The 'We' syndrome

So I had my first experience of the 'We' syndrome last night. But where to begin? Well, let me establish a few things:

1 - I have always maintained that no boyfriend of mine will ever change me, and I shall not attempt to change them.
2 - I have always maintained that the art of a good relationship lies in being able to do different things seperately as well as together (couples).
3 - I am a magnificent manipulator (either through others not wanting to fight, not caring, or being manipulated)
4 - I have always maintained that should I have prior plans, no partner would ever supercede those plans.
5 - A 'scoring' system in a relationship is as far as I'm concerned the first warning bell.

So those are what I have clung too, and I think blogs past will testify to this. Those blogs past however were written as a single person, not someone who'd experienced a relationship. So now I am in a relationship, and as you guessed, have had to revisit some of those 5 tennets above.

I'm going to deal with option 2, 3, 4, and 5 first. Apollo told me yesterday that a good friend, in fact his closest friends were having a dinner party that evening. I had already made plans with another friend of mine (my flatmate) for dinner. Furthermore I didn't feel like going out, but rather wanted to stay indoors to work on a new project that had arrisen that day before.

So I enacted option 2: You go to dinner, I'll stay at home. In my opinion this seemed fine. But the 'we' card was played: I'm not going to dinner if you're not going to dinner because I want to be with you. This takes us into the realms of option 3 and 4, and possibly 5. My immidiate defense was that I didn't want to go because it (the prospect of dinner and meeting new people) was a bore. I meet new people all the time, and really just wanted a quiet evening.

Now as a master manipulator I became aware of Apollo's tactics quite early on. I'm not going to go into them, but needless to say I couldn't get out of going to dinner. I even predicted the manipulation to Apollo. You can't fox a fox as they say. What this then did was put me in violation of all my sacred laws.

2 was broken. 'We' is more important than 'I'.
3 although not broken had been played in the open (which violates the rules of manipulation).
4 withered. These friends at the dinner party were from Cape Town and would only be here for the night. How could I refuse with the 'We' and denying Apollo a visit with his good friends? (I shall revisit this later).
5 Although both of us deny that a scoring system is in place, it is so easy to fall into it. 'I' went to 'your' dinner so now 'you' will come to 'my' opera... This is dangerous. If just one point is dropped on either side, resentment can build.

So this takes me back to item 1.

Changing another person. I warned yesterday that if I did go to the dinner. If I allowed points 2,3,4, and 5 to slip it would set a precident. One which said: These rules can be broken with no consequence. I was wrong. The consequence is that I'm now blogging about these 'rules' that have been broken. What does it mean?

I like my rules, because they give me flexibility, and they also give me grounds for behaviour. I don't have a religious book to work from, and science doesn't touch the 'squishy human shit' emotional stuff. So I have no guides except for what I feel is right. But if what I feel is right, seems to fly in the face of everyone else (I've observed most couples don't observe my rules, except occationally or begrudgingly), should I attempt to change?

But change what? If my fundamental building blocks are wrong, should I now seek to change them? And if I do, do I replace them with something else? Some kind of co-dependence? Have I just discovered one of the deeper results of my parents divorce? A fundamental detachment of self from the 'we' syndrome? Am I avoiding becoming a 'we' because I'm afraid of what will happen if the 'we' collapses?

I cannot believe that.

If intrisically I feel that it's right for me to shag or be shagged by men which is as far as I'm concerned the most 'me' centered I get (ie. untainted by society norms/religions requirements/sexual stereotypes), then surely that feeling - that 'knowing' must serve as a base from which to judge my other feelings and convictions? After all, it's all I've got to go on, and all that I fundamentally know to be true (for a given value of true). So where does that leave me?

Believing that my 5 tenants are right. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. I might as well roll over and say that 'gay' was a phase of rebellion, and now I'll conform again with what the rest of the planet wants. Now if I believe my 5 tenants I have to rely on them being right. But what if they're wrong? And this I feel is the existential question: I think there for I am, but what if I what I think is wrong?

How can you challenge what you hold to be right? Careful exploration of those ideals perhaps. But I can't compare them with others because that's like asking me to compare my version of vermillion with someone elses (that's a shade of colour by the way). A million people can say to me - you must embrace the 'we'. If I don't understand it's point or how to do that because I don't feel it's real then how can I embrace it? But then I have pause for thought (which admittedly doesn't happen all the time) if I don't have a 'we' mentality, what do I have? An 'I' mentality? Is there no other middle-ground? An 'us' perhaps? I don't believe in an 'us' either. It's too restrictive. 'I' can't move forward because I'm waiting for 'us' to all be ready. God shackle me to a post an beat me, how frustrating.

But I think the real spike that got this whole thing spinning through my head was my flatmates comment: One of the things that grates him is how I change plans so quickly (and don't tell others [that was the subtext I took from the statement] and how that really frustrates planners [ie. the flatmate]). But I've always considered myself to be a planner. I like plans. But then again, I like plans that suite me. A plan that doesn't work for my own amusement or that is't a requirement for the planet to continue spinning (like work) don't hold much importantce. That is whole can of worms on it's own.

So how to solve my dilemma? Am I and 'I' person because I don't want to be a 'we' person in case the 'we' becomes an 'I' and I get hurt? Or am 'I' an 'I' person because that's how I'm wired (like my great aunt who is an 'I' person). And if I'm an 'I' person does that mean that my quest for a partner is now that much more difficult? Do I now have to say to the present Apollo that his 'we' and my 'I' don't see eye to eye? Or do I look for a complex synthesis of the two ideals? Except one in my opinion isn't an ideal but a prison?

This is all so complex. I then look at the words that I use in this blog, and since I don't edit what I write (as evidenced by the spelling/grammer/sentences) I see words like prison, and intrinstic, and cannot, and rules... These are very negative words. And here we all thought that I was nearing the end of my blogging as I was content. Ha!

I can almost feel myself dissociating with the conflicting emotions so that I can conduct this 'study' of human social interactions, but I know I must fight that. I must experience these feelings, hold on to them. Even that though, has a certain... detatchment for me. As an actor might 'get into character'. I often wonder if perhaps I am an an individualist embodied? Or do all artists suffer this? This desire to be creative because one can control that (an illusion if you've ever tried controlling how you draw) unlike a relationship which is bi-directional and not so controlable. Is this the torture that an artist goes through? Wanting a partner, but not wanting a partner's requirements (which are valid by the way)?

How do you handle your relationships? What are the rules? If any? Where does your guidance of self resign itself to the collective. Why do you want a partner and not just close friends? Are you a 'we' or an 'I'? And do you believe it?