Ho, Ho, Ho, Merrrry.....wait, we missed it!

After a couple of weeks of lots of holiday horror stories and "shocking" breaches of Christmas etiquette, I was a bit surprised to see that on Christmas Eve, most of the columnists didn't even touch Christmas. (Maybe they figured any train wrecks are now far beyond stopping....).

• Abby revisited the issue of reading or not reading collections of private letters between deceased relatives (I responded to this one after the original October column)
  
• Kathy and Marcy of Annie's Mailbox counseled a high school student who's being buillied about her Jolie-like "duck lips"
• Dan Savage, whom I read weekly, but rarely write about here (partly because most of his answers are a bit out of my range of expertise, and partly because when I started this blog I checked the "no adult content" box, and generally try to avoid profanity, etc.) gives a slight nod to "last minute Christmas gifts," but mostly covers the standard Savage Love grab bag of spanking, smelliness, and electro-stimulation.
• Miss Manners hits on foreclosure and telecommunications
  
• And Carolyn wrote about HPV, of all things!

Golly gee whillikers, where can a girl get a little holiday spirit, or at least a little festive forehead slapping?

• Amy hits the spot, featuring a woman (I'm guessing) who is obsessed with the fact that her relative cannot send Christmas gifts on time. The gifts always arrive eventually, but she'd apparently do away with gifts altogether rather than have them show up late. How old is she, 9? Unless there are kids thinking Santa's been run over (by a reindeer?) because the presents aren't there, what's the big friggin' deal? Amy conveys basically the same sentiment, though not in so many words.
• Prudence devotes all four of her weekly featured letters (plus the video!) to Christmas conundrums (conundra? help me, Latin speakers!). Get ready for simmering sibling entitlement, multicultural mishaps, mysterious gifts from married men, and my two favorites: absurdly political Christmas cards and prank gift wrapping that would give Wile E. Coyote a run for his money.
• Carolyn's last pre-holiday live chat also had a few doozies: gourmet cooks griping about lame holiday food, obnoxious custody arrangements, and this, my favorite one (scroll all the way down to the bottom):
  

Washington, DC: Carolyn

Any tips for surviving driving my sister from one parent's house to the other this weekend? It's a three hour trip and she commandeers my radio, criticizes my driving, and generally drives me nuts every time we're in the car. Plus, she'll be ready late and want to stop at every Starbucks we pass, which will make her have to pee. I'm anticipating the three hour drive will take roughly 4.5 with her in the car. How do I do it so we arrive at parent no. 2's house with me still in the holiday spirit?

Carolyn says: Read this, see how funny this is, and treat yourself to a foofy hot somethingorother on one if not all of the stops.

Gentle readers (to snag a phrase from Miss Manners), thanks for sticking around for year two of A Little Help Please?! Happy holidays, and see you in the new year! (unless things are boring at home, in which case I'll see you, like, tomorrow).

Later, gators!

In case you didn't notice, this blog is on vacation. See you in September, as the song goes! (Oh wait, it IS September. OK, see you in the second half of the month). In the meantime, content yourselves with 10 years of Carolyn Hax chat archives: The Hall of Repressed Memories

You may need a Washington Post account to sift through all of these.....not sure....

Double Your Flavor, Double your Fun

It's a great day when the same question shows up in two different columns, I can remember the first when reading the second, and I can find both!

Printed by Carolyn (April 22) and Annie's Mailbox (June 3), the question is:

Dear Annie: Recently, an e-mail correspondence between my mother and sister somehow ended up in my inbox. I can only assume it got there by mistake because it was full of criticism and hurtful comments about my family. The saddest part is that I had no idea either of them had issues with my wife or the way we raise our kids. My wife has been the only saving grace. She was able to calm me down and help me deal with the pain. She read the e-mail, deleted it and made sure I said nothing about it to my mother or sister to avoid damaging the relationship permanently.

We are supposed to celebrate July 4th with my extended family. [Carolyn's column printed"We are supposed to see these family members soon" instead] I'd like to go and enjoy the day, but fear I might slip and say something about the e-mail or engage in a conversation that might not be appropriate for a family gathering. What should I do? — Stressed-Out Son

Kathy and Marcie's brief, pragmatic response:

Dear Stressed: It is not unusual for family members to criticize each other, especially in-laws, in private. (You and your wife have probably done the same.) No one is looking for trouble, which is why Mom and Sis would never dream of saying these things to your face. We know your wife was trying to spare you, but it might be better to discuss this openly. Tell your mother and sister that you saw the e-mail and are disappointed they harbor such negative feelings, but you hope you can all get past it. In order to salvage the relationship, you must find a way to forgive them.

And Carolyn's longer, more pondering one:

You're right; your wife made an elegant save. Unleashing the raw emotions of your discovery would likely have made things worse.

Now that you've had time to collect yourself, though, you can figure out your next move by gauging whether you'll be able to get past this. No doubt you are hurt; that's a given. The question is whether this pain is out of proportion to your other feelings about your sister and mom.

One way to approach it is to consider things you've said to your mom about your sister, to your sister about your mom, and to your wife about both of them. Imagine what would happen if these conversations ever fell into the wrong hands.

In other words, if you've had conversations similar to the one you intercepted, and you've just never been busted, then I would use that to remind yourself that exchanges intended to be in confidence aren't always pretty. As long as they aren't motivated by spite, they can help friends and family understand each other, work through grievances, and even warn each other when something is amiss. If the e-mail could be considered well-meaning, by even the most elastic of stretches, then you have grounds for a conscious decision to let go.

If, on the other hand, there's no room to interpret the message as anything but mean-spirited, then you might reasonably expect the injuries won't heal on their own. If so, you owe it to yourself to say, calmly, to your mom (or sister, if you're closer to her) that you received the e-mail. Let her know, and then let her speak her piece.

That represents your best chance at eliciting context and remorse, the two most healing quantities they can supply at this point. You obviously aren't planning to estrange yourself from the family, so that leaves you with two plain if difficult choices: Make peace with them, or with yourself.

Arrrrgh, the only thing worse than accidentally sending an email specifically to the very person you didn't want it to go to is being the person who receives it (discussion for another time: the merits and challenges of the emergency follow up email featuring "PLEASE DELETE EARLIER MESSAGE IT WAS NOT MEANT FOR YOU" in the subject line).

Carolyn, as usual, advocated taking a long look at oneself, and making a fair effort to understand the other person's perspective before acting--she's often more reflective than Annie's Mailbox. But, even after all that reflection (which I'm not trying to devalue) her advice was, in the end, virtually the same as theirs.

And I pretty much agree with it, too. It's too bad the first double printed letter I've found since I've been actively paying attention wasn't a more controversial one!

Also: it makes me giggle that Carolyn's editors replaced "the 4th of July" with "soon." At the time that this guy wrote to Carolyn, his bile was rising even as he looked toward an event 3 months (possibly more) in the future, with no intention of seeking any resolution in the interim.

Given that, and given that he clearly wrote to multiple columnists, I think Carolyn at least (maybe too late for Kathy and Marcie) could have just told him to drop the issue for a week or two or even more, and carry on with life as usual. If it's still eating at him, and the deleted words are still burned on his brain, and he can't communicate normally with mother and sister, THEN follow through on clearing the air with them.

Also, it seems impossible that the sister/mother didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize their mistake. They, too, are probably just waiting for the storm.

Desperate Housewife Seeks Baby Mama?

This person had me so riled up I dug around through weeks of old columns and transcripts looking for it--I didn't write about it when it was first published, but can't shake the icky feeling from my mind. It comes from Carolyn's May 7th live chat--have to scroll about 5/6 of the way down:

Atlanta, Ga.: Dear Carolyn,

My husband and I are "bidding" for a closed adoption through our church. The birth mother is a 17-year-old girl who already has a child. She is currently considering us as well as one other couple. This process involves a lot of waiting and is really fraying my nerves. We are the "better" couple -- higher income, more childcare experience, a son who can't wait to be a big brother, and we live in the suburbs (while the other family has a condo in the city). We have not yet met the mother, but the other couple has apparently established a friendly relationship with her. We hope to do the same over the summer, to help her decision process.

My problem is I cannot come to terms with the fact that the choice will ultimately rest with this girl, whom I've never met. On paper, my husband and I are the easy choice. Nothing against the other couple, but I believe if it were up to an objective party, anyone would choose us. But the process is designed so that the girl has the final say, which I can't understand. Why should it be her decision? She has already demonstrated questionable decision-making capabilities, and she will never know anything about us besides what she learns over a couple of casual lunches. We hope to make a good impression on her, but I am really going to pieces over the thought that maybe there are factors we won't be able to influence. Why is this okay???

Carolyn Hax: If I were the mom, your quickness to dismiss both the other other couple and my right to make decisions for my baby would disqualify you without so much as a follow-up "casual lunch."

What I see are two families who want a child, and who both may well be in a position to give a baby a wonderful home -- neither "better" than the other, just different. And I see a mother who got herself in a stupid spot but who is doing her best to get out of it (see the physics of digging out of holes, above) in the way that best serves her child.

If you can't get over yourself long enough to see that this isn't a competition, it's a community effort to save a life, and that any good home is a great outcome, even if the home isn't yours, then I hope you'll recuse yourself from the "auction" altogether.

-- City-Dweller

Aaaagh, shudder, shudder shudder! So much about this upsets me. First of all, "bidding" for a baby--which Carolyn jabs at nicely with her "auction" barb in the last line of her response.

Next: a closed adoption? I am certainly no expert in adoption but I have done a little bit of research about it, and have discovered that domestic adoptions are rarely fully "closed" anymore--most agencies and offices recommend and facilitate arrangements that are at least semi-open, that is, where there is some communication between the biological parent and the family.

The idea that a child needs to be protected from the shadowy reputation of "bad" parents by a black box of secret records is (thankfully) gone now, and for both medical and just psycho-cultural-social-emotional reasons, at least some interaction with the biological family seems to be the healthiest and most productive approach for everyone. And in this case the child in question has a biological sibling that everyone knows about--are they planning to keep that a secret from the baby? Or tell her about it but refuse to allow the kids to know each other? Everything becomes doubly (or triply) complicated when another child is involved.

Also, if the birth mother is personally meeting with, interviewing, and selecting adoptive families, aren't we already beyond the strictest sense of a "closed" adoption? (Wikipedia article on closed adoption)

Information from an Atlanta adoption agency that I admit I obtained through a quick and dirty google search:

Through Domestic Infant Adoption, families are, in most instances, able to bring their baby home directly from the hospital. Prospective adoptive families also typically get to develop a relationship with biological family members who have hand-picked them to be Mom and Dad, equipping them with social and medical history as well as stories and pictures that they can share with their child as he or she grows older and asks important questions about biological connections. We believe that, just as aspects of loss touch everyone involved in infertility, relinquishment, and adoption, openness provides a “bridge” that connects children, adoptive parents, and birth parents in amazingly redemptive and healing ways. Openness follows a continuum, from completely closed to fully open, depending on the desires of both the birth and adoptive families, but the primary goal is always to serve the best interests of the child.

Then: the entire attitude about how her family is "better" on paper. Ugh. Don't even have anything useful to say about it. Too busy shuddering. More childcare experience? Because experience is always a pre-req for parenthood....

Also, I like that the "other" family has taken the time to establish a friendship with the mother, something this writer hasn't bothered to do, but wants to push for in order to "help" her make a decision. I wonder if she even had any interest in meeting the mother until she heard that the other family had--clearly she WISHES the choice would be made by an "objective" party based on a paper application.

On the other hand, Carolyn's response, while appropriately sharp, in some ways feels unrealistically altruistic to me. Of course the most important outcome is that the baby be placed in a loving home. Nevertheless, I think it's unreasonable to expect that waiting adoptive parents--who most of the time are seeking adoption because they can't have children--won't be desperately and devastatingly hoping to be chosen every time.

Nevertheless, this woman sounds like a control freak who can't come to grips with the areas of her life over which she has no power: her and her husband's inability to have biological children (if that's the case), perhaps other potential adoptions gone awry, and certainly this mother's choice to place her baby with the family she thinks best suited to love it, guide it, and provide the kind of life she would want to give it if she could.

It's very sad, actually...this writer sounds lost somewhere between frustration and devastation. But that doesn't make it OK that she's letting those feelings out by turning them against the biological mother of a child she says she wants to raise, and against an innocent family that seems eager to know both the baby and the source of its genes.

I am sad for this woman because she's dealing with obstacles to building her dream family--something that is probably particularly frustrating as she interacts with teenagers who have no such problems, and reproduce in a manner that must seem, well, willy-nilly at best. But if she can't brush the chip off her shoulder and embrace what she's got and what the future holds for her family, I can't see anyone choosing her as a loving, nuturing parent for their unborn child.

One Singular Temptation....

This is another long one, a two-column adaptation of an issue that took over Carolyn's live chat several weeks ago. In it, a young wife is extremely concerned that the way her single friends overshare about their single lifestyles is a blatant, disrespectful attack on her marriage (um...self-centered much?). Carolyn and the peanuts cover most of the necessary bases on this one, but I'll throw in a few comments along the way.

Published Monday:

Dear Carolyn:

My husband and I, both 24, were the first in our social circle to get married. Most of our friends have more active dating lives than I ever had. I don't feel jealous -- I love my husband -- but something they all seem to do really bothers me.

Whenever we meet up in groups, to chat or have drinks or hang out at the park, the conversation always turns to everyone's latest dating woes. The guys and the girls are equally guilty of indiscretion, but it's the girls I always seem to notice. They go on and on about the club scene where they live and their polygamous sex lives. They wear revealing clothes that I gave up after high school and they often get hit on by strangers while we're hanging out. [So much judgment of the friends! They get hit on by strangers!? Who else would you expect to hit on your friends? They shouldn't lead monk-ish lives just because they're hanging out with your husband, who is clearly off-limits. As we'll see in a second.]

I don't feel they should be talking and acting that way around my husband, a married man. ["a married man." This sounds like a phrase from a Doris Day movie, or maybe something Jack Lemmon would say to his skeazy colleagues in The Apartment. "But you're a married man!" I think, though, the poor guy has to do something more than sit in the presence of single women (his wife's friends, no less) for him to be slammed with this "friendly" reminder] I would prefer he not be thinking about our female friends' wild sex lives or noticing how hot everyone thinks they are. [I would bet good money that if she were to ask her husband the details of any of these stories, he wouldn't have a clue. He's probably watching the game on the bar's flatscreen! When I'm out with SK and others, and the conversation turns to gossipy girl-talk my top two concerns are 1) I hope he's not bored to tears and 2) I hope he's not so spaced out that if someone asks him a direct question he misses it completely. "I hope he's not drawn into a complicated fanstasy based on Friend A's date last night" doesn't even register on my list. ] I know this is why married couples naturally gravitate toward other married couples [it is? more on this below], but these are the friends we have and I do not want to trade them in, so to speak.

Can I say something to my girlfriends about how uncomfortable I feel, or since I'm so outnumbered do I have to just suck it up and be miserable around them all the time? [Or can I get over myself and not make a stink or be miserable??]

Maryland

Oh, my goodness. Were you miserable around them before you married? [I think this is an important question....the fact that this woman married young suggests that she and her husband were dating for several years--at least, that's been the case with most of my friends who are getting engaged and married right now. And if these are their only friends...well, what's changed? Besides their legal status?]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously, but this married person does not gravitate to other married people because the single ones are flaunting their hotness.

I don't even know what to do with this idea -- do I rail first against the idea that people cover themselves up when they get married? Because plenty of people dress the way they do because they like it, and don't change a stitch of what they choose to wear after marriage.

But then that demotes to second rail the whole idea that single people = temptation = a group to avoid once married; railing against that deserves at least to share top billing.

How 'bout -- I'll rail against the idea of controlling what your husband sees.

People have eyes and ears and temptations no matter what they've vowed to whom or why. If your husband misses the single life, he's going to do that whether your friends raise provocative discussions or not.

People who marry young probably do struggle more with the whole issue of regrets and what they may have given up, and their immersion in a world with a lot of raging singles does contribute to that struggle. However, this is the choice you made, and it's going to stand on its merits alone.

In other words, if the only way you can keep your boat from sinking is to put it in dry dock, then that's a choice you and your husband need to make together -- after, I would suggest, as open a discussion as possible. If your boat really is leaking, I also wouldn't suggest blaming it all on the ocean. [Another winner of an analogy. Thanks Carolyn!]

Tomorrow: Maryland and readers reply.

Published Tuesday:

Dear Carolyn:

Maybe I didn't explain myself well [in yesterday's column]. My marriage is not in trouble and I'm not afraid my husband is being reminded of what it was like to be a "raging single." It's my friends themselves who bug me. [A ha! More evidence that she has no right to be upset! If her husband were actually reacting to these stories in a way that bothered her, the issue would be with him (not her friends) but it would be more understandable that she would want to blame them. But in fact, he's not doing anything to suggest that he's unhappy with his choice, or wishes he were out with a harem of singles because their stories are so hot(tt). She's upset on principle alone--and over a principle that apparently has no basis in reality. So what's the deal?]

When Friend A is recounting the story of how her last date ended with making out in a cab, or men walking by are commenting on Friend B's amazing chest, it seems only natural that my husband would take a closer look at Friends A and B. [Doubtful. Again, this is where to me it seems only natural that husband would tune out entirely, because this conversation has nothing to do with him or his interests. I mean, not that he couldn't be a part of it. But I bet he's not. Maybe it's this tuning out that Married in Maryland is mistaking for his drifting into gawking and fantasizing. Also, how is it conceivably Friend B's fault if sleazy dudes walking by are stoked because she's stacked? She would probably prefer that they don't make such juvenile comments about her bod.]

In my view, more mature people respect each other's marriages by not presenting those kinds of temptations. I wouldn't talk about my sex life with my friends' dates because only my husband should look at me in a sexual way. [My guess is that these conversations happen specifically because the friends don't see the husband in a sexual way, or consider that he'd see them that way--like a brother or a gay friend, the husband probably seems completely sexually apathetic--which is why they have no qualms about oversharing] So I don't get why you reacted as though I'm being outrageous.

[Maybe another issue to consider here is that she brings her husband along in situations when she really shouldn't. Sounds like there's a lot of girl-talk going on, and maybe her friends are carrying on as usual, and this one keeps bringing her husband to martinis-and-manis night. We might be (ok, probably are) getting a skewed perspective because Married says there are men present who do the same thing as her single girlfriends, but the picture she paints for us just makes me feel bad for the husband, like his wife brought him a long to a slumber party and then got mad at her friends for playing Truth or Dare, sharing private tales and putting their bras in the freezer.]

Married Maryland Girl Again

Because you're being outrageous. Your husband could just as well be looking at your friends during tales of their exploits and saying, wow, A and B are gross. I can assure you he already noticed B's chest and decided whether it was amazing long before your friends prattled on about it.

You have constructed a wall in your mind between marriage and singlehood that doesn't exist. Okay, you don't hit on those you know to be in life commitments -- otherwise, you treat people as people.

Now, if you've outgrown your friends, that's something else. But if you'd enjoy the raunch in unmixed company and it's just having your husband there that freaks you out, then I think you're getting worked up over something that "more mature people" shrug off. Real partners are secure enough to handle real experiences and real people together. [And also secure enough to socialize apart, on occasion]

Re: Maryland:

It strikes me that Maryland is enforcing a lot of our bad social prejudices, too. She acknowledges that the men in her group are just as "guilty of indiscretion" (guilty?!) as the women, but it's the women who bother her more. We're not a culture that holds men and women to equal standards when it comes to expressing sexuality, and she's probably been a victim of that herself.

Also, why should their talking about their lives now be any different from before the wedding? I get the sense there's a lot going on under the surface of this woman's question, and she might want to evaluate her own assumptions about men and women.

Anonymous

Agreed. I saw it as a he's-my-man-and-vixens-be-gone reflex, but you're right that even if it were a legitimate reflex to act upon (which it isn't, said the broken record), it doesn't justify the double standard. Maybe she's just lost, and grabbing on to her old ideas of what marriage is "supposed to be."

Re: Maryland:

I always assumed the married people gravitated to each other for the sole purpose of boring any unfortunate nearby singles into a coma with their talk of mortgage refis, kids and vinyl siding. I'd have killed to hang out with some fun, trampy singles.

I think the older you get, the less you think of marriage as this wormhole gate that forces you to dress, think, talk and behave like a pod person.

Anonymous 2

A little hope-driftwood to cling to, thanks.

In short, I think Married in Maryland is just really, really insecure--could even be the case (though I'm making a real assumption here) that she married so young precisely because she didn't think she'd ever find someone else, or be able to compete with her friends--or because she wanted to "beat" them in something--anything--that would prove she was just as desirable as they were. And now she's judging them for living the lives they want to live, rather than conforming to the choices she made for herself. Mostly, I feel pity for Married--but not enough that I'm willing to condone her making herself comfortable by reigning in everyone around her. She needs to get comfortable with herself first, then her husband and her marriage, and then think about whether she's still a good fit for these friends.

Re-defining Girls' Night:

An interesting letter from Carolyn's column on how "Girls' Night Out" changes when both members of a couple are women (I've linked to the second page of her column because that's where the majority of the letter is...it looks like it's picking up in the middle, but you're only missing "Dear Carolyn:"):

Dear Carolyn:
I have a friend who is a lesbian. Whenever we have girls' night or traditionally women-only events (baby showers, bachelorette parties, etc.), her partner always comes. We are not really friends with the partner, although we frequently do get together as couples. It feels weird to not invite her, but it feels like she shouldn't come, either. Am I making this more complicated than it should be?
Va.

No, you have a fair point. To act on it, though, you're talking deliberate exclusion -- always, uh, challenging.
But if you state your case clearly that you see "girls' night out" not as man-free companionship but date-free companionship, and ask your friend what she thinks about that, and if your relationship with your friend is good, and if her relationship with her partner is good, then it shouldn't be a problem.
That's three "ifs" and a "should," if you're keeping score at home.

I don't even have that much to say about it, just wanted to throw it out there and see if other people have anything to share.

Seems to me that most people like to get together with their friends without their partners at least some of the time, and while for folks of any orientation there are times when the friend is the same gender as the partner (could I make this anymore semantically complicated...?), a lot of the time, for most people, this seems to break down easiest along lines of "girl time" or "guy's night." But maybe that is changing, or should?

This seems to be a case of one homosexual couple in a group heterosexual women. I wonder how this works in groups of friends who are mainly homosexual, or mixed to a more equal degree, and if that's where we'll find a useful model for emulation: creating splinter groups based on who actually enjoys certain activities ("shower for people who like tea cakes only"), or on shared history ("just college buddies") rather than along gender lines.

How have you seen this changing in your own life, or the lives of people you know?

Figuratively Speaking....

What's your favorite type of figurative language? After hyperbole (which I invoke like a million times a day without even realizing it), I choose the analogy. I'm always looking for simple yet profound ways to express to others how complex and difficult situations are exactly like driving, traveling, shopping, sleeping, and any other number of much easier tasks. This drives SK nuts since it tends to derail our more difficult conversations:

him: why are you so upset?
me: It's exactly like we're making cookies, and we didn't have walnuts so we used pecans instead, but we forgot about the fact that the one person we really want to enjoy the cookies hates pecans.
him: It is not like that at all.

Anyway, that's why I'm doing an extra long post featuring TWO of Carolyn's "adapted from online chat" columns: because in the second one she has a fabulous analogy that (unlike most of mine) I think really works. So here's the situation:

Dear Carolyn:

I've been seeing this guy for about three months. It's going great. Well, it WAS going great. He is getting wooed heavily by several big companies, and thus being flown to different cities. Add that to a busy work week and I haven't seen him in two weeks.

He's texted (in response to my texts) but that's it. After not hearing anything for several days, I wrote once that I knew he was busy but I was feeling nervous and a bit like a convenience. He responded that he understood and that we'd talk about it soon. He also said he wanted to stay with me, but if he moved he didn't know.

I scare easily, and he knows this. My corporate friends say it's common to lose touch for a few days. I say you eat meals, sleep and commute: There IS time to drop a line if you want to.

I'm not mad; he IS a nice person. He's been great at every exchange. But I am coming to the conclusion that maybe it's over. I'm shutting down and don't know that, when I DO see him, I'll be able to jump back to where we were.

I have a history of walking away when there are bumps in the road -- single is comfortable for me. This seems like the end of the road, not a bump. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt? I've already deleted his number.

Pull the Trigger

It looks as if you just want to end it officially before he has the chance to.

You've been dating him for three months; that's not long enough for you to have become part of his emotional core, and yet you're taking his actions (or non-) personally, as if you were supposed to be in his core but aren't.

Please breathe, take his travels as an opportunity to focus on your own well-being, and wait to see what happens when he gets back.

It is, of course, entirely possible he'll get back only to break up with you. However, his doing that will be a near certainty if you view every non-text he sends as proof of The End.

Whenever you start to panic, remind yourself that he may be preoccupied, or thinking of you and not texting, or not thinking of you because he's just not as into you yet as you are into him. Since the last seems fairly certain regardless, it might make sense to accept and adjust to that vs. expunging him from memory.

Each one of these possibilities can reflect him as much as it reflects you. Screw up your courage and give things a chance to play out.

[The following is input from the fellow chatters, known in Carolyn chat land as "the peanuts." I'm sure this is derived from "peanut gallery," but it's sort of funny to picture the chat participants as the nuts themselves, not the little boys throwing them]

For Pull the Trigger:

When work and travel get to be a pain, about the last person I want to deal with is one who needs lots of reassurance. If instead you are a source of comfort to your partner, then he'll be seeking you out.

Anonymous

And Carolyn's comment:

I wouldn't advise her to fake it if she can't be this calm for real, but it is something to weigh, and work toward. If she's bugging him, though, certainly he should speak up.

Tomorrow: Business trip, or just the business?

Let's find out....

Update from "Pull the Trigger," two weeks after her first question (in yesterday's column):

Dear Carolyn:

I tried to reach him and got nothing. I became worried and swung by his apartment. The doorman said he had moved. Moved! Four days after the last time I saw him!

I'm beside myself. I can't imagine that he'd have the capacity to do this. We'd had the conversation about not seeing other people.

If he'd told me he was moving I would've bought him a beer and congratulated him. Why lie about checking in when he got back?

Moving forward, how do I ever know someone is decent? I was nervous and anxious before and I don't date much because I have a hard time letting my guard down.

Pull the Trigger Again

[Before we get to Carolyn's words of wisdom, I'd like to raise the point that one of the 'nuts on chat pointed out that a doorman will say anything you want him if you slip him $20--this guy may not have moved at all, but just been looking for an easy way out. Carolyn, however in her wise way, acknowledged this possibility but emphasized that either way, her advice to this woman is virtually the same. So here it is:]

Wow.

When you're up to it, your next step is to figure out what you missed. Was he a really good liar? Or did you deceive yourself?

I would also work on holding your own balance, both with someone in your life and without. Your neediness was making you miserable. Remember, you wrote in knowing something was off. That means you're seeing enough, you're just short of the kind of confidence that can help you interpret what you're seeing -- before it gets to the point of unreturned calls.

Hi, Carolyn:

I am TOO comfortable being single. I know myself and there are no complications. Getting me INTO a relationship is usually difficult.

All he ever showed me, up until the business trip, was kindness, support and involvement. Early on he had the boundless enthusiasm about me, and I was extremely cautious.

I am usually right on the money. This was out of nowhere.

Pull the Trigger

You did say in your original question that "single is comfortable for me." But you also said, "I scare easily, and he knows this." And now: "I was nervous and anxious. . . . I have a hard time letting my guard down."

So pleasure-in-singledom isn't motivating you. Fear is driving this bus -- trust issues specifically.

You may know yourself, but I don't think you trust yourself. It's like saying you'd rather cook your own meals -- not because you prefer your own cooking, but because you want to be sure you won't be poisoned. [There it is! Isn't it beautiful?] Is that the way you want to live?

Your need for reassurance from this guy suggests both that you want the pleasure of others' company, and that you're profoundly uncomfortable handing over any of the controls. That's the problem, not this particular guy.

When you're jumpy and distrustful, it may seem as if you're better able to spot danger. In reality, though, I think looking too hard for one thing leaves you open to missing another.

Please concentrate instead on finding the internal strength and flexibility to take life more as it comes, and not as the quiet, uncomplicated thing you retreat into when you're scared. These grow from trust not in others, but in yourself -- to handle it when a dream winds up in a ditch.

Moms in Misery?

I hope that someday I'll have a family of my own and be a good mom. In the meantime, Carolyn makes me feel both more and less freaked out by the whole idea:

Adapted from a recent online discussion.
Hi, Carolyn:
The March 15 column about "Maryland," the miserable mom of an 8-month-old, makes me wonder: Is that the reality of parenting? Are all mothers sworn to secrecy that it actually sucks, and this whole "I've never been so exhausted OR happy in my life" position is just a facade? I've always wanted kids and feel like I have maternal instincts, but I've also always had this deep-seated fear I would be one of "those" mothers who secretly hated it. Tell me the truth -- what is it really like? Is there a way to know how you'll respond?
Washington

It's a much longer story than I can cover here, so I'll aim for the highlights.
Newborns aren't all bubbles and bliss. Babies are hard work in the sense that they're relentless. They can't get their own food, they can't keep themselves clean, they can't tell you they're hungry or hurting or sad. All they have is flailing and crying, at least in the beginning. And so you have this flailing, crying thing with you 24-7, who can't even smile yet for the early months, and the buck stops with you.

Now, some people have an easier time with this than others, and just about every variable comes to bear on how easy or difficult it is. The parents' health and temperament factor in. The quality of their relationship factors in. Their ties to community factor in (family, friends, neighbors, access to hired help). Their expectations are a huge factor.
Possibly the most influential factor (that I think gets overlooked) is the difficulty of the baby. Some babies fuss less than others, sleep more, nurse better, digest food better, have more fully developed nervous systems than others, you name it.

If you're a parent of a fusser/crier, and your only exposure to babies has been to the even-tempered ones, then you're going to second-guess yourself, hate your child, hate your mate for getting you into this mess, and hate everybody who offers opinions on what you can do to get your baby to stop crying. Exaggerating, maybe, but in some cases it's just this bad.
The saving grace in these situations can be even one key person who can help you see that it's not you, you're not crazy, it will pass, and there are things you can do.
It's quite possible that "Maryland," of the past column, just needs that friend who can provide some perspective. Or, the baby could have health problems (reflux, autism -- there are a bunch of known culprits, from common to rare). Or, Maryland's baby is just fine and Maryland needs sleep, better nutrition, counseling and whatever other treatment for postpartum depression is indicated. In any of these cases, a respite caregiver can be a lifesaver.

Finally, some of "those" parents just aren't baby people/toddler people/tween people/teenager people. In other words, typical parents have ages they like better than others. The ones who aren't baby people can get a real scare, since their bad phase comes first, when they don't have proof that they can be happy and good at this. In so many cases, it's a matter of hanging in until the phase passes -- and the phases do pass quickly, as does childhood itself.

On Getting Over Ourselves.....

Clearly it's a Carolyn love-fest! This letter/chat topic is old (from 2003) but too good, and too important, I think, to pass up. I sort of want to scorn this person for being so crazed, but I can't, because s/he is nothing more than an exaggerated version of myself. I'm not "disgusted" with my life, nor am I "berating" myself, but still...the shoe fits, kind of. Graduation is in 4 weeks and suddenly we're all sort of panicking about what comes next. What if I don't achieve all the things I thought I would? What if I fail everyone by living a perfectly pleasant, decent, mediocre life, belying my Illinois Wesleyan/University of Michigan/Welzenbach/English honor society heritage of excellence???? Oh the horrors!

Carolyn's advice makes me feel like it's ok to sit and take a breath and look around, be thankful, happy, and content--even if it means I (we all) stop trying so hard for five minutes. Ahhhh.

Somewhere in Northern Virginia: Hi Carolyn! I'm an avid reader of your column, but I've always been afraid to submit a question--until now--and only because I'm at such a total loss. Over the past six months, I've been feeling completely and utterly disgusted about my life. Essentially, I have always been very driven and ambitious, usually just to appear "together" and perfect. I'm almost 24. I've held a lot of glamour jobs, but I've yet to find something I'm truly passionate about. I keep berating myself for not having achieved enough. For instance, I promised myself I'd write my first novel by 21. Haven't done it. I think about this constantly and beat myself up over it. I have a job at a well-respected media outlet, which people always think is awesome, but I feel stuck in a rut and I'm not making the most of the experience. I've lost all motivation, and I feel totally confused. My friends are off applying to grad schools and getting promotions, and I feel stagnant. Moreover, lately I have been taking this out on my boyfriend: I've been trying to run his life (researching grad school options for him, etc.) instead of focusing on mine, which I feel is a total mess. I was always proud of myself up until recently, and I have no clue how to emerge from this. Sorry for the long post, but I do hope you can get to it today online. Thanks so much.

Carolyn Hax: Afraid I'll bite you? Just don't be completely self-absorbed, and I won't.

Actually, you're cutting the self-absorbed thing a little close with your quest for the -est (smartest, brightest, richest, successfulest), but we'll call it appearance absorption and give it a pass, since you're only hurting yourself. In fact, I think your disgust should be redirected toward that--your need to flog yourself for absolutely no reason. Repeat, absolutely no reason.

You are not even 24. Some people don't find their passions till they're 60. Some people never find them, and eke out pretty decent lives for themselves. They work hard, at whatever, as long as it's toward the greater good, and they pay their taxes, and they're nice to the people who love them, and they take pleasure in whatever small things they take pleasure in.

So my advice is to relax, work hard at whatever you work at, and love the people who love you, and seek out some pleasure in life.

And if you can't put yourself into that mold because you think you're too good for it, then I will bite you.

I'm not surprised that many of us find our way INTO these positions....17-20 years of pushing, pushing, pushing at school, sports, drama, part-time jobs, full-time jobs, etc. can lead us to believe that if we're not always striving to be faster, better, fastest, best, that we're somehow selling ourselves short and failing everyone who ever believed in us. But if we don't find a way OUT of this thinking, we're only punishing ourselves. A roof over the head? Food on the table? Loving relationships? A sunny day? A cat wending its way between your feet? A good book? Your health, that of your family? It's easy to forget how valuable these things are. Life is good. Life goes on. Thank God.

The Readers Weigh In...

As I mentioned in my last post, Carolyn is on vacation this week and has left us with a series of columns of compiled reader responses either to old letters or perhaps to questions she's posed at large (it seems she's been stockpiling the answers for just this occasion....sneaky!)

Anyway, I've mentioned before that there are differing opinions on letting your readers write your column. I think it's annoying when columnists do it regularly, but I also think it's a lot hard than just pulling a few excerpts from your inbox and calling it done. Others--ahem, SK--disagree. (Hmm....just dug back in the archives to see where I mentioned it, and it looks like maybe I never actually wrote that post. Suffice it to say, SK and I wrote in to Carolyn to ask her this question, but she didn't respond).

Often when columnists go out of town, papers will just run old columns until they return, and I'd rather have fresh content--even if mostly from readers--than stuff I've seen before.

Anyway, I'm not sure if the examples Carolyn is publishing this week speak to the fact that she has the most thoughtful, eloquent readers ever (even if she didn't publish me....le sigh...) or if they are proof of the fact that she (or her editors) put a great deal of time and effort into combing her mail, identifying the most thoughtful and eloquent contributions. Either way--don't skip Carolyn this week just because she's out of town. There are good ideas and fresh perspectives from her smart and well-spoken readers on a number of different topics!

Also, I am finding it refreshing and inspiring to hear from people who have come out on the other side of problems and have something useful to say about it, rather than only from people in the midst of trouble. Even though, obviously, that is what the columns are there for.

Misunderstandings and Misnomers

Today Carolyn printed a letter from a man looking for a clear definition of "abuse" so he'd know more easily whether or not to leave his relationship. My first instinct is that if you have to ask, there's clearly something very wrong, and you should probably get out anyway. Carolyn offered similar advice: In his situation there were no physical attacks, and arguments were littered with sort of garden-variety name calling. Carolyn didn't send him to an abuse hotline, but said regardless of what you call it, clearly the relationship was not a productive or healthy one.

However, I think she misunderstood something that he said, which to me makes all the difference.

Dear Carolyn:

How do you know if your partner's behavior during a fight is abusive? I think that label would make breaking up easier. I wouldn't feel like there was still something we could do to save the relationship.

The fight was about her (in my opinion) overreaction to something I did, which I didn't think was that bad. There was name-calling, including accusations of being a liar and a cheater. She was out-of-control angry. The thing that causes me the most PTSD is that she pulled the emergency brake in the car while we were on a highway ramp. No harm done, thank God, but is that abusive?

Carolyn seemed to think that this guy was throwing around the term PTSD to describe how upset this guy got when his girlfriend did this. This, I think, ticked her off a little and colored her advice back to him. This is an excerpt from the middle of her response:

Certainly the brake-pulling, which could have sent your car out of control, was reckless and beyond the pale.

If her volatility is a pattern that leads you to alter your behavior, then that's a form of control.

But you don't need labels any more than you need the diagnosis (come on, PTSD?) on your horror. The tantrum tells you all you need to know about her: She's not mature enough for a serious relationship.

I read the letter differently, however....it sounded to me like the writer actually HAS PTSD, and that pulling the emergency brake on the highway was a trigger known by both him and his girlfriend, that she used on purpose to upset him. Which, I think, I would consider abuse.

Hm, but now I'm reading it again, and I think Carolyn's right after all. He's using PTSD to describe his state after their fight, not after being in a war zone. So, never mind. Carry on.

On tinterhooks (is that the right phase?) (Aha: it is TENTERhooks)

Oooooooooh, I'm excited! It's Monday, which means Carolyn's column is "adapted from online discussion." Often these are less than thrilling to me because I've already READ the online discussion. However, in the column Carolyn spends more time on her response than in the chat, which requires a certain amount of instantaneous response, often introducing new ideas and resources, as well as re-phrasing and bringing in comments from others who participated in the chat and--here's hoping--wrote in afterwards!

Here's why we're hoping: today's column addresses the twin boys who don't like baseball, whom I wrote about with a a great deal of energy earlier this winter here and here. I don't know if I mentioned that when I submitted my letter to Carolyn, she responded by saying she appreciated the story and that it suited the topic well.

In today's column, Carolyn alone responded to the woman who wrote in. BUT! It is "to be continued" tomorrow....so maybe we'll get a mention! Fingers crossed.

**Update: sad day! The column is posted and I am not featured. Probably this is what I get for not being as concise and witty as those other chat participants. Oh well...maybe next time**

YES!

Thanks, person, for embracing your non-knowledge of SATC!

Alexandria, Va.: Who are Mr. Big and Carrie??? I missed last week's chat. Is he the one with the mother-in-law?????

washingtonpost.com: Does this help? -- Elizabeth

Carolyn Hax: It helped me wish I were watching a movie, if not necessarily this one.

I'm also perversely pleased that someone doesn't know who M.B. and C are.

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life....

Alexandria, Va.: Dear Carolyn,

People always say that you have to make yourself happy. What goes into that? How does one make themself happy?

Thanks! Love your chats!

Carolyn Hax: Short description of a long process: Figure out the things that make you feel confident/fulfilled/energized; that give you a sense of purpose or accomplishment; that tap into your natural abilities and strengths; and that -don't- put you at the mercy of any one person, and orient your life around those.

Often, this requires another step--concurrently or as a precursor--of reducing the role in your life of things that make you feel worthless/empty/exhausted; that require skills that don't come naturally; that feel like a waste of time; or that put you routinely at the mercy of others.

Carolyn's not pretending this is an easy, linear thing to do....but I like the way she put it and the words she uses to describe why certain things make us feel good, and why others exhaust us. Existing largely at the mercy of others and using most or all skills that don't come naturally to us can chip away at satisfaction over time. When I (and she) say "skills that don't come naturally", we don't mean (if I can presume to speak for her) that we don't want challenges in our lives, but there are some things that will always be more grating/exhausting than others, tasks that require constant energy, effort, or even restrataint, and when they make up the majority of our daily tasks, it can really eat away at your confidence and security that there are other things you are just good at.

Happy "Out-of-line's" Day! (pt. II): in which we hear from actual columns, not just Becky's ranting

OK, I guess I'll just proceed....chronologically? Which means with Amy, since she jumped the gun by publishing a V-day question yesterday. Actually not a bad idea, since it gave the person some time to adjust their plans/attitudes. This first letter is exactly the kind of Valentwhiner that drives me nuts.

Dear Amy: Well, Valentine's Day is approaching once again, and I find myself alone. Once again.

I am a woman in my mid-30s, was briefly married many years ago and have had few relationships ever since. I feel as if I've tried absolutely everything to find a mate, and the results are, well, not great. Lots of dates, lots of duds.

I can't believe I have to suffer through another Valentine's Day with this feeling of loneliness deep in my heart.

Do you have any ideas? — Sad Single

Oh come on! This woman has this problem 365 days a year, and that's what makes me nuts. If you're sad about being single and desperately seeking a mate, that's an issue of its own. It takes what really might be a sad and depressing thing (I'm trying to give her some leeway, although people who fear singleness would be happier all around if they worked to get beyond that) to the level of ridiculousness when your reasoning behind wanting a mate is "I can't believe I have to suffer through another Valentine's Day with this feeling of loneliness deep in my heart." Let's not forget that the reason we celebrate is because St. Valentine suffered through St. Valentine's Day with feelings of horrific pain deep in his entire body. Amy wisely ignores the fact that it's Valentine's Day, and just treats the woman's real issue, her desire to make herself desirable.

This is a long one, and I might have enjoyed it more if I weren't so anti-schmoop. Basically this person advocates doing Valentine's Day just how I think it should be done, and most enjoy it myself. But they're just so....well, schmoopy about it. Again, I like the attitude they're advocating. I just can't stomach the bitterness topped with schmoop and nostalgia with which they're advocating it.

DEAR ABBY: I clearly remember my first Valentine's Day. I was in first grade. A few days before, my mom asked how many kids were in my class, and we went to a store and bought large packages of valentines -- one for every child in the class. The cards were all the same size and said, basically, the same thing.

When I arrived at school, each classmate had a small box on his or her desk. At some point during the day, I went around the room and gave each child a valentine. [So did everyone...you're not like the magic fairy of Valentine's Day...] There was one for the quiet one in the back, the most popular girl in class, the prettiest and even the boys. This was long before society taught me that such a show of affection had to exclude people of the same gender as me. By the end of the day, everyone had a full box of valentines to take home.

One desk, one box ... the love of a child.

As I grew older, society taught me to narrow my offering of affection, picking only those I chose to be special or worthy. Eventually, I was taught to limit my valentines to only one person. More time went on, and then a card was not enough. To show that really special person what she meant to you, you needed to send flowers, candy and jewelry. [You don't! You don't!]

Apparently, as we grew older it took more and more to fill those boxes. Now we absolutely could not give to more than one person. People hire detectives to make sure that the person isn't filling anyone else's. [Yes, Valentine's Day means flowers, candy, jewelry AND FIDELITY. Society is asking too much!] And if you had no one to send you anything, you were saddened by your big, empty box filled only with sadness and despair. [empty box of sadness and despair? Jeebus.]

Today, I am taking back from society what it has taken from me. [You go!] I'm counting how many people play a role in my life, and I am buying "virtual" packages of cards. I have one for every single one of you -- man or woman, young or old, straight or gay, married or single. Each card is the same size, they all say the same thing -- that I appreciate who you are and what you have to contribute to each other. [You could buy a pack of NON-VIRTUAL valentines and ACTUALLY SEND THEM to the people you care about....]

I invite each and every one to do the same, so that no box is empty and the shy ones, the pretty ones, the popular ones and those who are less so go home tonight with a full box of valentines.

One virtual desk, one virtual box, and the love of a child at heart. I wish you all a happy Valentine's Day. -- ERIC IN LOS ALAMITOS, CALIF.

Oy.

And on to Carolyn's live chat (my link-maker isn't working right now, so I'll try to link it up later), which has a number of delightful and less delightful bits and pieces from all types.

Washington, D.C.: Dear Carolyn,

My fiance (of three months) threw a lamp at me. It missed me and hit the wall leaving a big hole in it. I don't know if he was aiming specifically for me. (He would say he wasn't trying to hit me, and that he was just mad. We'd been fighting a little that night and he was trying to go to bed when I interrupted him.) He told me to sleep on the couch, which I did. I packed up my things and left his house the next morning. It's been seven days now, and he has not called me to apologize, or anything. I'm almost 40, he's 46, and I really wanted to marry this man who I still love very much. Should I forgive him, should he eventually call me to apologize profusely?

Please, what do you think I should do? It's Valentines's tomorrow, and I wonder if he'll send me flowers. Pathetic, I know.

-- Still holding my breath.

Oh no! Oh no! Just so you know, Carolyn puts this woman straight in touch with the appropriate services to get her safe, and help her realize that she DOES NOT WANT FLOWERS FROM THIS GUY. If Valentine's Day can twist our minds around this much, THAT is a problem for sure.

Not as bad as a lamp, but...: My fiance and I had a big, yelling (non-violent) fight yesterday and have been cooling off, so to speak, since then. I haven't called him and he hasn't called me either, by mutual agreement. With Valentine's Day tomorrow, though, I'm wondering whether I should suck up my anger and drop by with the gifts I had bought him. I don't want to intrude on his healing space before he's ready, what do you think?

Another one--no violence, but letting valentine's day affect the course of the relationship--Carolyn advises her to focus on her own healing and health, and then the fiance's, and not obsess about the stupid gifts.

And less traumatic:

Valentine's Day: With all of these very serious issues coming up regarding Valentine's Day, I'll share a not-so-serious one. I work at a museum. Someone called yesterday and asked, "Are you open this Saturday, even though it's Valentine's Day?"

Yaaaaaay!

Hypertension City : My boyfriend is on a diet and trying to drop 50 pounds. For V-Day, I want to cook him a big, delicious dinner to celebrate all the progress he's made--and also just because the dish I'm making is one of his favorite dinners. I don't mean it as sabotage, just a nice thing to do for him. Is this sort of morally wrong of me?

Carolyn suggests it is at least unsupportive, and that gifts of food should support the new lifestyle change that losing 50 pounds involves.

and again with the Valentwhiners:

Getting a Grip on Valentine's Day: Any advice for how the single with no prospects 30-something can get through this weekend without silently going postal?

Carolyn Hax: Welllll ... you can remind yourself that it's silly, and that it's celebrated with the most gusto by people under 7 years old ... which actually makes it very not silly, but you get what I mean.

And, if that doesn't stick, then I would suggest using tonight and tomorrow to reach out to people who could really use the attention you want so badly to receive. A local hospital, senior center, homeless shelter, food bank--place a few calls to see who'd be happy for a couple of extra hands. Even if tomorrow is too soon to plan for a visit, you can spend the day making/gathering/buying something to deliver next weekend.

Thank you Carolyn!!!!!! And this guy :

New York, NY: Why not make a few valentines cards for veterans at a local VA hospital? Most of the guys that live there are widowers or don't have a lot of family/friends left. A card (or a visit, even better) makes a huge difference in their week.

And another:

30-something with no prospects: I understand the advice to look outside yourself when you are feeling lonely, but please don't dismiss the 30-something question as a matter of seeking attention. It's more anxiety than that -- it's worrying whether you will ever meet the right person, whether you will ever have the children you want, whether you'll be able to afford a home on a single income, etc. It can be a hopeless feeling (I was 30-something with no prospects once too). And Valentine's Day just makes it more in-your-face.

Carolyn Hax: I know. I do understand. But I think you misread my answer--I wasn't referring to attention-seeking of the look-at-me variety, I was referring to the loving attention of an Other. It's an ache for something you can't just go out and get. The best I can suggest, in those cases, is to give, which is something you can control. That's all I meant by it.

That, and to try to detach it from the holiday.

Exactly! All of these problems are real, but have nothing to do with Feb. 14.

And to wrap up:

Single and V-Day: I've always been single on Valentines Day. I've come to think of it like a Jewish holiday. I'm Catholic so I don't celebrate them but I think those who do should celebrate with gusto.

Nice!

Oh---probably should explain the title. Carolyn coined "Out of line's Day" because so many of the issues that came up in her chat (most of them unrelated to V-Day actually) involved people being totally, unreasonably, irrationally out of line.

And with that--enjoy (or don't) your day in the manner to which you are accustomed!

O Brother, What Art Thou?

I started my Saturday by reading the transcript of Carolyn's live chat from yesterday. (Is there any other way to start the weekend than with a cup of coffee and an advice columnist chat transcript?)

The situation of a woman who wrote in really struck a chord with me. She had 10-year-old twin sons and it's time to decide whether or not to sign them up for baseball. They don't really like to play, she says, and show no interest in getting better. They'd rather not sign up, but their dad (who she admitted was not available to take an active role in getting them to practices, games, etc.) was insistent. The mom had mixed feelings...her biggest concern seemed to be that they'd be missing a lesson about "sticking with" things. She also said they like biking, swimming, kung fu, basketball...just not baseball.

This makes me nuts! If we had to "stick with" everything we ever tried indefinitely, I would be a dancer, baseball/softball player, gymnast, potter/artist, horseback rider, pianist, floor hockey player, black belt in karate, actress, choir member, badminton player, clarinetist AND saxophonist....etc.

Wait, scratch that. I would only be a dancer and a softball player, because those were the first two organized activities I ever tried, and there wouldn't have been room for anything else. A DANCER and a SOFTBALL PLAYER. Me. I would be miserable and not good at the activities that consumed my life--which is why I stopped doing them in the first place. Childhood and adolescence should be a time to try out a number of different skills, seeing what you're good at and what you like, and shaping yourself from there. You have to stick with it, sure...but it also has to stick a bit on its own. My brother and I always, always finished the season/session, but were never required to sign up again the next year.

(P.S., looking back at that list, it seems that I was quite a spaz. But it's not that I was signing up at random for particularly exclusive/expensive training in any of these things--horseback riding was probably the only one, and I'm grateful I had a shot to try it. Mostly they were park district things or school-sponsored activities I just wanted to find out more about, and enjoyed--but had no reason to commit to)

I did stick with band, writing, and major involvement in my church youth group and choir, and had a part-time job practically from the day I turned 16 (and stuck with the same one until I went to college, even working while home on break until the store where I worked closed). But enough about me--this issue resonated with me so much that I wanted to write in to Carolyn about it. I think my parents' flexibility in letting my brother and I choose our activities, experiment, and move in new directions was incredibly valuable. We learned self-discipline--we also learned to value our time and prioritize our passions, interests, obligations and choices because our schedules were not predetermined. So I wrote to Carolyn, in what ended up being an Ode to my Cool Brother. I think he and I did a lot of the same kind of things in terms of trying (and yes, quitting) different activities. But since the original chatter was asking about boys and about baseball, his life seemed to fit the situation better. So here's what I wrote to Carolyn:

Hi Carolyn and team,

The baseball twins from yesterday's chat remind me of my brother. When he was little he was in park district soccer and baseball and played on a church basketball team. He didn't really take to any of these things--never wanted go to practice, didn't show or develop much skill, and worst, just didn't enjoy the atmosphere of being on the team and playing the game. He was an anomaly among his friends because of this. [Forgot to include this to Carolyn, but he was also often frustrated and embarrassed. I have this really painful memory of his end-of-the-year soccer dinner where the coach played "we are the champions" on a boombox and each kid had to stand on a chair to be gazed upon, talked about by the coach, and receive a trophy. BJW either pouted through it, or hammed it up inappropriately, and got a "talking to" afterwards. Really he was just incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing]. He got through the sports for a few years, and when he said he wanted to quit, my parents, despite possible reservations, let him make the call.

He, like the twins in the chat, took up karate and excelled at it for a number of years. He got involved in drama in junior high, and was basically the head of the tech department by his senior year of high school. He was still an anomaly, in that his individuality and creativity made him the rock star of his high school. He performed a killer Jimi Hendrix-style national anthem at the homecoming pep rally his senior year, and was voted prom king, despite (because of?) attending prom dressed as a pirate. He took up guitar lessons in third grade, with much discussion from my parents about the need to practice and stick with it. [another addendum: in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade, he performed Beatles songs with three other kids in the elementary school talent show. They were always one of the few groups to actually play and sing, not just choreograph a kickline to the pop music of their choice]. Now at 22 he's a music composition major, teaches guitar to kids and adults (works 20+ hours a week while in school full time), and runs an amateur recording studio out of his living room.

If the issue is getting exercise, he doesn't "work out" or play sports, but he does walk several miles a day from the train station to his university (he commutes). If the issue is learning to work with a team, he did that with the tech crew, and still does with his job, where they all contribute to running a small, family-owned music shop (not our family, though he's become basically part of theirs). By nature he's more of an individual worker--so am I--but he's not incapable of working with others. There are many ways to achieve the ends of physical fitness and teamwork mindset.

It drives me nuts when parents define abandoning any sport or activity as "quitting." I think making it through the season and then opting not to do it again the next year is perfectly legitimate. Of course getting to the end of the season is important for all kinds of reasons--not letting down the team and coach by disappearing, not wasting money, and simply practicing self-discipline. But if signing up for something and giving it a fair shot isn't enough for us to make a decision about whether or not to continue, how will we ever find the time to try new things?

I think the worst possible consequence would be to teach your children to hang back from trying new sports, activities, clubs, etc. because they fear they won't be able to get out of it if they don't like it or don't have the skill.

Best,
Becky in Ann Arbor

With a frenemy like you.....

The concept of the "frenemy" surfaced in Carolyn's Friday column, which caught my attention because I think the first time I heard the term was the night before at happy hour. Then, it was used to describe an unliked/unlikable boyfriend's best friend: someone you'd rather not know, but who's not going anywhere, so you've got to embrace it.

This writer, and Carolyn's other responders, seemed to define it a bit more narrowly. For them, frenemies are (mostly female) friends who make backhanded comments about clothes, dress, weight, etc. of their friends. Basically just big Mean Girls. I like the broader definition, especially since we already have Mean Girls for the narrower one (thanks, Tina Fey). But that's neither here nor there.

The original writer's question wasn't really that interesting....just looking for a sassy comeback to her own frenemy's unsolicited diet-tribes (I wish I could take credit for that pun, but the glory goes to the Lifetime network and its new reality show). Carolyn was fairly neutral (she embraces snark, but rightly reminded us that it loses its pizazz when forced and scripted), recommending that the writer remain calm when the comments are directed at her ("I'm surprised to hear you say that," etc.), and step in to take action (saying something like "How is that helpful?") when directed at another friend .

Wow, this is a lot of build up and background to get to what I really wanted to get to, that being other readers' responses to the frenemy issue as published in Carolyn's live chat from yesterday. There are a bunch of really funny ones, and some more regular generally useful ones, and I'm posting them here in order, gleaning kernels out of a long and varied chat session (full of lots of other good stuff--check it out). Enjoy.

Frenemies: Ha! I could've written the letter from the woman with the frenemy. The person I know loves tot point out other "flaws" to them. I have handled it by being delighted that she noticed.

her: You're getting a lot of gray hair. me: I know! Sparkly!

her: You've put on some weight. me: I know! Voluptuous!

She doesn't point out stuff to me much anymore. In her world of zero-sum happiness, I was taking way too much.

Carolyn Hax: Brilliant. Thank you.

This one is brilliant (oops, Carolyn just said that). But it is. It totally reminds me of a California girl I know, who manages to be sarcastic and peppy simultaneously. I wish I scowled less and said "Sparkly!" more. Goals.

Frenemy: Is the technical term for ridding oneself of a frenemy a "frenema"?

Carolyn Hax: I am both amused and skeeved. Nicely done.

This one is something Sam would say, and then look very pleased with himself, causing me to roll my eyes while also being very impressed.

Columbus, Ohio: Regarding Frenemies:

Her: That not a very attractive outfit.

Me: Uh, that's kind of harsh. I wouldn't expect someone as nice as you to make a comment like that.

I've used this before with success, and (sigh) my closest frenemy is my MOM.

Carolyn Hax: Sigh. Good adaptation, though.

Not thrilling, but useful and neutral. Sorry about the mom.

Hmm, that's it. I thought there were more. Anyway, Carolyn readers, at least the chat participants, are mostly just as funny and smart as she is. Which is great, because then you get all the more insight and sass. And who could ask for anything more?

A little bit louder no-ow

I like when smart people take a boring cliche (actions speak louder than words...blah di blah blah blah...zzzz) and remind us how it applies to our ACTUAL LIVES.

People who talk big and act little are no good for us, or the people we love. Period.

(This was part of the transcript of Carolyn's weekly live chat, which is SO MUCH BETTER than a plain old advice column, because she addresses bajillions of issues and people get to respond as well. Not that Carolyn is not a person. But, you know.)

Excerpt:

Recently I've been caught off guard by a few relationships that have dissolved that have really surprised me and other friends. How can you tell if your relationship is going to work out for the long haul? I know that you're not a psychic and I'm not looking for a crystal ball answer. I'm just wondering if there are certain (and pretty consistent or predictable) signs that I can look for that might indicate one way or another.
Thanks

Carolyn Hax: The only answer that doesn't get into crystal-ball territory is to pay attention to actions. If you're building hopes and impressions on what people say, then you're likely to treat lukewarm actions as a "mixed message," when in fact they're a clear message. The actions are everything.

That's true even when the actions aren't lukewarm at all, but at a full boil. Too much too soon is just as suspect as someone who fawns over you only when s/he happens to want something from you, and disappears in between.

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year: Kill Time, Not Family

I love, love, love, love and want to be Carolyn Hax. Her "holiday hootenanny," as anticipated, brought me much joy and muffled snorting during at work.

Enjoy! (better with eggnog).

We wish you a Merry Christmas!

One of my family's extra special holiday traditions is listening Kathy and Judy's "Merry Medical Christmas" show (on WGN, radio 720, the voice of Chicago, obviously) on our drive out to the grandparents on Christmas Eve (which is a merry medical Christmas in and of itself). In this annual special, Kathy and Judy read out loud "real" (some of them are fairly dubious) Christmas letters that listeners have received and submitted, relating in horrific detail a year's worth of medical procedures. Extra points for the use of words like "drainage," and anything related to the gastrointestical tract.

I treasure this tradition, and so was delighted to learn today that Carolyn Hax has her very own version, the Holiday Horrors Hootenanny, which this year is scheduled on Dec. 12 ( I discovered it today when I stumbled onto today's transcript of Carolyn's live chat (yes, I'm slowly venturing out of the obsolete world of the daily column). I'm assuming the event will be part of her chat session? Or perhaps a digest will run in her column? Alas, I was unclear on the details.

Here's a sample.....more holiday horrors to come!:

iPods: Man, I'd trade my sister-in-law for that one [me here...this refers to an earlier contributor who complained about his sister-in-law walking around with her ipod cord strung up her shirt, through her cleavage, to her ears. Ok, over and out]. Mine is so completely New Agey, it's painful to watch. Last Thanksgiving, she communed with the spirit of the turkey that was sitting, cooked, on our table. She told us that the turkey was happy to have given its life for our meal; that it was satisfied that its sacrifice made our holiday more special.

More special, indeed.

Carolyn Hax: Wait wait wait--we need to save these for the Holiday Horrors Hootenanny. Which, as it happens, Elizabeth and I just scheduled for Dec. 12. Mark your Advent calendars.