and one day I had this brilliant insight: it wasn't that I wanted to be WITH him; I wanted to BE him.
I think this is brilliant and does explain alot of fused behaviour. If you want to BE someone then you want to merge with them. You want them to mind-read, you want them to feel your emotions you get upset at anything that indicates their differentiation from you, because that ruins the fantasy that you are them and just as cool/smart/physically fit etc as they are.
What I am wondering is how it happens the other way? Why would someone who gets involved with someone who wants to be them stick with the relationship, because a lot do, is it simply a strong need for other validation?
Mojo: I absolutely agree with Lil that are on the right track by thinking of NG as your 'lover' not your 'boyfriend'.
Last night I took my wedding ring off. I've done it before and it was for the same reason. I do not want H and I to take each other for granted, I want us both to be always reminded that the R takes work not a piece of paper and a couple of gold rings to keep functioning well.
I went out to a BBC Proms concert at the Royal Albert Hall last night with colleagues. The music was amazing and we had a great time. It was while I was listening to the music and thinking about the fact that H does not like music that I realised that there is no way that I am spending the rest of my life doing things which keep me shackled to someone who is so different from me. I am not saying I want us to split, all I am saying is that I completely get the Schnarchian bar scene. I am open to whatever will come my way in life and thinking is H going to be OK with this is really not going to concern me anymore.
Fran
if we can be sufficient to ourselves, we need fear no entangling webs Erica Jong
