Iconoclastic

I wrote this blog about a year ago, but it’s a fun little argument, so I am going to break it up into a couple of parts, because it is really long, and share it with y’all. Please feel free to argue with my logic, I would love to hear what you have to say.

We left off with the beginning of my argument, using logic. If you are just checking in today, please check this out Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3

Moving forward…

There that was easy, and if that doesn't work, how about this:

What I found:
I have an interest in astrology and astronomy and last night I was doing some reading about the four elements when I came across this:

"Water is a feminine Element, warm and wet; the color is blue and its direction is West. Water is associated with psychic energy, EMOTION, intuition, the subconscious, and cleansing. We all have Water within us and are subject to its ebb and flow. Contemplation of the Element of Water also reminds us that we all have heights and depths of emotion. It is also the Element of REASON. "

Weird! An element of emotion and reason, dose that mean you need both to function properly? He he he. I love feeling right!

I feel I must also let you know, dear reader, this little rant of mine is a direct response to some very strong emotions. It is a result of anger, frustration, and quite honestly, the need to be a bit of a bitch! And I feel I have argued my point with both logic and reason, therefore this purging of feeling is a perfect example of the copasetic use of logic and emotion.

The only part of my opponents argument I have not commented on is the claim of irrationality. I am going to respond to this one with emotion. In my experience, people become irrational when the feel they are being disrespected or they are not being listened to. It is usually a direct response to frustration. So when you find someone acting in a way you feel to be irrational, step back for a moment and ask yourself, "Is it possible I did something to make this person react in this way?" It may not always be you, but there is a chance, and believe me, understanding and apologies go a lot further than hypocrisy which is what your irrational response would be.

In closing I am going to leave you with one last logic statement,

If love is an emotion
And emotions are intense feelings
Then love is intense

I don't know if there is anything better in the world than being loved by someone, so maybe a little intensity is not a bad thing!?!

~ ~ ~

Quotable Thoughts: a look at the words of wisdom from other’s, with a twist of personal commentary, appears every Tuesday right here at iconoclastic

I wrote this blog about a year ago, but it’s a fun little argument, so I am going to break it up into a couple of parts, because it is really long, and share it with y’all. Please feel free to argue with my logic, I would love to hear what you have to say.

We left off with the beginning of my argument, using logic. If you are just checking in today, please check this out Part 1 and Part 2

Moving forward…

We need those for further exploration into my first logic statement. Here is the other piece of my foundation,

If emotion is a usually intense feeling
And feeling is capacity to respond emotionally
Then you can't have one without the other

So, to summarize; we have decided that to have reason you must use logic, and if you use logic you must have reason. We have also deduced that to have emotion you must use feelings, and if you have feelings they must have emotions behind them. Just to clear things up, these lines of logic were taken directly from the dictionary definition of the words, and if that's not getting down to the basics, I don't know what is. Alright, back to proving line A:

If feeling is capacity to respond emotionally
And capacity to respond emotionally denotes use
of reason
Then to have emotion you must use reason

Now, I could stop right here, because as stated above, you cannot have reason without logic, and intellect is a definition of reason, therefore I have proven line A. But I will go further, just to make sure no holes can be punched in my argument. In this logic statement line B is questionable. How can I assert that capacity to respond denotes use of reason? Well,

If reason is a statement offered in explanation or
justification
And a response is an answer or reply
Then you must use reason to respond

Again, this is dictionary speak, hard to argue with. So I feel that line A of my original logic statement has been proven. Let us review,

If you are capable of expressing your emotions you
must have intellect
And intellect denotes use of logic
Then emotions must be logical

Well, why stop here. Line B's statement could be questioned. Why does intellect denote use of logic? To answer this I will give you yet another logic statement,

If reason is the power to think: intellect
And you can't have reason without logic
Then intellect denotes use of logic

I don't like to make things complicated, so again, straight from the dictionary. If there is a problem here, my friend Webster is always up for a discussion (but between you and me, he can get kind of technical and he is universally accepted).

The last step in the process is easy, logically speaking.

If my argument is proven logic
And your opinion opposes mine
Then you are wrong

Wow! That was fun to say! On a serious note, I feel my previous arguments more than disprove my opponents "logic." But just in case you had a hard time with that, lets summarize:

Emotions are feelings
Feelings are a response
To respond you must use reason
To use reason you must use logic
Emotions are logical.

Tomorrow, my conclusion.

~ ~ ~

Quotable Thoughts: a look at the words of wisdom from other’s, with a twist of personal commentary, appears every Tuesday right here at iconoclastic

I wrote this blog about a year ago, but it’s a fun little argument, so I am going to break it up into a couple of parts, because it is really long, and share it with y’all. Please feel free to argue with my logic, I would love to hear what you have to say.

We left off with my explanation of logic statements, and how they are used. If you are just checking in today, please check this out

Moving forward…

The best I can figure, the logic behind my counter-opponents argument is,

If you are emotional you lack reason
And without reason you can't use logic
Then you cannot be emotional and logical at the
same time

In my opinion, the fallacy here is easy to see, but I am an emotional woman, so allow me to substantiate my opinion. I am going to prove that emotion and logic are congruent. I would like to take a moment here and restate my belief that reason/logic and emotion are not mutually exclusive states of mind. That being said, my counter logic to this is,

If you are capable of expressing your emotions you must have intellect
And intellect denotes use of logic
Then emotions must be logical

Oh, don't worry, I'm not going to take the easy route and just expect you to believe my logic. Why would I? I'm having too much fun! I will use logic to prove logic.

Now if I was going to disprove this statement the first thing I would say is, "Why would I believe the A line of this logic statement?" (You know, "If A and B then C" so A = 1st line, ok, sorry, just making sure you understood). This assertion is not proven fact. Ok, well let us get the foundation of my assertion down first:

If logic is sound reasoning
And reasoning is due to exercise of logical thought
Then you can't have one without the other

Ok, seems simple, but to move on further I am going to need to introduce a couple more vocab words, good thing Webster is still here.

re-spond vb.
1: answer, reply
2: react
3: to show favorable reaction (medicine)
responder n.

fee-ling n.
1: the sense of touch; also a sensation perceived by this
2: a state of mind
3: general emotional condition
4: opinion, belief, sentiment
5: capacity to respond emotionally

Tomorrow, another piece of my foundation.

~ ~ ~

Quotable Thoughts: a look at the words of wisdom from other’s, with a twist of personal commentary, appears every Tuesday right here at iconoclastic

I wrote this blog about a year ago, but it’s a fun little argument, so I am going to break it up into a couple of parts, because it is really long, and share it with y’all. Please feel free to argue with my logic, I would love to hear what you have to say.

The funniest thing happened last night. Due to recent events, I have been doing a lot of thinking about logic and emotion. Then last night I'm lying in bed reading a book, and BAM! the perfect support for my argument was right there, literally in black and white. It's so awesome to find support for you opinion from a totally unbiased source. I mean, your friends can tell you they agree, that what your saying makes sense, but when a total stranger comes along and puts words to fact, that is true vindication. Ok, so what is the discussion? What is the argument? And what did I find? Be patient! I'm getting' there.

The Discussion: Logic vs. Emotion
I was told that because I think with emotion, I do not have logic and am therefore irrational. (Let me make clear right up front that I in no way claim to be rational at all points in time, but that is beside the point).

The Argument:
My counter-argument is simple, I do not feel logic and emotion are mutually exclusive states of mind, and you must posses both to be in balance. Emotion does not necessitate lack of reason, it simply commands use of both your head and your heart, which can be infinitely more difficult because often times they will have opposing opinions. Let us first confer with my ol' pal Webster for some help with the basics before continuing on:

log-ic n.
1: a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning
2: sound reasoning
3: the fundamental principals and the connection of a circuit element for arithmetical computation in a computer
logical adj.
logically adv.

Ok, I think we can throw out 3, we are talkin' human logic here, but 1 and 2 both mention reason. So:

rea-son n.
1: a statement offered in explanation or justification
2: ground cause
3: the power to think: intellect
4: a sane or sound mind
5: due to exercise of logical thought

Sounds to me like reason and logic are synonyms. Yeah, no, maybe? K, moving forward:

emo-tion n.
a usually intense feeling (as of love, hate or despair)
emotional adj.
emotionally adv.

Well, seems to me that by definition we have yet to discover any reason to believe you can only use one or the other, so let us delve further.

I took a logic class my freshman year in college. In that class we learned the "If A and B the C" formula. You know what I'm talking about, the

If all men are pigs
And all pigs are dirty
Then all men are dirty pigs

theory. Or for the guys out there,

If all women are crazy
And all crazy people are bitches
Then all women are crazy bitches

You get the point. I also learned in that class the best way to disprove someone's argument is to figure out their logic, and find a fallacy in it. For instance, not all women are crazy, and not all pigs are dirty, therefore these arguments cannot be true (sorry, couldn't help myself there).

Tomorrow, my opponents argument, in the form of a logic statement

~ ~ ~

Quotable Thoughts: a look at the words of wisdom from other’s, with a twist of personal commentary, appears every Tuesday right here at iconoclastic

Featuring guest writer: Jordan Frazer
Last week we discussed how to break up with someone, and how “breaking up is hard to do.” So, naturally, it follows that some advice on how to deal when someone else is doing the breaking, and you’re the broken. Here’s some advice from the he, and the she, of the situation.

He Said:
So, the sad day's come. That guy or gal you've been into for the past several weeks/months/years/whatever has let you know that you are now officially a "persona non gratis". It is now safe to browse the personal adds. "Everyone with a steady date step forward! No, not you."

So, how do you handle this? Here's how. Pick yourself up, piece together the scraps of dignity you can find, and move on.

It's understandable that you feel horrible. What did you do wrong? What could you have done better? Is it all you? Mostly you? Somewhat you?

The biggest deal about getting broken up with is that it's a blow to your ego. If you were really putting your all into the relationship and giving it your best, it means that your best wasn't good enough. It's a bit of a blow to your self-worth.

The truly important thing is to act with dignity. Uncontrollable crying, fits of rage, begging, promising to change, and the like will do nothing to fix the situation and win you back your mate. Nor will acts of revenge against your now former fling.

Call a good friend, they've been though it too. Talk it over, go out to someplace that you enjoy that won't remind you of "them", and start the rebuilding process. Look on the bright side: You're SINGLE again!

She Said:
You feel as if your whole world has been turned upside down. It’s hard to eat, it’s hard to sleep, and you have started a new love affair with two men… Ben and Jerry. Yet before you succumb to temptation and call and beg for him back, or gain that 15 pounds you just lost working your butt off, remember you will make it through this, and remember the cardinal sins of breakup behavior.

Do Not Call Him This is a must, no matter what, no exceptions, for at least two weeks. His dog was hit by a car and killed; send flowers and a nice card. DO NOT CALL. You both need time to heal from the hurt of a breakup, and to decide what you want. If you are talking to one another, even on the phone or via e-mail, it is too easy to fall back into familiar patterns.

Do Not Take His Phone Calls Nice try, you read the above rule thinking to yourself, “I’ll just wait ‘til he calls me then” huh? Trying to get around a technicality? Sorry, but if he calls, let it go to voicemail, and then erase it. Two weeks means two weeks, and you should let that time pass without ANY communication betwixt the two of you. This is especially if he calls to say he is “just checking in”. This is translated from guy to mean, “I want to hear how miserable you are without me”. Don’t give him the satisfaction, by not answering when he calls.

Don’t start hanging out at his favorite: bar, gym, restaurant, insert any other place you may find him here I know, we all dream that the ex will find us in the midst of a hot first date at some place we used to frequent together, but reality will never be as cool as your dream. You will most likely come of as a scary stalker type, who is following him around trying to make him jealous. And be honest, that is what you’re trying to do isn’t it. Avoid this by avoiding him, it will be better for the both of you.

Don’t count on getting back together That doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it dose great, but if (and possibly more likely) you do not get back together, you have moved on with your life, and are probably happier anyway! Remember, you broke up for a reason, and you don’t really want to be with someone who doesn’t want to be with you… do you?

Every time you think to yourself, “That rule applies to other situations, but not to mine.” Remember you are running the risk of being labeled the “Crazy Ex Girlfriend” and that is not how you want to be remembered. You want to be “That Cool Girl Who I NEVER Should Have Broken Up With”. So find some friends, have some fun, and keep on!

~ ~ ~

Men and women throughout the ages
Have had diverse points of view
Hers is this, His is that
Which one works for you?

Jordan Frazer is the author of the blog Buying the Cow. He is a 27 year old resident of Susanville, who survived the dating scene and got married about 18 months ago.

His & Hers: a male vs. female point of view, appears every Monday right here at iconoclastic

Featuring guest writer: Jordan Frazer
Have you ever climbed into the relationship refrigerator to grab your favorite snack and noticed it was past it’s ‘best by’ date? One of the horrible parts of dating is the ending. And we have all been a part of a relationship gone sour. Ending things is never easy, but it is often for the best. So how do you end them with a little dignity, for yourself and the “someone” you are no longer feeling so special about?

He Said:
Breaking up is hard to do. Sounds like a song doesn’t it? Well it's the truth. When the feelings you have move from adoration to indifference, or worse; it's time to walk away. Doing it the right way makes all the difference in the world, and will directly affect that person's self esteem and, moreover, may affect your future. So do it right!

DO NOT:
 Quit calling and quit accepting phone calls/emails/letters/singing telegrams/whatever

 Unload your personal baggage on them and make them feel like it's all them that caused the demise of what could have been a great relationship

 Pull the old "it's not you, it's me" line. It's old and tired, let it die

 Break up by email/text/etc.

 Say that you hope that you can remain friends unless you mean it

DO:
 Break up in person, or at the very least over the phone

 Simply explain that you don't see the relationship going anywhere and you're not interested in continuing the relationship

 Be respectful and understanding of how bad you're making the other person feel

 Pick a location that’s private and quiet that allows the other person to express emotion without being embarrassed.

She Said:
In the immortal words of the Carpenters, “Breakin’ up is hard to do”! And as the song reminds us, there will often be some lamenting, and possibly begging, for a reversal of the decision. “I beg of you, don’t say good-bye, can’t we give our love, another try, come on baby, let’s start a new, breakin’ up is hard to do”. Most likely, we’ve all been on both sides of that coin. There has got to be an easier way to do this!

So, what do you do when you know it’s over, but you don’t want to hurt that other person? Here are my break-up pointers:

 If it’s got to end, do it in person. I know there are the wonderful tools of e-mail, text messaging, etc, etc, but that’s just chicken-poo! This was a person you cared about, and who still cares about you. Be respectful to their feelings and find a way to meet in a quite, neutral place to pass on this sensitive information.
 An explanation is deserved. You don’t need to delve into your deepest darkest secrets, or bare your soul to the soon to be ex. But they do deserve an explanation of why you are ending things. We all wonder what happened, and to move on we need to find closure. So giving an explanation will help them to move along, and stop a potential stalker who needs to find an ending.
 Be honest! At all costs. Even if you know it’s going to hurt when you say, “I don’t love you anymore” it needs to be said! Don’t give any room for false hope, or for misunderstanding. Tell it like it is, even if you’re confused. Be firm, because you wouldn’t be having this conversation if you didn’t think it was time for things to end.
 Make sure they are the first to know. We all consult our friends for advice in the relationship department, but no one deserves to find out via the grapeline that they are about to be dumped! Be considerate, and you can walk away with your head high.
 To sever ties or to not sever ties, that is the question. And it is a long winded debate. It all depends on the people. If you work together, have mutual friends, or participate in the same types of activities, you are going to want to keep things on a civil plane, so hanging out a couple of times in the “just friends” zone may be a good idea. ALWAYS give it some time first though. I think a good rule is two weeks. NEVER jump into being “just friends” because then it will quickly turn into “friends with benefits” or “I hate you because you moved on and I’m still wallowing”. These are both bad situations, so give yourself some time.

If you have some respect for the person you are ending your relationship with, and try your best to be understanding but firm in your decision, they you will always be able to walk away feeling like you did your best.

~ ~ ~

Men and women throughout the ages
Have had diverse points of view
Hers is this, His is that
Which one works for you?

Jordan Frazer is the author of the blog Buying the Cow. He is a 27 year old resident of Susanville, who survived the dating scene and got married about 18 months ago.

His & Hers: a male vs. female point of view, appears every Monday right here at iconoclastic

I wanted to try playing a new game that has worked out well for some of my fellow bloggers. I figured we’d see how well it works, and maybe we could do it once a month for fun. I am going to post 9 random truths, and 1 big fat lie. You are welcome to guess away at them. And on Monday I will let you know where the lie lies.

This week the theme is Weird California Laws

1. A city ordinance states that a $500 fine will be given to anyone who detonates a nuclear device within city limits

2. A park ordinance states that nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool

3. A regulation in San Francisco makes it unlawful to use used underwear to wipe off cars in a car wash

4. A City Council order reads “No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash”

5. A city ordinance states that snails have the right of way when crossing streets

6. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship

7. You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows

8. You can be fined $500 for molesting a Butterfly

9. It is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at one time

10. You may not set a mouse trap without a hunting license

Remember, you’re looking for the lie. Nine of these facts are true! Leave your guess as a comment, and I will tell y’all on Monday what the lie was!

If you have an off the wall fact you would like to see appear in this game, please feel free to e-mail me: meagandixon@yahoo.com

~ ~ ~

Top 10: a snarky start to the weekend with a Top 10 look at love and life, appears every Friday right here at iconoclastic

Lon Glazner, the author of Commission Impossible may not have known he was opening a can of worms when he wrote the blog Leaf My Private Property Rights Alone, but the explosion it caused in the political forum of the blogging community is still resonating. So much so, that Lon decided to write a follow up for us, The Boston Tree Party. This virtual war is being waged over the proposed Tree Ordinance from the group Tree Action , a volunteer non-party political group of concerned citizens, has gotten so intense I just had to comment. There has been much back and forth, and to my complete horror, some name calling and irrelevant accusations being thrown around. So I wanted to share with you my opinion of the Tree Ordinance, as a concerned citizen, a resident of Chico, and a tree lover myself.

As with all opinions, you may want to know why mine is even worth considering. I mean, what the heck dose this chick who writes about relationships and dating know about trees and public policy? Well, allow me to share: I have been working for a tree company for over two years now, I am currently one of the few Certified TreeCare Safety Professional in the world (a certification administered by TCIA), I am also a Certified Tree Care Specialist (another certification administered by TCIA), and in August I will be sitting for the Certified Arborist Exam. I feel I know a little about trees. I would even feel comfortable saying that I am passionate about trees, I mean heck, trees are how I pay my bills every month. I am the last person who would want to see trees disappear! But I feel the actions of Tree Action are a little over the top at best, and just plain wrong at worst. Allow me to explain…

If you visit the Tree Action website, which I highly recommend, you will find a plethora of information about the organization, their goals, the current ordinance, and other tree related information. Now, I could sit here and nit-pick their facts and ideas to death, but that would not be beneficial, especially to the trees, so instead I am going to comment on their ideas that raise the most concern for me, and offer some alternative ideas for this Tree Ordinance.

Tree Action states that it surveyed Arborists and guesstimated “over 500 large trees a year were being removed and countless young ones.” I would love to see where they obtained their information, and how they ascertained this number. I have a feeling their research methods may have been a little faulty. There are a large number of trees removed in Chico every year, but if you take out dead/diseased/dying trees, damaged trees, and structurally unsound tree, I would venture to guess the number would be closer to the 100-150 range for large tree removals. This seems like a high number of large removals, but in a city that boast one of the largest municipally owned parks in the nation, and has dubbed itself “The City of Trees”, I don’t think we have much to worry about – I mean, we’re not talking clear cutting here folks!

Tree Action says, “The removal of trees affects the quality of life of all residents and is not just a private property matter.” Dose that mean when a tree someone is trying to cut through all the red tape to remove, falls on their house, the community is going to step up and help repair their roof? Are neighbor’s going to pitch in and help clean up the leaves, or chip in for the maintenance costs of the tree. People find it easy to say trees belong to the community, until we start talking dollars; trees are expensive to maintain and care for, and this investment is made by the homeowner, which is why the homeowner should have rights over decisions made in regards to trees they maintain.

Tree Action proposes better control of PG&E trimming. With this I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, I don’t think PG&E is going to go for it, and since the power lines are legally considered their right of way, were are talking about changing legislation here. Idealistically it would be wonderful if PG&E could properly prune trees, I have seen many a beautiful tree ruined because it was planted to close to a power line and had the audacity to grow tall. But this would raise the costs of maintenance for a company that we are all aware is struggling, and this cost would most likely be passed onto us, the consumer.

Tree Action proposes that the City trees be better maintained and treated. This is another wonderful idea, except the reason it has not been done thus far is not because City of Chico hates its trees, it hasn’t been done because there is not enough money, time, or personnel to get it all taken care of. Tree Action feels the best way to solve this problem is by adding more responsibility, paperwork, and duty to an already overworked and overtaxed budget. Color me crazy, but it just doesn’t add up.

A couple of questions Tree Actions proposed amendments brings up for me:

What, exactly, is a “city-certified expert arborist”?

AND

Why would we want to punish new property owners for the mistakes of previous owners by not allowing them submit an application? I would think this would lead to more “contravention” of the terms of the tree ordinance, as opposed to observing the laws.

AND

Where is the money to maintian all of these ideas going to come from? I'm a numbers person, and I want to know who we are going to take money from to cover the costs.

Tree Actions says, “Expert consultants who help cities to build effective tree ordinances think ours is very much in its infancy…” I agree! But I think the direction Tree Action is trying to prod this little infant in, is the wrong one.

Trees are like people, they have finite life spans. No matter how much water they get, or don’t get, how perfect their soil is, or how important they are to the people of the community, trees die. And when they are big trees and they die, they become very dangerous!

I honestly believe the people of Tree Action love trees, and want to do what’s best for them. But I think that is true for 99% of the people who live in Chico. Since Tree Action has a group of committed and helpful people who want to work towards bettering Chico’s trees, I have a few suggestions that may help them in a more productive direction.

I feel first and foremost we need more education. There are many people out there who don’t understand the importance of hiring an arborist, or even what an arborist is. And I don’t mean any Joe Shmoe running around with a pick-up truck and a chainsaw saying he’s an arborist. An arborist is a specialist in the care of individual trees. Arborists are knowledgeable about the needs of trees are trained and equipped to provide proper care. Tree care is definitely an industry where you get what you pay for!

There are many companies running around who do not have the proper training or equipment to work on trees. And there are companies out there who suggest removals of beautiful healthy trees because their lumbar is worth money. There are companies which practice in horrible pruning techniques like topping, lions tailing, and leaving stubs. And there are companies out there who do not enforce safe working habits, putting their employees and there customers at risk. These people give tree companies a bad name, and make tree care very difficult. This problem is completely missed in Tree Action’s proposal. They mention “city-certified expert arborists” multiple times, but I am not sure what this means. I would most definitely stand behind an amendment that addressed better business practices, and monitoring of insurance coverage, safety standards, and proper pruning enforcement, but I feel these topics were only slightly grazed over in their current amendment proposal. These are the issues I feel are really hurting the trees of Chico.

It is rare that people want to remove their trees because they are “too messy” or “too much trouble”. But this seems to be a big worry for Tree Action. It is my experience that it is the elderly members of our community who feel the need to remove their trees for these reasons, and it is usually because they cannot afford to maintain the trees, or they are unable to clean up after them. Since there are so many people willing to volunteer, why don’t you put together a team of people to help with the maintenance of trees people are finding it hard to keep up with. They could come and rake and haul away leaves; clean out gutters, and clear off sidewalks. Or they could offer help planting suitable trees properly in people yards to help increase the urban forest canopy and replace the trees that are inevitably going to need to be removed.

If “thoughtless tree removal is a failure by the owner to understand the contribution trees make to our environment,” then why not help the owner to understand? As opposed to placing laws and restrictions on them to force them to understand.

Tree Action has got a wonderful idea! They want to protect trees. I don’t think there are many people who disagree with that message. I just think they are going about it in the wrong way….

What do you think?

~ ~ ~

Polly Ticks: a snarky look at the happenings in the world today entangled in female perception, appears every Thursday right here at iconoclastic

"I feel like there is some resentment," he said, sounding very annoyed.

"No! There's no resentment!" I replied, but as the words came out of my mouth they felt like a lie. I didn't think there was. I wasn't lying on purpose. But there was something there, some emotion I hadn't dealt with, a sentiment I didn't even realize existed. And even though his basis for the accusation was based in… well… absolute poo, he had hit a nerve.

I thought about it. I did feel anger, and disappointment; and it stemmed from pain, a deep hurt, but why? Why was I so wounded? He had been up front from the very beginning; he wasn't ready for a relationship. When he told me things were getting too serious I wasn't shocked. In fact, I'd been expecting it for a while. So where was this emotion coming from?

It took a lot of digging and searching, some minor excavation, and a tunnel collapse or two along the way, but I've finally found what I was looking for. An explanation for the why. Why I felt so betrayed by his actions.

It wasn't because I had been broken up with, which is what I think he assumed. The reality of the situation was, we were never dating, I never thought we were dating, so I didn't feel like I’d been broken up with. He had been honest, and I hadn't deluded myself into not believing what he said. When he told me he wasn't ready for a relationship I didn't think I could change his mind; when he told me he needed time to heal from a past hurt, I didn't think I could heal him; and when he told me he wanted to be friends, I thought that meant I could trust him. This was where my sense of betrayal stemmed from, I felt like my trust had been broken.

I had sectioned our relationship into two neat packages, the physical aspect and the emotional. It's actually how I treat most of my relationships, I've realized. It's like I have segmented my existence into these two portions; my body, which is a tangible asset, something I don't have entire control over, and my heart/mind/soul, which is intangible and completely mine, and I can share with whom I choose. My body can be taken from me, against my will, or can be battered and bruised beyond my control. My heart can only be treated badly by those I choose to allow access to it, by the select few I allow in.

I had allowed him in. It had gone past the physical, past pleasure with no commitment, past "friends with benefits."

This segmentation of my life has allowed me to protect myself, while participating in the dating ritual we have created for ourselves in today's pop-culture society. I find guys who will never understand the complex creature that I am, but look great with their shirt off, and participate in the pleasures of the flesh, while never giving away any part of who I really am. And then, when it doesn't work, it's not that big of a deal, because the only connection I had was physical, and that's not hard to replace.

This makes it sound as if I have no respect for the intimate nature of being without clothes in the company of another human being. Simply not true! I believe there is a distinct difference between making love (witch connotates an emotional connection with someone), and, pardon my verbiage, knocking boots (witch implies two people using each other to fulfill a physical desire). I have not made love in a very long time. I will not allow myself to be connected in an emotional nature to anyone whom I am also physical with. The reason for this is a simple math equation: physical + emotional = possibility for love… and that scares the begeebers out of me!

This may be why I’m such good friends with my ex's. When it ends, I don't feel betrayed, because I never gave any of myself. And as soon as we are no longer being physical, I can share bits and pieces of myself with them. So a friendship develops that is more functional and mutual then the pre-existing "relationship." I know this is an odd way to deal with things, but most defense mechanisms are odd. We all have ways of coping with past hurt, this is mine.

Because of this dysfunctional coping mechanism I have developed, when I open up and let someone in on a friendship level, I am actually more vulnerable, and more emotionally involved, then when I am dating someone. So, when he said he wanted to be friends and I opened up, I was actually sharing a part of my intangible, a part of my control, a part of myself.

When he walked away, and that's what he did, without explanation or reason or even a goodbye; when he disappeared, it cut me to the core. This is where my sense of betrayal came from. Not from the physical aspect of our relationship, from a "we were sleeping together, you owe me more than that" mindset. It came from the gaping hole that was left in my heart when someone I thought I could trust treated me as if I was nothing. I had connected with him on an emotional level. I treasure that type of connection, it is rare, and unique, and special.

It was the loss of this connection, not the physical one, I was mourning.

I had trusted him with my thoughts, my insights, my opinions. Those are not given lightly. I had told him about my life, let him into my life, let him meet my family, come to my home. I talked with him about work, about friends, about me. These are things other people may do easily, but I’m a compartmentilizer, and I do not share my life easily. I had allowed him to permeate an aspect of my being, without fully understanding what that meant, to either of us.

It’s my fault, for two reasons. First, I have a dilapidated way of dealing with anything that even comes close to possibly looking like a relationship. Most people don't understand where I'm coming from or where I'm going (to be honest, I don't understand half the time). And second, friendship means much more to me than I think it meant to him, and I never stopped to find out what he meant by "friends." I just assumed we were on the same page and moved forward.

I truly believe that everyone who enters our lives is there for a reason. We are meant to learn something, or teach something, or both. This gave me the opportunity to really sit down and learn something about myself, and I appreciate that! Although I am still greatly hurt, and disappointed, I feel I can move on from this situation. I can move forward with a new understanding of myself, and perhaps work on breaking some of the trends that tend to lead me down Disaster Alley when it comes to "relationships."

~ ~ ~

The Wonderful World of Dating: a semi-caustic look at dating in today’s world, given from the heart of a chronically single girl, appears every Wednesday right here at iconoclastic