12.16.2005


SEMANTICS: PART I
REPACKAGING REALITY

NOTE: Remember, this posting is about men, women and relationships. Please, don’t get side-tracked with the opening material, or your political sensibilities.

At 10:30 a.m. on January 17, 1998, at the downtown Washington D.C. law offices of Robert S. Bennett, then President Bill Clinton gave a sworn deposition that would soon become the talk of the world. But the real firestorm would not come until January 26, 1998, when he appeared before the nation and uttered these now infamous words: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

It’s not necessary to go into detail about the events that followed. However, what I would like to highlight this colourful use of language. This is a fine example of how we can manipulate the definition and meaning of words; and whether or not certain words should be interpreted in a loose and contemporary manner.

How does this pertain to men and women’s misunderstandings of each other?

Well… often in life, we walk around under the impression that we communicate clearly. Most of us think we say exactly what we mean, and that those words are understandable. This is hardly the case. There are countless major communication problems when we are dealing with people as a whole, and in relationships in particular.

When we communicate with others, most of the time we have a goal in mind. We want our words to be perceived a certain way. So, we often tailor our words and come up with new designer rhetoric. Sometimes we're trying to fool the world at-large, but other times we're just fooling ourselves, and confusing our own understanding of life or relationships.

I find that people often attempt to over-inflate or devalue terms and words so that they can redefine them in a manner they find personally satisfying.

IS THIS BAD? Not necessarily.

Sometimes fresh ways of stating things leads to fresh thinking. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s a good thing when we seek to take words and terms out of reality and place them into a dream world. I find more and more that it only confuses us and makes it tougher to make decisions based on good and valuable judgments. It’s amazing how many of us are afraid of the dreaded word: “Judgment.” Ohhhh… you can’t do that. Apparently, there’s nothing worse than judging anything.

For instance, consider the “casual” relationship built upon sex. It’s now sometimes popular to call these arrangements “Fuck Buddies” or “Friends with Benefits.” Why are these terms becoming increasing more popular? Your guess is as good as mine, but it seems to me that it’s an attempt to devalue a relationship by attempting to separate reality from function. I’ve found that many people consider the word “Relationship” to be a title, so by attempting to devalue their relationship with coarse language, they fool themselves into believing there’s no culpability for their actions; somehow they’ve fooled themselves into believing that you can have all the privilege you want, but none of the responsibility. Good luck on that. Anybody fooling around like that will need it.

In reality, a casual relationship IS a relationship. If you interact with someone regularly, you have entered into a relationship. Now, whether or not you have committed yourself to fidelity is another story all together. But make no mistake, a casual relationship IS a relationship; like it or not, and even though we find ourselves afraid of being “Judged” as promiscuous or trashy for fooling with people without commitment (and please, let’s not do the whole “double-standard” thing either. I’m perfectly willing to label a man as a slut or a hoe too.).

Now, I’m sure there are people out there that will claim to have the perfect situation worked out. I always have my doubts. For instance, about two years ago, one of my closest friends tried explaining to me how he had the “perfect” casual relationship. Funny enough, for the first month or two, the situation was as “perfect” as anything like that can be. The situation continued for almost a year. By the end of that time, they were all but boyfriend and girlfriend only without the respective titles. But, their uncommitted situation was driving them crazy with jealousy. The situation finally came to a head in a parking lot after an evening event they both attended, separately. A very obscene situation erupted in full-view of the public. Quite hilarious for me, but a horrible embarrassment for my friend.

It seems to me that the best possible situation in casual terms is where one or both parties has no regard for the feelings of the other, and at the drop of a dime, you or they could throw the other party away like yesterday’s newspaper. I don’t know about anyone else, but I hardly see the perfection is misusing someone. That’s not a game I’m willing to play. I've had my share of silly. For those of you who crave conflict and trouble, good luck to you. As for me, I have plenty of stress in this life and I don’t need to manufacture any additional problem(s) which can easily be avoided.

Bottom line: I find that people are serious about a whole lot of silliness. A warm body is never as good as a loving one. Though, some people crave the excitement of continually seeking greener and newer pastures. I wonder how often that grass is really greener. I’m not saying commit to the next girl or guy you spend some romp-around time with. That might not be a solution. But be careful with the RELATIONSHIPS you create. Life is about relationships with people: financial, familial, romantic, business, mentoring, friendly, adversarial or so on.

These days I’m doing my best to cultivate the ones that bring the greatest value to my life. It’s not easy, and I’ve been a fool along the way, but I’m getting better.

Peace and Love,

nosthegametoo

17 comments:

Prata said...

Tailoring our words. Is that not the work of lawyers? Semantics are an important part of communication though. Remove agenda and all you have are semantics. Now, of course it is people like myself and counsel in court rooms and the government which use semantics as well as people's typical perceptions of climates in any given situation tools to communicate effectively.

And yes, all significant function between one or more parties is considered a relationship. By significant I mean even things such as consumer/producer so on and so forth. To clarify an insignificant function would be passing someone in a hall. That's not a relationship other than of course the deep seated, "we are all related in society." meaning of the word. Most people are not capable of using the definition of relationship on a daily basis consciously. We'll leave that alone.

However, I don't think life is about dealing with people. Dealing with people is about dealing with people. Do people exist in life? Yes. But the large majority of life is not defined by our ability to deal with people. Henry David Thoreau comes to mind. Life is defined by one's ability to deal with self.

Now, how in the world does that relate to people and men w/ or w/o women? Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Here's my view of it. You can not function amongst others if you can not function dutifully or properly with your self. If you are damaged you will damage others. In that I do not mean if someone is abused in life they will necessarily go on to abuse others, it's a conscious choice to "do unto others"; thus, if you cope/fix/deal/insert whatever term you like here -- what consequences come with whatever ill-fated subjection of "badness" you as a person have advertently or inadvertently harbored, you will not pass this on to others and ruin perfectly normal and healthy relationships. It is our inability to cope with self that often leads to teh destruction or damage of our relationships with others.

nosthegametoo said...

@ prata:

Nice to see you've given the post a bit of thought.

Although, I would tell you that even in terms of Henry David Thoreau, his writing was meant to connect him to the world. That was his relationship with people. I doubt he intended for his writing to sit in a box to be unread for all-time.

And you bring up a good point about lawyers. I wonder if people have watched too much Law & Order. Seems like more and more people think they can out-slick everyone with their creative use of language. This seems to be one place where problems arise.

That being said, I completely agree that it's our inability to cope with ourselves that prevents us from dealing effectively with others.

It's my thought that in all too many cases, we don't really understand our actions, and consequently we have no way of fixing things we don't know are broken; we just keep dealing with same undesirable results, again and again, and looking for better ways to deal with the same result. Then we keep asking ourselves "why do I keep on attracting these negative results?"

As always, thank you for the contribution.

Prata said...

Law and Order *chuckles* I actually like that show..but not for the law bits of it. I mean, there's only so much drama you can reasonably fit into a court room without making it seem silly and just well you get my drift. At anyrate, yes it does seem that way sometimes. People desire to obfuscate in order to get ahead sometimes in a relationship I guess.

I'm glad we can agree with that reference to self and dealing with others. And this is exactly what I am saying..exactly. If you can't understand why you do something..how can you ever expect to cope with a person that will be even more random than yourself?

It wasn't my intention to mean that HDT was attempting to cut all existence of humanity from his life, but rather that he made the attempt to understand the self in relation to others. Not to understand others without first the analysis of self.

I'm pretty certain he wasn't lookin' to have his book ignored in a box somewhere either. Excellent post by the by.

Aisha T. said...

Insightful and well written as always, NTGToo. Communication is how it is recieved half the time instead of how it is given. Half the time, I find myself saying, "Well, I didn't mean for you to take it that way because I MEANT this." Tone, timing etc. play roles in communication.

You are right, we are all afraid of judgement. I see nothing wrong with a casual relationship--and it is a relationship. I do see something wrong with devaluing it. In my past, I've had a few--but, knew they would be short lived, enjoyed my time with the person involved and kept a healthy respect level for each other. Obviously, I saw something in the other person to want to spend my time with. I see no reason to pull it down because I had and still do have respect, good memories and find these guys to be wonderful people. Maybe in a different time, different place it would have worked out differently? I wonder sometimes. Ah, but that is in the past and my lover shall never know about my past. *grin*

Rose said...

This is a powerful statement: But be careful with the RELATIONSHIPS you create. Life is about relationships with people: financial, familial, romantic, business, mentoring, friendly, adversarial or so on.

This is so true. I haven't had to seek a date in twenty two years, married that long, yet I find the same things happen in relationships with others. We have to be careful in all these relationships will are building because love is involved in all aspects of it. Have a Merry Christmas....

E said...

This part of your statement particularly rung loud and clear..."In reality, a casual relationship IS a relationship."

This is sooo true. It seems to be a hard thing for folks to realize.

As always, I enjoy your style.

E said...

Totally off-topic..but welcome to Chicago. We definitely have to hang out one of these days.

Prata said...

Perhaps I have a different understanding of the term casual relationship vs. relationship.

Let me set this out there and someone can tell me how I am interpreting this incorrectly. First, I've noticed that instead of acknowledging relationship as its defined term, there's the term "casual relationship" hanging out there.

Now my understanding of casual relationship is a relationship that is the opposite of a long term relationship. A casual relationship is a slang term, other terms for this are "friends with benefits", "fuck buddy", etc. If that's true then why is there such a focus on this and not simply...relationship.

Relationship is defined as the condition or fact of being related; connection or association. In that meaning of the word, all encounters are in some manner or another a relationship.

This is not to take away from relationships between men and women. This just allows us to have a more clearly defined understanding of relationships with women to women and men to men and women to men (and vice versa).

I'm failing; though, to understand this focus on casual relationships. As Aisha states a casual relationship is a relationship, allow me to take that a step further and point out that it is a _type_ of relationship. It has a certain amount of value. That value is noted as a short-term relationship based mainly (not totally, before someone jumps in there with that) on sex.

Why is it exactly then, that people need to be told that a casual relationship _is in fact_ a relationship? At what point was this not self evident (the term contains the word after all)?

Secondly, I don't think you _have_ to create a relationship because all people are already related, whether you participate in the societal construct to a degree in which you must interact with people and _foster_ a relationship (as one is already present however tentative) is a completely different issue really.

I still stand by my thought that life is not about dealing with people, you can choose to do that or not...that's an effort you must take up on your own, but the common denominator in all of these things is "you". That being the case, how you manage your self determines your ability to _foster_ relationships amongst others if you _choose_ to do so.

Tha BossMack TopSoil said...

tight writing once again!

Leesa said...

I have had some casual relationships, and although they were "casual" they were also very much "relationships." I felt jealousy, fear, regret, all types of "girlfriend-boyfriend" feelings. In my mind I think I wanted to minimize the relationship because I entered into them so quickly and without regards to the men involved.

I mean, when you first started out with Pres Clinton, all I could think is that he defined the word "is." I think most people need to define more complex words than "is." And "casual" and "relationship" are two such words.

Leesa said...

Merry Christmas to you! I am taking a break after today for a while. Good discussion, too.

nosthegametoo said...

@ prata:

People often distinguish between “legitimate” and “casual” relations. The focus on “casual” relationships in THIS post is to highlight an increasingly common misconception.

I understand how you might disagree with me about the purpose of life. Although, even Bodhidharma only supposedly spent 9 years in that cave, and eventually took a worthy student so he could pass on his wisdom to another person.

@ aisha t:

You’re one step ahead of me Aisha. I’m not too surprised that you are. You’re absolutely right that half of communication is how it is received. Although, I don’t think it’s one or the other. Often times, we communicate poorly and it is received poorly as well. Language is not precise, and often what we intend to say, and what is said, are two different things.

We’re all subject to our misinterpretations because we often understand things in various ways; we have our own sensibilities. That means that ALL the time, receiving and interpreting the words of others can be a challenge. However, since it’s not necessarily possible to change someone else’s view or understanding of the world, it is important to be aware of our own. Being conscious of how we are interacting with others, and how we are CHOOSING to communicate, is a good starting point. But you’re right, it’s far from the end.

And I completely agree with you that some details about the past need not be expressed. Excessive and irrelevant information about the past is not necessary, if it truly is part of the past. Why in the world would you burden your lover’s mind with all kinds of mess that doesn’t mean a thing? To me, that seems to be a person’s way of consciously/subconsciously expressing that they have not moved on. Seriously, do YOU want to know what used to make his old girl smile? Besides, it’s just rude anyway.

@ rose:

You’re absolutely right. Relationships don’t have to be romantic to involve love, and they all need care. As usual, you bring a wonderful perspective. You have a wonderful Christmas too.

@ E:

You know… there are a whole lot of simple things that take time to understand. Just depends on whether or not someone is willing to take the time to care.

Chicago is a big city E, we just may run into each other. 

@ bossmack:

Appreciate the nod.

@ leesa:

People are quick to forget that words have meaning. My opinion is that it’s a form of selfishness; a form of saying whatever the hell you feel like saying because you’re inconsiderate. That’s another word people don’t wanna face. Always great to see when you’ve stopped by. Hope you’re not gone for too long. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

@ InsanelySane:

Glad to know you enjoy the posts. I’ve found that people don’t take the time to understand what they’re saying. On top of receiving information in all kinds of ways, it’s easy for people to come to a misunderstanding.

Thanks for the love.

Prata said...

@nosthegametoo
Okay..yes...people do that. Erroneously in my personal opinion. They are both just as legitimate as the next, I think.

Yes..that's true...concerning Bhodidharma..and he chose to do that. Otherwise, I'd be simply an Atheist; not that I believe that is a bad thing. It's my understanding that the Atheist is the most loving of people. How quaint. ^_^

I'd note though, that Bhodidharma mastered self before relating to others..and that's really all I was getting at.

Wenchy said...

Wow. I am so glad I found your site.

Deb said...

I used to always refer to 'dating' in a polygomous relationship as, 'seeing someone'. If I was 'seeing' someone, it meant, I was seeing other people as well.

You can manipulate words to mean many, many things. That's the beauty of it, but make sure those words define the same words as the one you're involved with. That's the tricky part. ;)

I absolutely loved this post! So true!

Wenchy said...

Just wanted to wish you a HAPPY, HAPPY Christmas! :)

nosthegametoo said...

@ prata:

I get what you’re saying. And your perspective is always welcome.

@ Wenchy:

Thank you for stopping by. Don’t be a stranger.

@ ~deb:

How we try and categorize people is VERY tricky. Glad you liked the post.

@ EVERYBODY:

Much love to all of you and your entire families!!!