jpn Posted September 13, 2008 Posted September 13, 2008 This is how I see it, am I wrong? Please bear with me while I explain the situation: Dumpee, the one who has been dumped, has the moral upper hand and they feel justified in using it. If they feel emotional pain, they bring Dumper, the one who kicked them to the curb, the entire rotting abortion and demand ‘eat its bitter innards’. Fear, sadness, apathy now haemorrhage out of both people, but Dumpee feels superior. They have licence to ask Dumper anything. They will ask questions which make Dumper out to be emotionally malfunctioning, cold. In this situation (a phone call with long pauses, a teary interlude in a park), Dumpee feels wronged and justified. Depending on Dumpee’s ability to marinate in misery and continuing affection for Dumper, this conversation will either aid healing or do nothing but bring the other person to their knees. To compound this hypocrisy, Dumpee’s friends offer solidarity by badmouthing Dumper (now a pariah) and sympathetic hours in which they dissect the relationship in Dumpee’s favour. This helps Dumpee rationalise. Dumper is offered no emotional scaffolding, but now bears the guilt of everything that didn’t function in the relationship from the start. Before the break up, the balance isn’t right. Here, again, the soon-to-be-dumpee is in a better but hypocritical position. It comes down to affections. Soon-to-dump doesn’t feel as strongly as s-t-b-d so the accusation overhanging any disagreement is ‘Why don’t you love me as much as I love you?’ This is how love can be subversive. From this point, when the imbalance is revealed, the relationship is on a slow decline to dumpsville.
Recommended Posts