Sigmund Freud once theorized that all women covet male genitalia. “Penis Envy” was reason for heterosexuality in women. Like many of Freud’s theories, Penis Envy was heavily criticized. Of course, the criticism from women was disregarded. They were only upset about the theory of Penis Envy because they didn’t have penises.
In general, using human desires or thoughts as reasons can be extremely risky. Some people won’t admit what they want. Some people don’t know what they want. And some people repress the memory of ever wanting something. Of course, these are optimistic cases. In reality, some people simply don’t want something, say they don’t want it, and are accused of lying about it. Naturally, how are the sayers to be trusted when they have their egos to protect? And yet, who else is there to trust but the sayers, who are the sole keepers of their thoughts?
Last Monday, I was asked if I was emotionally attached. I am one of the people who doesn’t know what they want. So I responded, “Maybe”. Of course, the asker assumed that the sayer did not really mean “maybe”. He had already theorized that the sayer desires him, and her desire would influence her response. And so, “maybe” was interpreted as “yes” to the asker, because he knew that sayers say “maybe” to protect their egos. But to the sayer, “maybe” was just “maybe”, because the sayer still didn’t know what she wanted.
And so it was established to the asker that the sayer was emotionally attached to him. And the sayer, initially borderline, gave in to the influence of a new possibility. That maybe she was emotionally attached. So the sayer accepted the asker’s theory as fact. And since this was a fact, the asker said that the sayer’s emotional attachment would prove detrimental to their relationship. Thus, the sayer was rejected.
But in being rejected, the sayer realized that this fact was not a fact. She was not emotionally attached, for if she were, wouldn’t she feel heartbroken? Wouldn’t she feel incomplete and lost, like how she did just a month ago? No, these new feelings were shallow and short-lived. The sayer was not heartbroken; mostly she felt disappointed. She also felt insecurity, for rejection withers her confidence, but insecurity is not the same as feeling lost or incomplete. Neither the disappointment nor insecurity were indicative of emotional attachment. And so the sayer established that she was not attached, and felt obligated to correct the asker.
But the asker would not accept this opposing theory. If her emotional attachment were disproved, then gone are the reasons for disposing her. So in the asker’s mind, the sayer was simply opposing him to make him take her back, and she would only be willing to do this if she wanted him back as well. So the asker, again, concluded she was emotionally attached and wanted him back.
There is no way for me to convince him that I’m not emotionally attached. If I try to disprove my emotional attachment, it will only support his theory, because it implies that I want him back. And for a while I did want him back, but all the while, I never wanted him. I only wanted him back for obvious reasons. But now, I just don’t care. I’ve been offended by his accusations, because they leave no room for my perspective. They leave no room for my perspective because my perspective is the subject of his accusations. So I’m letting him believe that I’m emotionally attached, because no matter how much I try, he will never stop believing, and no matter how much he believes it, it will never make it true.
