don't like being misunderstood. For situations like this, the biggest deal is that the other person understands what I am thinking about or how I perceive the situation. I wanted him to be clear about how I felt. So then… why do I care about whether or not he knows how I feel? Hmm, after a two hour conversation with Clarence, it has been determined that my ego involved. Me? Ego? Lol. I guess. Makes sense. I want the other person to know what I'm thinking so that they are clear about how I feel about them. I don't want Monk. He probably thinks I do. (And at one point I was interested in getting to know him, but it stopped there). I continued to get my point across in our conversation NOT because I'm trying to convince him to be with me. I want him to know what I am thinking. So then… why do I want to be understood? Why can't I settle on the fact that maybe he (and other people of have written to) doesn't and won't ever "get" what I am trying to say. Hmm, have I ever felt in the past that I was misunderstood? Are my current interactions some type of compensation for those times? Not sure. Need more thought on that. So IF my ego is involved, then I may feel like my insight in valuable. So valuable that it needs to be shared even when the sharing has not been provoked. Not asked of me. To miss out on my insight is to miss out on a lesson for you to learn. Hmm. Possible. I'd rather not think of it that way, but we shouldn't only think about things that make us comfortable. So I need to investigate whether or not I'm more egotistical than I would like to think.

 

So, I had sex with him for a few reasons. 1) Hopeful translation of new idea of intimacy 2) felt that I needed that translation because I was in escapist mode. 3) I convinced myself that if we were intimate, it would lure him into wanting to or learning by default, things about me that are interesting outside of the sexual. Number threw sounds absurd. Well I could see how someone could make that a logical strategy, but… still absurd. That was absolutely not a conscious thought. Something I sat down and said would work. As I write it, it doesn't make sense. I shouldn't dismiss it though. It may be more possible than I would like to think. Of course, all men, good or bad, all want to sleep with attractive women. Getting to know them may be a thought after they have decided the woman is attractive and they want to sleep with them. If the difference between a Good Guy and a Bad Guy is that the Good Guy wants to get to know the women before having sex and the Bad Guy could careless, then Monk would be a "Bad Guy." The Good Guy, as Clarence says, lol wants "sustainable sex." The Bad Guy just wants sex in some form, with little work, which is rarely sustainable. Somebody's feelings are going to get involved. The Bad Guy isn't interested in the woman's feelings. He is interested in what he wants out of the deal and won't make any special efforts to do something that is in her best interest. Like, having platonic interactions with the woman after she has expressed her uncertainty about their sexual interactions. A Good Guy, would be more patient and interested in making sure the woman is comfortable. Monk tried that once when I was over his house. He stayed at his computer as I sat on the couch, but …it was inevitable that he would attempt to have sex. Sigh… Anyway, back to number 3. Me wanting him to NOT be the person that he is at this moment in his life (only wanting shallow meaningless interactions of women), would mean that I am trying to change him. Hmm, profound. Didn't think of it that way. I want him to be the Good Guy. I want him to be Miles or Clarence or Todd or Med. He's not them. He's not a nice guy. And its not that I didn't know this. It was very clear. I thought I could change him. Again, not a conscious thought. Because I am not interested in changing people. I stand pretty firm on that. At least consciously I don't want to. Apparently there is some subtext, some subconscious thought occurring that contradicts that.

 

 

So…small recap: 1) Our conversation seemed geared towards how he thinks I'm, being selfish, how I should see things his way, I got the nature of our relationship wrong and how I'm trying to vent about my feelings for him and all of that. Sigh, again, not about any of that and…again, he is a horrible listener. Its more so about me expressing my thoughts so that he is clear about what I am thinking and that I am understood. Still have to figure out why I need to make sure certain people understand me even when if it isn't clear that they are even trying to understand. More thoughts on that later…possibly. 2) Need to check the ego. Figure out what's going on with that. Wanting to say "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!!! I'M ME M*TH* F*CK*!" is nice, but really. Should I really EXCEPT all people to appreciate me and want them to be intrigued by all that makes me…me? Ehh, it would be nice but that's not the case. (A little ego peaking through? I don't think it's a bad thing to think that I have great things to offer, its just a problem when that gets out of control and that has not happened). There are multiple reasons why people do the things that they do and it doesn't necessarily have to do with how great they think I am or am not. He has some personal issues going on. Understandable. And it is possible that even if he didn't have person issues he would still be a man searching for shallow interactions with women. That makes him…him. And as cool as I think he might be outside of that, does not change who he is and it definitely does not make him who I wanted him to be. IF the ego is involved, then that may mean that I want to make him a better man than he is. Or I want him to be a better man than he is. Good men don't use people.

 

I guess this means I won't get my song list. Oh well.