I'm starting to hate, that there are certain topics most/all my friends fully endorse, yet I oppose (tea and anime are just two).

That sounds like a ridiculous sort of thing to be bothered over; I'm starting to learn, that I assign a startling amount of (perhaps arbitrary) importance to symbolic significance.

I don't do well with trust. I've said for years that I generally operate on a until-you-prove-otherwise sort of system: you get complete trust, until you do something to prove you don't deserve it. That said, I'm guarded; I have a history to speak as to why. I will view you with the highest respect, assume you capable, etc.; I will not, however, tell you anything potentially hurting to me, because, admittedly, I don't know that such information might not come back at me from you. To me, it doesn't compromise this viewpoint of starting with trust in meeting people, because the point of this idea of trust is giving you the chance to earn and establish it; there's no use in coming at someone distrustful, immediately shutting down means of communication. In this, the expectation to build bridges of trust is primed from the outset; it's your choice as to whether to make it dormant. I am friendly while able to still control how much I get hurt; some damage must still be taken in such a system, but it's of my design and control.

I mention this, because there is heavy significance in how I view my friends. Likely a remnant of my judgmental mother, I see them as a representative of me; I'm proud of them (I assume the use of the term "friend" covers the notion that I care about them; it should go without saying).

But, more than anything, I trust them. For different things, as their specialty suits (I often went to Tommy in my Senior year of high school regarding relationships or discussing sexuality; I would not have gone to Tommy regarding my siblings, nor do I think he would have been particularly interested).

As a slight aside, I take seriously art (food is always an art; I still resist seeing anime as anything than a tired genre that repeats itself and is divorced from reality in ways that fail to give me (at the very least) anything of importance). And if anyone I think highly of sticks on a particular issue (particularly for years), I give serious credence to their point. If a multitude of them do it, even more so.

As I said, arbitrary.

Because I can, at times, be of poor memory, and the remembrance of memories is all that is left of what ever happened:

It was during finals period of this last school year. In my absolute anxiety, I hadn't bothered to've started writing my 15 page rough draft for my final paper for my WGSS senior seminar until the point that the paper was due. Between staying up and lightly sleeping in the hopes of even starting the damn thing, I had a raging headache by the time night had rolled around. Needless to say, I was miserably irate and depressed.

As I was rushingly trying to finish this late draft, I happened to notice it was 10 or 11 and that Theology on Tap had started. Based off of a Catholic event that had started in Chicago, Williams's version was to get all of the chaplains together, and students would ask them any question they wished regarding religion. It's one of my favorite events of the year, not held too frequently, and I had already missed the last one or two times it had last occurred. I figured the brief escape might help my morale to some degree.

I was partially wrong. A few students were questioning the history of the church and Father Caster was feeling harassed (I expect his family troubles didn't help to put him in any sort of calm and explaining mood). There wasn't much room, so I sat at the end of one of the benches and just tried to avoid any light.

A little bit later, some room opened up next to Julia. They offered for me to move away from outside, on the edge of the circle. I naturally declined at this sudden and unexpected change. A few minutes later, upon considering that it'd be nice to be next to Julia (who had been becoming a closer and closer friend to me over the past few months), I decided to move over.

Julia, recognizing I was hardly in remotely a good mood, put her arm over my shoulder as I sat down. As the event went along, Father Caster was responding to another person's question (actually, all the chaplain's were; I just remember Father Caster's response). It may have been because of my exhaustion, but I don't recall what the question was; I think I sort of came in, while Father was already giving his answer.

From my vague memory, he was describing how some aspect of his answer related to when we care about someone else. Gah, this is going to irritate the shit out of me now, because I do think his wording was very important to how the scenario played out. Regardless, to paraphrase, he was describing that when we care about someone, we take care of them, we do actions that mean something to them.

As he was in the middle of describing this, I thought I ought to knowingly nudge Julia. It was the kind of private exchange that I particularly enjoy and also a means of reciprocating the (what seemed to me) wholesale over-credit Julia had been giving my character as of late. Perhaps I'm just a slow creature (in that choices, decisions, and – at times – actions ought to be approached only when entirely certain), and what seemed to me like a very quick shift from being somewhat-alarmed-by-me/acquaintances to being close friends (in that loyalty, fondness, and feeling safe enough to lean upon the other were at play) was hard to justify in my head; not that I didn't appretiate and welcome these things: I simply had a hard time understanding their occurrence.

In the time it took for me to debate whether to do this (rather, there was no debate whether I should; it was that, once again, any action that was not thought was exceedingly draining of me in such a depressed state), she nudged me. I glanced up to see her knowingly smirk at me. I, in turn, nudged her back, smiling with what energy my body was willing to concede.

It would be false to say I did not have any friends at Williams. I did not have as many close friends as I would like (certainly less than I had upon leaving high school), though it would be false, I think, to say I had none as well. I think the most irritating thing of the entire experience, though, is the way that I felt most people didn't try to get close to me at all (some did, to be sure). I would like to firmly place the fault of which upon my own introversion and aloofness and, therefore, utterly out of a fault of their own.

There is a phenomenon that I feel I occasionally hint at or passingly refer to from time to time on here in my life, where I find an aspect of myself which I recognize now but would seem to have roots that trace back to some point that fades into the past, and I can no longer discern it distinctly. My liberalism (and the creeping feeling that this was retrieved and enforced by my surrounding culture throughout the entirety – just about – of my childhood) is one of them.

And, it would seem, my Catholicism is one as well (which is particularly bizarre to me), because I really never identified strongly with my Catholicism until college. I don't believe I ever have mentioned this here (though I started to actually notice, and mention, it for the first time after discussing religion in college, first in Williams Secular Community, then with Arantza, Andrew, and Kahn, and then in InterFaith) but, in spite of attending Sunday School (on and off) and stepping foot into a church at least half of the year (Catholic, naturally), I didn't really have a particularly Catholic identity. Sure, I identified as Catholic, but my religious affiliation could really have been better described as a Christian identity than a Catholic one.

America is a Christian nation – insofar that "Christian nation" means one based upon a premise of generic Protestant Christianity largely due to a bizarre necessity, by a decent amount of people, for evangelism (including tacit evangelism like politicians feeling it's necessary to say God bless at the end of every speaking engagement, regardless of zir own religious identifications or those whom ze is addressing) and a held belief that, so long as we all believe in JESUS, everything else will turn out fine (seriously, though, we need to all agree on that one fact – we do, right? Right?).

The downfall of this approach (other than the glaring fact of expected cultural religious conformity) is that a lot of the cool denominational diversity that exists is passed over. However, from a personal perspective, it robbed me of the diversity within my denomination by making me think that Christianity meant X (and, since Catholicism is a form of Christianity, Catholicism must mean X). This provided me with thoughts like Catholicism believed in sola scriptura (Latin for "by scripture alone"). Or, as I've complained irately a multitude of times here, sola fide (Latin for "[salvation] by faith alone").

This, in turn, had me stating that there was no real Christian denomination that I agreed with (how could I, when, in my ignorance, they all required faith for salvation?); I identified as Catholic, because that's what I grew up in and, therefore, was the place of my attendance (it surely had nothing to do with me agreeing with the theology).

This, I think, is why discovery of my Catholicism was this very cool experience (and welcome relief) in college. However, it was also a somewhat bizarre experience, as I realized that a lot of my religion fit me so well. This was bizarre because I had not sought out Catholicism for its stances (indeed, I was so utterly clueless the whole of my childhood as to what Catholicism stood for that I actually rejected it (as I did all Christian denominations) as an imperfect expression of my own beliefs; I had no issue with being Christian: I just didn't agree with the conclusions most Christian religions extrapolated from that). And yet Catholicism seemed to verify so much of what I did agree with:

We employ incense and cross ourselves, because worship should involve all the senses?
Cool; I never thought of theology in that light before.

Our liturgy, like aspects of our scripture and Jewish liturgy, ought to be symbolic and metaphorical?
Cool; as an English major, I can completely get that.

Our Mass should include beautiful music and incense and pretty stained-glass windows, because it ought to be art, because art is a means of connecting with the divine and Truth?
What a beautiful idea.

Reason and logic are tools given to Human-kind, and we ought to use them and, indeed, can (and ought to) use them to perceive and understand God?
How very Enlightenment like.

In lieu of the last point, there ought to be a respect for science as an explainer of our current universe? So much so that St. Augustine said that scripture should possibly be regarded as metaphorical if science contradicts it. On top of that, there's a very rich history of priests as scientists, as well as the church being a patron of the sciences; lest we forget, it was a priest that helped formulate the concept of the Big Bang.
Wonderful.

Of course, some of why I like those things (stuff like the use of reason and the importance of beauty/art) are because they tie us very close to a celebration to the human/earthly form (which, in turn, is why more on the Protestant side dislike Catholicism and just see it as an extension of paganism. All that incense, candles, and stained-glass windows? Just distractions taking your mind away from focusing on God during the service). Admittedly, my favorite priests were the ones who'd sit down with you around at a pub with a beer (or mix drinks) or join you to hang out somewhere or had experience at college campuses – imagine the somewhat portly priest so ridiculed during the middle ages, the priest perceived to be too much of this Earth, too down-to-Earth. Of course, theology was always so much more strongly about morality rather than how wicked the Earth itself is, so I've never been too afraid of celebrating and enjoying our Earthly humanity.

An orthodox Catholic would probably find a middle ground, of sorts. Certainly our humanity isn't to be wholly repudiated. After all, Christ became man, and what was his first miracle? Making water into wine.

But I think this highlights the final conclusion I came to: while Catholicism, I discovered, was the religion that fit me the closest (sans Judaism), I still wound up disagreeing with aspects of it. I graduated with a degree in Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies with a concentration in Queer Studies, after all. I would not be surprised to learn that the pope and I have some differing ideas. Despite the absolute unlikelihood of it, I want women ordained; I understand all reasons the why the church refuses on that point, but I can't – in good conscience – agree. And you know, really, my differences are small in number. But they all focus around things which are pretty much dogma by now. For all the changes the church can make (and they can be awesome; how the Mass is viewed after Vatican II is an awesome understanding and approach to our liturgy), they won't be any that address the bulk of my issues with Catholicism.

However, unless I decide to convert to Judaism, this is what I have. The time I became an atheist taught me (ironically) that I am a religious person; my understanding of the world involves religion. Honestly, I think it's inseparable from who I am (there's a reason I was co-president of InterFaith for two years).

However, this isn't a complete impediment. After all, I spent most of the entirety of my life in a religion that I disagreed with; I now agree with it so much more so, so it's even better than it was before, right?

And, really, I don't think I'm really making how clear I like a lot of Catholicism right now. I forget if I mentioned it on here or had only thought to, but it's very difficult to describe the feeling I got when hearing an organ playing from out of a cathedral while at Princeton for the interfaith summit. Or the sounds of, really, any form of chanting of psalms and hymns (though, naturally, Gregorian has a special place in my heart). And, of course, the celebration of the Mass.

But there's also another one of those phenomena I mentioned at the beginning of this post that makes my Catholicism so cozy. Again, for the life of me, I'm not sure where I get this feeling (in particular since I only really started understanding Catholicism in college), but there is a history of liberal Catholics throughout history, a group of liberal intellectuals who, in spite of their differences with Catholicism due to their liberalism, are fully Catholic (and are, in fact, liberal fully due to being Catholic). Yet, if you were to ask me for examples, I would come up short, which isn't to say that the idea is far-fetched. As I've already said, there is an emphasis and respect for intellectualism within Catholicism, particularly in the area of philosophy. And, while part of the reason you can consider the Catholic voting bloc Democratic for the most part (even to this day) is because most Catholic immigrants were Irish (and thus Catholic) while also being working class and, thus, labor (as well as Kennedy, obviously), I think it's telling, when Catholic no longer means Irish here in America, at least 50-some percent of Catholics are still voting Democrat. The only time I've actually really witnessed this was during my Senior year of college with Andrew. We were both pretty hard-leaning liberals, though of different stripes in the end, and yet entirely Catholic.

Both of us could back up why we do what we do during Mass and in most of our theology. Andrew was more versed in the philosophy used by Catholicism to justify itself. I'm pretty concerned regarding liturgy (including that outside of Mass). And, while I was always happy to find myself in a fully-Catholic room from time to time (due to, for nine elevenths of my life, not fully identifying as Catholic), Andrew and I would often laugh about what we disagreed with and perceived as ridiculous about our church (at one point, he mentioned that he thought he had heard that the papacy had released an official apology for what had happened with Galileo; we marveled how, in comparison to other Christian denominations, ours could get so many things right and yet others still so utterly wrong. Then we laughed as we noted the church had no problem with evolution (unlike other denominations) but still hadn't apologized for when it denied that the sun revolved around the Earth).

Side note: come to think of it, Kaz and I probably fall into that same place together, but I feel him and I haven't discussed politics enough for such a dynamic to unfold.

And this is my longwinded way of eventually reaching the point of this post.

I like my religion; I do. Actually, it's (admittedly) more torn than that, with high extremes of each end. While I often don't put anything in the collection plate each Sunday (in part because I don't really have any money, though more these days because I can't justify supporting financially an institution that I disagree so extremely on in some cases), I still vouch for the religion. But the point is, I'm trying to find my place in it. Based on the merits that Catholicism does have, I think we ought to root ourselves in that. In other words, Catholic culture. But what is that, exactly? Good question.

And these thoughts which are usually lurking around my head came to the forefront, when I came across this article: http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2009/05/abortion-and-catholic-culture.html.

At first, I thought the article was going to make the argument that abortion and pro-life culture dominated Catholic culture at the moment (which, really, you can't create a culture around a singular idea), and it was because of this that people were leaving the church in droves (particularly young people). To quote two sentences from the article: "In my view, the singular focus upon abortion as THE issue over which conservative Catholics will brook no divergence and around which we are called to rally reveals, to my mind, not evidence of robust Catholic culture as much as its absence.[…]The ferocity over this issue – and this issue almost to the exclusion of nearly every other issue that might be part of a rich fabric of Catholic culture – suggests to me that Catholic culture, where it existed, has been largely routed."

Instead, the article is about how we live in American society's culture and not in a purely Catholic one, and this is why some Catholics feel okay not centralizing their Catholicism around abortion (after all, abortion is not at the center of Catholic spirituality or theology).

***Note: I'm not interested in contemplating the morality of abortion; that's not the point of this post. Everything written here will be sans my own opinions on abortion, if I even have any***

And this is somewhat central to my search for a Catholic culture or, really, namely a Catholicism I feel comfortable in.

As I noted to my dad a few days ago, I'm extremely conservative when it comes to liturgy (possibly a small part of why I'm so interested in Judaism – our liturgy came out of that, so, if you want to go back to the source…). On the other hand, as I've noted (and demonstrated) a multitude of times here, I'm extremely liberal (no surprise anymore). So, when I find someplace I really like worshiping, I will probably not be liked by most of the people there.

On the other hand, I agree entirely with the concepts of Vatican II regarding changes to the Mass. The difficulty comes with the part that calls for more local aspects brought in (which, ultimately, I do agree). A Mass is a Mass is a Mass. And while I recognize it as valid, it's not my ideal way of celebrating it (a valid opinion, I would argue, seeing that the very construction of the Mass was as an art to be enjoyed and admired). The part of the article that talks about how we are members of parishes (where we live) rather than shopping around for the right place and, thus, we have a culture of acceptance rather than transformation struck me as funny, largely because I've been going to different parishes to see the differing Masses because the one in my parish is far too liberal in its liturgy for my taste (and it's not even that liberal, by today's standards; it's actually rather common place – hence why I haven't settled for a particular parish yet).

Yet there's the rub. I agree with Vatican II (I know, technically I'm not supposed to even have the choice of disagreeing if I'm a part of this church, but clearly I'm not a fully orthodox Catholic). I don't disagree with these Masses; I simply dislike them (stylistically). There's an important difference in that.

So, in the grand question of what is Catholic culture, how do we decide in such diversity? Well, the first problem, I would guess, would be that you can't define culture around the Mass (though there are some interesting questions that arise from such an idea and I'm certain there have been Catholic philosophers (and I would probably agree) that there are ways to do so partially). Sure, liturgy can be important to culture, but, as I've said several times, Mass is not the only part of the liturgy. Did you know that it is practically literally impossible (I don't know if I've checked all the possibilities yet) to find a parish that celebrates Vespers within a 45 minute drive from my house?

Perhaps it's more linked to the problem that I tend to find in my own spiritual life. If it isn't obvious yet, I prefer liturgical religions. There are some liberal reasons for this involving analysis of systems and how it affects the adherents, etc. but I think this post is getting long enough as it is. Yet if I wanted to find other means of discovering the wealth of diverse and beautiful liturgy we have? It literally took me a year to fully understand what the Divine Office was, let alone how to practice it. And, if it weren't for the particular people in my life during that time, I don't know I would have discovered it so quickly; yes, you can always ask your priest, but doesn't it make more sense to have that information readily available somewhere in easy-to-digest form rather than putting it through a bottleneck of one person?

So where was I supposed to discover the wealth of my Catholic faith? Arguably, Sunday School (and, God knows, those poor teachers did their best) but you can't expect children from such a young age to truly value the information their receiving (at one point, one of the kids just played his Gameboy under the table while claiming he was meditating; I'm pretty sure my teacher just gave up).

But after that? Sure, my brother and I were made altar servers (from which I learned a great deal), but there really isn't any other means other than lector or Eucharistic minister – all of which doesn't really teach you or envelop you in the liturgy (particularly outside of the Mass). It envelopes you scripture, sure, but – you know – we're heretics and scripture alone isn't enough for us.

And this is why I got so excited about that article. I thought it was going to repudiate abortion (or same-sex marriage or contraceptives) as the pillar in which to encircle our culture around. Because you can't create a Catholic culture around an external cause. It has to involve more (and I do defend this point, even to the issue of poverty, an issue which has been a Catholic cause for ages and strikes directly to Catholicism).

You want to know why people are leaving the church? The first is that you're zeroing in on divisive issues (homosexuals and Transsexuals and condoms in Africa) and, like good Catholics, the laity is using their God-given reason to see that the church's position just doesn't make that much sense (plus, it hurts people). At least, that's my pet theory.

However, more so, you're not giving these people any alternative. A religion focused around fighting abortion is not going to keep people; people want a little bit more.

Give them something which makes them feel Catholic. Because, right now, there isn't really much. I was stuck in rapt horror during the Mass before the March for Life as it was built up to with generic worship music (which, naturally, all sounded the same and could think of remotely creative lyrics even though they're supposedly written for a higher power). I might as well have been attending any evangelical group back at home because there was hardly any difference other than there were a bunch of priests and seminarians walking around. The only point that an actual difference started to emerge was during the introduction of the bishops present and a reference to the relic being used on the altar (and, of course, the Mass itself).

Now, there's a long and personal history as to why I'm so bitter against such worship, but the point still remains: why am I bothering to stick with Catholicism when evangelicalism is offering pretty much the same thing? Evangelicalism is able to keep its adherents, because it operates on a system of fearing about your own salvation and the salvation of everyone you care about with a constant threat of going to Hell and an expectation to be continually perfect to the point that it becomes an informal (not always realized) game of bragging rights. This is not Catholicism (though, of course, with some of the laity (and apparently some of the clergy) seeing no difference between evangelical culture and Catholic culture, who knows anymore).

Setting up places to more easily understand and learn about liturgy would be a start, as well as the ability to learn about Catholic philosophy would be good.

Of course, they may end up tacitly (and then un-tacitly) agreeing with opposition to same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and the like. I need more liberal Catholics; where do I find them?

***Note: I think it's obvious, but better safe than sorry – when I refer to evangelicalism here, it's a rather large umbrella term and is referring to those groups I have personal experience with, rather than everyone. Further, it's more often in reference to evangelical culture than necessarily theology***

My Facebook currently says I'm in a relationship. This is, to the best of my knowledge, false. At first, I was busy with finishing off finals, let alone getting sleep again. As I was reaching the end of that, I figured she was busy (just getting home and all) and, I reasoned as a side thought, probably best to let her end it, so she could hide anyone else from seeing it (she's not a fan of attention); if I do it, it changes to simply listing her in a relationship without listing with who, which is bound to be noted. She might hide FB from listing being single but that already identifies a change.

However, it has now been five days since we've supposedly broke up. We both agreed going in that the best course of action would be not continuing the relationship, seeing as I'm graduating and she's only a Freshman. It's not the…ideal scenario, but both of us know a long-distance relationship isn't the best course. Neither of us are good at keeping up communication over anything further than a driving distance (i.e. in person). Had it been more than a mere three months, I might've considered it; but not over so short a time period.

There was this moment, two or three days after I was finally finished and attempting to get my energy back, where I, through the sleep, was duly aware that, when I woke up, there wouldn't really be anyone I could go to as a means to talk to or lean on so wonderfully as she had allowed; don't get me wrong, Holly, Allan, Maia, Margaret (both), and Antal are all wonderful, but there isn't something quite the same, for reasons I can't articulate in words yet. And, well, that was a little upsetting.

Every relationship since Allison has been this bizarre question of, "What will happen?" Because, as much as I thought I understood what I wanted, it didn't quite go as planned. Neither did curly. I forget if I mentioned here, but, at least at the beginning (first month or so), there was always that question with Emma; not enough to worry me but just under the surface. I don't like unpredictability, but it's there just the same, for whatever reason.

I haven't actually had a relationship with an expectation to end, truly. Emma did end, for very much the same reasons, but I hadn't seen it coming (should have, mind you, graduating and all, but it was the first time having to even think about that question). Yet, perhaps because I was used to relationships ending and because I had been contemplating the question of the uses of having short relationships (there is, if my memory serves me, a post a short while back on here where I resolve to get to know people, because time is short and people are fascinating and hardly deserve to remain undiscovered; I'm certain, tied to that, I must have said that meant also getting into another relationship, even if unlikely to succeed, even if certain – from the outset – to end), I was fine with the idea that this would, at the end of the school year, end (only other word coming to mind at the moment to diversify that sentence is terminate and that one's just depressing).

I mean, I had been waiting on someone to fascinate me, and then Arantza comes along and – good fuck, fascinating barely covers it. Funny as all Hell, smart and perceptive, interested in politics (and dye-in-the-wool liberal, hard Left as far as average Americans go), fascination with the past, conscious of race, etc. etc. And I meet her in the second half of my senior year of college. But, Hell, she said yes (February 20^th). There was no way I was going to say no.

So it seemed logical – neither of us wanted to enter into a long-distance relationship; come the end of the year, we would split. It seemed reasonable, couldn't be helped; it'd be bittersweet come the end, but one would hope so if it was remotely a good relationship.

But something happened a little sooner than the end of the year. We were listening to records when suddenly – I've always hated the explanation "I just feel it". It's a cop out, something personal which detracts the information from everyone else. Yet those types of instances seem to be cropping up more and more these days. I still think any feeling can be explained in the end, made sense of. However, until that point, all I can say is that something felt different, leaving that room that time. A longing for her not to go so quickly. Before then, it had mostly been like any other friend, other than the fact that I was kissing her; it was very much still like since I had met her. And then it changed.

Maybe because I had been getting to know her better. As I've said here and to several times, to be open at all is to be vulnerable. And it's in that vulnerability that our relationships have any meaning – because a person has the choice to hurt you but does not; yet, more than that, it would hurt them to do so. Of course, everything, it's seeming, these days boils down to depression and my crappy childhood for me, so maybe the willingness to protect, to not hurt, and to care emanate from those personal experiences. But I hesitate to say that definitively yet.

Whatever the reason, there was that change. Which I feel is necessary to say that it's different than you feel for a friend. In that, I mean, I care very deeply for my friends. You don't want your friends hurt nor do you not miss them (something just about everyone already knows). Yet you might want to spend time with a significant other over friends at times. What is that distinction? I don't know how to put it to words. Yet that was part of the feeling. That desire to spend time with someone who has become more than a friend. That's the best I can do to detail it.

So here I am. About to make it "Facebook official". Everything has an end, even if I don't like it.

And, should you find this, Arantza, the Bessie Smith record sounds positively amazing; I'm playing it now, and it's a shame we never gave it a spin earlier.

Asking, "Why is 2+3 always equal to 5?
Where do people go to when they die?
What made the beauty of the moon and the beauty of the sea?
Did that beauty make you?
Did that beauty make me?
Will it make me something? Will I be something? Am I something?"

And the answer comes…
Already am, Always was,
And I still - have time - to be.

Love always,

It always disheartens me when someone I knew online just disappears, even if I didn't know them well or we weren't close. It's like that neighbor that suddens moves without telling anyone. I hope they've found new people to talk to and keep up with.

Holden wanted to be the catcher in the rye.

I think, if I were to replace the life I had now, I'd be that guy who catches and holds the elevator door for you right before it closes when you're rushing at the last minute to an interview or meeting. I'd be the random guy who sparks up a meaningful conversation with you when you're on the train or waiting for the bus, etc. on a day which wasn't going well for you/where you felt under-appreciated and is genuinely interested in what you have to say. I'd be the guy to loan you the extra five bucks or so you need when in line or trying to catch a cab.

Basically, my only job would be to go from place to place helping in small ways. You'd see me for probably no more than 5 minutes before I'm off to help someone else, would just remember me as some kind stranger restoring your faith in humanity. I think I could be content if that was all I had for a life.

I feel that I don't do enough for my friends (though they'd - or at least some would - probably gainsay that). I just feel terribly ineffectual (though an inability to properly be on top of my work since I started college probably aids none to this continual feeling). Regardless, I could do more.

I understand that not everyone has been following this xanga since I first got it (Freshman year of high school - miss you Nox/Dana).

Also, I understand that people change and do not stay the same forever.

That said, there are some really basic tenets of me that have kinda been the same since probably as far back as I can remember. They're kinda in the "if you know me you most certainly know this about me/IT'S A GIVEN" category.

The obvious one - yes, I go suicidal periodically throughout the year (and, sometimes, it even ceases to be periodic). Hell, for most hours out of the day, it sounds like a fantastically fun idea. And, whether against sound judgment or not, I occasionally read the Suicide FAQ when stressed.

That said - if I was going to commit suicide, I would have done it years ago. I must stress that. Probably around Sophomore year of high school, most likely. There has barely been a day since Freshman year of high school where I have not contemplated suicide. If I was susceptible to those thoughts, I would not be here.

Further, there is rarely ever a time I am not 120% aware of what I am doing. I over-think everything and still ponder acts, decisions, people, and events from years before. Any action I take has been thought through 10 million times. When I do something, it is for a very specific and thought out reason (so please do not correct or chide me when it comes to personal choices, unless it direly is directly related to treating someone else poorly/inappropriately). If I commit suicide, I damn well wanted it, and I'll've been pushed beyond anything else that's come before.

Second, when I encounter situations that I don't like or go into an emotionally uncomfortable state - I recoil. I need to clear my head, so I withdraw and cut out all other distractions. Remember, I taught myself social behavior so responding to people takes constant effort and energy of paying attention to reading and interpreting all body signs. It is effort, it is work, and it is unnecessary distraction and energy-usage. I know you mean well, but I - need - space. One of the largest reasons I still refuse to forgive my parents for the shit they ran me through in my childhood is because they refuse to honor that simple request I've had for as long as I can remember - leave me the fuck alone. Minimize talking to me, don't be in the same room as me. If I am listless and non-responsive - it is not because I want you to pull me out of my shell. When I get touched or someone talks at me when I try to shut people out, I emotionally freak out (like being backed into a corner, I swear); I become bluntly rude; I DO NOT WANT.

Leave me alone. Honor that one request. If it's a minor thing, I'll likely just rant to whoever I'm fond of or consider a friend (and, remember, it doesn't take much for me to consider you a friend). If it's something that really bothers me and I need to deal with, I'll take care of it myself. AND, if it's really bad, the only people I'm coming remotely close to talking to is either Laura or Vikki or Dods (with Allison on occasion and likely Kari, should she actually be on at the same time that I am).

Honestly, I try to borrow almost nothing at all times, I always am willing to listen and help with whatever troubles someone has - the only thing I'm asking for (other than to be treated with respect and that you look at least half excited to see me should we bump into each other (we don't even have to hold conversation)) is to be able to drop off the map from time to time, to be left alone when I want alone time.

Also - do not tell me what to do. I know I tend to take a severely hands-off approach to advice and help (which possibly may not, in the long run, be helpful) in part because I want people to be able to make their own choices but that is largely because I was ordered around and told what to think for the first 15-16 years of my life. As I said before, there's rarely anything I haven't thought out a million times already. You do not get to order me around, you do not get to tell me what I should think is right, and you do not get to force me into anything. I will fucking simply not talk to you - ever - should you feel there is a need to do that. Simple as that.

Further, being told that I am unstable or incapable of handling things is further insulting. Yes, I tend to be emotionally unstable. And things tend to be worse for me than some people. But that does not mean I am incapable of maintaining stability. For all my drawbacks, I make it to my classes basically all the time, I get my work done, and I function in society. Things are more difficult, but I am functional. It's insulting to those who actually have life-debilitating depression and other health issues as much as it is insulting to my person.

Finally - it is really fucking annoying when people come around and ask urgently for me. I've had two friends attempt suicide on me, most of those I know either had crappy homes/parents or are trying to juggle depression. You insult my time and my energy asking for me urgently when all you want to know is where I am or if I'm alright (note, Laura, you are completely exempt from this. You've already established a history of entirely-capitalized greetings and "shouting" my name on any sort of IM service so I know to not recognize that, generally, as urgently calling for me, plus you do something entirely different when you need me to be there to talk to you).

When you need help, I respond. It is infuriating for me to start panicking because you were asking every 5 minutes for me just to find out it's a trivial question. It's flat out insulting. And I keep saying this because while it might not seem intuitive for most, all I feel every time is frustration strong enough to make me stand my ground on this. I respect when you have things to do and that you might have made plans that - surprise surprise - may not involve me or, even if you don't mind me tagging along in any capacity, that you simply were not figuring out ways to insert me into your schedule. When I am peacefully doing work secluded or talking for hours with a friend, do not spend 5 hours trying to contact when it is perfectly reasonable to assume I'm out doing other things and am fine (again, if I was going to commit suicide, I would not be around by the time you're asking for me). You damn better be depressed/sad or - God forbid - about to wrap a rope around you neck. Calling that much attention to yourself because you want me to drop all to run to an IM that simply wants to know if I want to do anything for the day is, to be honest, too self-centered for me to stomach.

This is not being self-centered (did people actually respond seriously to Dan's post? Really?). This is asking for the right to express and have my own desires and wants satisfied. You care about me, that's great; honestly. Seeing the millions of times I have doubt about whether people are being sincere with me (and the amounts of times people have treated me like shit in the past), I appreciate genuine shows of support for me as a friend. And I want to always, always return those.

But if I've told you something before and you ignore it - that is not respecting me as a friend. And if I have certain manners and habits that need to be done for my own emotional stability, depriving me of those is not respecting me as a friend. It's like keeping someone at home forever just because you're afraid they might be hurt. You emotions, your feeling, YOU is important up until the point that it infringes on another. There is no justification for incapacitating another - end of story. That's not being selfish, that's being considerate.

LB: finally
      a picture of you
      and mouse/rat uy
      guy*
JB:  Hence why I uploaded; I don't understand people and uploading profile pictures of themselves. It just feels so self-centered. Surely there must be other uses for a picture of your own profile
LB: Jon.
JB:  haha
LB: clearly, it is supposed to be a representation of YOU
      such as, you know, a picture of you.
JB:  Are we so sure? I mean, Zuckerburg was an inovater. Surely he probably had something else in mind other than so straightforward an answer
LB: I disagree
      when you first join it says upload a picture of yourself
      not, you know, a picture of something you think is funny
      that's what your status and posts are for
JB:  but isn't that just an extension of who I am?
LB: no
      clearly not
JB:  is not my humor part of me?
LB: you are insane
      crazy
      literally off your rocker
JB:  I probably have pictures for that too
LB: possibly
JB:  I have a few Harley Quinn pictures I've wanted to upload for some time, anyway. Maybe I should do that noew
      Now seems like an appropriate time
LB: no
      no
      no
      no
      no
      no
      no
      you've only had this ELEVEN MINUTES
JB:  hmm, I'm not sure you feel strongly enough about the topic to convince me
LB: it didnt even get a chance to sink in yet
      DONT DO IT
      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
      AH AH AH AHAH
JB:  what are you talking about? You've seen and commented on it already. Surely that signifies sinking in
LB: ah ah.. ha.. ha ha ... hahahaha