The Giggalo always complained I wasn't a 'we' person, like it was a bad thing.
I liked being part of 'us' a couple made of two separate people working together as a team. We doesn't figure in us.
We means as if with one voice, as if one person.
That's how controlling peeps are, there is only 'we' when they mean 'me'. You are not a 'me' person means you agree with me, we have one voice, and my view is yours. Adding we feels stronger as if there is an extra strength, two or more against me on my own.
It isn't that way, 'we' is weak it bites no controversy, it permits no discretion. No discussion on any matter, it means I speak for another, I assume their view point is the same as mine. This is because they have no right to a view, an independent because I am right automatically, all the time. The one on the other side of 'we' is weak, they use passitivity, to gain control they may become the passive master the type that Al Turtle speaks of.
Know that 'we' is weak, a folie a deux, validating that which should not be validated.
Pity someone who is part of 'we', their voice may be removed and their thoughts held captive by another.
To be part of 'we' can be comforting, to feel enclosed by another, to belong, to be subsumed. It is dangerous to assume that 'we' is romantic to have a notion it is the pathway to heaven. It is the pathway to hell.
So I ask what is it about 'we' that bothers you?
Could it be the sense of 'we' believe or think has greater power than I? Or is it that 'we' is a sense of someone in control and you are unsure who it is, that the ex has no voice but that of another? Or is it the loss of 'we', that faux romantic notion of 2 into 1?
Heed it no mind Ginger, 'we' speak is usually piffle.
V
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. V 64, WAW
