12-12-86
(1am) Quiet nite of tv and solitaire. (The cards have been good again tonite.)
(2pm) Nice workout.
I have thought about going out and knocking on doors looking for work, but I can't figure out where I would go. (Given what I have to make to survive and pay off my marriage, no car, no wardrobe, and my other limitations, there just aren't many jobs. (Mostly it's government jobs, and they advertise.))
Erica and I are still arguing about my unwillingness to go to the bars broke. (She says she just drinks water a lot of times. (I am not highly skilled socially like she is, and a beautiful woman can get away with things I can't!)) (I think the thing that bothers me most about the idea is that I would at least like to be able to tip and play pool, as bartenders and pool players are about the only people I met with any regularity in the past. (Maybe that is just an excuse?))
We are also still debating whether there should be a contract between two
people involved in a long-term relationship. (A theory developed in the 60's or so, that
by living together before marriage, two people could reduce the odds of divorce. The first
fallacy of that is statistics show that living together first has no effect on the divorce
rate. The second fallacy is that they will escape the pain of divorce if they just live
together. (From what I have read and experienced, it's obvious that it doesn't matter, and
there is the same emotional stuff to work through at the end of any long-term
relationship, regardless of whether there is a need for a legal divorce proceeding.) I see
no way around the second fallacy; but I do think there may be hope for overcoming the
first. (In "Open marriage" George and Nena O'Neill put forth the argument that
the reason there is no difference in the divorce rates is that most people, when they
marry, buy into the traditional marriage contract and throw away the one they had designed
to meet their individual needs while living together. (I think it's important for a couple
to come up with a contract that fits who they are, and to keep it open to change as time
changes them as individuals. Not having one leads to a lot of potential for
misunderstandings and pain, and tends to lead them, if they do legally marry, to be more
likely to try to fit themselves into the standard marriage contract. (I still think not
including a clause in the contract requiring "sexual monogamy" might lead to a
lower divorce rate and greater harmony; but maybe we are so conditioned in this society to
expect it, that it's a hopeless idea.)-(Regardless of what people contract to
intellectually, the concept of "sexual monogamy" is deeply ingrained in us, at
the emotional level; and regardless of what two people intellectualize, the conditioned
emotions may overrule!))))
(4pm) Erica dropped by for a visit. (Company is neat.)
I suppose the biggest problem with how I am perceived by others has to do with how I perceive myself. (As long as I view myself as undesirable, most women are going to concur.)
I wonder how much of our attitudes are formed by our language? (And, could changing language have dynamic impacts upon our attitudes?)
12-13-86
(Midnite) Samantha called and bs'd a bit.
(11am) Laundry time again. (The car is dead again, so I am playing pack mule again.)