As many of you already know, I have been in a relationship with someone I really care for. It's been almost 3 months and we are still getting to know each other. When people are in the process of getting to know each other in a romantic relationships, we have a tendency to ask questions about the other persons past. It's a dangerous territory to get into because you never really know how the other person is going to react to what you have to say. You also don't know how you are going to react to what they have to say.
So just how honest should we be about our past relationships? Should we even dare to talk about them? I personally had some relationships that ended acrimoniously and I would prefer not to talk about those disastrous relationships. Jeff (my boyfriend) had asked me about my ex-husband (a real asshole) and I don't really see the point in talking about him or anyone else I have had a relationship with. But naturally, when he asks me about my ex-boyfriends, I then ask about his ex-girlfriends and all it does is get on my nerves to hear about how beautiful, smart or funny some of them are.
Before you know it, you start to compare yourself to all the people they have dated. I start to make myself insecure by making those comparisons. Am I as pretty, smart or funny as the people he used to be with? What are my deficiencies? Am I adequate, average or better than those other women? It goes on and on in my head. So long as these other people don't come up in conversation, I am okay. But when they do...oh, how pathetic I become!
Maybe because it's early in the relationship that I don't feel completely secure with what we have. I will admit that he has said that he never felt quite as connected to any of them as he does with me. But still, I wonder. Is honesty about our past really the best policy??
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Armenian Story Has Another SIde
Armenian story has another side
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Man, it is so easy to HATE Armenians
So I generally use my blog to chronicle my personal life. However, in light of the recent events regarding Pelosi (a fool's fool) and the resolution that looks like is going to pass deeming the events of 1915 in the Ottoamn Empire as a so-called genocide, I felt compelled to write about it.
First off, since when in hell are politicians in a position to act as though they are an authority on history? This whole issue is best for historians to sort out. Am I right?
Secondly, why in the world won't the Armenians go to the Hague and make their case if they are DEAD certain that they have one.
Thirdly, why won't the Armenians open up their God damn archives the way that Turkey has? Again, if they are soooo certain that they were systematically exterminated, what are they so afraid of?
One more question: in 1984 a letter was drafted and signed by (literally) dozens of HISTORIANS (from the U.S. and England) stating that the events of 1915 were NOT a genocide. So tell me, why did Armenian terrorists go after those historians who made this statement? Well, hellooo, Armos, remember your terrorist organization called ASALA. For those of you not familiar with ASALA, they were an Armenian terrorist organization who murdered scores of Turkish Diplomats and civilians.
Yes, I now loathe Armenians who sole national identity has been to have the world feel sorry for them for betraying the very govenment that had long been on their side. That is, up until Armenians got greedy and thought that they could carve out land of their own out of the Ottoman Empire. You all suck. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart
First off, since when in hell are politicians in a position to act as though they are an authority on history? This whole issue is best for historians to sort out. Am I right?
Secondly, why in the world won't the Armenians go to the Hague and make their case if they are DEAD certain that they have one.
Thirdly, why won't the Armenians open up their God damn archives the way that Turkey has? Again, if they are soooo certain that they were systematically exterminated, what are they so afraid of?
One more question: in 1984 a letter was drafted and signed by (literally) dozens of HISTORIANS (from the U.S. and England) stating that the events of 1915 were NOT a genocide. So tell me, why did Armenian terrorists go after those historians who made this statement? Well, hellooo, Armos, remember your terrorist organization called ASALA. For those of you not familiar with ASALA, they were an Armenian terrorist organization who murdered scores of Turkish Diplomats and civilians.
Yes, I now loathe Armenians who sole national identity has been to have the world feel sorry for them for betraying the very govenment that had long been on their side. That is, up until Armenians got greedy and thought that they could carve out land of their own out of the Ottoman Empire. You all suck. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Merging
Jeff and I have been together for a month now and we have been inseparable since the day we have met. I never thought that I could spend so much of my time with another human being without feeling claustrophobic. In the past, I was really protective of my personal space. I couldn't stand it when a guy would leave anything in my apartment that would be a reminder of him. It felt too much like they were moving into my personal space. Not so with Jeff. I have even made room for his personal belongings at my place.
I can remember a time when I was seeing someone else who used to leave his stuff in my apartment and I would freak out. I was too selfish to give up anything of mine for a guy. I guess I never really cared for or was in love with anyone else in the past. It's different for me now. I can happily walk around my apartment and love to see Jeff's things hanging around.
Realistically, I know that this high that we are on will eventually calm down, but my feelings for him continue to grow and deepen. If there is such a thing as a soul mate, then I have found mine. I actually feel optimistic about the future, and I have to say that sharing my life with someone this special makes each day terrific. I'll take the good and the bad with him which I was not willing to do with anyone else. When things got heated in the least bit with other men, I would run away as fast as I could. I'm in this relationship for the long haul - something that I could not say about any of the others.
I can remember a time when I was seeing someone else who used to leave his stuff in my apartment and I would freak out. I was too selfish to give up anything of mine for a guy. I guess I never really cared for or was in love with anyone else in the past. It's different for me now. I can happily walk around my apartment and love to see Jeff's things hanging around.
Realistically, I know that this high that we are on will eventually calm down, but my feelings for him continue to grow and deepen. If there is such a thing as a soul mate, then I have found mine. I actually feel optimistic about the future, and I have to say that sharing my life with someone this special makes each day terrific. I'll take the good and the bad with him which I was not willing to do with anyone else. When things got heated in the least bit with other men, I would run away as fast as I could. I'm in this relationship for the long haul - something that I could not say about any of the others.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Can I Fall in Love This Fast?
I recently met and fell in love with someone I met online. His name is Jeff. We began emailing each other, which obviously went well enough to go on a first date. We spoke on the phone for the first time on a Thursday night and it felt like there was a real connection there. We both decided to not go to work on Friday and had our first date. The date started on Friday at 1 p.m. and ended up going until Saturday morning - no, we didn't have sex (that night).
We spent our first date in Hoboken, New Jersey which probably has the most bars per capita in the world. We bounced around from bar to bar and just spent our time laughing and talking. The evening ended at Middle Eastern restaurant which also had a nargile bar. It was an amazing day and night. He left Saturday morning and I met up with again at a bar in New York City on Saturday night. After running around in lower Manhattan, we went back to my place. I am blown away by Jeff. I just love being with him. I knew that there was something special and different about him.
We spent Sunday at my place doing more of the same, just talking and laughing while we played a ton of music. It was great. It was soooo comfortable and easy to be with him. I wasn't self-conscious at all. Nor did I have to wonder what he was thinking or feeling. We were just being ourselves and enjoying each others company.
Jeff came over to my place during the week where we just spent more time getting to know each other. Things are moving along quickly and normally I would say that it's not possible to love someone this fast. I am a cynic by nature. However, Jeff makes me less cynical and more optimistic about the future. He is just a few years younger than me and we seemed to have made a wonderful connection. My hope is that this will last forever. He and I are mature enough to realize that there will come a time when we will both come down off of this "high" we are on. We even look forward to that. I have never fallen for someone like this before and I feel ready to make a committment to him. The best part of all of this is that he cares for me the way that I care for him.
We spent our first date in Hoboken, New Jersey which probably has the most bars per capita in the world. We bounced around from bar to bar and just spent our time laughing and talking. The evening ended at Middle Eastern restaurant which also had a nargile bar. It was an amazing day and night. He left Saturday morning and I met up with again at a bar in New York City on Saturday night. After running around in lower Manhattan, we went back to my place. I am blown away by Jeff. I just love being with him. I knew that there was something special and different about him.
We spent Sunday at my place doing more of the same, just talking and laughing while we played a ton of music. It was great. It was soooo comfortable and easy to be with him. I wasn't self-conscious at all. Nor did I have to wonder what he was thinking or feeling. We were just being ourselves and enjoying each others company.
Jeff came over to my place during the week where we just spent more time getting to know each other. Things are moving along quickly and normally I would say that it's not possible to love someone this fast. I am a cynic by nature. However, Jeff makes me less cynical and more optimistic about the future. He is just a few years younger than me and we seemed to have made a wonderful connection. My hope is that this will last forever. He and I are mature enough to realize that there will come a time when we will both come down off of this "high" we are on. We even look forward to that. I have never fallen for someone like this before and I feel ready to make a committment to him. The best part of all of this is that he cares for me the way that I care for him.
Monday, August 6, 2007
My Confessional for the Week
Okay, I'm just going to fess up and say it: I slept with that Turkish-American guy I met on our 3rd date. And yes, it was a BIG mistake. Not a mistake in that I didn't want for it to happen, not a mistake because I feel any shame, and definitely not a mistake because I did enjoy it. I deeply regret that we slept together too soon. I can't undo what's already been done. If I could turn back the clock, I would have held off.
I'll walk you through it...Things moved really fast between us. We talked and emailed each other everyday and started making plans for things far, far down the road, like New Years Eve. He was even making plan for us to go on a week long vacation this month. That was mistake number one. Never, EVER, talk about the future in that way when you first meet someone. But my experience with Turkish men has always been this way. They immediately stake their claim if they are interested in you or they'll blow you off rather quickly if they are not interested. In that way, it did not seem all that odd to me. American guys just don't talk this way.
THURSDAY: So we were at my place after having dinner together and one thing led to another. And BAM! He changed. It was almost like he was thinking "okay, I had her, now I don't need to pursue her as hard". Was it just my imagination? I wasn't really sure.
FRIDAY: We had plans to have dinner again and perhaps head over to his place. He emailed me at work and said that he was running behind schedule and would be a little later than usual. I had another bad feeling in my gut. But truthfully I was exhausted from the work week, so I cancelled our plans. He called me when he got home from work and our conversation just felt different (in a bad way). So I asked him if he was okay and he simply said that he had a few drinks after work and was just feeling mellow. Whatever...
I woke up on Saturday morning with a really bad feeling again and emailed him saying that I would like for us to just be friends and that we were not a good match for each other. It couldn't have been more brief. He immediately emailed me back and said that he was "surprised" and wish me luck too. End of story, right? Wrong!
That was last weekend and we did not speak or email each other at all. I figured what's done is done and it's time to move on. But last night I forwarded a GROUP email to friends and family and his email address was still hanging around, so he got the email as well. I was surpised this morning by his email to me saying "can a guy and a girl still be friends after they have been intimate?" I wrote him back and said that I meant what I said in my earlier email about us just being friends. The choice was his to make. I thought I was being a mature adult here, wouldn't you say?
He sent me another email saying he was packing for a trip and would contact me this Sunday "to catch up" I already knew he was leaving for this trip as he mentioned it to me when we were still seeing each other. He also wrote in his email that he had purchased a few new things in for his apartment which he wanted me to see.
CAN A GUY AND A GIRL BE "JUST FRIENDS" AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INITMATE, as he said? More specifically, can a Turkish guy still be friends with a girl after being intimate? I am still friendly with some of my old boyfriends (Americans), and we get along just fine when we run into each other. After all, we are all adults here and none of my relationships (except for my ex-husband) ended in a knock down drag out fight. Those relationships just ended. But I would like to think that he and I can be friends. Maybe I'm naive.
So maybe he'll call, maybe he won't. But if he does, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've never been in this situation before with a Turkish guy.
Did I mention that he is 9 years younger than me? Maybe he just likes the "older" woman thing, I don't know. Now do you see why I blog anonymously??
I'll walk you through it...Things moved really fast between us. We talked and emailed each other everyday and started making plans for things far, far down the road, like New Years Eve. He was even making plan for us to go on a week long vacation this month. That was mistake number one. Never, EVER, talk about the future in that way when you first meet someone. But my experience with Turkish men has always been this way. They immediately stake their claim if they are interested in you or they'll blow you off rather quickly if they are not interested. In that way, it did not seem all that odd to me. American guys just don't talk this way.
THURSDAY: So we were at my place after having dinner together and one thing led to another. And BAM! He changed. It was almost like he was thinking "okay, I had her, now I don't need to pursue her as hard". Was it just my imagination? I wasn't really sure.
FRIDAY: We had plans to have dinner again and perhaps head over to his place. He emailed me at work and said that he was running behind schedule and would be a little later than usual. I had another bad feeling in my gut. But truthfully I was exhausted from the work week, so I cancelled our plans. He called me when he got home from work and our conversation just felt different (in a bad way). So I asked him if he was okay and he simply said that he had a few drinks after work and was just feeling mellow. Whatever...
I woke up on Saturday morning with a really bad feeling again and emailed him saying that I would like for us to just be friends and that we were not a good match for each other. It couldn't have been more brief. He immediately emailed me back and said that he was "surprised" and wish me luck too. End of story, right? Wrong!
That was last weekend and we did not speak or email each other at all. I figured what's done is done and it's time to move on. But last night I forwarded a GROUP email to friends and family and his email address was still hanging around, so he got the email as well. I was surpised this morning by his email to me saying "can a guy and a girl still be friends after they have been intimate?" I wrote him back and said that I meant what I said in my earlier email about us just being friends. The choice was his to make. I thought I was being a mature adult here, wouldn't you say?
He sent me another email saying he was packing for a trip and would contact me this Sunday "to catch up" I already knew he was leaving for this trip as he mentioned it to me when we were still seeing each other. He also wrote in his email that he had purchased a few new things in for his apartment which he wanted me to see.
CAN A GUY AND A GIRL BE "JUST FRIENDS" AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INITMATE, as he said? More specifically, can a Turkish guy still be friends with a girl after being intimate? I am still friendly with some of my old boyfriends (Americans), and we get along just fine when we run into each other. After all, we are all adults here and none of my relationships (except for my ex-husband) ended in a knock down drag out fight. Those relationships just ended. But I would like to think that he and I can be friends. Maybe I'm naive.
So maybe he'll call, maybe he won't. But if he does, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've never been in this situation before with a Turkish guy.
Did I mention that he is 9 years younger than me? Maybe he just likes the "older" woman thing, I don't know. Now do you see why I blog anonymously??
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Back to Reality
Okay, so I just turned 42 years old. That's a grim fact that I can't change. I can't turn back the clock or live in the past. I guess I should appreciate that I'm in good health, have family and friends who care about me, and have a crazy job that I enjoy (on most days). The truth is that I am more comfortable in my own skin more now than I was when I was 22. Oh man, could it be that I am actually maturing?
What's different now is that I act more responsibly (usually), care so much more about the feelings of others (I was totally self-absorbed in my 20's), and I find that I have greater patience these days in almost every aspect of my life.
I don't need a life partner to validate who I am. But I certainly would enjoy the journey in this life of mine more if I could share it with someone whom I feel deeply connected to. That person may never show up in my life and I need to wrap my brain around that. What if I never have what I am looking for? Should my life come to a screeching halt? I can't just lay down and die, especially since there many things in life that I am so passionate about. It's high time that I come to my senses and live each moment and to truly be in the moment. No more of those silly pity parties when there are things in life that are more important than finding the one. It's a new era.
What's different now is that I act more responsibly (usually), care so much more about the feelings of others (I was totally self-absorbed in my 20's), and I find that I have greater patience these days in almost every aspect of my life.
I don't need a life partner to validate who I am. But I certainly would enjoy the journey in this life of mine more if I could share it with someone whom I feel deeply connected to. That person may never show up in my life and I need to wrap my brain around that. What if I never have what I am looking for? Should my life come to a screeching halt? I can't just lay down and die, especially since there many things in life that I am so passionate about. It's high time that I come to my senses and live each moment and to truly be in the moment. No more of those silly pity parties when there are things in life that are more important than finding the one. It's a new era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
