This energetic exchange opens up exactly why I always cringe a little at questions like "why don't men want real intimacy?" Because of course there are so many men that want it, it's not the real question.
The actual question is a yelling to skies of "why don't men want the real me?"
And the real question under that is the soul-deep and excruciating "why don't *I* want the real me?"
So I always tried to be the chill girl that ended up with guys I was very ill suited for. It ended horribly again and again. One day I decided to date my friend who I thought was “too nice” for me. He was perfect. Falling in love with him was like falling asleep; slowly and then all at once. We’ve been married for 10 years and I absolutely adore him. He’s a good friend, is humble, kind and warm. I think I thought I would steam roll someone like him but what happened is I finally pulled off the armor I’d been dragging through every relationship. He’s met every vulnerability with kindness and vulnerability of his own. He’s the best man I’ve ever met. Look for that one. If chasing sparks doesn’t work for you try something else. I say this with total empathy for that feeling of frustration with men, I thought they were all frogs but in my case I was a frog chaser!
In my 20s I met a guy helping a friend move and had a terrific instant connection which he also felt - impossible! I told him TO HIS FACE that I couldn't date him because he was too nice. He is still lovely and we're friends on FB 30 years later and I always think "what if I had let that happen?" and how much nicer my life might have been being with a person enthusiastic about dating me and nice? sigh
One thing on my mind about men and intimacy is that some men have needs that look different intimacy wise. If an emotional range is on a scale from 1-10, my husband's range is closer to 3-7 and mine is -3 to 16. Intimacy for me looks and feels different and I internalized the lack of "emotional expression" (sometimes also lack of excitement / drama) as terrible flaw of his, a lack. I see it differently now. He's kind, loyal, practical, patient, helpful. But sometimes he doesn't get it. (It being, my big range of feelings.) He's the guy who shows up and is reliable. He supports a life I enjoy and vise versa. But—TBH, many of my most rich emotional relationships are with other women and men (as close friends). Just a thought that intimacy and emotional closeness can come from many places—not just with the partner.
This is really good advice for me. I like emotionally unavailable people and soft princes make me avoidant. I guess I’m emotionally unavailable. This is something I have to unlearn and these words feel really valuable for that.
Oh WFQ, you have been through so much and tried so hard, weathered enormous emotions. The phrase that kept coming to me as I was reading your follow up letter was “do less.” I think the kids say that these days? I invite you to consider it as a strategy. I don’t mean care less, or shrink your goals - god no! A queen has high standards, expects a lot, can put great power into a goal when necessary. But a queen is also most at home on her throne (her butt). When I was younger, I thought love was like school - you try and try and work and work and then, pretty often, you’re rewarded with the love you want. But I found that this didn’t really work at all. I had to learn to value the love I absolutely DID NOT EARN. I just showed up, and blammo, I was appreciated. Even when I was cranky, or smelled bad, or didn’t go with the flow. I didn’t summon the love, and I wasn’t in charge of it. It was hard at first to respect and believe a guy who thought I was cute when my hair was dirty or I told him his idea was bad. But I found a guy like that who was actually extremely selective in who he wanted close to him. I don’t have to do a damn thing to keep his love, except show up as myself and treasure him for who he is. Not that that’s easy! As Heather says, humans will always fuck up. But I’m not “doing” things to keep him. I’m “being” me. It’s a lot less work and strain, and I recommend looking for that kind of deal, even if it feels weird and wrong at first. Best of luck to you, dear, on the adventures to come.
" When I was younger, I thought love was like school - you try and try and work and work and then, pretty often, you’re rewarded with the love you want. But I found that this didn’t really work at all." = this x 100! I never thought of it this way but it is VERY much my approach!
+1 for ‘Calm down' being an early warning system indicator. My well-intentioned boyfriend recently suggested that I calm down, and I swiftly took out my very large and very sharp machete and hacked, sliced and stabbed everything within arm's reach. After tumbling into an exhausted fit of crying on the floor, he gently rubbed my back, asked me share more of my feelings and assured me that I wasn't alone in the jungle. That felt like the deepest intimacy I've had with another person.
As a therapist, this is fantastic analysis on both parties, the letter and response. I am a Christian so my views would include more influence of the divine in the trilogy versus duality of relationship but how both of you used words to nail the vulnerabilities and observations of the human experience was powerful!
One of my major post-breakup realizations is how I mistook my ex’s distance/avoidance for being emotionally stable and even-keeled & how I benefitted from it. I was relieved at not feeling like I had to manage another moody and intense person’s inner world (ie my own), but ultimately it meant being kept at arms length, not feeling deeply engaged with, nor a real desire to be close to or curious about me. The warm, consistent and dependable physical presence can be such a red herring, until it’s not lol.
Not long after asking to live together, he told me straight up that he imagined dating him could be lonely...I tried not to be unsettled and take it as a refreshingly honest boundary (especially bc my ex before him had almost no boundaries at all). But going back and reading my early journals, I was clearly cognizant of not feeling connected on a heart level. The sad thing is early on in dating he complained of feeling emotionally shut out by his mom...oh the predictably bitter irony!
I experience closeness and curiosity with my friends, and while I don’t to *only* rely on my partner for emotional intimacy, I would like them to be included in those I seek it from.
Of course it looks and feels different to each person and relationship, but I do think desiring emotional intimacy is actually a shared value. My ex did not value the pursuit of emotional closeness and I don’t want to spend my life convincing someone that it’s worthwhile!
My actual sense is that in a relationship one’s requests only seem endless because they are never ever fully met. There is often a reality where not one request is met wholeheartedly without buts or alterations. Because if there is one request that gets a full body “yes, I hear you, I want to do this for you” from a partner, this signals that the partner is able to recognise and embrace the “not self” in the other and that is hugely calming. If they can do it once they can do it more than once. And then the urgency of requests wanes once there is certainty that they can be met. And there is also the ability to see that not every request can be met or can only be met some way. And I suppose the real intimacy of the relationship is defined by how possible it is to develop this understanding of the sanctity of a “met request” in love and partnership.
YES! It's like "I wouldn't nag you if you just did the thing" and when the partner is chronically unreliable you get more anxious and then ask again and again because you can't trust they will come through for you, whether it's a chore or being loving or whatever. They feel nagged, you feel unseen. A trustworthy partner comes through and reduces the anxiety, or so I am told. I have never dated a man willing to be emotionally intimate with me, they have all been concrete frogs who dull my machete blade. I still, inexplicably, hope.
Not a criticism (this was insightful, as always) but genuinely confused by this perspective:
“If I say I’m crying because the sky is green, telling me the sky is blue isn’t helpful. I’m a different animal than you. Show some respect for my unique processor.”
I work in domestic violence (I acknowledge this is an extreme example and Heather was absolutely not condoning any abusive behaviour) and perpetrators (almost exclusively men) often will bring the victim-survivor to court saying they’ve been abused. I think they really really believe it because it’s a way for them avoid their often traumatic past and do the work of healing.
This is why I struggle with this perspective: it is very human to focus in on an easily available object (not necessarily a person) when we feel emotional. And I know we can never be purely objective when we are talking about emotional experiences. But if the sky is definitely blue is it insensitive to say: the sky is blue but let’s figure out what’s really going on for you?
I ask because this is how I talk to myself and loved one, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
I have volunteered in mental illness support (not to say crying over something irrational is a sign of mental illness), but the guidance for supporting someone who is experiencing psychosis IS similar to the point I think Polly’s trying to make here--in that it isn’t about the sky, it’s about the crying. If someone tells you “the government is spying on me through the microwave,” they aren’t telling you about the microwave, they are telling you about their fear. So the supportive response is “that must be so scary for you.” You don’t have to support/validate the part that isn’t real (you don’t have to say “oh no! Where in the microwave?!” or pretend like you also see the green sky), but you can support the person and the underlying emotion of their experience without *in*validating it. Not because it isn’t true, but because it isn’t the point. Humans don’t rely on one another to confirm the factual reality of our environment, the color of the sky or the purpose of the microwave. We rely on each other to help see and understand and validate what we’re *feeling,* regardless of the facts.
By the way, this advice is true even when the facts aren’t in question. It’s always a good idea to ask yourself, let’s say, “is my partner telling me about this project at work so I know all the details about this project at work and can help her do her job, or is she telling me about this project at work because she needs me to be curious about how it’s making her feel?”
Thanks for sharing your experience :) agreed, I think we’re on the same page then. Because when you’re talking them through that emotional experience you’re still thinking: there’s no one in the microwave but I will be there with them anyway. It’s true, the only way people feel strong enough to accept reality is when they are emotionally supported. It’s just difficult when the reality they need to accept is dangerous to others (eg in dv situations where we do rely on an intersubjective system to validate facts ie the legal system which can protect vulnerable folk). I guess the work of staying with our emotions and drawing on our reasoning (critical thinking, knowledge of the other’s experience etc) is the (hard) work of life!
Overall I feel this piece is about radically accepting yourself so you can draw in people who see you and celebrate you — which is a powerful message that is not common in this distorted world.
I don’t think that chasing sparks works for a fulfilling relationship. I think that you should be chasing someone who you know will love you unconditionally, who will not just be the Prince of your sex fantasy but also your closest friend. I’m only 17 years old, never been a relationship, but this is what I think. I watch all of my friends chase hot guys or girls just to fulfill a sexual desire, and the only one that worked was my friend who realized that she didn’t just want sex; she wanted a friend, a member of her extended family, and a cheerleader. This is the kind of relationship I want, and it’s what I think everyone else should want for themselves too
The veneer of this response is good, but it lacks substance. It doesn’t confront the reality of this reader’s experiences and focused on an abstract future of which she has seen no proof. Some people aren’t capable of full intimacy. Society teaches us to hide our emotions, and it gives men carte Blanche with regard to emotional suppression. Many men are not capable (really, not willing) of this “full” intimacy. Radically accepting that, rather than focusing on accepting flaws and wondering these what ifs, might actually allow the reader to deepen the intimacy in her relationships. Glossing over reality with abstraction is invalidating and will shut the reader down. Her reality is valid. She hadn’t experienced this intimacy. It’s true.
Interesting. At first read I'm interpreting what Polly is saying is that there are two broad types of people who express intimacy differently: deep/intuitive types vs concrete/real-world types across both genders. My whole life I have thought that this applies to a lot of ways of thinking about people.
IMO, Polly was alluding to the LW as being more of the deep, creative type who doesn't value her natural inclination for her flavor of intimacy so seeks out the kind (concrete frogs) that are wrong for her. I heard this as 'value your authentic self and you will begin to value others who are right for you'.
Polly had way more than that to say but just calling out the practical/real advice that I think you're saying is missing?
And there are definitely more concrete frogs than deep princes (70/30), so, yes, it can start to feel like you live only in a bog full of lilypads which might acknowledge the LW's frustration.
I hear what you’re saying, but people aren’t born all that different. These “two types” just show different amount of emotional awareness, maturity, and healing. In my opinion, the reader is calling out the question of whether or not we should have to accommodate the childish emotional patterns and realities of the emotionally blunted and incurious (or unwilling) to address this and make changes.
I didn't glean that from Polly's response myself. I think she touched on focused more on valuing her preferred type of intimacy in addition to avoiding a self fulfilling prophecy by projecting frogs onto princes.
And, yes, lots of people dislike broad categorizations of people in general. I have found that it's entirely accurate that folks bend towards concrete and abstract interests. It helped me immensely to better understand people as well as myself throughout my life. There is a way to use categorizations of people safely. Many don't though but that doesn't make clear differences among people non-existent. That's why I like how Polly does it. She uses apt metaphors (frogs, evil queens, sharp knives, butter knives ) to add complexity and nuance. Part of the reason why I love her work so much.
It’s great that works for you. It doesn’t work for everyone--people have different and equivalently valid experiences of reality. For folks trying to understand the root cause of her categorizations, it means giving up the comfort of black and white categories and entering the liminal space where things aren’t as concrete. I think the reader Polly is responding to is coming at it from a less regimented understanding of reality--hence my comment 👍
'Many men are not capable (really, not willing) of this “full” intimacy. Radically accepting that, rather than focusing on accepting flaws and wondering these what ifs, might actually allow the reader to deepen the intimacy in her relationships.' That's pretty black and white to me. Not capable/willing or they are.
And the LW sounded regimented to me in her first letter, very much so, and that she was acknowledging her 'over determined worldview' to use her own language.
Of course, LW and Polly's correspondence is open to interpretation or it would be a one paragraph advice column in newsprint. Retreating back to my non-liminal space over here.
"We want something solid to counteract our softness, and we crave some softness in areas where we are the sharpest knife imaginable, the tallest, rockiest cliff, the deadliest catch".
I am concerned that this reply pits one woman against another ("fake Chill Girl"). Perhaps it meant "Chill Girl" as a kind of mask, not a type of woman in general.
This energetic exchange opens up exactly why I always cringe a little at questions like "why don't men want real intimacy?" Because of course there are so many men that want it, it's not the real question.
The actual question is a yelling to skies of "why don't men want the real me?"
And the real question under that is the soul-deep and excruciating "why don't *I* want the real me?"
So I always tried to be the chill girl that ended up with guys I was very ill suited for. It ended horribly again and again. One day I decided to date my friend who I thought was “too nice” for me. He was perfect. Falling in love with him was like falling asleep; slowly and then all at once. We’ve been married for 10 years and I absolutely adore him. He’s a good friend, is humble, kind and warm. I think I thought I would steam roll someone like him but what happened is I finally pulled off the armor I’d been dragging through every relationship. He’s met every vulnerability with kindness and vulnerability of his own. He’s the best man I’ve ever met. Look for that one. If chasing sparks doesn’t work for you try something else. I say this with total empathy for that feeling of frustration with men, I thought they were all frogs but in my case I was a frog chaser!
In my 20s I met a guy helping a friend move and had a terrific instant connection which he also felt - impossible! I told him TO HIS FACE that I couldn't date him because he was too nice. He is still lovely and we're friends on FB 30 years later and I always think "what if I had let that happen?" and how much nicer my life might have been being with a person enthusiastic about dating me and nice? sigh
shouldn't you credit john green for that line? lol
One thing on my mind about men and intimacy is that some men have needs that look different intimacy wise. If an emotional range is on a scale from 1-10, my husband's range is closer to 3-7 and mine is -3 to 16. Intimacy for me looks and feels different and I internalized the lack of "emotional expression" (sometimes also lack of excitement / drama) as terrible flaw of his, a lack. I see it differently now. He's kind, loyal, practical, patient, helpful. But sometimes he doesn't get it. (It being, my big range of feelings.) He's the guy who shows up and is reliable. He supports a life I enjoy and vise versa. But—TBH, many of my most rich emotional relationships are with other women and men (as close friends). Just a thought that intimacy and emotional closeness can come from many places—not just with the partner.
This is really good advice for me. I like emotionally unavailable people and soft princes make me avoidant. I guess I’m emotionally unavailable. This is something I have to unlearn and these words feel really valuable for that.
I‘m not the LW, btw 😅
This is one of the best things I've ever read, here or anywhere--both WFQ's post and Heather's response. Thank you both so much!
Oh WFQ, you have been through so much and tried so hard, weathered enormous emotions. The phrase that kept coming to me as I was reading your follow up letter was “do less.” I think the kids say that these days? I invite you to consider it as a strategy. I don’t mean care less, or shrink your goals - god no! A queen has high standards, expects a lot, can put great power into a goal when necessary. But a queen is also most at home on her throne (her butt). When I was younger, I thought love was like school - you try and try and work and work and then, pretty often, you’re rewarded with the love you want. But I found that this didn’t really work at all. I had to learn to value the love I absolutely DID NOT EARN. I just showed up, and blammo, I was appreciated. Even when I was cranky, or smelled bad, or didn’t go with the flow. I didn’t summon the love, and I wasn’t in charge of it. It was hard at first to respect and believe a guy who thought I was cute when my hair was dirty or I told him his idea was bad. But I found a guy like that who was actually extremely selective in who he wanted close to him. I don’t have to do a damn thing to keep his love, except show up as myself and treasure him for who he is. Not that that’s easy! As Heather says, humans will always fuck up. But I’m not “doing” things to keep him. I’m “being” me. It’s a lot less work and strain, and I recommend looking for that kind of deal, even if it feels weird and wrong at first. Best of luck to you, dear, on the adventures to come.
" When I was younger, I thought love was like school - you try and try and work and work and then, pretty often, you’re rewarded with the love you want. But I found that this didn’t really work at all." = this x 100! I never thought of it this way but it is VERY much my approach!
+1 for ‘Calm down' being an early warning system indicator. My well-intentioned boyfriend recently suggested that I calm down, and I swiftly took out my very large and very sharp machete and hacked, sliced and stabbed everything within arm's reach. After tumbling into an exhausted fit of crying on the floor, he gently rubbed my back, asked me share more of my feelings and assured me that I wasn't alone in the jungle. That felt like the deepest intimacy I've had with another person.
As a therapist, this is fantastic analysis on both parties, the letter and response. I am a Christian so my views would include more influence of the divine in the trilogy versus duality of relationship but how both of you used words to nail the vulnerabilities and observations of the human experience was powerful!
shouting "hell yeah" at my screen
One of my major post-breakup realizations is how I mistook my ex’s distance/avoidance for being emotionally stable and even-keeled & how I benefitted from it. I was relieved at not feeling like I had to manage another moody and intense person’s inner world (ie my own), but ultimately it meant being kept at arms length, not feeling deeply engaged with, nor a real desire to be close to or curious about me. The warm, consistent and dependable physical presence can be such a red herring, until it’s not lol.
Not long after asking to live together, he told me straight up that he imagined dating him could be lonely...I tried not to be unsettled and take it as a refreshingly honest boundary (especially bc my ex before him had almost no boundaries at all). But going back and reading my early journals, I was clearly cognizant of not feeling connected on a heart level. The sad thing is early on in dating he complained of feeling emotionally shut out by his mom...oh the predictably bitter irony!
I experience closeness and curiosity with my friends, and while I don’t to *only* rely on my partner for emotional intimacy, I would like them to be included in those I seek it from.
Of course it looks and feels different to each person and relationship, but I do think desiring emotional intimacy is actually a shared value. My ex did not value the pursuit of emotional closeness and I don’t want to spend my life convincing someone that it’s worthwhile!
My actual sense is that in a relationship one’s requests only seem endless because they are never ever fully met. There is often a reality where not one request is met wholeheartedly without buts or alterations. Because if there is one request that gets a full body “yes, I hear you, I want to do this for you” from a partner, this signals that the partner is able to recognise and embrace the “not self” in the other and that is hugely calming. If they can do it once they can do it more than once. And then the urgency of requests wanes once there is certainty that they can be met. And there is also the ability to see that not every request can be met or can only be met some way. And I suppose the real intimacy of the relationship is defined by how possible it is to develop this understanding of the sanctity of a “met request” in love and partnership.
YES! It's like "I wouldn't nag you if you just did the thing" and when the partner is chronically unreliable you get more anxious and then ask again and again because you can't trust they will come through for you, whether it's a chore or being loving or whatever. They feel nagged, you feel unseen. A trustworthy partner comes through and reduces the anxiety, or so I am told. I have never dated a man willing to be emotionally intimate with me, they have all been concrete frogs who dull my machete blade. I still, inexplicably, hope.
Not a criticism (this was insightful, as always) but genuinely confused by this perspective:
“If I say I’m crying because the sky is green, telling me the sky is blue isn’t helpful. I’m a different animal than you. Show some respect for my unique processor.”
I work in domestic violence (I acknowledge this is an extreme example and Heather was absolutely not condoning any abusive behaviour) and perpetrators (almost exclusively men) often will bring the victim-survivor to court saying they’ve been abused. I think they really really believe it because it’s a way for them avoid their often traumatic past and do the work of healing.
This is why I struggle with this perspective: it is very human to focus in on an easily available object (not necessarily a person) when we feel emotional. And I know we can never be purely objective when we are talking about emotional experiences. But if the sky is definitely blue is it insensitive to say: the sky is blue but let’s figure out what’s really going on for you?
I ask because this is how I talk to myself and loved one, and I don’t want to be a jerk.
I have volunteered in mental illness support (not to say crying over something irrational is a sign of mental illness), but the guidance for supporting someone who is experiencing psychosis IS similar to the point I think Polly’s trying to make here--in that it isn’t about the sky, it’s about the crying. If someone tells you “the government is spying on me through the microwave,” they aren’t telling you about the microwave, they are telling you about their fear. So the supportive response is “that must be so scary for you.” You don’t have to support/validate the part that isn’t real (you don’t have to say “oh no! Where in the microwave?!” or pretend like you also see the green sky), but you can support the person and the underlying emotion of their experience without *in*validating it. Not because it isn’t true, but because it isn’t the point. Humans don’t rely on one another to confirm the factual reality of our environment, the color of the sky or the purpose of the microwave. We rely on each other to help see and understand and validate what we’re *feeling,* regardless of the facts.
By the way, this advice is true even when the facts aren’t in question. It’s always a good idea to ask yourself, let’s say, “is my partner telling me about this project at work so I know all the details about this project at work and can help her do her job, or is she telling me about this project at work because she needs me to be curious about how it’s making her feel?”
Thanks for sharing your experience :) agreed, I think we’re on the same page then. Because when you’re talking them through that emotional experience you’re still thinking: there’s no one in the microwave but I will be there with them anyway. It’s true, the only way people feel strong enough to accept reality is when they are emotionally supported. It’s just difficult when the reality they need to accept is dangerous to others (eg in dv situations where we do rely on an intersubjective system to validate facts ie the legal system which can protect vulnerable folk). I guess the work of staying with our emotions and drawing on our reasoning (critical thinking, knowledge of the other’s experience etc) is the (hard) work of life!
Overall I feel this piece is about radically accepting yourself so you can draw in people who see you and celebrate you — which is a powerful message that is not common in this distorted world.
I don’t think that chasing sparks works for a fulfilling relationship. I think that you should be chasing someone who you know will love you unconditionally, who will not just be the Prince of your sex fantasy but also your closest friend. I’m only 17 years old, never been a relationship, but this is what I think. I watch all of my friends chase hot guys or girls just to fulfill a sexual desire, and the only one that worked was my friend who realized that she didn’t just want sex; she wanted a friend, a member of her extended family, and a cheerleader. This is the kind of relationship I want, and it’s what I think everyone else should want for themselves too
The veneer of this response is good, but it lacks substance. It doesn’t confront the reality of this reader’s experiences and focused on an abstract future of which she has seen no proof. Some people aren’t capable of full intimacy. Society teaches us to hide our emotions, and it gives men carte Blanche with regard to emotional suppression. Many men are not capable (really, not willing) of this “full” intimacy. Radically accepting that, rather than focusing on accepting flaws and wondering these what ifs, might actually allow the reader to deepen the intimacy in her relationships. Glossing over reality with abstraction is invalidating and will shut the reader down. Her reality is valid. She hadn’t experienced this intimacy. It’s true.
Interesting. At first read I'm interpreting what Polly is saying is that there are two broad types of people who express intimacy differently: deep/intuitive types vs concrete/real-world types across both genders. My whole life I have thought that this applies to a lot of ways of thinking about people.
IMO, Polly was alluding to the LW as being more of the deep, creative type who doesn't value her natural inclination for her flavor of intimacy so seeks out the kind (concrete frogs) that are wrong for her. I heard this as 'value your authentic self and you will begin to value others who are right for you'.
Polly had way more than that to say but just calling out the practical/real advice that I think you're saying is missing?
And there are definitely more concrete frogs than deep princes (70/30), so, yes, it can start to feel like you live only in a bog full of lilypads which might acknowledge the LW's frustration.
I hear what you’re saying, but people aren’t born all that different. These “two types” just show different amount of emotional awareness, maturity, and healing. In my opinion, the reader is calling out the question of whether or not we should have to accommodate the childish emotional patterns and realities of the emotionally blunted and incurious (or unwilling) to address this and make changes.
I didn't glean that from Polly's response myself. I think she touched on focused more on valuing her preferred type of intimacy in addition to avoiding a self fulfilling prophecy by projecting frogs onto princes.
And, yes, lots of people dislike broad categorizations of people in general. I have found that it's entirely accurate that folks bend towards concrete and abstract interests. It helped me immensely to better understand people as well as myself throughout my life. There is a way to use categorizations of people safely. Many don't though but that doesn't make clear differences among people non-existent. That's why I like how Polly does it. She uses apt metaphors (frogs, evil queens, sharp knives, butter knives ) to add complexity and nuance. Part of the reason why I love her work so much.
It’s great that works for you. It doesn’t work for everyone--people have different and equivalently valid experiences of reality. For folks trying to understand the root cause of her categorizations, it means giving up the comfort of black and white categories and entering the liminal space where things aren’t as concrete. I think the reader Polly is responding to is coming at it from a less regimented understanding of reality--hence my comment 👍
'Many men are not capable (really, not willing) of this “full” intimacy. Radically accepting that, rather than focusing on accepting flaws and wondering these what ifs, might actually allow the reader to deepen the intimacy in her relationships.' That's pretty black and white to me. Not capable/willing or they are.
And the LW sounded regimented to me in her first letter, very much so, and that she was acknowledging her 'over determined worldview' to use her own language.
Of course, LW and Polly's correspondence is open to interpretation or it would be a one paragraph advice column in newsprint. Retreating back to my non-liminal space over here.
"We want something solid to counteract our softness, and we crave some softness in areas where we are the sharpest knife imaginable, the tallest, rockiest cliff, the deadliest catch".
Love this so much. So true.
I am concerned that this reply pits one woman against another ("fake Chill Girl"). Perhaps it meant "Chill Girl" as a kind of mask, not a type of woman in general.
Yes it's calling out a mask/self deception