I accept your apology for having foiled my attempt at evading this modern-day indentured servitude. I suppose I depended a bit too much on extra-sensory perception to get my message across, while I should have increasingly relied on conventional communication methodology. That having been said, I am quite enjoying this exchange, and I am pleased I finally succumbed to the insistent pressure of a certain editor to engage in this electronic "tete-a-tete". This is especially true, since this seems to be the longest exchange you and I have had in the past couple of months (I won't go into details about the circumstances surrounding this sad state of affairs --- they are self-evident to those in the "need-to-know" category).

Anyway, I read with interest your response to my first entry. I (like you) do not by any stretch of the imagination assume myself to be an expert on this subject (... he says modestly). However, I am what you might call a serious dabbler, a constant experimenter/researcher. Hell, let's throw modesty out the window, I have to say that I feel experienced enough (in both quantity and variety) to consider myself an informed practitioner when it comes to affairs of the heart (insert anatomical feature of choice). I say this less as an ungainly boast than as a statement of irrefutable fact.

I know that there will be those among the readers who will say, "Here goes another guregna wend boasting about how much he knows women just because he has interacted with a few..." but I think the issue is a little more straightforward than that. I do not believe that one has to have had as many wives as the Caliph of Baghdad to come to appreciate the vicissitudinous nature of the fairer sex. It is also fair to stress the fact (which you also mention in your response) that both men and women are probably looking for the same things in mates. I believe the difference lies in the search methodology/approach employed (more on this later).

One piece of editorial advice I received from my last submission (meddlesome editors!) was that I leapt from my teens to my thirties, and totally neglected my twenties. That was not intentional, as my twenties were definitely the period of enlightenment. In retrospect, I remember my twenties as a period of vast experimentation, a time when I drank my fill from the cup of life (hyperbolic, I know, but please allow me my literary excesses!).

Perhaps my most vivid memory of that period is that I was often somewhat dissatisfied with my relationships on some level. This is a seemingly selfish thing to say, I know, since my significant relationships were actually quite good. Nonetheless, I never felt completely sated, and was increasingly anxious to move on to the next chapter. I know that this sounds like the classic "the grass is greener" soliloquy, but it definitely was a recurring theme in my life then. The constant pressure to mutate a perfectly satisfying relationship into something else in order to conform to outside perception was especially difficult. I find that I am, by and large, a serial monogamist (no, illuminati, that is not a religious sect) and found myself quite happy in my relationship at a certain level. And yet, there was always the inevitable transitional point when it seemingly had to develop into something "higher" or else...

Believe me, it had less to do with the fact that I was commitment-phobic, and more with the reality that I was satisfied with the way things were and did not see the need to change anything. This coupled with the fact that I was quite vocal about my indisposition to marriage at the time (in my twenties) seemed like the perfect safety net. Little did I know that I had two things working against me. One, I have found that the fairer sex (in my opinion) is convinced that if a man goes into a relationship believing something that is contrary to a woman's core set of beliefs, he will over time come to see things her way (i.e., she will alter his perspective). Second, the longevity of a relationship is directly proportionate to the probability of it ending in marriage. Needless to say, I believe both perspectives to be flawed (and have unequivocally proven this during the past 10-15 years).

A related issue (and constant irritant to me) is the concept among many modern Ethiopian women that any lengthy relationship that does not culminate in marriage is a waste of time, and that the man should feel guilty for having "wasted" several productive years out of the woman's life. Lord, what malarkey! If a woman is in a relationship where the parameters have been defined, and the issue of marriage (or not) has been discussed and agreed upon (asked and answered), it is her perogative to decide to stay or leave. Today's Ethiopian woman is not restricted by the fear of being financially dependent on a man for survival (hell, I know many that are actually more financially independent than 75% of the men), is highly educated and independent and, therefore, should have no difficulty leaving a relationship. I know that back home it would be slightly different, but get with the program --- this is the 21^st century and we are in America. I believe that this "he wasted my time" crap is an excellent crutch for those who understood the foundation of their relationship in the first place, hoped that over time it would change (see points above), and when they realized that it wouldn't, did not have the fortitude to tell their partner it was over. So when the relationship dies a natural death, they immediately fall prey to this habitual battle cry, "If he was not going to marry me then why did he...?"

All this having been said, I am convinced that the above paragraph is probably the best segue to another contentious issue --- fidelity. I have had many a heated exchange with a great many of my female friends on the issue of why we (men) are not satisfied with a committed relationship, and choose to stray. That, my dear Shiftaw, is one for the ages. Fidelity is a thorny issue to tackle, and I must confess I am probably not the best person to take on the task. Men, I believe, have a different interpretation of what constitutes fidelity (or, more accurately, infidelity). To a woman, the mere innocent act of discretely observing another woman's hips sway across a dance floor is tantamount to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand --- a seemingly innocuous and isolated incident, but with far-reaching repercussions. To a man, on the other hand, there are so many gradations to the issue of infidelity.

Do you have any doubt in your mind that men the world over empathized with Clinton when he was asked, "Did you have sex with Monica Lewinsky?", for they understood how ambiguous the question was. What does a man consider "sex", and therefore infidelity? A kiss? A caress? A non-penetrative [sic?] act? The mind boggles... I personally have struggled with this issue, and usually (quite self-servingly, I suppose) arrive at the conclusion that as long as it does not go beyond a certain point, it does not constitute infidelity, per se. This rationalization has served me well, but I do understand that it is open to different interpretation (ha, ha, ha).

Incidentally, beyond the obvious pursuit of instant gratification, I undertstand now that I have always constantly pursued other stimuli for two basic reasons. One, I enjoy it and am easily swayed by it (insifsif wodijay, insifsifay weta, inem insifsif negn, insifsif alata). Two, these excursions have always filled a gap or deficiency that I felt was present in my relationship at the time. I suppose one of the surest signs of lasting maturity (argh) is when one can actually resist this temptation, and understand that there is more to be lost than gained by pursuing momentary libidinous pursuits. (AIDS has actually brought this insight into crystal clear perspective, hasn't it? Don't you miss the "good old days" when all one had to worry about were standard STDs like gono and syphilis???!!!! Just a little gallows humor, dear editors.)

All of this is not to say that I do not envision myself embracing the institution of marriage soon. In all honesty, I am closer than I have ever been to actually wanting to settle down and procreate. The angebgabi tiyaQe is, will I find an individual who I feel is compatible enough to spend the rest of my natural life with. I know that we now have come full circle to an issue covered in our first exchange about how one knows that they have found the right person. You know that I am infinitely happy for you, but I still wonder what occurred to make you so sure that this was it? This need for certainty may have to do with my slightly risk-averse nature, but I can recall very few instances where I have felt that the person I am with (or met) could be the one that I would bond with. Coincidentally, it has happened once or twice in my life, but nothing came of it because the timing was not right. I do recall meeting a woman or two who I felt had the potential to be a life-mate, but it was not the right time. Ah, well, the battle continues (or is it "we who are about to die, salute you"?)

I know this was probably more than you expected in response, but what can I say --- I was inspired.

Please enlighten, o' sage one.......

Garedew

***

Editors? what editors?! Don't they know my email address? Why haven't I heard from these phantom editors? If there is anyone in this dialogue who needs some editorial assistance or direction, it would have to be me. Well, no ...I take that back. my brother. I though you were suppose to expand on your formative years? Yeah, right! All I got was, "I came, I saw, I conquered, and then I moved on". Minew be-achir Qoretkew.

Initially, I thought, "Here is an area that he neglected to expand on, maybe I won't be as eloquent but in the very least..." Wrong. Little did I anticipate that, were I to take a look at my twenties, I would witness the same trend. Was it that we were late bloomers (In our mind-set with respect to relationships, that is)? I want to believe it must have been youthful exuberance, not to mention a lack of experience and maturity. In retrospect, I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed with myself. Some of those relationships could have been a lot more than what they were. Of course, one could also argue I wouldn't be where I am today had it not been for those experiences.

If by inviting us to have an exchange via email, our esteemed editors (sometimes tinish memoges alebachew meselegn) were anticipating to witness an exchange debating differing side of the issue, they may have finally received their wish, mainly due to the fact that I may not be in agreement with you regarding one of the topics you raised in your most recent dissertation.

There were two main ideas that you delved into in your response, the first one being an opinion on whether relationships, by their very nature, imply a matrimonial path. Please, don't make me laugh! Relationships are built on many things, but their foundation and ultimate goals shouldn't be left implicit. If two people aren't communicating enough to determine why they are together, they shouldn't be thinking of marriage. Not only are they a threat to each other, but marriage could lead to kids, and then where would they be? Once both parties have been duly informed of the parameters, where anything and everything is spelled out, then "Buyer Beware". As for this continuing fallacy that changing your partner's mind about where your relationship is heading is possible or not heading, as it were -- what can I say? If there are those who feel up to the challenge, power to them. However, please have the self-respect not to blame others for your wild goose chase. Sometimes the relationship is itself the reason why two people are together -- no more, no less.

I do not know whether I got lost in your articulate prose, or whether I just didn't get it. Because, at the end of the day, I can't accurately say what your opinion on fidelity is. My opinion, on the other hand, is very concrete. First and foremost, men haven't cornered the market on infidelity, nor have women cornered the market on fidelity. Personally, I do not believe in sharing what is mine, and this rule applies both ways. In my opinion, infidelity has never been and will never be tolerated. It will be dealt with with extreme prejudice, and there is no gray area.

In addition, I also do not understand why there should be any question as to what constitutes infidelity. Infidelity is not just admiring a pair of swaying hips from afar, or meeting for a brief interlude, but infidelity can all happen in one's mind. I am sure there are many who are wondering how you prosecute someone for their thoughts. I think we should save the discussion on honor and personal character for another issue. If two individuals agree that the relationship is exclusive (and we aren't talking about marriage, where it should really be obvious), there shouldn't be any more sampling of forbidden fruit, whether it is low lying or not.

As long as we are discussing fidelity or infidelity, what seems to constantly irritate me is the generalization by all women, and some men for that matter, "Men by their very nature are genetically engineered to stray." Well, excuse me, that couldn't be further from the truth, but it seems that since some both men and women find it advantageous, they help propagate this myth. And since it usually takes two to tango...need I say more?

Think the editors will be contacting me....?

Your friend,

Shiftaw

***