hy-pathetic-al

[penfield]

Picture this:

It is February 14, 2005. Alex is to meet Sandy for dinner. Alex and Sandy had dated briefly during the previous spring, broke up unceremoniously and just started talking again. Each person still has feelings for the other, but these feelings have not been outwardly -- or even inwardly -- expressed.

They are set to meet at 6:00 at a local sandwich shop, the same sandwich shop where they spent their previous Valentine's Day, when they were in a similar dating-not-dating gray area.

At the same time, across town, at a semi-casual restaurant near Alex's apartment, Alex's friend Chris is dining with Pat. Alex used to have a pretty big crush on Chris, but they're just friends now. Chris, who doesn't know Sandy, wants to set up Alex and Pat on a blind date, a suggestion by which Alex has been cautiously intrigued. The day before, Chris told Alex that they (Chris and Pat) would be getting appetizers at semi-casual restaurant at 7:30, and Alex was welcome to join them.

"I have plans for dinner," Alex says, "but maybe I'll be able to stop by."

So Alex and Sandy meet for dinner and have a grand old time, sitting and talking flirtatiously -- though not necessarily romantically -- for two hours. Alex never mentions Chris or Pat, not just because Alex is starting to feel those old squishy feelings for Sandy, but also because Alex is waiting for Sandy to suggest continued activities for the evening. However, it being Valentines Day and them just beginning to be comfortable with each other again, such an invitation is not tendered. So, with a hug, they go their separate ways.

On the way home, Alex peeks inside semi-casual restaurant and sees Chris in the back with Pat. Alex decides to visit for a while and be introduced. Chris and Pat are almost done with their appetizers, but the three of them sit and chat for about a half-hour. Alex is bored the whole time, and isn't interested in Pat at all. Sorry, Pat.

By 9:00, Alex is home, watching "24."

Within months, Alex and Sandy begin dating again, for real this time, and things are going good. One day, Alex muses aloud about how Chris wanted to set Alex up with Pat. Sandy is angry and hurt.

Sandy says that Alex's Valentine's Day activites amount to lying, conniving and generally weaselly behavior, especially because Valentine's Day carries a certain implication of monogamy. Alex says that no rules were broken, since no "dating" occurred at any time, and in any case the truth was withheld because Alex really wanted to spend more time with Sandy.

I ask you, dear reader: who is right, and why?

Comments

Valentine's Day = VD

[hbinc.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone here is right or wrong -- no dating occurred, after all. But even if it had, Alex and Sandy weren't actually "together" at the time of the post-dinner drop-in on Pat and Chris, so I don't think Sandy is on solid ground to be angry, particularly not at Alex.

[pastdue.livejournal.com]

much like ross, in the friends episode where there is a far more flagrant alleged violation of definitions of dating or not, alex, ahem, is very clearly in the right. ON A BREAK MEANS ON A BREAK. not dating equals not dating and cannot, in retrospect and after reconciliation of whatever kind, be backdated and changed. no revisionist history. no harm, no foul, get over it, sandra dee.

[mearth.livejournal.com]

It would probably bug me, but I have to admit that Alex is probably in the clear ethically.

Old friends meet, and then one of them - during his own free time that is otherwise none of the other friend's business - engages in a small fact-finding mission (not a date) to determine if there is anything worth romantically exploring with some other being in the universe, while at the same time not knowing or even suspecting that there was anything worth pursuing anywhere else in the universe (namely, with Sandy). He is currently emotionally available to anyone who might come along - be it Sandy, or Pat, or anyone else - with no romantic ties to anyone yet. In fact, he could have even gone on an actual date with Pat or anyone else, and it would still be his right to do so if Sandy had never made any implications that she was interested in pursuing something with him herself.

I never agree with witholding the truth, but if she had never asked what you had done after leaving dinner that night, then you don't have to volunteer the information. Just bear in mind that anything you withold at the beginning of a relationship WILL bite you in the ass later, because we women always find these things out, and we will be far more hurt AND harder on you than if you had simply been honest at the beginning.

[mearth.livejournal.com]

A break is different from a break-UP. I agree with you on this situation, but I wouldn't get back together with someone who had slept with someone else during a brief break (break meaning that there is an intention to reassess the relationship in the near future, and that the decision on whether to contiunue or not has not yet been made, so one is neither single nor definitively attached) - I wouldn't get back together with them. If for no other reason than it would mean their feelings for me couldn't have been very strong if they were willing to jeopardize our relationship by investing emotional and/or physical resources elsewhere, instead of in making what we have better.

[enchanted-pants.livejournal.com]

Especially if it's Jennifer Aniston. You've got to wait that shit out. At least a few days.

[mearth.livejournal.com]

LOL, I concur.

I never realized how hard it is to write without using gender pronouns

[village-twins.livejournal.com]

No one can possibly go out on Valentine's Day and be unaware that it's a special day for romantics. However, accepting a date on that day does not carry a "certain implication of monogamy" -- especially at 6 p.m. at a sandwich shop.

Before I answer your question, I will make two assumptions:

1. Alex brought up the subject of Chris a year later for any reason other than Alex-couldn't-get-Chris-out-of-Alex's-gender-non-specific-mind.

2. Chris is no longer around. When Alex gets together with her friends, it's not with Chris.

My answer:

Alex was wise to say that the truth was withheld because of how great Sandy is. And Alex is correct that since no "dating" occured, there wasn't really any rule broken.

However, Alex is incorrect that "no rules" were broken. Because one rule is to shut the fuck up about times you left a Valentine's Day dinner to go check out someone else you once had a crush on.

Beats Me

[instant-ethos.livejournal.com]

I need a goddam flow chart or something to figure this shit out. When using flase names, please select non-androgynous, gender-specific aliases. Using names like Alex, Chris, Pat and Sandy only makes the whole thing more confusing -- or twisted. But hey, whatever turns you on.

How interesting

[village-twins.livejournal.com]

Your effort to weed out any gender biases has actually uncovered a pretty big one:

Your male readers hate androgynous names.

Your female readers don't seem to mind them.

Re: Beats Me

[enchanted-pants.livejournal.com]

Yes, Ethan, you're right. Next time I write a story about a whiny little girl, I think I'll call her "Jeremy."

Re: How interesting

[tfofurn.livejournal.com]

After the first paragraph, I just wanted to know if the persistent androgyny was intentional or coincidental. I might've had an easier time with just first initials.