Its over – go away! Is that a farewell, or just nagging?
So there I was, trying to give some good, healthy advice. On a comment on Baggage Reclaim, on the post “Does emotionally unavailable equal he’s just not that into you?”, SusieQ mentioned sending a harsh farewell email to keep the guy away. And I suggested that it would be best to send a registered letter, sent by a lawyer, recorded at the courthouse, maybe served by the Sheriff, to get the message across that you really don’t want to see the person, or hear from them, or have their friends pester you, etc. “Yes, there *was* a relationship, but now there isn’t. So leave me alone! Forever!”
I felt that the formal treatment, involving public officials, made the event more distinct, less easy for a bad character to manipulate. It would be safer, more final, and less likely to be ignored or misunderstood.
Well, SusieQ explained that it worked just fine with her ex – a cop.
And then I got to thinking about Poor Phil, also on Baggage Reclaim. See, Phil just wants to date and sleep around if the lady is willing – only, he wants this one lady to leave him alone, and she keeps sleeping with him.
Take my ex for instance – well I call her my ex but she thinks we’re still together. NML, I have TOLD her that this isn’t going to happen. I have said I don’t want a relationship. I have said that we will never go beyond something very casual and that I don’t want to mislead her. She won’t leave me alone! She’s always there, she’s calling me, emailing me, texting me, whatever and I admit that because I have told her what the score is, I have been sleeping with her. Does that make me an assclown?
What is the difference between SusieQ and Phil? SusieQ told her ex that it is over, she doesn’t want to hear from him or see him or hear from his friends.
Phil told her it wasn’t going anywhere, and expected her to do the ‘right thing’ and walk away. Only she chose to camp on Phil’s ass, and dig in for the long haul. Was the difference that SusieQ was clear and concise?
I think the difference (beyond Phil’s “have my cake and eat it, too” waffling and not really taking control of his life or playing fair with his partner) is that Phil nagged. He said the same thing, expecting it to be ignored, time and again. He keeps telling her and telling but ‘she’s still here’. Well, duh!
Nagging is a conversation. It continues. It establishes a relationship and bond between people – destructive, but still a binding. And that is why my idea of the formal, recorded letter. A registered letter prepared to legal standards cannot be mistaken for mere nagging.
Plus there is the therapeutic aspect. When you pay a lawyer, set the thing in motion, make the ‘ending’ public – you have a definite, significant event that helps you internalize the fact that you are shutting this person away from your life. You are making the positive choice to not allow this person to affect you, manipulate you, or take advantage of you again.
And if circumstances turn badly, if legal or police assistance is needed – you have the paper trail already established.
When the breakup is nasty, when the disrespect is injuring people, when you don’t trust your soon-to-be-ex, then I think the right thing is the public registered letter, written by a lawyer.
Well and clearly said, Brad.
SuzieQ did exactly the right thing. Her actions were qa good example if things need to be spelled out that clearly.
(And it was great that it was to a cop – ha ! They always think that they can slip past the conduct “un”becoming guidelines when it suits them with women – until it goes on the record/they are called on the carpet by their Supervisors and then it is – yes sir, no sir, won’t happen again sir !)
Phil was just a nagger – said words that weren’t backed up by his actions, which were misleading. He was a user and an assclown. He wasn’t REALLY ending things as long as his body parts were going into her body parts.
If you really want something finished and the other person isn’t respecting that, not sleeping with them is step one. Step two however, may end up being that sometimes you have to make it legal to make yourself even more clearly understood.
Have a good Friday.
Loving Annie
Ahhh…I’ve missed reading blogs! I have to say that I agree – with certain type of people who can’t hear you, the legal letter seems like the only way to go. Otherwise, it’s just an ongoing conversation, even when you don’t think you’re taking part.
Loving Annie – When I re-read Phil’s letter, it struck me – he never, ever, told her to go away, to leave him alone, that he didn’t want her to come around, slip into his bed, etc. All Phil *ever* told her was that he wasn’t interested in anything long term – and is shocked – Shocked! – to find her still around, still hoping for a deeper romance.
Looked at one way, Phil is naive, and the woman is ignoring his excuses. Her continued presence – remember, all a woman has to do to get a man excited is to show up! – implies permission to keep frolicking between the sheets, on the couch, in the hallway, etc.
Excpet Phil expresses surprise that she is still around. Which seems to say that he doesn’t actually want her to come back. I am getting closer and closer to thinking these are just clueless, naive dupes. Of course, Phil is messing around before taking care of his marriage – that is, cheating. And the woman is a Fallback Girl – which is to say, desperate, misinformed, deluded, and ignoring the warning signs.
Where were these people when they filmed Dynasty or Dallas?
NML, Thanks for stopping by!
I think the biggest risk at breaking things off casually, is the problem of having to repeat the send-off message if it doesn’t work the first time. Repeating is just a big wallow in his disrespect – which really should have been over by that time. A repeat message opens up the spectre of further deception and manipulation – all intensely emotional trauma, that distracts from the grieving, letting go, and healing, that has to wait on *his* pleasure. Gah!