It took me nearly a week to talk to Mike about his drinking-related remarks. He'd emailed me those comments from work and I hadn't replied because I didn't know what to say; when he came home he was fretful about my non-reply and worried that he'd upset me, and my response was something along the lines of "DUH!"
One marriage issue we have (it can be negative or positive depending on what is going on) is that Mike is the Flare Up And Forget It type, whereas I am a Resentful Brooder. So, like, the next day he'd forgotten about the whole thing and was cheery and normal, and I was still feeling flattened. This does buy me time to think.
With a subject like alcohol, I didn't even KNOW what I thought about what he'd said. On one hand I thought he was wrong; on the other hand, isn't it CLASSIC that people with alcohol problems don't think they have a problem? I mean, that's why the first step is ADMITTING IT: because it's so standard NOT TO.
And no one in my family/friends has been a Public Alcoholic---that is, surely there were alcoholics in my family/friends just as in anyone else's, but I never saw anyone I knew was drunk, nor did I ever look back and think, "Ohhhhh, I see, she was an ALCOHOLIC!," nor did anyone I knew ever participate in an alcohol program or have a DUI or liver problems or a red nose or ANYTHING. The only drinkers in our family are more the "two whiskey sours before dinner when we have guests" type. So what do I know about what's a normal/dangerous level of alcohol? Maybe Mike was RIGHT.
So all week I kept thinking of points, and of reasons why the points might be no good.
Point: I haven't had a drink for a week. I have way more trouble giving up sweets---and in fact have probably never managed to give up sweets for a week. Surely that means I don't have a problem (except maybe with sweets).
Counterpoint: People with drinking problems are always claiming to be able to take it or leave it. And the fact that I don't like giving it up might Mean Something.
Point: Yes, I'd prefer to drink, so of course I mind giving it up. There are lots of things I'd rather not give up, but that doesn't mean I have a PROBLEM. I don't want to give up pizza, either, and if I tried to give it up I'd probably think about it every day, but that doesn't mean I should attend a Pizzaholics Anonymous meeting, it just means I like pizza and I don't want to stop eating it.
Counterpoint: Whenever anyone says they DON'T have a problem, that's usually used as evidence that they DO.
Point: I've never had a hangover.
Counterpoint: I don't know if a person has to have hangovers for it to be a problem.
Point: A commenter on the last post said she was an alcoholic from an alcoholic family and that I sounded like an alcoholic too.
Counterpoint: It's always hard to interpret things said to/from a stranger---either party could be misunderstanding/misrepresenting the situation. And my guess is that to an alcoholic, pretty much everyone sounds like an alcoholic.
Point: I seem to have a high tolerance for alcohol. I can drink four shots of vodka and feel only slightly tipsy. Me drinking "a lot" is not the same as someone with a lower tolerance drinking a lot.
Counterpoint: Maybe the high tolerance means I'm Different From Other People, and D.F.O.P. might mean Alcoholic Tendencies. Also, maybe I THINK I'm only tipsy but I'm actually drunk. There are probably people who have NO IDEA how drunk they are when they're drunk. Also: my LIVER might not have a high tolerance---so I could be doing drunk damage for only a tipsy benefit. Perhaps this means alcohol is not the right Vice Of Choice for me and I should try pot instead (KIDDING).
Point: I've never had a problem remembering what happened when I was drinking, or regretting my behavior afterward. I'm pretty sure that means I'm only tipsy.
Counterpoint: Maybe I AM having trouble remembering, but I'm not remembering it.
Point: But if I SMELL bad!
Counterpoint: We don't really know what Mike meant by that, or if maybe he's motivated by something else.
Point: If a family member confronts me about drinking, that means a problem, doesn't it?
Counterpoint: Not if that family member answered Child #1's "What does someone act like when they're 'drunk'?" by saying, "Sometimes the person is sleepy, or acts a little silly, or gets a little cranky." That's really NOT a definition of drunkenness. I would have said more like "Sometimes the person falls down, or falls asleep in the front yard, or crashes the car, or sings loudly in public, or gets in a fist-fight, or can't remember the next morning what they did."
Point: But if I don't KNOW if I have a problem or not, doesn't that mean I probably DO?
Counterpoint: Or it could mean I lack sufficient points of reference, tend to overthink things, and am confused by someone who ALSO lacks sufficient points of reference.
ANYWAY. So finally I talked with Mike about it, and it was a good talk and it went well. It sounds to me as if his main concern was worrying that I was drinking "sneakily," and he asked if I could continue drinking as before but bring my drink to where we both were instead of drinking it elsewhere. Which would be fine, except that I hate the taste of alcohol so I drink it fast: I pour a shot, mix it with juice or soda, and slug it back. So then we started joking about how I should bring that into the living room and clear my throat ostentatiously so he could watch while I slugged it back, or how we should have a PA system for announcements: "Attention spouse! I am Taking A Drink!"
Also, it turned out that he was concerned because I'd gone through more than a bottle of vodka in a week (ug, I hate the feeling of being MONITORED), but that was the week I made a quart of vanilla. Using a quart of vodka.
And he was also upset because he said it changed my sleeping habits, and I said, "You mean the way I go to sleep within 5 minutes like you do, instead of lying awake for an hour fretting?" and he was like, "..." And he said it made me "listless" in the evenings and I asked if he'd noticed I was ALWAYS listless in the evenings, and that I thought "mellow and listless" was better than "fretting and listless," and again he was like, "..."
And he said the booze smell he meant was only on my breath, not coming from my pores.
And I brought up our differing definitions of drunk, and how different people have different tolerances, and I asked if he thought I'd been ACTING drunk, and he said he guessed he didn't really know anything about it and might have been worried about nothing. He said he'd been concerned, and I said it hadn't sounded like concern, it had sounded like contempt, and he said he was sorry and had over-cheesed me. And I talked a little more about how I didn't like the way he'd brought it up OR the tone he'd used, and also how I didn't KNOW if he was right or not.
So now he's feeling bad about it and doing conciliatory things, and I'm still fretting about what if I DO have a problem. My plan is to go back to drinking when I want to, but it seems like it's not a bad thing at all to be frequently thinking about it and being aware of it.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Cutbacks
Mike mentioned today that when I drink I smell bad. This is hurtful and useful information. I knew that lots of liquors gave the drinker bad boozy breath/pores, but I'd heard/read long ago that vodka didn't, so I stuck to vodka. I sniffed my skin and clothes to double-check but never noticed anything. So I guess I'm glad to know from someone who HAS noticed, because certainly I noticed the aroma of that drunk guy on the plane---though I thought a big part of that was related to apparent unbathedness and not just the beer he was drinking---and certainly I would not want to smell the same way.
Mike in fact brought up my drinking in general, and I'm not sure how to take it. On one hand, I think that if a spouse or family member brings up drinking it's a HUGE warning sign and best to take it very seriously. On the other hand, Mike doesn't drink and he disapproves of it and looks down on it even more than he looks down on coffee drinkers (he gets this from his mom, I think: she was SO PROUD of how she didn't "use" caffeine or alcohol), so it's hard to know how seriously to take him. Plus, I'm mad at him for the way he brought it up, which was to passive-aggressively trick me into asking.
For now, since there's no real reason NOT to stop drinking other than annoyance at being lectured and also the loss of something I was finding very useful to help me switch gears from Mothah to Lovah, I guess I'll stop or at least cut wayyyyy back. I really DON'T want to smell bad.
Mike in fact brought up my drinking in general, and I'm not sure how to take it. On one hand, I think that if a spouse or family member brings up drinking it's a HUGE warning sign and best to take it very seriously. On the other hand, Mike doesn't drink and he disapproves of it and looks down on it even more than he looks down on coffee drinkers (he gets this from his mom, I think: she was SO PROUD of how she didn't "use" caffeine or alcohol), so it's hard to know how seriously to take him. Plus, I'm mad at him for the way he brought it up, which was to passive-aggressively trick me into asking.
For now, since there's no real reason NOT to stop drinking other than annoyance at being lectured and also the loss of something I was finding very useful to help me switch gears from Mothah to Lovah, I guess I'll stop or at least cut wayyyyy back. I really DON'T want to smell bad.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Verdict
I would go so far as to suggest we ALL just ROUTINELY consult a jury of our peers for emotionally-complex decisions. I was genuinely taken aback when ALL OF YOU agreed that I should NOT pay my ex-husband back for our divorce.
If you'd asked me beforehand what I thought the comments section would look like, I would have said I expected about a 50-50 split, with a large percentage of the "no, don't do it" comments dismissible for various reasons. Like, I expected to be sitting here thinking, "You are SO NICE to be trying so hard to save me from this awful responsibility, but we both know it's the ethically correct way." Or like when that one blogger, I forget who, got so much backlash for failing to return a small toy she hadn't noticed her child taking from a store: I thought there might be even VIGOROUS DEBATE about whether it was excusable or non-excusable to fail to pay him back, and HOW excusable/non-excusable it was, but I didn't think anyone would be arguing it was WRONG to pay him back (the equivalent, I was thinking, of returning the toy to the store). And yet that was the gist of it: that not only was it not the Ethical Good Idea I thought it was, it was in fact a Bad Idea! That it was NOT equivalent to returning a mistakenly-taken toy to the store, but more the equivalent of, well, I can't think of an equivalent but suffice it to say a BAD IDEA.
I was completely set back on my heels. Before writing that post, I had found my ex-husband's Facebook account, clicked "send message," and mostly composed the message where I said it was unfair that he'd had to pay for it and that I'd like to pay him back. I'd clicked away from it ONLY because I didn't want to be too impulsive: the idea had hit me like lightning and I'd been typing 5 minutes later, and that seemed too hasty. Plus, I'd thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss.
And at first, when the "Oh, honey, are you a little bit, um, crazy?" comments began, I was resistant. I thought, "Well, I don't have to TAKE the advice I asked for." But there were so many people I RESPECT who commented, and ALL of them agreed, and I thought if nothing else that meant the situation needed further thought. And after the further thought, I'm taking your advice.
If you'd asked me beforehand what I thought the comments section would look like, I would have said I expected about a 50-50 split, with a large percentage of the "no, don't do it" comments dismissible for various reasons. Like, I expected to be sitting here thinking, "You are SO NICE to be trying so hard to save me from this awful responsibility, but we both know it's the ethically correct way." Or like when that one blogger, I forget who, got so much backlash for failing to return a small toy she hadn't noticed her child taking from a store: I thought there might be even VIGOROUS DEBATE about whether it was excusable or non-excusable to fail to pay him back, and HOW excusable/non-excusable it was, but I didn't think anyone would be arguing it was WRONG to pay him back (the equivalent, I was thinking, of returning the toy to the store). And yet that was the gist of it: that not only was it not the Ethical Good Idea I thought it was, it was in fact a Bad Idea! That it was NOT equivalent to returning a mistakenly-taken toy to the store, but more the equivalent of, well, I can't think of an equivalent but suffice it to say a BAD IDEA.
I was completely set back on my heels. Before writing that post, I had found my ex-husband's Facebook account, clicked "send message," and mostly composed the message where I said it was unfair that he'd had to pay for it and that I'd like to pay him back. I'd clicked away from it ONLY because I didn't want to be too impulsive: the idea had hit me like lightning and I'd been typing 5 minutes later, and that seemed too hasty. Plus, I'd thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss.
And at first, when the "Oh, honey, are you a little bit, um, crazy?" comments began, I was resistant. I thought, "Well, I don't have to TAKE the advice I asked for." But there were so many people I RESPECT who commented, and ALL of them agreed, and I thought if nothing else that meant the situation needed further thought. And after the further thought, I'm taking your advice.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Jury of My Peers
May I ask your opinion on something? I will have to simplify to keep things a reasonable length, but I will try not to oversimplify to the point of clouding your ability to make a judgment.
About 15 years ago, my first husband Todd and I got a divorce. I did nothing but sign papers: Todd found the lawyer, paid the lawyer, etc. I thought it was pretty ridiculous that he hired a big-deal aggressive divorce lawyer for a simple uncontested divorce with no real estate or children to divide up, but whatever, he paid for it so what do I care.
Well. All these years, and it only today occurred to me that it was really unfair that Todd had to pay for the divorce, since the divorce was my fault (that's a pretty obvious oversimplification, but a jury of my peers would agree that if one party had to be assigned blame, it would clearly be me). It's true I couldn't have afforded to pay for it; it's true he spent more money than I would have on it; it's true he was motivated to get it done before he left the country---but the facts remain that the divorce was primarily my fault and that it is unfair that he had to foot the bill.
Todd and I have had zero contact since then. I found him online and learned that he's married, he has children, he's living in another country doing good works. I still dislike him and feel glad/relieved to be out of the marriage, but I don't feel like he's a Bad Guy AT ALL---well, I mean no more bad than any normal human being with their regular batch of flaws and so forth.
The question I want to ask you is tricky to phrase, but basically what I want to ask is if you think I should fix the unfairness by offering to reimburse him. At this stage I don't want to take Mike into consideration; let's oversimplify him out of it for now.
Things going through my head:
1. What if Todd says, "Great! It was $7,500." ACK.
2. Even if it's not that much, it's not going to be $100---it's going to be an amount that will be hard to pay and may require a payment plan. ACK.
3. Paying for it WOULD make it a big deal that he'd chosen such an expensive route, and I don't think it would be fair for me to have to pay for what were unnecessary expenses, since if I'd paid for it at the time I wouldn't have chosen them. But there's no way to go back in time and change how much he spent, and I think offering to pay PART is worse than not offering anything, since it would bring to mind how at-fault I was and perhaps start a useless argument about overspending for divorce lawyers.
4. I really, really, really don't want to be in touch with him again.
5. It's highly likely his parents paid for it.
6. He could interpret this badly, like that I'm trying to make myself feel less guilty about something he thinks I should continue to feel guilt for. Reimbursing him WOULD make me feel better about Justice Being Done, and I suppose also feel better about myself for having done justice, but it wouldn't make me feel, for example, that I'd bought myself out of blame. It would only make me feel better about how the practical consequences had been handled---as if things had been handled more the way they should have been handled.
7. What if, in fact, he turns me down and says bad things in that self-righteous tone of his, things that make me angry and upset? He was pretty awful during the divorce and didn't show much appreciation for fairness at the time.
8. OMG, after all these years maybe it would be better to just LEAVE IT ALONE.
9. Are my motivations even close to good here? Maybe I AM just trying to make myself look good.
About 15 years ago, my first husband Todd and I got a divorce. I did nothing but sign papers: Todd found the lawyer, paid the lawyer, etc. I thought it was pretty ridiculous that he hired a big-deal aggressive divorce lawyer for a simple uncontested divorce with no real estate or children to divide up, but whatever, he paid for it so what do I care.
Well. All these years, and it only today occurred to me that it was really unfair that Todd had to pay for the divorce, since the divorce was my fault (that's a pretty obvious oversimplification, but a jury of my peers would agree that if one party had to be assigned blame, it would clearly be me). It's true I couldn't have afforded to pay for it; it's true he spent more money than I would have on it; it's true he was motivated to get it done before he left the country---but the facts remain that the divorce was primarily my fault and that it is unfair that he had to foot the bill.
Todd and I have had zero contact since then. I found him online and learned that he's married, he has children, he's living in another country doing good works. I still dislike him and feel glad/relieved to be out of the marriage, but I don't feel like he's a Bad Guy AT ALL---well, I mean no more bad than any normal human being with their regular batch of flaws and so forth.
The question I want to ask you is tricky to phrase, but basically what I want to ask is if you think I should fix the unfairness by offering to reimburse him. At this stage I don't want to take Mike into consideration; let's oversimplify him out of it for now.
Things going through my head:
1. What if Todd says, "Great! It was $7,500." ACK.
2. Even if it's not that much, it's not going to be $100---it's going to be an amount that will be hard to pay and may require a payment plan. ACK.
3. Paying for it WOULD make it a big deal that he'd chosen such an expensive route, and I don't think it would be fair for me to have to pay for what were unnecessary expenses, since if I'd paid for it at the time I wouldn't have chosen them. But there's no way to go back in time and change how much he spent, and I think offering to pay PART is worse than not offering anything, since it would bring to mind how at-fault I was and perhaps start a useless argument about overspending for divorce lawyers.
4. I really, really, really don't want to be in touch with him again.
5. It's highly likely his parents paid for it.
6. He could interpret this badly, like that I'm trying to make myself feel less guilty about something he thinks I should continue to feel guilt for. Reimbursing him WOULD make me feel better about Justice Being Done, and I suppose also feel better about myself for having done justice, but it wouldn't make me feel, for example, that I'd bought myself out of blame. It would only make me feel better about how the practical consequences had been handled---as if things had been handled more the way they should have been handled.
7. What if, in fact, he turns me down and says bad things in that self-righteous tone of his, things that make me angry and upset? He was pretty awful during the divorce and didn't show much appreciation for fairness at the time.
8. OMG, after all these years maybe it would be better to just LEAVE IT ALONE.
9. Are my motivations even close to good here? Maybe I AM just trying to make myself look good.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Fifteen Years Too Late
I feel ridiculous talking about booze in my mid-thirties: it's like talking about French kissing in my mid-thirties: the time for talking about it with interested peers has PASSED. But I skipped the alcohol thing in my college years and twenties, so now I'm just getting to the "Hey, does drinking make you REALLY HUNGRY?" and "How comes sometimes alcohol makes me feel GREAT and other times it just makes me super-crabby, and how can I make it more likely to be the former?" and "How come I can drink 4 ounces of vodka in one drink and barely feel it? Is that...weird? Or just a sign that a drinking habit would be really expensive for me?" and "How much of this can I do before I have to start worrying about my liver?" stuff that everyone else got bored with before they were even of legal drinking age.
I mentioned before that I'd never had a hangover, and that trend continues. One evening I drank enough that I couldn't stay awake and went to bed at 7:30 in the evening---and I STILL had no noticeable after-affects other than waking up at about 3:30 in the morning feeling perky and ready for the day to begin after 8 hours' sleep. This makes me want to compare notes. What's typical, and what's not? It is really too bad we are not a group of 20-year-olds.
I mentioned before that I'd never had a hangover, and that trend continues. One evening I drank enough that I couldn't stay awake and went to bed at 7:30 in the evening---and I STILL had no noticeable after-affects other than waking up at about 3:30 in the morning feeling perky and ready for the day to begin after 8 hours' sleep. This makes me want to compare notes. What's typical, and what's not? It is really too bad we are not a group of 20-year-olds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)