www.areyoukiddingme.com: Ugh... ex b/fs are soooooo not worth the trouble

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Ugh... ex b/fs are soooooo not worth the trouble

Yuck... it's so not worth trying to stay friends with your ex's... it's like... "hey... it didn't work out for a reason... so, just let it go..." I have this thing where I feel that I have to be friends with my ex's. Maybe I feel like the whole relationship wasn't a total waste of my time if we can still be friends... but there is such thing as a bad person and I have to acknowledge that.

I think of all my ex's... my first is the absolute worst... I thought he changed... like he was a better person now... but he's still a waste of time... You know, I'm a really nice person... Even if I've been wronged, I'll make it a point to be there for people I've once cared for... I had this theory that if you really cared about someone that a piece of you will always love that person... FUCK THAT... I'm throwing that piece of me away then...

I HATE how he cheated on me and now I hear about how he's cheating on the next girl... things don't change... a person's capacity for maliciousness doesn't change... that's one thing I've realized about life... people may put up a front... change their actions for awhile... but inside, they're still capable of doing all the damage they've done in the past... it's so fucked up... why can't people just be good? Why can't bad people stop messing up the lives of people who don't deserve it?

9 Comments:

At 10:42 AM , grace said...

it's true. people DON'T change... there may be a rare exception... but i don't know of any. heh.
At 11:28 AM , Mike said...

I have a fantastic relationship with all of my exes. We agreed to meet for friendly conversation at a local restaurant once every 374 years.
At 3:39 PM , Chris said...

You're right. Why can't people just be good or at least leave the rest of us alone if they intend to be jerks? It's too bad Kevin hasn't learned from the past. However, I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that people can't change, that people who've done something bad will always return back to those habits.

As a teacher, believing in the potential of others to change and to grow is part of my job description, part of the calling. To assume others can not change shortchanges them and gives them very little motivation to embark on the hard road that lies ahead of them. If no one thinks they can do it, then what's the point? And, everyone reading this blog has done some bad things in the past, but you don't expect to be judged forever based on that do you? Quyen, do you expect me to judge you on what you did when you were with Alan? Should I believe you'll do the same thing all over again just because you have the capacity to do it? We all have the capacity to do bad, just as we have the capacity to do good. It is the choices we make that define us, and Kevin has made his choice. He will continue to go for the easy thrills, and hurt the women who flock to him. He will continue to think only of himself.

I believe much of your anger comes from the feeling that you made a terrible choice when you picked Kevin as your first true boyfriend, the one you gave your womanhood too. In some way, choosing bad partners makes us feel like we failed, like we should have known better. But, there was never anything you could have done, no integrity-test you could have given him. You did the best you could do, and it was Kevin who failed by losing out on a long and fulfilling life with you. It has always been Kevin who screwed up, and he probably doesn't even realize how much he still meant to you, the kinds words said on his behalf, the barrage of comments about how he was the sexiest bf you ever had. You are a stronger woman for having been with him now. You know what you absolutely will not put up with and the tricks employed by the slick sweet talkers.
At 3:50 PM , Quyen said...

You have a good point there, Chris. People DO have potential to be better, stronger people. But I stand by the fact that a person's capacity for maliciousness doesn't change. This is exactly why the statistics that exist on multiple crime offenders show that "if you do it once, you'll do it again"; hence, the 3 strikes law and the death penalty. Now, I know many people who have done bad things, and they don't do them anymore, nor would they. But you have to consider the fact that some of these bad qualities that motivate a person to do bad things aren't deviating from who that person actually is. In most cases, a malicious person's deeds come out of the ideals and ethics of that person's view of the world. Hence the criminal mind... but I digress :P
At 5:57 PM , Anonymous said...

I think perhaps you might need to better define maliciousness. It's not always a bad thing. In fact, in some situations it's quite spiritually uplifting.
Take the current situation for example, your level of maliciousness extends to the point of attacking this guy without the courtesy of letting him fight back. Some would say not giving a person a chance to defend themselves are wrong.
This malicious act has also given you a chance to explain your frustration with the situation and hopefully reflection on these actions have hardened your convictions by passing them through a crucible of lessons hard learned.

It's hard when people you trust act conciously or unconciously against that trust, regardless to whether it's cheating, or breaking commitments, or promises, or just consistantly being a flake.
Perhaps it's a neglect of honor that is the real problem, not malice. I'm sure he wasn't thinking, 'What a great opportunity to hurt my girlfriend!' when offered the opportunity to get his rocks off. However, his professed commitment to his relationship was what faltered. He failed on his word.
It's not the fact that he did it once that was a problem. You were ready to forgive him for that. It was the fact that he repeated his action.
I put this person in the same grievance category that I put liars, oathbreakers, flakes, and politicians. It's the same crime, it's just a matter of who gets hurt and various levels of control.
So yes people, if you're a consistant flake, a liar, or a republican, you're really no better than Kevin.
My maliciousness extends to the point of saying that those people deserve what they get. However, there's still a part of me that hopes maybe they'll learn an object lesson from it.
Luckily I'm a pessimist, so if I'm ever surprised, it'll at least be a pleasant one.

Honor: 8 a : a keen sense of ethical conduct : INTEGRITY b : one's word given as a guarantee of performance
At 9:59 PM , Chris said...

Salutations to Anonymous:
First off, that was a masterful use of propaganda in your post, and although I strongly agree with various portions, what you have done, exposed for the benefit of the blogging community, is to merge points you could never prove on their own to other more valid points, thus convincing your audience that the entirety of your blog is credible, which in this situation happens not to be the case.

Let's start by singling out your claims. 1) It is an act of malice to express frustration and dismay over the fact that one's ex bf continues to this day to carry out a selfish agenda that causes deep emotional grief to others. 2) It is not the act that causes anguish but the breach of trust or lack of honor. 3) Because honor and trust are the problem, rather than the malice involved, cheating is just as bad as being a flake. Being a flake is as bad as being a liar. And, being a liar is somehow as bad as being a Republican?

Let's start from the beginning. It is most definitely not an act of malice to express dismay, chagrin, or melancholy or any other high-sounding word when you have discovered that your first ex-boyfriend continues to cheat on women. Let's examine why that is. For one, Quyen has said nothing that isn't already true about Kevin: he's a cheater. This is called stating the facts, not malice. Her disappointment in him again not an act of malice. However, comparing someone to a cheater because you've been flaked on before - that is an act of malice. You lose points for trying to criminalize and negatively paint the disappointment and anguish that any girl would feel knowing that her first ex was a unabashed cheater. Further, do you really think that all the young and itelligent women who read this blog are going to listen much when they've been told that being disappointed in crumby men is malicious? How are you going to explain to them that their rage and venting at being cheated at is malicious?

Point Two as per your response: It is not the act or level of malice that is at the root of the problem but the breach of trust. This can be argued either way examing myriad examples. When your significant other has been telling you white lies for over a year, which is worse: the breach of trust or the malice involved? What if the white lies were spoken only to protect you from what your significant other thought would be a great deal of pain? Well, many of us would probably choose the breach of trust as more important than the malice here involved.

What if you were stabbed by a random person? Would you be angry? Heck yes. Is it even a question as to why? Well, it's not because any breach of trust was made, but because someone carried out an act of malice against you. Would you be any less angry if the person had only pushed you? What if they had shot you in the kneecap? Of course, in this case, the level of malice makes a large difference.

Now, what if you were head over heals for someone you had been dating for about two months now (but you guys haven't yet had the exclusivity talk), would them telling you they had just found someone better than you and wanted to end what you guys had so they could pursue the other option hurt you? Why would it hurt? They were being honest. And, they probably weren't trying to be malicious either. This is a case where neither malice nor trust have any place.

Claim Three: Because honor and trust are the problem, rather than the malice involved, cheating is just as bad as being a flake. Being a flake is as bad as being a liar. And, being a liar is somehow as bad as being a Republican?

Now, I can imagine that up until this point, many people are still held captive by the claim that honor and trust are the basis of problems rather than malice, but, this is where things fall apart. First off, of course a breach of trust causes pain. We have all felt the sting of betrayal at the hands of friends and significant others. However, this doesn't mean we're going to accept claim three carte blanche. Intuitively, most of the bloggers realize that cheating is far worse than being a flake. At worst, claim three posits that Republicans are as bad as cheaters, flakes, and other dishonorable types. They have nothing to do with each other. While I am no fan of the Republican Party, I do happen to have some acquaintances alligned with them, as well as ex-roommates who support them, and I can say these have shown nothing but the highest degree of honor. As good an argument as your claim that honor is at the root of Quyen's discussion was, you ultimately perverted it to make wild accusation against women who have been hurt, Republicans, and flakes. One would think the posted comment was an intentional act of malice against all those you feel have betrayed you.

Final words on malice. Malice most often has the final say in how badly we are hurt. Malice is a capacity people are born with; you can prove this scientifically or religiously: the choice is yours. Malice is the intent to hurt others intentionally. Malice is not to be confused with hurting people through an absent-minded act or slip-up. Malice is not venting your frustration and disappointent to your own blog. Malice is something we have the power to control, and that is perhaps why it is so powerful - because it's intent is always to cause pain.

Trust however, honor, are not things that people are born with; they are values we can learn and apply. A man such as Kevin can earn his honor, and the trust of women, by consistently keeping his word to them, his promise of commitment. In time, Kevin could regain the trust of all the ex's he's cheated on, if he were to show that he has truly changed. He could become a man of his word. However, he has not. And you would be right in assuming that Quyen is partly hurt by Kevin's breach of honor to his current girlfriend, as well as to her in his promise to reform. But, it has so much to do with than just trust. For one, a woman's first boyfriend is supposed to be special, not a slick player. I hope you can see that. And, although I put Quyen on the spot because I wanted to see her define for the community what she really intended to say, to seperate herself from Kevin, which you have endeavored to prevent, the case is even without ever having to hear any details about the situation, I can tell you that I abhor cheaters. And, this is the result of both a lack of honor AND a transparent act of malice.

In the future, I would avoid suggesting to women that cheating is the same as being a flake, or a liar.
At 6:24 AM , ielle said...

i hate to to be the harbinger of bad news but once a cheat...always a cheat. It's a responsibility thing. Some people are made for it, some are not.

I've watched one of my friends go through more women than underwear. It's sad. There is just something inside his mind which instructs him to look up from the woman he's with and peek out around the room to see if another newer gal has entered the arena. The minute that a new one who looks half interesting appears, he's off....but without dumping the first (hey the new one could be a flake, is his idea). He has the completely screwy idea that you can just "date" a million girls. I told him that's fine, but you can't be making out with them all(and in some cases a bit more...wink wink nudge nudge say no more)...it upsets us. LOL. Thank god I've never succumbed to him (despite his pleading during the early days of our friendship). I have seen too many nice girls bawl over him. It's truly depressing. And he refuses to see what my friends and I are talking about.
At 4:59 PM , Anonymous said...

Sorry, been busy with day to day life.

Actually, what I've done is setup a systematic argument that, with a little explanation, will stand up to a socratic dialectic style discussion. What you have provided is an emotional argument, that is more propaganda than mine ever was, and which fails beautifully with but minor scrutiny. However, let me bear the burden of proof on this.

First, let me apologize to all the republicans out there; I'm sure most recognized my comment as what it was meant to be, simple comic relief after a relatively sober discourse, however some may have taken it personally.

Second, let's discuss the singling out of my claims, because there appears to be address of rebuttal toward the wrong issue. It was been perceived that I believe it is an 'act of malice to express frustration and dismay over the fact that one's ex bf continues to this day to carry out a selfish agenda that causes deep emotional grief to others,' this is not the case I assure you. Rather, a better clarification of my stance would be that...

Claim 1: I believe it is an act of malice to bring a one-sided accusation against another without evidence or allowing that person the chance to speak in their defense. That is propaganda.

Claim 2: This is correct as stated. Good job.

Claim 3: As stated before, I have nothing against republicans. It just seemed a good place to put it for a laugh, I could have easily said Democrats, or Green Party or left-handed people (they're so sinister).

As Chris stated before, let's start from the beginning shall we?
Claim 1:
You're right, it is not an act of malice to express dismay, chagrin, or melancholy when you have discovered that your ex-boyfriend continues to cheat on women. However, no evidence (anecdotal or procedural) was given to validate her current claim (she has an eye witness claim to her previous encounter that I do not protest).

As someone who's been the subject of slander in the past, I can attest that this kind of character attack is indeed malicious. How do you protect your honor when no facts are given to protest? Moreso, how can you protect your honor when these things are said without your knowledge allowing you no ability to tell your side of the story? That is an act that is vindictive and bears malice.

However, this act, though malicious, has given Quyen the chance to place her grievance into words. With any luck she's also had a chance to reflect on what's being said and maybe take a lesson from it.

May I take this chance to also point out the first point of propaganda in Chris' response at this point. His emotional appeal to young women everywhere implying that if they believe my argument, I would say they must be malicious for venting their frustrations. That is simply not the case, I AM saying that accusations without justification are malicious.

From the material provided, Quyen believes he's cheated because she's heard it. Because she's been hurt in the past by the same guy in the same way leads her to automatically believe it. Her expression of frustration implies she believes this to be the case, and we should believe it too. Maybe she's hearing it straight from the horse's mouth, but I can't assume that without evidence because there are too many people who will talk shit either due to a miscommunication or just to start drama to further their own agendas.

Point two:
I'll take your counter example to illustrate my point. If you were stabbed by a random person, would you be angry? Heck yes. Why? Because I have placed my trust in a system that is supposed to protect me. Because I have placed enough of my trust in the human race to believe that people are not going to be animals. Because I have placed my trust in the fact that I am safe when I walk down the street.

The breach of trust is with the societal contract. I have done nothing wrong. I have given up pieces of my freedom to develop something more with you. Why did you do this to me?

Now, Chris says it's the act that carries the malice, but what happens when a person is stabbed with a knife? What is it's most basic description? It's a sharp piece of metal that pierces living flesh. What is a surgical incision? It's a sharp piece of metal that pierces living flesh. Do surgeons make you angry?

Of course you can stab a corpse, but I've never heard a steak complain.

Take a look at cheating. By Chris' statement that it is the act, a couple who practices swinging would be angry at the fact that they swing. Yet there are couples who handle this lifestyle without anger and bitterness. What is the difference?

The difference is honor.

I trust a doctor to fulfill his commitment to the Hipocratic Oath. If I was a swinger (and I'm not), I'd like trust that my partner would sleep with other people, but would stay with me. The contract (trust) is there, whether spoken or unspoken, and it's the breaking of that contract (lack of honor) that provides the pain.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all pain is caused by a lack of honor. Grief, physical pain, lament are just a few examples that I can think of where honor and breach of trust do not necessarily have a hand in. What we're talking about is betrayal and malice.

Let's look at Chris' next example, about being head over heels in love with someone. There's no malice, there's no breach of trust. If the person is open and honest with their dropping of your relationship, there's no valid feeling of betrayal either. You had no claim, you both agreed to it. You may feel sad, you may wish that you had been open with your feelings, you may regret not asking this person for exclusivity. However, feeling betrayed is silly. It was never yours to begin with.

Claim 3: Because honor and trust are the problem, rather than the malice involved, cheating is just as bad as being a flake. Being a flake is as bad as being a liar.

My claim still holds here. I understand that every once in a while, telling a lie, or missing an appointment, or breaking a promise feels like it cannot be avoided. Sometimes it can't. Emergencies do happen. I believe those times should be few and far between. What you are attempting to do is assign a gray scale to something black and white. The pain is still there, but diminished. The breach of trust is still there, but it's not as bad. The problem is that each transgression is cumulative, not situational. If a person consistantly lies, how can you believe them? If a person makes an appointment, or a date, or a meeting and constantly breaks it off, how can you trust that they'll be there when you need them? If a person constantly breaks their promises to you, how can you trust them to fulfill their word? If a person consistantly cheats in an exclusive relationship, how can you trust that person when they say you're the only one for them?

Now look again at Kevin. He's not my favorite person by any means. Do you really think what was going through his mind at the time of his transgression was, "I'm getting back at Quyen?" Maybe it was a slip-up. Maybe it was lack of will (hopefully it was lack of will). You'd think a slick player could avoid being caught every once in a while. That doesn't excuse his act by any means. It was still a lack of honor. It was still a broken promise. It was still a lie. It was still flaking out on a commitment.

Trust and honor ARE things that people are born with as well as traits we develop, just like malice. These things are instinctual, or the idea of a conscience would be foreign to us. They are not the product of language, but need. We need to trust another, we're social animals.

That is why I group lairs, flakes, oathbreakers, and cheats together, because it is the same crime. A crime against trust. Something is or it isn't. When it happens to you, it's the worst thing in the world. When it happens to someone else, it's subjective. When it comes to whether something is right or wrong, personal opinion and emotional arguments should be left out of the equation. Grayscale and perceptions should be left out of the equation. What you are left with are core truths that can be used to determine right and wrong.

In the future, I would avoid suggesting to women that cheating is no different from being a flake, or a liar. Maybe people will raise the bar and make us actually be as good as we pride ourselves in being. Maybe just maybe, people reap what they sow, and a little introspection goes a long way.

Same goes for guys too.
At 4:29 PM , grace said...

holy jeezus. i couldn't even read the comments. they were posts in themselves :P

i have a short attention sp...

www.areyoukiddingme.com

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Ugh... ex b/fs are soooooo not worth the trouble

9 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts