Sunday, July 1, 2007


Lunch with my manager:

B: Are you dating anyone?
F: No.
B: There's no drama if there's no relationship, right?
F: True 'dat. (pause.) Actually, I never have drama...I don't think...Ever. huh.
B: You are low-drama. But it's probably because you never really cared about them anyway, so you'd rather not deal with it. Because when you care enough about someone, everything becomes drama! If you don't care what they're doing or who they're with, it's because deep down inside, you don't really care about them.
F: You are a genius.

He continued to explain that there were only two women he ever had drama with; his first love, and his wife. He explains that a loving relationship is constant drama because he cares so much about what she does and what she needs, her wants become his wants. He wants to change for her- he wants to become a better person, because it will make him happy when she is happy. Her actions become his cause for reaction, and vice versa.

Now, in my mind, that's called, "dependence," and it's unhealthy behavior to base your feelings on someone else's actions. However, at this particular moment during this particular lunch, he seemed to made perfect sense to me. Perhaps real love does require a certain level of emotional interdependence- and maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps that's why people say that you hurt the ones you love (another theory I always hated- I mean, if you care, why don't you just try harder to be more considerate?). Anyway, my manager described the amount of concern he had for his wife, where she was, who she was with, what she was doing, when she would get back...The idea has always been completely unappealing to me. Where is the trust? The confidence in your relationship? The faith in one another? But hearing him describe it, this kind of drama sounded like the most desirable thing in the world.

Perhaps this has been my mistake! I avoid drama by either giving up or giving in or folding, or doing whatever it takes to make sure my other half is happy and unfettered by cares. Or at least by the ones in my control. But maybe I'm sending all the wrong messages by shielding them from complication. Maybe I'm saying that I don't give a rat's because I don't care about him- when really, I'm trying to display confidence, faith, and trust! If I am feeling stifled when someone attempts this type of interdependence with me, maybe that's because I don't really like the guy as much as I thought. Maybe I'll feel differently when I actually meet someone I love. And then I'll get on to starting fires for him to put out...


Michael said...

Starting fires just to have someone put them out is immature- you're too cool to do that.

Dependence is usually unhealthy- but I think interdependence can be healthy- and in fact can be healthier than two people being totally independent. However, i think in order for it to be healthy it requires two independent people who are capable of being independent. The interdependence comes from a willingness to be vulnerable and have times when you trust people and how things work out for you is somewhat dependent on them and their actions. It doesn't mean being paranoid or demanding drama.

Vanilla Vice said...

usually when my relationships become like you're boss' - it's time to break up. He's crazy. Don't be like him.

zse406 said...

Forget that VV... Girls think they are so "independent" nowadays, affraid to show any type of vulnerablility. So when we great, intriguing, down to earth, caring guys throw a little interest into the feelings of our female counterparts they see that as us overstepping our boundaries and all of a sudden we are crazy and it's time to break up. Who would have thought that we have become a society that would frown upon an overcaring, dramatic, heterosexual male. In 20 years some of you ladies will be stuck with your dead beat, non caring, follower of a husband and look back and say, "why didn't I marry a guy who truly cared." But then again... maybe you're just not into the guy, and that's ok in my book.

Anonymous said...

Can't you be overcaring and heterosexual without being dramatic?

Salt H2O said...

I agree with your boss, and with Michael.

Drama comes with caring. You care that he didn't call, you care that he use to date a girl who was a total slut, you care that he smiled at some girl that was walking by you when grocery shopping, you care. If you didn't- there'd be no drama, and no need to pursue the relationship.

When you love someone you deal with two sets of emotions, yours and his. You're no longer independent because when he's happy, you're happy and when he's depressed, it makes you depressed. It's difficult to deal with, and days you're going to wish that you didn't care. But when you have a bad day, there is someone that is so concerned with your well being that he does everything in his power to help you- because you ARE interdependent. And nothing feels better than when your having a bad day, having your husband buy icecream and make googly faces to try to make you laugh.

It's not the kind of dependency where you have to be together ALL the time, but where two independent individuals find that there is someone in this world that can affect them more deeply than anyone else.

It's not crazy, and I don't think your boss still has drama with his wife, every couple goes through it, and then over comes it. You can't get sucked into drama if you don't have feelings for the person, and if you don't have feelings for the person, it's not worth fighting for.

Hadz said...

I agree with Kori and Michael. However, I do not agree with the use of the term "Drama". Drama to me brings to mind immaturity and overreaction. I like the idea of interdependence, dealing with each others ups and downs even healthy jealousies. Let's just eliminate the "Drama". It seems to an unhealthy reaction and rarely is there a place for it.

zse406 said...

Drama: any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results.
Dating: any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results.
Relationship: any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results.

Vanilla Vice said...

You guys are all DRAMA!!! Normal. That's what I define the relationship that I finally settle down in. Freakin normal and drama free! if he is unable to sleep at night worried about me, there's something wrong, and trust me, Farrah and I disagree on most every relationship point, and I agree with her on this one.

There's a fine line between caring and obsessing. Find it and walk it? I don't think so. Is there "drama" with Christ? No. There's love, trust, faith and service. No drama. You should be unified with that person, but it doesn't require drama - it requires the formula you have in your relationship with Christ, pure and simple.

farrah said...

Hahaha- Zach, did you add that to Wikipedia yet?

I'm not really sure WHAT to think...I mean, all this time I thought I was sparing the ones I cared for from drama and complications by a) not arguing or fussing over anything they do and b) letting them walk quietly out the door without "closure."

Suddenly I'm re-thinking everything. I don't know if I'll know how to cause a fuss- but I also think he's right in that I've never been with someone I was willing to fight for.

I'm sending him this article so he can contribute his thoughts. And- for the record- from everything I've seen of their relationship, it's really, REALLY nice. They are very conciencious about one another and take really good care of each other, so he may have a good point here....

Salt H2O said...

Vanilla, you don't seem like the kind of girl that would like a 'normal' relationship. For some reason I think you need a bit of flavor to keep you interested.

It depends why he's up thinking about you at night- if it's for no reason what so ever, you're right, he's crazy. But if he can't sleep because you had a terrible fight, it's a good thing.

Jared's right, I think we're all talking about the same thing here, but the definition of drama, or the usage of the term has to be re-defined.

Rachel said...

Some things that come to mind: 1) Once someone told me that love is worth fighting for. Then when the boy walked away and I realized that I didn't want to chase after him and ask him to reconsider, I finally realized that I didn't love him all that much. 2)Another boy always insisted that I tell him if he was doing something that made me unhappy. It was SO painfully uncomfortable for me to say, "I get upset when you..." But it made the biggest difference and surprisingly, I always ended up feeling closer afterwards. 3) My dad always says that you don't marry the perfect person/Mr. Right. Instead over the years you become just right for eachother. That sounds to me like making lots adjustments for the benifit of your campanion. Anyhoo. Those are all the thoughts I had.

farrah said...

I love that, Rachel. The last relationship I was in was the first one where I ever ASKED for anything...Asked for advance notice, asked for understanding (why I wasn't ready to be exclusive), asked for boundries, etc. It was sooo hard for me to do, but it was amazing because HE was the one who would ask me to draw those lines! It was so liberating, and, in fact, I think it kept drama to a minimum.

I have always felt that there are no perfect people, but there ARE people who are perfect for each other. It's been proven to me over and over by friends of mine in amazing relationships, and I love getting to see how they grow as individuals as they sacrifice to support one another.

As for the definition of drama- how is it that we've gotten on the crazy train here? I think I listed his "drama" qualifiers quite clearly- wanting to know where she is, who she's with, what she's doing, checking in with one another, changing your behavior or habits to better suit the one you love...Basically acting as a part of a whole rather than being an independent, isolated individual. Not obsessing or laying awake at night. COME ON!

Pam said...

This is just MY random input, but...

I agree with the statement that we need to redefine the term 'drama' in this context. How it is now defined is not what your boss is saying, but it's the only word to really get someone to understand what he means. In this sense, I think there's a difference between 'drama' and 'being dramatic'. You can say having a disagreement is 'drama' or you can recognize it as two people actually caring enough to do what they think will make the relationship better.

Also, interdependence is incredibly healthy. God Himself has told us that that is how it's supposed to be. Unless you can find a different way to explain the whole 'two becoming one' thing... I think it's only possible when someone is a whole person alone that they can completely and wholly be that other half. You should be able to depend on that person. You should be able to give all of yourself for and to that person, or else... what are you doing?

I guess I'm just looking for the man that doesn't need me to survive, but can't imagine life without me. Am I making any sense?

f*bomb. said...

When I was 13 I said that I don't want to NEED a man, but I want to want someone so much that he BECOMES a need. So far, I think my 13 year old self is pleased.

As for "two become one," I think that was a Spice Girls song. Not God.