excluding friday into saturday afternoon, which definitely did not suck in the slightest, it wasn't exactly a swell rest-of-the-weekend.

wilcox's phone call and subsequent visit, inspiring an exciting mini-anxiety attack, and then the disaster of my little get-together, which i just didn't really enjoy very much at all. note to self - never throw another party. my (dare i say it? ha!) 'date' ignored me completely, to the extent of actually arriving before i did, playing cards with three women, getting plastered, and sitting with his back to me the whole time in front of ten of my closest friends.
oh, humility, oh.
won't be putting that on my salon personals profile...

except for my massage (hope you sold that futon, darling wilcox...) and the long, sunny nap that followed, it was the pits. as great as people can be, i wish sometimes that they came with descriptive labelling much like those that are required for everything from water to cigarettes. this might be called my wishful-thinking version of mcpartland's 'undateable list,' a concept which is amusing in theory, not to mention useful, but tastes vindictive to me when i mull it over for too long. there ought to be some way to avoid pointless pain, just like you'd avoid an unnecessary allergic reaction to peanuts.

so here's my point: how about if you knew in advance that you were dealing with 'tremendously selfish and needy. overly sociable and shallow.' or for me: 'depressive and fragile, very high expectations.' others i could pinpoint would include 'abandonment issues. highly defensive. alcoholic.' 'cannot be alone. trusts no one. pathologically cynical.' 'sexually conflicted, unable to set own agenda.' 'profound center-of-universe misconception, very secretive.'

then you could eat the occasional unhealthy snack, or even form the unsalutory habit with some foreknowledge of what you were getting into, rather than being gobsmacked to discover after some initial getting-to-know-you period that the talk and the walk are two different (pardon the choice of words here, my loves) beasts. for instance, if you knew that i am inclined to be depressive and emotionally fragile and excessively idealistic and entirely too sensual, then you would take with a grain of salt my very dark outlook, my sense of humor, my endless talk of sex, the constant tug of war between wonder and defeat. or, if i knew that so-and-so was a two-timing addictive personality with fidelity issues (note double-emphasis), i would be making an informed choice about trying to feed and water a relationship inspired by his boyish good looks, charming habit of talking to inanimate objects, beautiful red hair, incredible sweetness and agile mind. not anyone in particular here, just an example. (um, not.)

this is so much more practical than the SATs or demented food labels (e.g., water: zero calories. duh.) this is civilization of the future. i'm not suggesting that we should rag on people for being assholes, though by all means, have at... all i'm saying is that we all have faults, and i for one would like to make mine available in trade for being able to avoid feebs, weiners, alcoholics, assholes and scorpios. (note the double-emphasis. heh...)

we're all fallible, i just wish... ugh. i dunno.



DB says:
wow descriptive labels what a great idea!
DB says:
should include the recommended serving size, too