...the simple, and the not so...

Greg clears his throat before he starts. "The thing with Love, Sanam", he says, "is that attraction is not a choice".  This means that:

a) you cannot choose who you fall for
b) you cannot choose who he falls for
c) even if that person is your friend
d) your best friend
e) you cannot do anything about it

He goes on for awhile, philosophy this, motto that - advice, advice, advice. He thrives to advise me, always with the subtext "if you had gone out with me, you wouldn't have all these problems". You learn to get around that subtext, with time. Between 10th grade and now, I have become pro at sidestepping the subtext of Greg.

His point, in the end was that he thinks I am proceeding with the reptile part of my brain that wants him for sex, as supported by the emotional mammalian centre which wants him for, you know, the L-word, and in complete and utter denial of the logical part (the part responsible for hunger strikes, creation, destruction) that knows what I *should* want him for - because, essentially, where I see crimson/magenta/tomato, he just sees red. Because I am subtle woman, and it is what I do.

Then he started talking about light switches and volume knobs.

Do you understand any of this? Because I sure as hell don't.

PS: In trying to analyse me and fix my life in-so-far as it needs fixing, he brought up as an example the adventure that was Reza #1 back in grade 12. How he still remembers that is beyond my ability to contemplate without getting completely wierded out.

PPS: Before he finished his lesson, he mentioned offhand that men speak directly and women indirectly, having to run it through at least one filter. I run it through at least five. They are Rachel, Farnam, Inna, Melissa and Nick. Do you think that with each successive filtration, something integral to the concept gets warped?

I will have to think on this some more.

And run it through my filters.

Before sharing my findings with you at a later time.