Whatever you do that involves others requires a shift from "me" to "we" thinking.  Simple in theory, harder in practice.

Keeping everyone happy—and challenges to that—are usually based on three fundamentals, in most instances. Here is a brief  "how to" overview of fundamentals that seem to matter:

Consider:
1. How and why you’ve come together. Are goals similar?
2. What the rules might be—what’s  right and wrong, ethically, morally, circumstantially.
3. Where clarifications are necessary (if rules are bent), so misunderstandings don’t happen, and one party isn’t misled.

Be:
1. Fair and honest
2. Open and respectful
3. Flexible and considerate

…as best you can.  Most people know when they are taking advantage of someone else, and the person being taken advantage of knows too!  Don’t keep (the idea of) a relationship going at any cost in the hope that it’ll get better—because you’re the one who’ll be paying afterwards.

Upsets come from:
1. Being out of synch/selfishness—one person putting their own needs first (saying and doing differently or vice versa).
2. Expectations of both parties not being expressed or agreed upon (in advance or as they shift).  Avoidance isn’t a solution, just a way to upset someone else.  
3. Distractions being allowed to take over (one person changing their priorities, but not telling the other, and not putting in equal effort).

Long distance relationships have higher stakes and extra obstacles:
1. Trust, openness and communication matter even more.
2. Out of site should not be out of mind. (Excuses are easy!)
3. Practical, financial, and emotional realities are all stretched, tested, and differ.

Bottom lines:
1. It’s not all about you!  Never was!
2. Everyone has limited time and energy. Please don’t waste another’s!
3. Consequences happen.  We might not realize at the time how we affect someone else, but a lot of damage can come about from what might be considered "trivial."  As much as you might not be hurting, someone else could be in agony…

Cliché but apt: "Put the shoe on the other foot!"  We all have hopes and dreams, and it takes courage to make oneself vulnerable—even though life is short, and there are only so many opportunities for happiness.  If you know that you are jeopardizing someone else’s well-being by not being upfront and playing things out because it suits you, think again…

Alas!  If things are "too good to be true," they too often can be…  No matter how one conducts oneself in other circumstnaces (or is seen to be to the oustide world), it’s daily enounters, and opporunities for genuine intimacy that reveal who they really are and can be (or not).
 
The most powerful, wealthy, or good-looking among us have the greatest responsibilities and weaknesses, since they may have more possibilites to get away with things. Because of who they are or what they have (regardless of where it comes from) and their bigger-picture "do good" deeds, they can raise the loudest alarm bells!  Entitlement may be an outcome, but not a justification…  

Though news of the the "John Edwards Sex Scandal" is only just breaking, and details and coverage aren’t all clear, this is just another example of what we see not always being what we get.  Or, what we imagine could be possible (and wonder why not) actually being so.  Role models are hard to find, and "everyday people" imitate and get away with much more (than before) just because they can.  Sad, but true, this is something that’s become almost unremarkable socially.

Those who may be seen to have "less going for them" are invariably more reliable—and better at "playing nice!" On-line daters, take heed when making selections!  What impresses and allures on screen, might not in real life!

An evening stroll along one of Newport’s beaches, last Friday night, led us to a sandcastle.  From the front, it was a work of art.

Around the back, there was a marriage proposal inscribed (to which the answer was "yes," of course)

The shore line and waves looked pink, as did seaweed deposits washed up there—part of the red tide phenomenon.  

Then there were the clams; their shells, at least.  Gulls were fat, happy, and plentiful!

 

Earlier this week, I was excited to be part of a quartet that attended Dirty Dancing, at the Royal Alex Theatre in Toronto.  We took advantage of a mid-week special (four tickets for the price of three), making a spontaneous same-day purchase.  Sometimes, the best night’s entertainment happens when you don’t have long-term plans for it, but break routine.

Not only were the sets and costumes superb, but the cast was consistent and well-chosen.  This wasn’t the kind of show that had you wondering when the interval was going to happen. And beyond the actual performance, we were also struck by deeper story-lines, like that of a nuclear family with two adult-children.  

Siblings often have distinct personalities (and outcomes), and the daughters, Frances and Lisa, were excellent examples of this.  Sometimes, one child can be seen to do no wrong, and the other child, no right.  One has "higher goals" and she is misunderstood. The other ’s behavior is less commendable, but she’s more likely to get away with it (though not grow from her mistakes).  Also, parents often seem to forget their own pasts when making suppositions and demonstrating differential treatment.  Not knowing (or attempting to learn) all the facts, and making judgments for the wrong reasons can be problematic, unless non-family members have a chance to intervene.

Though much of the music was familiar, and there was a strong urge to want to go home and get dancing lessons, this staging of Dirty Dancing, it was clear, offered more than the immediately obvious.  Seeing the movie years ago, I’d been more focused on visual and auditory effects.  This time around (perhaps helped by the stellar performances of the leads) it was refreshing to be able to consider deeper messages and meanings. Lively afer-show discussion ensued!

April 1, 2008, I switched on the The View half-way through a "Hot Topic" discussion.  It appeared to acknowledge dismay among 45s to 50s who haven’t accomplished what they’ve hoped to.  Factors that don’t make them feel any better were described as including lack of community and so many people being alone (especially women).  

Being so intensely engaged in my "Animal Magic" painting project (just switching on the television for "background"), I was aware I’d postponed posting blog entries that have been in the works for a while. This episode of The View prompted me to want to add to the discussion.  Relationship (or lack of relationship) disappointments, misperceptions, and day-to-day struggles are common to us all, which is why I believe it’s good share them. 

This blog entry’s "warm topic" draws attention to why some singles might ellicit more sympathy than others, and how perceptions might help shape realities…

Definitions:
1. The "Single Because" is single again.
2. The "Just Single" has always been single.
3. The "(Im)Perfectly Single" doesn’t like to be defined…

Some candid and common assumptions about each type:

The "Single Because" can prompt perceptions that include:
1.  Did succeed at one time
2.  Has been proven worthy
3.  Has had something to offer (and can again)
4.  Has suffered a "loss" that should be remedied (replaced)
5.  Needs help because of a changed situation
6.  Will benefit from being in relationship

The "Just Single" can prompt perceptions that include:
1.  Hasn’t tried hard enough
2.  Isn’t worthy of more
3.  Doesn’t offer enough
4.  Has no "special needs"
5.  Is not a priority
6.  Could be "difficult" in a relationship

The "Single Because" is widowed, divorced, or separated.  Both the "Just Single" and the "Single Because" might be single parents. The "(Im)Perfectly Single" might have "options," but still keeps on looking for that "impossibly-perfect other"—even if less than perfect, personally.  Perhaps that’s why the description, "Player," is easily substituted.  A "Player" is often charming, generous, good-looking, and smart.  But there’s usually a flip side:  self-absorbed, inconsiderate, insensitive, and cowardly, too.  Instead of focusing on, and trying to stick to one (really liked) other, this person can’t commit:  either "fades away" or ends things abruptly, a million excuses as to why things cannot work.

Those who seem to ellicit most sympathy, socially, are widowed or single parents.  The genuine distress their situations frequently cause can’t be denied.  But, some do know how to take advantage of circumstances—get extra help and attention that might not have come their way otherwise…

No matter one’s single status, a recent book, by Pari Livermore might be enouraging to those seriously searching, especially if female.  Called How to Marry a Fabulous Man, its Today Show feature told a little about Ms Livermore and her one-of-a-kind philanthropic dating service and philosophy, as well as her "31 ways to meet, catch, and keep Mr. Right." 

 

Please take a moment to be in touch with a friend who doesn’t have a Valentine, and let that person know how much they mean to you/you care about them.  A simple phone call or e-mail may be just enough!  If you’re happy—and fortunate to have attention from a "special other"—try to be extra sensitive to whose circumstances are different.  Though Valentine’s Day (February 14), gives many a cause to celebrate (and for commercialism), more folks than seems fair feel uncomfortable as it looms. This poem tells a little more:

VALENTINE’S DAY

Loved?
I’m not sure about that

What is love anyway
If you haven’t felt it?

What is love anyway
If another person hasn’t meant it?

What is love anyway
If you’re all alone?

If it’s you who makes the calls
If it’s you who cares about everyone else

What is love?

Please tell me
Because I don’t think I know

Happy Valentine’s Day!

 

 

Add to Valentine’s Day, Ontario’s first annual Family Day, four days later, February 18, 2008.  Apart from proving an inconvenience for some in the business world, this second "relationship-rejoicing" day may add to singles feeling more out-of-place (a significant percentage of the local population).  According to February’s Village Post, its very name is "puritanical," and just begs for satire!

CONFIDENCE

Confidence is driven by others
Not just ourselves

We know, ourselves, what we do, feel, think
What’s right, wrong, uncomfortable, or easy

Others affirm, deny, encourage, avoid
Enable and disable

Contribute to who we are and can be

It’s who surrounds us
And who doesn’t

It’s what they say
And what they don’t

How they respond
Or not

No matter our strengths and weaknesses
Failures and successes
Feedback and allegiance matter
 
Others indicate the worthwhile, and the not so
Include and exclude
 
What we’re left with is up to us.

Even relationships assumed to be "on" might be "off."  Apparently 20 million American couples are in low- or no-sex relationships.  January 28th’s View featured Bob Berkowitz discussing his (and his wife’s [Susan Yager-Berkowiz]) recent headline-attracting book, He’s Just Not Up for It Anymore. Why Men Stop Having Sex, and What You Can Do About It.

This topical text draws attention to a number of interesting questions about where men’s disinterest comes from, including:
1.  Is it physical, emotional, psychological, or simple partner-boredom?
2.  Is it an anger-response about other aspects of a (failing) relationship, or symptomatic of depression?
3.  Is it due to too-easily accessible porn (some men becoming unable to be turned on without it)?
4.  Is it an outcome of "natural causes"?

How sexless men’s partners might feel is also considered.  Are they dejected, relieved, guilty or suspicious (of infidelity, asexuality or homosexuality)?

Whether there’s sex in a relationship or not, many still prefer being seen to be part of a "two" than "unchosen"/solo.  Long-term solos (by chance or choice) have their own "going-sexless" challenges—and (usually) fewer viable alternatives, as well as less public empathy.

Even if a partnership is sexless, it might still be supportive and status-affirming. This was demonstrated to me recently, at lunch with a colleague.  She announced, "Going to be 50 this summer, and I’ve more self-confidence and daring than ever—must come from being married with kids…"  "How do you think those without marriage and kids might feel, the same "big birthday" coming up," I asked. "What keeps them going?"  Quiet and visibly uncomfortable, she couldn’t imagine or relate, and changed the subject.

New relationships used to get off to more comfortable starts because respect, consideration, and life-cycle stages seemed to matter.  Each person involved (or wanting to be) had incentive to keep things going—sought greater interdependence and collaboration (believed in a better quality of life as a "two").  Today, distractions and alternative options are more alluring than working on what’s infront of you—and got good possiblities.  Eyes wander more than ever before—if not in actuality, virtually.  

Cyber—cheating prevents many new connections from growing as they might have, easy "escapism" too available. High potential matches are stumped before they are started.  Serious daters (looking for a monogomous long-term relationship) dance with serial daters (those ever-seeking perfect and better). Once serial daters get what they think they want, it looses appeal and the chase becomes more exicting than the catch. On to the next!  Some endings are abrupt.  Others "fade away," one (cowardly) person knowing what they’re doing, the "worthier other" being left disappointed or surprised.

There used to be a commonly followed "three-date" practice (not to judge too quickly). Today, even second chances are hard to come by.  If someone isn’t perfect—better quality than the person ruling them out, from the very first encounter or because of an "off-moment"—there’s no hope for continuity or tolerance.  Why waste time with someone who might be human—have as many flaws as you do?  A quick fix, rather than hard work (as necessary for most everything else) prompts expectations…and disappointments.

Bravo to "Bravo" for alerting us to Patti Stanger’s Millionaire Matchmaker team!  Thanks for displaying that guys one would think "apppropriate" aren’t necessarily ready—still fantasizing over unrealistic catches, or need "fine-tuning."  A show that is "out-of-the-box" in its showcasing of a service that attempts to coddle those who pay to seek what even money can’t buy. That aside, Patti’s Dating Commandments are worth checking out (millionaire or not).

On my recent trip to Britain, I heard this in vogue expression, "gobsmacked," used over and again.  The "gob," as I remember it is the mouth.  And, a hit to the mouth can be startling.  Listening to a Today Show interview with Matt Lauer, yesterday, I admit I was learning about something I had no idea was happening to such an exent.  Lauer was chatting with Toby Byrum, who’d had a vasectomy at 28, and remained adamant that he’d done the right thing for himself.  He had absolutely no interest in having children of his own (though child-friendly), or an "escape hatch" (with banked sperm). This appears to be a growing trend among young men—at least from what the Today Show team were revealing.  Natalie Morales, afterwards, discussed viewer e-mail responses, showing surprise that many women endorsed Byrum’s decision.

Give to give
Not to receive

Give to give, because you want to
Not because you have to

Give to give
Not for what you hope to get in return

Give to give
Not to manipulate or demonstrate
or make out that you’re nicer than you are

Giving is good
But a few things should be understood…
Expectations lead to disappointments
And disappointments lead to a whole lot else

Give to give
to open doors
Not to close them

Giving for getting is only upsetting
Giving for attention, a bad intention

No one should owe you
And not everyone has to know you

Make dinner
Invite visitors
Buy gifts
Baby-sit

Do whatever it takes
Makes you and/or others happy

But, be aware of the stakes

Give to give, not to receive
or for what it’s hoped others may perceive

Sometimes we give more than we get
Other times we get more than we give

There’s givers and takers
And those who are neither

Offer only what you can
No need to be better than

Regret  leads to upset
Better left unexpressed

Making others feel guilty for what you’ve given
undoes any good done
Is worse than not giving at all

Giving is an art at which some excel
Some don’t

Knowing about giving
And growing through giving
Makes life worth living
For all of us…

There are many perspectives on "giving," and this poem offers but a few.  As with most everything, it’s important to take responsibility and make the extra effort to do the right thing, individually as well as together.  By coincidence, Former President, Bill Clinton, was interviewed on the Today Show, today, about his new book, GIVING:  How Each of Us Can Change the World.

The "best things in life" are said to be "free,"
but sometimes there’s reason to wonder,
especially if single and looking…

 

RELUCTANT = Not wanting to be in a particular situation but not really having a choice, so having to get on with it, however possible…

Singles Who Are "Reluctant" Are Easily Identifiable:

1. They don’t want to be single at all, short or long-term—know singlehood to be a lonely/inadequate state, no matter the positive spin put on it for others’ benefit.
2. They are concerned about being different to all their coupled friends—left out, as well as left behind.
3.  They regret and are preoccupied with missing "developmental stages"—marriage and children.
4.  They recognize that some are more equal than others—a wedding band is still seen as a "ring of success" by most.
5. They are tired of singles’ gimmicks/an exploitative "singles market"—merchandise and media that don’t respect who singles are and can be as people, just profit from and/or make fun of their vulnerabilities.
6. They’re familiar with getting excluded by couples (and family members)—those who used to be single (and singles-friendly) when they were trying to move on from that status, themselves.

"Reluctant Singles" Realize:

1. Complaining doesn’t help—just makes them appear bitter/whiney—seen to be deserving to be single.
2. Non-singles might not care about their single friends’ single status as much as others who are single.  Being in a relationship can often make it harder to empathize—there are other more pressing problems (which is, usually, true).
3. Society doesn’t properly accommodate its singles majority—it’s still a "couples’ world," for the most part.
4. Singles need to make a lot of fuss in order to be heard when their (true) messages and issues aren’t upbeat—funny, inspirational, or entertaining.
5. What’s hard to acknowledge (about singles’ struggles) is more readily ignored.
6. Only "reluctant singles" really know what’s challenging about their circumstances—what needs to change to help those looking, or how singlehood might be made more agreeable.  However, their ideas aren’t always good for business.  ("Singles’ businesses" are, for the most part, profit- not people-oriented, or charities.)

When The Price is Wrong:

For singles not sure about which singles’ businesses to trust—who’s not simply looking to make a quick buck from them—it’s important to be aware of these common occurences:

1.  Event/trip planners who don’t let clients know exactly who might be attending (ratio of men to women, ages, intellects/interests)?  They’ll have a participant along, even if they know the mix isn’t suitable.  An unsuspecting client starts out by trying to enjoy the activity, but that can’t suffice.  The activity was only a mechanism, not the purpose for attendance or outlay.
2.  Matchmakers who offer unsuitable matches repeatedly, or who misrepresent personal profile information (like age, interests, empoyment, appearance, etc.).  Then, clients are told they’re too picky for declining them.  Those who don’t have the inventory and take clients’ money, anyway, "in the hope that…" can have even the smartest fooled.
3.  Websites and singles’ groups where clients have to sign on for a specific number of dates or events, paying a lump sum up front.  Then, after one, two, or three not-as-advertised experiences, it’s clear things aren’t going to change for the better and nothing can be done about the loss.  Plus, the organizers, who were super reassuring in the beginning, aren’t nearly as nice later on…
4.  For dating sites, especially, are there small-print roll over possibilities, that if you don’t cancel, formally, for next month you’ll be paying out indefinitely?  Then, signing off doesn’t mean signing out.  Previous members may still be bombarded with mailings and their canceled profiles for ever visible.
5.  "Special helpers" and "teachers’ pets" seem to be given first dibs on the "hottest" suitors.  When a singles’ group has a volunteer workforce, rules may be meant to be broken. 
6.  Singles’ operators who are "single operators" can build their business around their own search.  This means, they too often, can put their own, rather than their clients’, needs first.
7.  Groups/websites that don’t have a "manners protocol"—that those written to should respond, even to say "no"—don’t always display the customer-friendly behaviors themselves.
8.  Groups that favor numbers over quality may be more concerned with their own profit margin, than pleasing the customer.  Helping someone to meet their "basherte" is a blend of skill, patience, luck and expertise—requires humanity and humility.  Often, the more flash and anonymous the website, the more cause to be suspicious. 

When the Price is Fair:

Recommendations/A few "singles’ connectors" that stand out from the rest:

• For Travel:  Backroads’ agents, generally, will give potential clients an idea of the make up of their solo travelers’ groups—also, they’re not for singles per se, which is why singles probably gravitate to/enjoy them.

• For Matchmaking/Event Organizing:  Elsa, Malinsky, founder and operator of Besherte, puts  heart and soul into her vocation.  Her "success stories" and obvious interest in clients’ wellbeing make this clear.

• For On-Line Dating: RightStuff has a "manners protocol" in place, and Dawne (its founder) encourages reporting non-responders.  There’s also a pay-per-profile-view billing system.

Please help add to this list of "Recommended Singles’ Connectors."  Of course, there may be more that are not recommended.  If you have a tale to tell, others who are "newer to the ‘game’" will appreciate being alerted.  A list can also be made of those to avoid… 

"Reluctant Singles’" Allies (Friends, Acquaintances, and Community/Faith-Based Groups) Might:

1. Risk creating opportunities for singles to share their feelings, unedited—in ways that don’t have to be funny or fantastical (just true).
2. Help change the rules (written and not)—make provisions for greater singles’ inclusion, privately as well as in public.  For instance, "two for the price of one" hasn’t been the best deal in town for a long time.
3. Try to bring about "matches" for singles in their lives, wherever appropriate and practical—put in the extra effort even when they’re not asked to do so.
4. Take initiatives to include and/or match-make—especially if/since they’ve been there too and should still understand.
5. See the whole picture—be aware of social change and how successful relationships aren’t always a given, healthful alternatives/good friends and supporters being all the more necessary.
6. Not do what others do—do what needs to be done.  Be welcoming, helpful, resourceful, and creative, even if few can be seen to be setting that example.

Reminder:  Singles’/Dating Businesses are Businesses—and News-Makers:

Generally, no matter how altruistically "singles’ operators" present themselves or their services, they’re chief goal is, usually, to make money.  As much of it as possible—quickly.  If, along the way, singles hook up, or find happiness in their single status, it’s a bonus/good pr!

Some singles’ businesses are known to be more of a rip off than others—what you pay out can’t  guarantee what you’ll get back.  Sometimes, when you pay more you get less.  Though many think the more the better—the greater their chance of meeting the perfect upscale "Mr. or Miss Right."

A "Singles’ Business," Dinnerworks, was featured in the Toronto Star’s 2007 Build a Business Challenge.  Susan Kates, Dinnerworks’ owner, wrote about her business issue in January: "Dinnerworks is in a very hot and very sexy market, the singles market…It’s a billion dollar industry. Dinnerworks should be exploding like wildfire. But it’s not."

Kates realized, as the Star noted, that Dinnerworks was "more complicated to run than she’d thought—and a lot more labour intensive."  She’d bought Dinnerworks in 2004 from its original owner, when its focus was "four men," "four women," and "dinner." According to a quick Google search, that’s similar to what the Toronto Dinner Club’s website advertises now. (Confusing!) Kates is trying to develop other foci. "Good Taste, Good Times, Good Company" and "Eat, Drink, and Meet Mary" are Dinnerworks’ new bylines, and dinners for six to twelve just one of three types of offerings. She’d also welcome US franchises.

In February, only one month into the "Challenge," Kates was reported as "glowing with a new-found sense of growth."  She’d met with a variety of advisors. Lifecapture Interactive, who helped her with the the redesign of her website, thought she’d be able to build up her database, from 12,000 to 20,000 people, within a few months…

Curious about Dinnerworks, and how it appears to be doing since its makeover?  Check out the revamped website, and go to the In the News Page.  Interestingly, there’s no reference to the Toronto Star’s Build a Business Challenge involvement (or thanks)—just old news clippings and links from 2002 and 2003.

Dinnerworks is just one example of a business poising itself to pounce on a lucrative market of those ever-hoping to be convinced that somebody else can (be paid to) provide them safe passage from "reluctant singlehood."

While the Toronto Star exposed Dinnerworks’ business struggles this winter (07), the National Post, displays other Canadian singles’/introductory services’ successes this summer (07).  Its weekend financial section had a front-page header, "Why Canada is Capital of the Online Dating Business."  This showed how lucky and lucrative the singles’/dating market can prove business-wise, with the right tools, timing, and market sensibility. 

Grant Surridge’s feature article, "Kingdom of the Online Cupids," describes Canadian dating site, Plentyoffish.com, as the third most popular in North America (according to Hitwise, the traffic tracker).  Plentyoffish’s founder/sole operator, Markus Frind, works out of his apartment.  While his site is completely free for users, the text ads appearing alongside profiles bring in US$5-million per annum. Very clever!  With the cost of looking being on someone else’s tab, profile posters don’t feel taken advantage of financially.

Noel Biderman (chief operating officer of AshleyMadison.com), on the other hand, gives justification for charging consumers as much as possible.  He is quoted as saying, "The more you actually make your site cater to people of like mind, the more you can charge.  So, from a business perspective, there’s a lot of value there."  Apparently, AshleyMadison (a service for "wandering partners and spouses") has earned "around $20-million" since its start, five years ago.

Former Lavalife employee, Mitchell Solway also believes that "niche-development" is the way to go, noting that "25% of North American singles are parents, and 40% of online daters are single parents."  However, Solway’s charges do try to be consumer-sensitive.  His new site, SingleParentLoveLife.com’s "low subscription fee" is "to weed out people who just want to look."  Advertisers are targeted to "bring in the lion’s share of revenue."

How many things do you say you’re going to do for yourself, but don’t do?  How many things do you say you’re going to do for other people, but don’t do?  When you disappoint yourself, no one else has to know.  When you disappoint others, the consequences can be wider. 

What was the intention behind offering what you did?
1. To impress?
2. To connect?
3. To meet a challenge?
4. To get someone off your back—temporarily, at least? 

Had you not offered to do something for someone else, what might have been different in their response to you?  Would they have:
1. Thought less of you?
2. Ceased to engage with you?
3. Made you feel powerless?
4. Spoken badly of you to others?

Had you admitted you couldn’t follow through, could things have been worse?  Probably not:
1.  Honesty is still, always, the best policy.
2.  Respect is earned from being up front (acknowledging and explaining limitations), not generating false hopes—"spoofing" your way through.
3.  Showing you have the will but not the way (this one time) doesn’t preclude future opportunities.
4.  Pride that comes before a fall might have helped create it.

Intentions matter—what’s behind our words.  Are they empty, or are they supposed to lead to actions/help change outcomes/really assist others? 

When someone who’s supposed to be helping you behaves "out of character"—doesn’t return phone calls or e-mails, and is (indefinitely) unavailable—you know there’s a problem.  They’ve offered more than they can do.  Under pressure, and in fear of failure, a "sayer" becomes a "player," and trust is gone.

There’s "sayers" and "doers."  "Doers" don’t often say very much.  They’re too busy doing.  Also, you’re less likely to know their names.  "People in the news," or in positions of authority are seen to promise a lot, increasing their own exposure/power.  But, that’s all, sometimes…

Do you have something you’d like to tell someone, but find it difficult to do so?

Sometimes, saying it in verse, and/or with a doodle, can soften things up a little, and enable you to share what you need to.  You might like to give it a try!  But, remember, less can be more…

THE COURAGE TO SPEAK UP

 
Some think it, but don’t say it
Others say it, but don’t think it
 
Some care too much about what others think
Others don’t care at all
 
We can only be who we are
Trying to be who we’re not confuses a lot
 
Life is tough—some put on a brave face
Life is tough—others show they’ve had enough
 
Be yourself, and let yourself be
Risk saying and doing what you need to (within reason)
 
For everything there is a season
A time to reveal, a time to conceal
 
Those unable to respond may lack the courage required
Putting others down for their efforts is not to be admired.

Please note:  These lists are in random order and not comprehensive. They’re simply a start in helping identify what might prompt and perpetuate abuse, as well as enable recovery from it…

How an abused person might feel or react:

1. Unable to tell friends/family/authorities what’s happening, because of feeling too awkward, ashamed, or foolish.

2. Uncertain what might happen next, because trust and predictability are gone.

3. Without words to explain what’s happening because it’s too unbelievable, or hard to describe.

4. Violated, physically or emotionally, or both.

5. "Out of character"—angry, upset, or violent, which isn’t typical.

6. Pushed to the limits and exhausted.

7. Out of ideas and resources.

8. Disorganized—like a tornado’s passed through.

9. Concerned about making too much/not enough of things.

10. Disappointed, sad, and let down—and worried about the future.

How an abuser might act:

1. Display behaviors that change from minute to minute without reason (show public displays of affection one minute and be a raging monster the next).

2. Not be able to be calmed down or stopped when in a tirade.

3. Act, the next day, like nothing’s happened—be oblivious to abusive tendencies.

4. Never be wrong—put it all on the other person as never getting it right.

5. Turn a perfectly enjoyable day into a nightmare for no real reason.

6. Find fault with everything the victim does or says, taking advantage of vulnerabilities.

7. Give gifts and/or be overly nice 24 hours after, just to get back into favor.

8. Be the source of great pleasure as well as pain—becoming indispensable.

9. Suggest that everyone else (any supports the victim might have) are wrong or should be stayed away from.

10. Think that they’re the best—or know better, most of the time (always giving lessons and offering "protection").

Abuse happens when an abused person has:

1. Low self-esteem.

2. A poor support network.

3. Other difficulties.

4. Become cut off or is isolated from friends and/or family.

5. Been abused before.

6. Has a personality that you wouldn’t think could be abused (is strong in other aspects of life).

Abusers are often:

1. Known by the victim already.

2. Relations on whom the victim depends emotionally and/or financially.

3. Individuals who are respected in the community and/or at work (and are in power positions)—appear charming, wise, and kind to others.

4. Used to abuse or familial dysfunction already, and have a history of family problems.

Abuse isn’t only physical, it’s emotional too:

1. Once the victim is beaten down emotionally, who knows what might happen next?

2. There are things that are permissible to say to someone else, and there are things that are not. Know what’s unacceptable is essential.

Abuse doesn’t usually come about, or go away, by itself.  Pro-activity is necessary:

1. Stay away from the abuser.

2. Inform others about what’s going on, and build a support network.

3. Tell "authorities" (the police, social agencies) and take (legal) action where necessary.

4. Get counseling and/or protection.

5. Move on by doing feel-good activities with feel-better others.

6. Take time out to heal and regroup—remember that you’re worth the best, as well as others’ support.

7. Accept that a situation might not be your fault.

8. Be strong and brave even if you don’t think you can.

9. Acknowledge the power of the abuser—nothing else might work very well until then.

10. Be less predictable—count on yourself, by changing some of the things you do and ways you do them (regain independence and creativity).

Rejection is hard.  Not knowing why you’ve been rejected is harder, especially when explanations could be more educational than painful.  They would help make you more aware for next time, or learn that you weren’t a fit anyway—might have had a close escape.  

Those who send back insincere form letters, more often than not, don’t read applications properly (if at all).  Larger companies might not have time for the little guy seeking help.  But, it’s probably that little guy, gutsy enough to approach them, who’s helped their business get where it is—buying their products or engaging their services, year after year. Then, there are the dates who don’t want to see you again, or the clients that don’t call back. 

In most situations, there’s no way of knowing your competition.  But, is your competition better?  Perhaps they just have superior marketing techniques, friends in "high places," or luck and timing?  Unfortunately, there are many better ideas, products, and people out there than the ones that actually end up getting recognized!

People who don’t know rejection are extremely fortunate.  People who are familiar with multiple rejections are more fortunate.  The greater number of rejections you’ve had, the lower your expectations.  Disappointments are a natural part of life and make you try all the harder.  The less rejections you’ve had, the more shocked and personally hurt you are by them.  A first miinor rejection can trigger a major crisis.

Rejections toughen you up.  Nevertheless, there is a point when even the tough have had enough.  Those around us applaud success, but aren’t always aware of the effort (and failures) it might have taken to get there—or be stuck not getting there.  If you’ve had a bumpy ride you’re usually more appreciative of making it.  Success is not just about the end destination, it’s about the journey too.  The process of not giving up makes being accepted (finally) all the sweeter.

People who reject frequently can be oblivious to the impact of a poorly delivered rejection.  They can’t imagine the repercussions sometimes sparked.  The rejected are generally good at putting on a brave face and not revealing their disappointment.  Cudos, however, to those who do speak up—ask for clarification and express their surprise or sadness.  What’s the worst thing that can happen?  You know who, where, and what to avoid in the future, especially if circumstances change and you become the decision-maker.

Energy is precious and time passes quickly.  That’s why it’s important not to brood on what’s been/can’t be.  Even if you don’t win (keep on getting rejected), know that you’ve tried as hard as you can.  Your conscience is clear!  Your rejection isn’t just about you—the other side might have made a mistake.  Over time, you might step back and see the whole picture—have your ideas evolve.  You’re more able to recognize why things happened the way they did, even if the end results aren’t ideal.

No one gets all they want all of the time.  Some don’t get any of what they want any of the time.  If you keep comparison-making  or constantly feel entitled to rewards and recognition, you’re going to have a lot harder time living with rejection. 

• Pursue other avenues—stop going where (and to whom) you’re not welcome.  Identify your comfort zones/people, and test those first.

• Take a break:  stop reaching out till the dust settles.  Appreciate what can be, even if it’s not what you really want, and hope for the best.

• Believe in, like, and improve yourself.  Perhaps, those who rejected you will change their minds.

• Engage in positive activities and relationships, where you don’t have to pass or fail—are acceptable just the way you are.  Capitalize on the possible, not the impossible!

• Join peer groups for those experiencing similar circumstances.  You’ll find you’re not alone!

• Discuss, research, and network, and share what you’re thinking, feeling, or wishing.  Fresh ideas and helpful feedback will pop up along the way.

Babies are the best "Hollywood accessories" today.  Think about it:  Angelina and Brad, Jen and Ben, Britney, Julia, Madonna, and Sharon Stone, even Nancy Odel.  Everyone’s doing it (naturally or by adoption).  Then there’s all the revenue generated from photo ops and interviews.  

Babies, it seems, give the impression of strength and power—public relations possibilities galore.  With a baby in your arms, you have more chance of looking  like a good, loving, caring person than not.  There is, however, a more awkward and distressing side to baby-making, one that caused a squabble between Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields: Post Partum Depression. Also, what about those who have no baby to talk about in any context? A "(non-)baby condition" I call, "No Partum Depression" (NPD), seldom gets enough airing.

NPD, which mightn’t differ from Post-Partum Depression with some of its symptoms, hasn’t made headline news—yet.  But, the number of sufferers is rising at an alarming rate.  NPD is an illness of the MISSed generation—another "Makinism" (describing those who haven’t/won’t make it to coupledom and motherhood).

If you haven’t met an NPD sufferer it might be difficult to understand her condition’s severity, implications, and scope.  With instances of NPD ready to rival those of Post-Partum Depression, it’s important to get the word out.  Left undetected and untreated, NPD can be life-threatening.

Most NPD women never imagined they’d suffer from a condition like this, but their numbers grow daily (as prescriptions for antidepressants might reveal).  They’re a pained, perturbed, unfulfilled, and little-acknowledged group who wear a smile as best they can, just get on with things.  At work, you might think they’re concentrating, and loving what they do.  Don’t believe all you see!   

Anya’s Story

Anya is a successful marketing executive with NPD who works to live. She’s unable to follow her heart’s desire, convinced that nothing will ever compensate for the fact she’s missing the developmental stages of marriage and motherhood.

Many NPD sufferers, like Anya, find it hard to focus on projects they’re thought to be enthusiastic about.  NPD hit Anya early, at 33.  Her obsession with not wanting to remain single and childless means that she spends most evenings, weekends, and lunch hours Internet dating.  For every 10 e-mails she sends out, she gets one or two responses, which can quickly turn into phone calls or actual face-to-face encounters.  For every five face-to-face encounters, there’ll be, perhaps, one person Anya’s ultimately interested in getting to know better.  Invariably, they can have up to a dozen dates before she discovers that her marriage/child prospect is still considering alternative suitors, back on line.  

Nevertheless, whether she believes it or not, Anya’s still in a better position than girlfriends just a few years older than her.  Older sufferers of NPD (36 and above) might have stopped dating completely.  This is because most men seem to prefer not to go out with women of their own age:  those under 35 usually being idealized for dating as well as mating.

NPD sufferers, generally women in their mid 30s to late 40s, obsess about what they could have done differently.  Maybe they just didn’t settle for less.  However, credit is not given where credit is due, and most onlookers want to know:  "What’s wrong with these women?  Why are they still single and childless?"  

Nothing’s wrong with NPD women, except that they might be a little too preoccupied with their childlessness and not wanting to be alone.  That’s why typical assumptions about their inadequacy do little to help them feel comfortable at family gatherings and holidays—the type that are more about children than anything else:  playing with them, showing them off, and buying presents for them.

NPD sufferers who don’t have the strength to fight their condition don’t easily accept what life has to offer, exclusive of marriage and children.  Sadness about not having a baby is not something that disappears as other people’s children mature.  On the contrary.  NPD is long-term.

Spinsters are increasingly prominent in recent movies.  Dame Judi Dench’s stellar performance as Barbara, in Notes on a Scandal, spotlights the loneliness, eccentricities, and desperation of many aging long-term solos.  Barbara is occupied during the day with her teaching job.  However, on evenings, weekends, and holidays, her alienation and contemplations get the better of her.  Unfortunately, a preoccupation with others’ lives, and desire to become part of them, causes her to wish to make herself indispensable, however possible (voyeuristic or otherwise).  This backfires on everyone.

Barabara’s is an extreme case—great movie material. But, sadly, there are many real life "Barbara-seem-alikes." Here’s a look at Trish’s story—a younger, more modern spinsters’s "night-walking" activities:

Even on weekends, it can take Trish till the very end of the day to get out of the house.  She’s an expert at finding unfinished or new tasks that prevent her from taking a break.  In fact, when she’s not pet-sitting Bella, her boss’s dog, she hardly surfaces at all.  But, when Bella stays with her, there’s no choice.  No one else can walk Bella.  

Bella keeps Trish on track, forcing her out of the house somehow, even if only after dark.  And once she’s out, Trish knows that the outing is as good for her as it is for Bella.  As soon as Bella engages herself in the moment, Trish starts to feel calmer and tries to follow her lead:  wander where she wanders, look at what she looks at, focus on their walk.

Why Trish has really come to wait till after dark to walk is hard for her to admit to—her not-so-unconscious need to feel less vulnerable and conspicuous.  The daytime seems to highlight problems that are very real for Trish, though others may find them trivial.  First, she’s tired of walking alone and being seen to be so.  Second, she’s tired of putting makeup on just to go out of the house—lest neighbors have an unfavorable impression of her or she blows a chance encounter with somebody new because her looks don’t measure up.  At night (and in the dark), these problems are minimized.

Some people love being out at night under the stars in the crisp evening air with few others around.  Trish doesn’t have the same motivations.  Favoring privacy over discomfort, she wants to avoid direct eye contact and that feeling of being judged that she thinks daylight so easily prompts.  In the dark of the night, most other people walking seem to be engaged in the same activity as she is —taking care of their dogs’ needs.  They are usually walking alone too.  

A walk at night in summertime, when it’s not cold, windy, or wet, is actually quite enjoyable and ensures a better night’s sleep.  A walk at night in wintertime is something Trish would often prefer to avoid, so she keeps it short.  When she goes out, of course, is more a matter of self-confidence than weather— how well she’s coping with being by herself.  Sometimes, she’d rather succumb to inclement weather and the darkness of night, than the warmer, drier conditions a sunny day offers.  

Also, at night, though Trish may be walking alone, there’s usually more for her to see, particularly as no one on her street seems to believe in window coverings.  She catches up on neighbors’ lives and creates stories about them.  There are those who are TV or computer addicts, and those who seem to have friends over  a couple of times a week.  There are those whose houses are usually in total darkness, who could be hiding in the back somewhere, doing who knows what.  

Once in a while a homeowner comes into full view, in a well-lit front window.  There’s a new family member in his arms.  A pink rosette on the door, an empty Pampers box in the driveway, and a "baby on board" sticker on the car’s back window have already given a hint to inquisitive passers-by with less eventful lives.  Trish might not know any of her neighbors personally, but she does stay informed, somehow or other, even if she’s not really that interested.  

You’d think Tish would have better things to do with her time than observe their homes while walking Bella.  Because Trish doesn’t have the distraction of a human co-walker, she can’t help being drawn to observe others’ domestic activities.  As she returns to her pretty, but empty, bungalow, she doesn’t deny envying her neighbors’ more relationship-oriented lives.  However, she realizes appearances might be deceptive.  Also, given everything Trish assumes about her neighbors, she can’t help wonder what they might suppose about her—if anything.  

Though Trish may walk at night for her own reasons, there’s an unexpected benefit.  Glimpsing at others’ activities and connectedness, between their window frames or in their driveways, is encouraging.  In a funny kind of way, she’s witnessing that relationships can and do evolve.  Regardless, that doesn’t turn off her obsessional/invasive thinking: "Why not me?"

p.s.  February 13, approaching Valentine’s Day (February 14), Cosmopolitan’s Editor in Chief, Kate White, appeared on CBS’s Early show to talk about Couple Envy, and how to deal with it, as featured in her magazine’s latest issue.