?

Log in

 
 
28 February 2005 @ 10:11 am
 
A transactional analysis might help my understanding.

-the redhead-
Tags:
 
 
 
Bill the bold bosthoonwcg on February 28th, 2005 08:50 pm (UTC)
How so?
-the redhead-theredhead on February 28th, 2005 11:57 pm (UTC)
For understanding, as I don't really get why or how this decision-bomb was made and dropped on me without much explanation or any discussion - I was still thinking thst I had brought up some points, some suggestions, asked for input, and admitted what I didn't understand and we would be speaking about it further since we had the rare face-to-face time.

It was sort of a drive-by dumping, that took I think just about 5 minutes. Of course, I'm *not* at my best at what is effectively 5:30 am, so that may certainly have contributed to my lack of understanding. Seems too reminiscent of other endings like with BritBoy and my ex. I do know that I tend to overexplain things (which can be just as bad as no explanation at all), but I recognize that it is... unrealistic to hold others to one's standards.

One often understands an overall situation or angle and uses that to understand details, and sometimes one needs to build their understanding from the details out to the whole. Perhaps breaking down the elements of the situation in the transactional analysis style will help me understand everything. It may give me a more complete picture, better equip me vis-a-vis upfront inquiries regarding such matters in the future, and I'm simply not good at not understanding things.

-the redhead-
Bill the bold bosthoonwcg on March 1st, 2005 12:18 am (UTC)
Gotcha. I imagine I'd be wanting to understand what the heck went wrong too, in your situation.

Wish I could be more help to you in this, but I have no idea what the guy was thinking. When you say "upfront inquiries" above what are you refering to? Requests for potential relationships? Or what?
-the redhead-theredhead on March 1st, 2005 04:44 pm (UTC)
Finding out upfront exactly what people want from a relationship, what they expect from a relationship, and what resources they have to devote to a relationship. What are their hard boundaries, what are their limitations, what are their experiences, what are there holes, how do they handle scheduling and logistics, yadda...

What people want and expect are often 2 different things, and I think it would be best for *me* if they thought about it upfront and appropriate boundaries (not the right word, but using 'expectations' twice in a row is icky) were set right out of the gate. What people want (in terms of many aspects of a relationship, but also just what kind/level of a relationship/commitment) and the resources they have to give are often quite different. The trick is to make sure there aren't big disparities, either with them internally or on either side of the would be relationship. Both of these things would be to reduce disappointment and misunderstanding for *all* parties involved - not just me, as in return I would certainly say 'this is what I have'.

Such communication would also allow me to see right up front if this is something that will work for me and be something beneficial.

I dunno, maybe I should just come up with a 'what do you want, what do you have?' questionnaire?

-the redhead-
Bill the bold bosthoonwcg on March 1st, 2005 05:28 pm (UTC)
Yeah, such a questionaire might help. It's not the kind of thing I'd introduce during the initial stages of flirtation, but definitely when things got to the point of "OK, there's definitely something here between us and I'd like to act on it."

All of my LD relationships have had the benefit of lots and lots and lots of e-mail communication before they ever got taken to the level of physical intimacy. That hasn't totally eliminated problems, but it has provided a pretty strong basis from which to deal with the problems that arose.
-the redhead-theredhead on March 1st, 2005 04:46 pm (UTC)
This was going back to your points about making sure definitions coincide and reciprocity.

-the redhead-
Bill the bold bosthoonwcg on March 1st, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC)
OK. I thought it might be, but it's nice to have that clarified.