Sunday 28 December 2008

The Failures of the Filtering System: How to Find Ms Crushed?

Myself and Haydee ended up discussing families and children the other night. Which got us back to my views on childrearing within an environment of communal living.

I quote, with her permission;

Crushed: I don't think amateurs should bring up children
Crushed: I think society should have people whos job is to do just thaty
Haydee: who's talking about amateurs>? every new parent is an amateur
Crushed: Exactly
Haydee: I'm talking about you finding ways to yet again shirk your responisiblity
Crushed: Children should be brought up by trauined nurses, not parents

This went on that vein for a while. Haydee believes, you see, that this idea of mine is motivated entirely be a selfish desire to father children and not bring them up myself. Which in a sense, it is. But it's actually that I don't think ANYONE should bring up children. I think it should be a function of society as a whole.

Crushed: But we could structure a society which took a lot oft these burdens away from the individuakl
Haydee: so that you're not lumbered with your children when you want to go out you mean?
Crushed: I'm saying bringing up children should be a community function
Crushed: with appointed carers
Haydee: don't be so bloody ridiculous
Haydee: parents look after children with the aide of their family/friends if and when needed
Haydee: we do not burden the whole of society with the results of frequent copulation
Crushed: But we could make the change
Haydee: I don't see what the point in that would be
Haydee: it couldnt lead anywhere good

Now let's just say we disagree on this, which is interesting because she does not have children, or even want children. And we went on in this vein for a while. Because she thinks my views are entirely based on selfishness. Whereas I believe that dispensing with the nuclear family is a positive societal change. It means that monogamy can be dispensed with and children grow up without family sentiment, simply individuals in a community. And never anything other than that.

Anyway, as you can see, the conversation moved to something else entirely...

Crushed: Well, its about creating a society where we can dispense with commitment
Crushed: thats part of the idea
Haydee: it's pish
Crushed: That and have all children brought up collectively
Crushed: With bonds to the community as a whole, not family
Crushed: Raised without familial instincts
Crushed: Raised to be individuals whose only bond is to society
Haydee: you say all that
Haydee: with your fancy words and nice phrasing
Haydee: and all I hear is 'shirking responsiblity'
Crushed: Freeing the individual
Haydee: shirking
Crushed: You seem to hjave problems accepting the idea that the social contract could be altered
Haydee: you seem to have problems accepting that in life we responsiblities
Crushed: I accept that as things stand we have them
Crushed: I also think it would be better if we changed it
Haydee: that's because you are unable and unwilling to accept that you have to face up to them
Crushed: no
Haydee: yes
Haydee: very much so in fact
Haydee: your entire life is structured so that you don't have to
Crushed: How do you work that one out?
Haydee: well for a start
Haydee: your friends veto all of your prospective girlfriens
Haydee: you prize a blog over your actual life
Haydee: you threatened to walk out of your job if your boss didn't let you blog
Haydee: you seem to think that it's the women's fault everytime something goes wrong in a relationship
Haydee: you create a mess and expect your friends to mop up the pieces
Haydee: you are incapable of ending a relationship in a mature and dignified manner
Haydee: you create all of these little rules and games and expect everyone around you to comply
Haydee: and when they don't and people get upset, it's their fault entirely
Haydee: none of it yours - of course
Crushed: Well hardly, no
Crushed: They know the rules
Haydee: that is absolute pish Joe
Haydee: and you fucking well know it
Haydee: it's no bloody wonder your still single
Crushed: I only make rules to protect myself
Haydee: ...
Haydee: that's not really going to fly with me anymore
Crushed: Well, I guess things kind of work like this
Crushed: Kind of
Haydee: I know how things work Joe
Haydee: you've told me a million times
Crushed: Or at least I don't really see how else to do it
Haydee: but at the end of the day, you are stil going to have to grow up and start taking responsiblity for your actions
Haydee: and there is no way you are going to get out of it
Crushed: As far as women goes, it's just finding one I know I can trust
Crushed: But how can I know that until I've been able to check that?
Crushed: There has to be SOME procedure
Crushed: Without having covered myself?
Crushed: Without knowing I'm secure?
Crushed: Why should I take that risk?
Crushed: One can't just trust someone over night
Crushed: One can't know they will always act in your best interests
Crushed: The danger is considerably less
Crushed: What if you really let someone in and they really destroy you?
Crushed: You can't prevent the bus
Crushed: Nothing you can do to guard against that
Crushed: But guarding against your deepest darkest fears is normal

Now, as to Haydee's critique of my belief that we need to dispense with the family and have all children brought up communally by nurses, that isn't really the point of the post. The point is the filtering system I have in place which is ultimately designed to select partners. Haydee critiques it here and her main critiques are; that ultimately I allow full rights of veto to a small group of people who ultimately act as a committee to grant approval. And each of those has veto powers. The other critique she has, is that when I fail someone- and anyone who finds themself in such a situation, will probably be failed, it stands to reason, I handle it badly.

I suppose the reality is, many women in time have found themselves in what they would describe as a relationship with me. Whereas it is, of course, a test situation. In many senses, it is a relationship, but the point is that there a series of tests each one HAS to pass and I'm monitoring the situation. They won't be told what the tests are, that's the point. Because I don't want faked results. I may well give them hints as to what the winning candidate would do in a given situation, but I'm not going to go out of my way to assist. Because the point is, the person I'm looking for doesn't need to be TOLD. They instinctively know.

Most of these tests aren't contrived as such. They are situations which can be expected to come along. I might well USE the situation to establish test conditions, but ultimately, yes, I don't consider any relationship to actually be finalised until I have a nice orderly row of ticks in specified boxes. And if each box isn't ticked, that's it.

And Haydee's criticism is how important the system is. And how suddenly I will reject a failure. Because the test really is everything. It's not an emotional decision, it's test conditions applied purely logically. I need to know that the person concerned will be a valuable asset to my life, therefore I need to know that they will behave the way I want them to in given situations. If they don't, then that's it. They're not wanted.

And that might seem quite brutal. But I don't really see how else you can do it. There has to be a trial procedure of some kind to see if this is a person you want as a permanent feature of your life. It's not something you can train people for. They either have, or do not have, the required characteristics.

Haydee's view is that I essentially I'm not being up front. Because I don't make it clear exactly what the situation is. That yes, I make a whole load of promises and don't make it clear that there are a huge series of tests to be gone through and failing just one will result in the whole lot being snatched away, at which point I never want to hear from the other party again. But I maintain, it has to be done that way. One only knows how someone will behave in a relationship situation, if you make it clear that that is what is on offer. But you cannot observe how they'd behave naturally in such a situation, if you tell them what the tests are they have to pass.

Besides, it gives you a good opportunity to observe the human psyche. So yes, it's an experiment.
These things always are.

So yes, of course, every time I end up in what you might call a romantic relationship, my expectation is; they'll fail. But until they fail, there's no harm in letting them believe the prize is there for the taking. They're not going to approach the tests properly if they don't believe that. Because the prize IS there for the taking. If they pass the tests.

And I know that I'll know the answer quite soon.
Thing is of course, you need to have your exit route planned. This has been, as Haydee points out, the weak part. Because often they don't understand WHY they've failed. To them, it often seems petty. They think it's about emotions and your feelings and they think there's someone else. It isn't. It's that they failed key tests.

I guess it might interest you to know what these tests are. Any exes of mine reading might be interested to know why they were found wanting.
Again, to re-iterate. I don't decide when these tests come along. I know they will, given time. And until each one has been completed, full and total termination of contact without explanation, is to be expected.

Test One: The weekend away test

This one is fairly simple. It will happen at some point that I will either go away for the weekend to a party, or have friends over FOR a party. To which the prospective partner will not be invited. Now I will promise to ring them when I get there on Friday Evening, or if it's at mine, at some point early on before we go out. I will then promise to call them the following morning. However, I won't call them the following morning. This is deliberate. I want them to think the worst. And yet wait. Wait for me to call, which I will that evening. I want it to be an established fact that on no circumstances are they ever to call me when I'm with friends, that I call when it is convenient for me. I want it to be clearly understood that I'm entitled to socialise without their involvement and if they know I'm socialising, to stay clear.

Test Two: The female friend test

This actually involves emphasising an existing situation. I have friends of both sexes. I also want it made clear that they are MY friends. What I do not want, under any circumstances, is any interference from a prospective partner on that score. She should have her own friends. Now the existence of female friends on my part, provides two temptations for a prospective partner. One is to be jealous of the friendship and keep trying to re-assure herself there's nothing going on. The other is to try involve herself in it, make MY female friend someone SHE can talk to about OUR relationship.
And I will not permit either. It's out of bounds to her, period. And watching her reactions to my friendships with other women, are a crucial test. And I will set situations up, like cancel things Prospective partner and myself have planned, to do something with my female friend. The point is to make it clear that ALL my friends are important to me. But yes, I do want to see if she gets jealous. I want to make sure she'll STILL stay away from the other woman. I do not want the other woman to in any way feel that Prospective partner in any way affects my friendship with her. Or that Prospective partner has become a feature of HER life, that her continuing in friendship with me means she now has Prospective partner in her life, whether she wants her or not. Ideally, Prospective partner should never be something my existing female friends have to even consider. And if this can't be the case, then Prospective partner fails. My friends- of both sexes- should be out of bounds to her. And I need to have clear demonstrable proof that this will always be so.

Test Three: The Restricted Areas Test

I need to be certain that Prospective partner understands that certain areas are restricted areas. There are certain things she will have to accept that she does not have access to. That her existence in my life should not affect certain other areas. I need her to appreciate that to a certain degree, even having a relationship with me at all, is somewhat confidential. I don't NEED to apply a test scenario to this. I simply watch and observe. Does Prospective partner attempt to cross into areas of my life where they do not have access?
In other words, can I be sure that this relationship is not going to negatively impact on other areas of my life?
My employers should be unaware of it, my family should be unaware of it, now I have this blog, readers of this blog too should be unaware of it. If I cannot ensure that is the case, there is a problem. It should be a matter known only to those who need to know, because they are involved in my private life. In other words, Prospective partner needs to be happy to remain a closely guarded secret, a feature of my private life whose existence is not publically admitted to and which I will always deny if asked. They need to ensure that they never put me in a situation where I have to deny their existence.
This doesn't mean I'd be ashamed to be seen out and about with them, just that I would not want the nature of the relationship to be common knowledge. I prefer these things to kept private, secret in fact.

Test Four: The Diplomacy Test

This is one that either comes up, or it doesn't. Often it does with regard to Test Two. Often Test Two is failed because it BECOMES Test Four. But it can equally come up with regard to a male friend. And it involves disputes.
The reason why it comes up, is that it happens that one quite often has two friends who fall out over something. Being adults however, they tend to appreciate that you're not going to take sides. They leave you out of their arguments. However, it can be a tendency of some Prospective partners to expect you to take sides in their arguments. Now as regards THEIR friends, that's fine. But not as regards yours. as far as I'm concerned, if I don't like one of HER friends, that's my business, not hers and my duty is to back away. Not let MY dislike of HER friend impact on THEIR friendship. So I'm interested to see how Prospective partner behaves regarding my friends. Firstly, I want to see that she'll go out of her way not to argue with them. And then, if she does find herself in such a situation, she'll back off. Rather than stand on her dignity, she won't behave in a manner that might jeopardise my friendship with that person. She will treat every friendship of mine as sacrosanct, no matter what.

And the immediate failing point, is if she expects me to take her side. Because I want to make sure she understands that that is an unreasonable expectation. Expecting me to take sides. Expecting me to take sides in a dispute between people of importance to me, is unfair. And yet so many Prospective partners seem to think you should. No, that expectation is a fail point in my book.

Test Five: Ability to observe privacy

Key. And I will actually engineer tests on this front. It's very simple. The vast majority of things in my life, I expect to be able to keep private. Away from Prospective partner. I need to be sure she can be trusted on that front. To accept that my business is my business, not hers. That what I don't tell her, she doesn't need to know. What I will often do is engineer situations where I have nothing to hide, but I don't give her a straight answer. But I make it easy for her to ascertain what is being hidden. And there was nothing to hide. I just want to see if she can resist the urge to try find out. A good one is to plant tickets. Buy tickets to an event- two- and then leave them in your jacket. Don't mention the event to her. Then on the day in question, see if it sounds like she's expecting to be doing something that night. And then announce you won't be about that night. In fact, you sell the tickets to someone else, and go out with your mates. But you've ascertained, she'll go through your pockets. And she of course thinks you've taken another woman. And she deserves to think that. She deserves to stew in her own juices about it. She shouldn't look inside your jacket pocket to see what's in there.

In fact, it's crucial that you give any Prospective partner ample opportunity to think you're seeing other women. Crucial. Because you want to know if she can resist the urge to pry. Because you want to know; is this a woman who one day I could actually allow to live in my home. And still know that my secrets were safe from her.

Test Six: The People they need to relate to, and how they need to relate to them

I have already stated that certain areas of my life will always be out of bounds. However, long term any prospective partner will need some degree of involvement in my life. And it needs to be ascertained that they will fit in, like the missing piece of the jigsaw. Whilst things can be re-ordered to some degree to accomodate them, especially if there are areas they can add to, ultimately they are joining a pre-existing set up and their relationship to that set up needs to be approved and worked out.

As regards the Chimney Sweep, it's simple. A lot of our friendship is based on me taking the piss out of him. But Prospective partner wouldn't have that right. And actually, CS can be quite sensitive. It's very easy for someone to put his back up. I'm kind of looking for someone who, as regards CS, can play 'Good cop' to my 'Bad cop'. Tell him he's right even when he's blatantly wrong. Because I tell him he's talking crap whatever he says.

As regards the Baker, it's a little more complex. But ultimately, he's going to want to be sure you'll always defer to him, in matters regarding myself. It's just something Prospective partner is going to have to put up with. What will annoy him, is Prospective partner thinking they know me better than he does. Or if he thinks Prospective partner is in any way behaving in a matter divisive to our friendship. He'll need to be assured that if he says one thing, and they say another, I'll go with what he says. Which of course I will. So what we all need to know, is whether you can live with that. But not only that. The fact that he's the one I invite in to all my decision making processes. The key ones. And always will be. Prospective partner needs to understand that, that the most important discussions I have will be when they are out of the room.

Ultimately my friends are going to want to know that you don't presume to come into an already existing group and attempt to take control over me, that you know your bounds. Prospective partner needs to know that in a sense, certain people rank closer to me than they ever can, at least for the present.

They're going to need to be assured that you understand the set up, that ultimately your access to me is with their approval, and can be terminated at their wishes. The people having this power are the two mentioned above, two other real life women, and one online woman- because I have added Haydee to this committee. Furthermore, there are times when they will have access to me that is denied to you. And will be let into confidences that I won't share with you.

Not until you have passed all the tests and proved over a lengthy period of time that you always act in my best interests. That my happiness really IS your prime concern.

And as I say to Haydee, I think it's fair I DO have such a testing procedure.
No one has passed it yet, except Haydee. Ironically, she had no interest in passing, but pass she has, or at least I don't need to run the tests, but I KNOW she would pass.

There are glitches, of course. I think the mechanism is faulty in dealing with those who fail. I haven't yet worked out a way to perfect that. And it has been the bane of my existence. Because not all those who fail can be resonsible about it. Haydee says this is my failing. But how do you say 'You failed the test procedure. You're not suitable for the position you're applying for'?

Maybe it's an unreasonable set of tests. I don't think so.

But since I really would like a success, I'm tired of all these failures, and the fall out from some of the nastier ones when they fail has been awful, awful.

Has anyone any idea where my test procedure goes wrong, any alterations that can be made and how do you get the ones who fail to just go quietly? And accept that it's over because they failed key tests? And no other reason than that.

Because I realise the position on offer is a thankless task, a woman who will always exist in the shadows of my life, never publically acknowledged. Someone who I want for silent support, someone happy to spend their evenings alone in front of the TV for the most part, or out with her friends. Who will never get to spend much time with me, because mostly, I'll be too busy. Who is prepared to accept that I will spend more time blogging than in conversation with her. That I will have a busy social life that she will not be part of. That if I achieve everything I dream of, she will remain hidden, a guilty secret I do not admit to. But ultimately, I want a woman who understands why that is so, and will work FOR that, rather than against it. A woman I can discuss blogposts with in bed.

Because yes, the woman I'm looking for is Ms Crushed. Not Ms Myrealname. Ms Crushed. And ultimately, I'd want her to be a full partner in everything in my life, a woman I could trust in everything, yes to be at one with me in body, mind and soul.

And know that ultimately, what we're BOTH fighting for, is what this blog stands for. That that is what unites us. That what she loves is the cause we're fighting for. And that she'd make the same sacrifices for that that I would.

And I want to know she's 100% committed to that first.

So- how do I go about this?

Ideas, people.


Anonymous said...

Although I agree in principle with your "tests," I think you're asking women to be more perfect than you yourself are likely to be. No one is likely to be that good in all ways. And I do mean "no one."

As for the idea that "society" should raise children, I'd have to disagree with you 100 percent. the only thing worse than being raised by parents, who are generally imperfect, is being raised by the monstrous force of a society.

Good food for thought here. I admire your honesty about things, even if I disagree.

Anonymous said...

Good grief. I was put through and failed enough tests in my childhood to last me a lifetime, thank you very much. The last thing I'd go looking for is a romantic relationship where I'm always on the spot. What, are you some sort of trophy?

As for bring "one: body, soul, mind, blog" with someone... no freaking way. I like being my own person. I even like that my poor misguided husband voted republican and I didn't (poor, dumb dear). What would we have to talk about? I need my own space and activities and opinions. Support from a partner is critical, but becoming a intertwined unit? Blech.

I think many women would agree with me. Maybe Ms Crushed would only agree with you.

I think I like your friend Haydee.

Anonymous said...

I am with Vicariousrising... however I believe android technology may advance to the point where you could programme your perfect mate adequately. You have that to look forward to..

Happy New year Matey!!

Anonymous said...

man alive!
you over-think things.
just reading those rules is exhausting - i can't begin to imagine the nightmare of having to live by them.
thankgoodness for The Haydee - you should listen to her. she seems to know stuff!

Anonymous said...

I think Haydee sounds like a very sensible woman.

Like Mutley I agree with VR and an android does sound perfect to fit this bill. Don't inflict these expectations on some poor woman.

Happy New Year Crushed. You must be on vacation with all these long posts appearing.