Friendzoning

Found this in my drafts from 18 March 2015. Again, no idea why I didn't post it.

This is not exactly a response to anything I have read about the friendzone but my own take on the concept.

First of all, we teach children that to find a relationship they should become friends. Maybe going up to someone you're attracted to and being forthright about it is a possibility for you but the shyer amongst us could never ever do that! Some people rarely experience attraction without solidly getting to know the person first...how would they cope with having to tell a prospective new person "just so as you know I may become attracted to you in the future"?!

So basically befriending someone with the intention or possibility of wanting to take it further is going to happen whether you like it or not. The risk of being hit on by a friend or being rejected by someone you want to be closer to is unavoidable unless you cut all human contact!

How you deal with that is where it gets problematic. The rejected party, let's call them J, is going to be hurt. The rejecter, L perhaps, is perhaps going to feel wrong footed or disturbed by the turn of events. So...

• J may say spiteful things to which I say to L "suck it up" - people say stuff when they're hurt and I bet you do too. At the end of the day it's just words. Yes, words hurt, but so does being rejected. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
• J may push things too far - this is obviously unacceptable - be it sexual harassment, intimidation or whatever. Although when I see young people in L's position posting about childhood friends please consider whether a lack of emotional maturity on J's part is a mitigating factor.
• J may push things WAY too far - physical assault, sexual assault etc are inexcusable...but again a 10 yr old's attempt to "steal a kiss" is, to my old fashioned way of thinking, is somewhat different to an adult doing the same...or worse.
• J may complain of being "friendzoned"...again, suck it up L. J is hurt - from their point of view they were investing in you as a potential partner. Maybe there were mixed messages, maybe there weren't but either way they had hopes you've crushed. A little understanding goes a long way.
• L complains that people are only interested in them romantically / sexually and bitch about people like J. Well, maybe that's a problem for you but J doesn't owe you friendship any more than you owe them a relationship!

It takes two people to make a friendship / relationship work and if the two are not singing from the same hymn sheet there's going to be a problem. But is it really anyone's FAULT? Two people who want different things is an ongoing theme throughout life. Apply the same idea for a moment to other scenarios, such as parenting:

• J being "friendzoned" has a hissy fit cos they hasn't got their own way. Now how is J going to cope with any other situation that requires giving up what they want? As a parent is J going to have a paddy every time their child's needs have to come first?! they'd probably be okay, actually. But would a parent take it calmly in a divorce and the kid sides with the other parent? Probably not so much.
• Or L, sick to death of people like J wanting stuff from them...how will they deal with the needs of their child??? Especially if left as a single parent...

People will want or expect stuff from you your whole life - be it your friends, partners, children, parents, employers...sometimes expectations are reasonable, sometimes they're not. Both parties can be out of line on how they react. Mostly I say chalk it up to experience and move on. An early experience of rejection, even dealing with it badly, can be an important learning experience so compounding it with extra criticism and blame is surely deeply unhelpful?

Perhaps it's easy for me to say that as I have never been in that position. No one wants to be my friend OR my lover! The most similar situation I have had was with my ex. We were in, what to me was, a committed relationship. He changed his mind, which rationally he had every right to do. In practice though I was definitely J, clinging desperately to my hopes of a future with him. Our wedding was booked, I was expecting our second child - I was not going to meekly let him walk away! And so I behaved badly. Of course I did! Everything was riding on my convincing him to stay - from my own happiness to my children's to our finances to my career prospects... I felt he, my L, owed me...because he'd made promises, we'd committed to having children - perhaps that makes a significant difference, because it wasn't a hope or a presumption but something more solid - and it was horribly unfair to just leave me to pick up the pieces. But I was still acting out of shattered dreams and wounded pride...

I want to add here that 'badly' is subjective: I acted without pride and dignity, I begged and cried, but I did NOT do anything like assault or manipulation or spreading lies about him...tbh it's a good thing social media wasn't available then...

I'm glad my ex walked away completely. I don't think I could have gone on seeing him 'for our children', I couldn't have been his friend. Sometimes that's just how it is, whether you were friends or a couple - if one wants more than they can have it'll never be right.

On Truth and Perception...and Alien Abductions

Just found this in my drafts...no idea why it wasn't published when I wrote it nearly a year ago. 
PLEASE BE CAREFUL - TRIGGER WARNINGS: Abduction, sexual abuse, sexual violence, rape etc.

INTRODUCTION
Recently* I had a big set-to on Twitter because I have issues with transexuality being self-declared. For me it is a matter of the philosophy of identity which is a subject most perplexing. The individual is seen as the epicentre of identity BUT is the individual best placed to determine their own identity when by its very nature identity is how we are seen by others? 

To clarify for anyone not following me on Twitter I have zero problem with transexuality itself. Regularly I see online that self-awareness of depression or eating disorders is not enough, you must be formally diagnosed. This is not to liken transexuality with mental disorders - just a comparison to other situations where a self-identification is regularly denied despite being fairly straightforward matters of self-awareness. Whether we think of the fictional Adrian Mole and his false self-identification as an intellectual or the real-world Rachel Dolezal who faked being black because that is the ethnicity she identifies with - there are a host of reasons why individual perception is not a great way to define ANYTHING, much less an aspect of the self where the ego can warp perception enormously. Lets face it, Muhammad Ali's assertion that he was "the greatest" is itself immensely egotistical...but validated by popular consensus. Similarly Agatha Christie couldn't bring herself to self-identify as an author despite her demonstrable successes.

I mention this as a precursor to today's musings on truth and perception as they revolve around the idea that things are not always as we see, feel or otherwise experience them.

For example, I identify as an empath (chiefly in science fiction a person with the paranormal ability to perceive the mental or emotional state of another individual - see the Doctor Who episode "Hide") so I live by my intuition a fair bit. I don't expect anyone to acknowledge or believe my gut reactions on any subject, it is purely a matter of my self-perception.

I mention THAT as today's musings begin though with, what to me was, an empathic experience. That I was being told a series of highly dubious tales does not make my impression of the teller as untruthful an empathic experience, just as my 'feeling' on the subject could be easily attributed to paralinguistic attributes (intonation, facial expression etc) but - to my way of thinking - the identification of the root cause of untruthfulness IS a matter of empathic experience.

ON TRUTHFULNESS AND PERCEPTION
When we think of a person being untruthful we come up with synonyms such as 'lying' and 'deceptive' but these only address one form of untruthfulness and there are several.

• Lying - deliberate deceit for gain, attention, amusement (either for the act of telling stories or at the gullibility of of others) etc Perception is deceptive and / or defensive 
• Confusion - honest yet mistaken: repeating a story as heard as if true without verification, misremembering, etc Perception can be confused or truthful, not defensive
• Conviction - the self belief that the stories are true such as with conditions preventing a person from distinguishing fact from fiction, delusions, false memory syndrome (being a step up from a simple act of misremembering) and so forth Perception is truthful and / or defensive *

* Defensive perceptions can also be present in truth-tellers who, for whatever reasons, fear or expect to be disbelieved making truth and conviction difficult to distinguish at a perceptive level.

From my perception of myself as an empath I looked at my perceptions of the person who was telling the improbable-to-the-point-of-impossible tales to try to deduce what form of untruthfulness was at play. The stories in question should have fitted into the first category with the deliberate intent of gaining sympathy yet I was struck curiously by sensing no deceit in them. There were certainly elements whereby confusion could be the culprit - especially when it came to misidentifying medical conditions yet that did not fit particularly well to the whole. The third category I also ruled out. I got no sense that this person believed what they were saying.

For me this indicates a fourth category of untruthfulness: the moral lack of distinction between fact and fiction. Sometimes termed a 'compulsive liar' or 'fantasist' (both of which indicate deliberate acts) I feel this is a separate category as, rather than deliberate acts of deception, the concept of deception itself is actually lacking; a form of amorality. Perception is neutral - because truth is irrelevant.

I have encountered such people before but they are, thankfully, rare. In this case the stories were implausible and raised my suspicions but obviously untruths can be highly plausible too.

This led me to thinking...truth itself is a perception. If you believe that something is so it is so, to you. And this leads me to my...

ALIEN ABDUCTION THEORY

At this point I want to stress that if you have had an experience of alien abduction 

I do not recommend you read on; similarly, if you know someone who has 

please do NOT challenge them with my theory. You could do a lot of harm.

I dare say most people are familiar with stories of alien abductions but have you ever contemplated WHY it's a story that is repeated to a very familiar pattern? Unless you happen to ascribe to the idea that aliens ARE abducting humans you probably put it down to mass hysteria or suggestibility from science fiction sources.

Once upon a time I met someone who had experienced alien abduction and I was curious as to what my empathic tendencies would reveal about their story...and what hit me most was the genuine trauma they were experiencing. In terms of untruthfulness this would sit firmly in the the conviction category - they believed it, they felt it, the perceptions I had of them were honest and accurate to their claim.

So what was going on? Admittedly this happened at a time when The X-Files was very popular - so a lucid dream perhaps or the influence of drugs? Plausible but I wasn't convinced, the trauma was just too real. The fact that accounts of alien abduction are SO similar led me to a different conclusion.

What do these accounts have in common?

• Paralysis (almost always not restrained, yet unable to move)
• Partially conscious
• Probing (physical violation)

Do any solutions present themselves to your mind? 

My theory is that the phenomenon of alien abduction, aided by popular media, is the mind's way of coping with a genuine trauma - specifically rape, especially when drugs like rohypnol are involved. Hence the comments in red above - if the mind is protecting itself it's probably best left that way. If a person would rather believe their experience was alien abduction then that's fine.

This brings me back to the concept of self-identity - I don't want to CHALLENGE anyone's perception of themselves in any way cos how you see yourself is pretty much irrelevant. What is an issue to me is validating someone's opinion of themselves...if someone feels they have been abducted by aliens I will not challenge that, especially not with my theory, but nor do I need to validate their experience and declare that alien abduction is real. Truth is in your perception of it. It's never nice to be called a liar or to be told "you don't really think / feel / believe that" but why do people put so much value in external validation? 

Princess Diana

As the 20th anniversary of her death approaches every creep with a story seems to be crawling out of the leaf litter to paint her as either a saint or innocent victim of a callous royal family. This is my take on it all.

Marriage and Divorce
I was only three when Charles and Diana married so I don't remember any of that. Virtually everyone seems to agree that their marriage was a bad idea from the outset but I think it is a tad unfair to lay all the blame at Charles' door. Just as my own ex was the one who (IMHO) didn't try and ultimately ended our relationship I can also acknowledge that, while I did my best, there was blame and responsibility on my side too. Just because Charles (like my ex) was the older partner doesn't mean their divorce was entirely his fault.
In this whole mess were Charles, his 'others', his family, Diana, her 'others', her family and the media.

My Feelings on Diana
As a child I recall wanting to be a princess. Nothing unusual in that. But when asked why I declared that I wanted to be able to throw up without getting told off. My parents had no sympathy for me and my childhood illness but especially the fact I got (and still do get) dreadfully car sick. Never once did they question their own wisdom in insistently driving me all over the place with the inevitable consequences. Basically I had caught wind of a story about Princess Diana's bulimia (an illness I also suffer) and was miffed she got sympathy and I got yelled at.
I was never a fan of Diana's though...

Her Death
I had a weird experience when Diana died...my brain just totally failed to accept it for a while. Especially odd as I didn't much like her. I was all 'why have the put dates under her picture like they do when someone dies?' and 'why are they using the past tense? Idiots' because I just wasn't processing it at all.
I may not have liked her but I was extremely sad that she'd died and left her boys without a mother. As a single mum myself that felt close to home. For all her fame and beauty and wealth she hadn't had it easy and I suppose I had hoped she would get a happily-ever-after.

The Royal Family
The whole flag at half mast thing...royal protocols had to be changed to appease the people who couldn't understand that it wasn't a thing. Pointless tbh.
Why should the Queen have led the national mourning? If she had she'd have been criticised for usurping the Spencer family's role. I thought it weird enough that Charles-her-ex went with Charles-her-brother to bring her body home. I would not want my ex near my dead body any more than my living one! Probably that was all public pressure and damage limitation; must've been unpleasant for her brother though...
Why should your ex mother-in-law pay for your protection detail after you cheated repeatedly shamed the family?! I dare say Diana could've afforded more than the one bodyguard...ultimately they were DIVORCED, she chose her path away from the royal family so leave them out of it!

Paparazzi
AHA! Here's the real bad guys of the mix. Who've got off exceedingly lightly IMHO.
It baffles me how the royal family come in for more of a bashing than the paps who chased her car until the crash...and then took photos of her as she lay dying.
Her driver, Henri Paul, got the official blame. More than 3 times over the French drink driving limit (over twice the British) and with prescription meds in his system it is possible the end result would have been the same...however, driving at over twice the speed limit was as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the paparazzi pursuit. There is, however, speculation that Paul signaled the paps...even if so that does not negate their role in a high speed chase which put other lives at risk.

Camilla
Now, I like Camilla. She's good for Charles. William and Harry seem to have a good relationship with her. That's all matters. And yes, I will call her my Queen when the time comes.
Was she to blame for Charles and Diana's divorce? No. Or at least not to any significant degree.
Was she to blame for Diana's death? Hell no.

I really do find it distasteful that all this is getting dragged up again. Talk about her work for HIV awareness, land mine charities etc. Talk about her being a 'style icon' if you must. But leave the conspiracy theories and royalty bashing out of it.
>:(
Rant over.

Unpopular Opinion Piece

So...here in the UK the Charlie Gard case has been all over the media for ages and now, following his death, I feel it's time to express my thoughts.

And as the title suggests...this is not going to flow along the same lines as the popular opinions on the subject. If you are easily offended I suggest you click away.

Brief(ish) background to the story for non UK / living-under-a-rock type peeps:
Charlie Gard was born on 4th August 2016 and died on 28th July 2017 - his life support was finally switched off after a number of legal battles.
He was hospitalised from the age of two months. Initially admitted for breathing difficulties it turned out he had Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome which was considered, in his case, to be terminal.
Charlie was unable to move, breathe, open his eyes, cry (so there could be no consensus on whether he was in pain) and so forth.
The world renowned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London where he was being treated believed he should receive only palliative care and be allowed to die; his parents (Connie Yates and Chris Gard) not entirely unreasonably wanted to take him to the US for experimental nucleoiside therapy.
A number of hearings were held; ethics committee, High Court, Court of Appeal, European Court of Human Rights...all agreed with GOSH. Eventually Charlie was allowed to die, aged 11 months and 24 days.

Disclaimer: I have based my opinions on my personal ethics and philosophy and information on the case available in the public arena; I have no medical expertise.

So...

My take on it is that Connie and Chris never had Charlie's interests at heart. I have little faith in the medical profession but despite every damn expert telling them, telling the courts that their son had no hope of life they believed blindly in a 'cure'.

THERE WAS NEVER A CURE. The EXPERIMENTAL nucleoside therapy offered at best (speculatively, as it had never been tried on a child so severely affected) a 4-10% improvement in muscle tone. He would still have been utterly immobile, non-verbal and requiring mechanical ventilation for life (life meaning probable death within early childhood anyway). Connie & Chris were clinging to a dream of Charlie being a normal healthy child and at every stage they seemed to fail to recognise the gravity of his situation.

Repeatedly they stated that if Charlie was suffering they would stop fighting for him...how could they know??? Of course he seemed peaceful. He couldn't move. He couldn't cry. If severely brain damaged (as all medical testimony asserts) it's possible even his blood pressure wouldn't spike to indicate distress. No parent likes to hear their child cry but to have my child unable to express fear, suffering, pain...NO. And yes, if you haven't read my other posts I am a mother. I would definitely bury a child rather than endure them suffering that.

All the expert opinions were that Charlie had suffered catastrophic brain damage from seizures; seizures were nigh on impossible to detect after he became immobile. In their final front-of-court statement Chris Gard said: "we now know had Charlie been given the treatment sooner, he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy" (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/charlie-gards-father-chris-delivers-heartrending-statement-outside-court_uk_5976159ee4b0e79ec19ad93d) This is fundamentally untrue. The best case scenario for Charlie was paralysed, ventalated, entirely dependent. The same statement said: "far from showing catastrophic, structural brain damage, Dr Hirano and other experts say his brain scans and EEGs were those of a relatively normal child of his age" ...if true* that is terrible. Charlie's life would have been effectively locked-in syndrome; an intelligent conscious mind trapped in an unresponsive body. No sane parent could ever want that for their child.
*There is a definite question as to whether this is true as no statement to that effect was made by ANY medical professional / expert at ANY point. We can only take this as the opinion of his parents. Every professional / expert opinion preceding was that catastrophic brain damage had already occurred.

Connie and Chris' final legal fight was to allow Charlie to die at home...which imho only confirms their insanity. People on life support simply do not die at home. At a time when the NHS is considered to be stretched to breaking point they wanted an incredible amount of money to be spent on pandering to their wishes after incredible amounts of money had already been wasted on court cases and futile care...I'm afraid I don't have a lot of sympathy. Dying in hospital, where he had spent most of his short life, or hospice made little difference. To die at hope was purely for the parents' 'need' with no consideration of the cost, either as financial or potential distress to their son.

Thankfully the courts saw sense and poor Charlie is finally at rest. My heart bleeds for what he endured.

ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

I have been thinking a lot about death lately. Not for any particular reason, just came across the user Caitlin Doughty (Ask A Mortician) coupled with an impending need to write a new will has resulted into me thinking a fair bit about a new Advance Directive.
But there is so much to think of...so here's a prelimanary music for the permanent record:

Pre Death

DO NOT lie to me. Death is inevitable. Yes, it is scary, upsetting and I don't wanna...but it is real, it is happening and there may be stuff I need to say or do or put in order.

NO palliative anti-psychotics. The LAST thing I want is to be more conscious of my suffering. I am cool with anything to reduce my suffering even / especially if it actually shortens my life. NO treatment to extend life. No resuscitation unless truly exceptional (e.g. that TV movie - A Place For Annie - where they brought the mom back from her AIDS related death cos her baby had just been found to be clear of the virus...to be told your kid won't die because of you is possibly the only valid reason here) I really don't wasn't to be put on a ventilator or have any life-support type care (other than potentially in a short-term crisis scenario); literally nothing that is futile, only treatments that are really likely to not only work but improve the quality of my life. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY in every scenario.

DO NOT think you have to sit there and watch me die. I may appreciate the support or I may not...but you definitely don't need the trauma.

ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ANY KIND OF CLONING OR CRYOGENIC BULLSHITTERY. Jesus Christ, once was more than enough.

Post Death

NO embalming

NO having my jaw clamped / mouth sewn shut - a scarf or whatever will do fine

NO butt plug. Corpse diaper instead, danke.

I'm not overly comfortable about organ / skin / bone donation - I would NEVER want to be a recipient - but it seems churlish to refuse my spare parts

Disposal

So long as my remains ARE disposed of (if found) I am cool with it. I do not want to be pickled, preserved, plasticised...

Ideally I would like a natural burial - a cardboard or wicker casket if you can't face a shroud - but kinda the same deal if you go the cremation route. Expensive caskets are STOOOPID. And wasteful.

I would like to be in a specific place, not scattered. The exception would be, if my remains are found after a considerable time, I appreciate that they might require relocation, but if there is a case for leaving me be - or returning me to that spot - please do.

I fully understand if you don't want a hands-on funeral / disposal. This is all up to you. Do what is right for you.

Mourning

I do not relish the idea of divvying up my ashes or making mourning jewellery with them (hair is different) but meh, this is about you.

I DO want a headstone...which does not have to be in the vicinity of my physical remans. I just like the idea of a permanent memorial that could potentially last hundreds of years before being reclaimed by the elements and my memory, my entire existence, pass finally and quietly into dust.