She's touring the facility, she's taking up slack.

[cyrano]

Home way too late--gaming went about an hour and a half past my usual bedtime, but it was good to get out of the house and see folks.
Main reason I'm here is to record a thought that for some reason I stumbled across at work this afternoon around five o'clock. Is it possible that the reason I'm so damned determined to take care of myself and not ask for help is not so much my caretaker nature that demands that I not make demands but instead is more the fact that I'm frightened to depend on somebody enough to give them the leverage to fuck me over?
And if so, does this change my behaviour any, outside of acknowledging my motivation? I still don't particularly /want/ to be fucked over after all.
And does that sentence parse at all to anybody besides me?

Comments

Makes sense to me

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

Depending on someone does require trust. That's perfectly sensible.

In fact, I'd say it's rare for someone to give you something you need, particularly money, and not expect something in return. Whether it's merely sincere thanks, or an effort to spend more time with them, or some concept of giving up control. It can be worth it, with people worth trusting. It can be disastrous, with others.

On the other hand, it's clear that you're working hard and still suffering. That's hard for your friends to watch. It's one thing to watch someone self-destruct who is unemployed and unmotivated, but it's quite another when they're doing what they ought to and it still isn't quite enough. This provokes a need to do something to help. The world should be just enough that Chuck can live here, and afford rent and food and maybe enough to save up for an occasional goodie or two. And if it's not a hardship on me to bring him up to that level, I'll feel better about the world.

(I can say this pretty easily, being unemployed and unable to be that benefactor, but the emotion isn't far off.)

And you do offer a lot, other than money, to the people close to you. It's a very real risk that, without some change in your financial situation, they'll lose you as a physically close friend. That has value. It happens to have a price tag (how much does Chuck need to pay his bills?) If that price tag is worth it to some people, I think that's a fine thing.

But, one word of caution - any time someone gives you money for something like this, make sure they write either 'gift' or 'loan' in the comment spot on the check, so there's no confusion later. The last thing you want is one of you to remember differently, which is easy, and end up in small claims court.

Then again, maybe we all should just move to Seattle, land of better rent and better rain and can't-be-worse economy, with 10x the number of coffee shop jobs.

Re: Makes sense to me

[wilson-lizard.livejournal.com]

AMEN to that!

Re: Makes sense to me

[ex-lucianus799.livejournal.com]

Totally. It's all about the trust and the goodwill.

I like how money can be spent on opportunities to make life-long memories. I like throwing money at problems that can be fixed by money. It's only money. I can make more. But I'm hugely sensitive that money is a powerful symbol for security -- life itself, in our white-collar society where subsistence farming is out of the question -- so I never try to impose with it.

Best case, a no-strings gift of cash is a token of unconditional love. And most of us have the good manners to gratitude for it, or guilt for not feeling grateful. Which I think is too bad, because any gift should be a celebration of mutual esteem, not a tally or a burden.

Anyway, do let us know if it comes down to a stay-or-go decision. (I'm sure you will, so this request is mostly for my sake in saying it.) Don't want the Chuck to go away!