Expression of love drove her away / She was already away
Dear Annie: I have been dating a very sweet girl for three weeks. I
knew I was falling in love with her and made the mistake of letting
her know. Ever since, she has lost interest in me.
"Linda" insists there is no way I could fall in love with her in
three weeks. Linda comes from a divorced family and hasn't talked to
her father much over the years. She said that when someone cares for
her, she cuts off her emotions.
I suggested therapy, but she said it wouldn't help. We are not
really seeing each other right now, but she has called a few times,
and the conversation is always good. We both read your column daily.
Please help. —HURTING IN NEW LISBON, WIS
Annie's Reply:
Dear Wis: Three weeks is an awfully short time to say you're in
love. You came on too strong and apparently frightened Linda enough
to break things off. Since Linda keeps in touch, there is hope for
this relationship, but you'll have to back off and take things more
slowly. Allow her to get to know what a great guy you are before you
make declarations of undying affection. —Annie
Gabby's Reply:
Hi Wis: I don't agree with what you say was your mistake. In fact, I don't see that you have made any mistakes. Each of us in our own time learn certain things en route to having successful relationships. Driving others out of our life (to include setting it up for another to initiate a divorce) is an essential part of the leadership-communication curriculum, not a mistake.
When one is a loving person, when one comes from love, of course it's there at the beginning; to withhold expressing it would be controlling. However, you don't come from love, therefore, you, along with the vast majority of people, control others unconsciously. A person who comes from love, who operates from love, loves everyone; such an enlightened person automatically experiences who is, and who is not, bound up in his/her expressions of self and love. I.e. Most people learn to not pet a stranger's Chihuahua dog, a breed that doesn't automatically love strangers; if you try to "love" them they'll snap at you. That you could not immediately see (within seconds) that Linda was emotionally bound up (that she was a "snapper") and not open and honest in her expressions of affection and love, reveals that you were at effect of something, perhaps her physical beauty or her "sweet" act.
For example: If you were to meet the Dalai Lama you'd experience love immediately because he comes from love. His love is clear and unattached. There is nothing you have to do and it doesn't matter what you bring into your relationship with him. It's not as though he has lived a life free of lies, abuses, or judgments, it's just that he has learned how to acknowledge and complete such perpetrations rather than carry them around into each new relationship. He creates space for one to experience love. Unacknowledged incompletes serve as barriers to the experience of communication, therefore love.
By "unconscious" I mean that you are unaware that your "love" communication had all sorts of other messages attached to it. With the cable that delivers TV to your house, there are dozens of messages (channels) traveling in it, so too are there usually multiple verbal and non-verbal messages (sometimes referred to as "mixed-messages") that travel between you and another. A verbal message from an unconscious (unclear) person most always carries with it, judgments, expectations, neediness, etc., all traveling non-verbally along with the simple statement, "I love you." It most always carries with it hundreds (yes, hundreds) of previously withheld thoughts, thoughts withheld for reasons. A thought withheld serves as a barrier to the experience of communication, to love. What she's communicating to you non-verbally now is, "What you call love ain't it. I'll know it the minute I experience it." Put another way, you invalidated her experience. I.e. "Show me what you got (pass a few tests) and then I might love you and allow you to love me."
Sometimes what's needed is to create a context to help the receiver's mind process the message. For example: You could create a context by preparing her mind, such as, "I don't mean to frighten you, I just need to say this to get it out of my mind, it doesn't mean anything, and it sure doesn't require a response from you; I just find myself experiencing love when I'm with you. It feels nice." This is referred to as creating a context for communication to take place. Or, creating a basket into which you put the content. Pure love experienced feels wonderful. It requires nothing in return.
Your "love" communication was an unconscious command and a question, "Now tell me you love me—you do don't you?" Your non-verbal question was in fact a covert ultimatum. What you communicated was, "Either you accept my love or I will be upset." That's manipulation, not love.
Unbeknownst to you your message actually contained the non-verbal imperative, ". . . after I say this stay away from me." We know this because that's the result your leadership-communication skills produced. The result you produced was simply a wake-up call, a reminder that your presentation does not automatically create space for the experience of love with others; more specifically, that you have been unconscious.
Another thought
about your "love" bomb. In a personal relationship, intercourse
(communication) is a dance. Dancing partners are interchangeably
leading and following, switching rolls back and forth as the leader
then the follower (controlling-surrendering). When one is leading
all the time, such as Linda does, it's called control, she emanates
non-verbally, "Don't tell me you love me until I say it's OK to do
so." Like a dance partner who presses gently on your back to tell
you to go a certain direction, you were supposed to have gotten her
non-verbal communication, "Go this way OR ELSE." She delivers
this command non-stop. It was there when you first glanced at her.
It's an aura kind of thing. With
Java Finches at the feeder one just knows that if you intrude into
their space they fly away; they are beautiful to look at but their
dance precludes hugging.
There are a couple things you were
supposed to have learned from your parents during high school
dating.
1) If you find yourself dating a women who is estranged from her parents, ensure that she has done so with compassion and from service.
* Simply finding something wrong with someone (one's parents) and staying away from them, or interacting with them as little as possible, is both irresponsible and abusive. Such a relationship is doomed to lots of breakdowns in communication all stemming from incompletes with one's family members. I suspect she is mirroring your relationship with your parents, possibly you haven't hugged your father and mother lately.2) If you date a women who needs therapy it reveals that you need an equal amount of therapy. If you are engaged in on-going therapy sessions yourself then you must share the fact with your date. BTW: Let your next date know how you "blew" it with Linda.
In case there's any doubt, rest assured, you do need therapy. There's something going on with you that you would attract, bring into your intimate life, a woman who needs therapy. An actualized man has no need to set it up to be rejected and therefore doesn't attract rejecters. Some men are addicted to helping needy women. They are called needy men. Helping creates dependency and "unfair" divorce settlements.
3) If you're not experiencing love with someone it simply means that you are withholding significant thoughts from them; you have not communicated all the thoughts you've had about them and you have not created a safe space for them to share their thoughts and considerations as to why they don't love you.
If Linda
cannot effect mutually satisfying supportive communication with her
father (if she doesn't hug him daily) then she will not be able to
do so in a personal relationship, unless,
and this is extremely important, she has undergone as much
therapy/counseling as she believes her father needs. Notice that you
suggested therapy and she invalidated you and rejected your support.
That should have been a red flag for you. She hasn't rejected enough
men to have it be her idea to heal herself. Your "therapy
suggestion" was also a covert make-wrong. At some level she now
knows that you think she needs more therapy than you.
Re: ".
. . she cuts off her emotions." This is a clue to her intention to
staying stuck in the drama. A conscious person would say, "In the
past . . . I have cut off my emotions. I'd like your support in not
doing that with you." Had you been conscious you would have noticed
that she was not home, she was already away,
from you and everyone. Now is not the time for her to be dating.
I suspect that you approached her rather than created space for her to verbally initiate the relationship. If so, she has no experience of having co-created the relationship, "It just happened," or, another lie, "He seduced me." Put another way, she probably would not have walked across the gym floor to ask you to dance. She did not choose you.
She is unaware of the fact that she hurt (abused you) your feelings. There is a way to complete a relationship so that both feel good.
About "sweet." Sweet is an extremely sophisticated manipulative act. A person who is whole and complete experiences the entire range of emotions throughout the day; sweet is just one of many expressions. A person who is whole and complete is not stuck in just one presentation, such as polite, loving, nice, sweet, angry, happy, grumpy, or unhappy. Sweet is probably how she survived each day with her parents. Typically, a person stuck in "sweet" can't be trusted to communicate openly, honestly, and spontaneously; reasonableness, politeness and tactfulness take priority over integrity. One is either experiencing love or they have their reasons.
Now here's the confusing part: A person who has a generally sweet disposition, (comes across as sweet 90% of each day), is not communicating openly, honestly, and spontaneously. If you aren't hearing their negative judgments, their upsets, their mean thoughts, their weird thoughts, their considerations and fears throughout the day then they are being deceitful with you by withholding certain thoughts/judgments. Mutually satisfying spontaneity is the criteria that measures whole and complete. Polite = stuffed thoughts.
For example: Most everyone has a pleasant memory of a sweet old teacher. What most don't know is that in the teacher's lounge this "sweet acting" person stuffed their judgments and considerations of their badmouthing gossiping fellow teachers thereby supporting (causing) this detrimental behavior. Now ask, why would they do this when they know the principal is continually trying to effect a supportive team, zero badmouthing and negative gossiping? Why would a sweet teacher sabotage his/her own principal? Sweet people are addicted to looking good. They can't be trusted to say what's on their mind at any given moment. They are run by fear, fear of not being liked, of being alone, so much so that they will unconsciously covertly sabotage the desired results of the leader of any group to which they belong. Through silence they will force the leader to have to support the rules and policies rather than speak up themselves when they see/hear an infraction.
Keep in mind,
it's possible to communicate all thoughts and considerations in a
way that is supportive and mutually satisfying. That is to say,
through coaching one can turn what could be behind-the-back negative gossip
into uplifting, forwarding and appreciated feedback.
Great
letter, many will get value from it. Thank you, Gabby
* "from service" meaning, that she has responsibly estranged herself from her father. She would have communicated to him, "I won't interact with you in any way whatsoever until you have completed 25 fifty-minute sessions with a therapist/counselor." The way she is doing it is from blame and take-away. She does not appear to have given him a way to come back into her life. This is called dumping. It doesn't serve someone to dump them; it's both irresponsible and abusive. Irresponsible because it doesn't take into account one's cause for the estrangement and, abusive because it doesn't feel good to the dumpee.
Comments
To ask a question please go to Dear Gabby's Message Board (free - registration required).
Last edited 9/6/21