When I was a remote, socially awkward nerdy jerk, emotionally starved and cruel and arrogant, I knew that I was not mentally and emotionally whole and happy. I feared that I might actually become whole, and in the process, die, as I knew myself.
I'm still here, and the anguished jerk is still here, though seldom in control. I bring out everything beautiful about that jerk that his jerkiness covered over...everything that in his heart he really WANTED to bring out but didn't have a clue about how to do it.
I, the watcher, the tender of the Miracle of Life in this body, am, and always was, and shall, for the remainder of Life's tenure in this body, always be present, and be the spark in these eyes.
There is the choice of which level of consciousness you want to live in, that one which transcends appearances, that one that is attached to appearances ?
I am attached to my appearance as a means of inducing this (psuedo?)feminine beingness that expands my consciousness. I believe that consciousness is the main event....
I am also a cultural being, hormonally driven, attuned by my upbringing to judge people as I see them...that part of my brain does not transcend...I either go with it, or lovingly let go of it. I think this would be harder if I were younger, say younger than 35....I really think hormones drives it.
Leah is killing David's Habits and Appearance, not the Soul that is David. To which are you attached most ? If the balance is even or weighted towards appearance and habit, then the loss of David can be very disruptive.
David is a made up name, even his given name is a made up name. Even his culture and male persona are made up and trained into him. If you are attached to the trained results, other persons are attached to their training and feel like it IS them. Some have been trained similar to how David has been, and may share some of his endearing quirks and visual peculiarities. Happy Hunting ! (being cruel to be kind here, Sobe, but definitely intend no meanness.)
You also may be attached to how this looks to others. I leave that exercise to the reader.
Neither do I.Quote:
[snip]I don't think so.
I'd look for mutual accomodation. A healthy tension has an equal and opposite force on both ends. As much as he wants more CD freedom, she should strive to support that much freedom. However she needs him to limit his CD freedom, thats how much he should strive he could live with.Quote:
But if there is care with the time frame that things happen, and if the SO/GG is willing to grow and accept and figure this out, then it could be seen as an obligation for the CDer to accommodate her.
What does everyone think of this?
Instead of a tug of war between these complementary wants and needs, let it be dance where each celebrates the dreams of the other, and supports and sacrifices for the limitations of the other.
So many of us are middle-aged and grew up in the 60's, or earlier. It is no wonder that this ZeitGeist should be current and common among us.Quote:
Sobe
::EDIT:: I also wanted to clarify my original post. I mentioned the 1950s. I didn't mean to say that fifties fashion is bad for anyone. I LOVE it in fact. Check out daddyos.com for my clothing wishlist. I want everything! What I meant was the 1950s attitude. Women are supposed to wear dresses and stay at home and cook and clean and so forth. It seems like some CDers are stuck in that mentality. That's what I meant.
It is, however not a blanket rule for all who flow with it. I love the 50's ideal, and laughingly cast it aside when its time to don the LBD or Silver Lame Confection and go paint the town Red ! or put on the Low Rise Jeans and go out for a hike or for casual shopping.
:rose: Roberta :rose: