Correspondence July 11, 1987 (cassette tape - tape 2)

Before I became T's pen pal, he had had two other girlfriends. Both of those were long distance relationships (LDRs). The first one was J, and there is a long and complex story associated with how they got together and broke up which I will cover in the book that I'm writing. To provide context for this snippet of a tape that I'm transcribing, I'll say that T lived in California and J lived in Pennsylvania. They came together through a friend who T knew in person in California who was a pen pal of J's at that time.

After listening to J's tapes through this friend, T started to tape J on his own. Through time, he developed a lot of affection for her and wanted to meet her. They eventually met in person and took part in a LDR for about 9 months until T decided to break up with J due to various problems he experienced with the way she handled the relationship. In particular, she played games, lied, and tried to manipulate him.

In this partial transcript, I'm responding to a letter than T wrote me that J had sent him. After their break-up, they had not been friends for some length of time. J had gone off to her next LDR with a different young man ("M") who she viewed in many ways, at least initially, as a better match for her than T. After she and M crashed and burned, she wrote to T and wanted to be friends again. She took responsibility for a lot of the things that went wrong with their relationship in the letter and seemed to be a changed person. T had asked me whether I felt she was being sincere or not and this was my limited analysis:

Select transcript July 11, 1987 (2nd tape):

You read a letter from J that she wrote to you after you broke up (in which) she wanted you to get back together to be friends. You said it was dated Nov. 1, 1985. One thing you said was, "How much of that was a bunch of baloney and how much of it was from the heart?" I don't know if I'd be able to dissect it totally and say, "Well this part sounds like it was sincere and this part doesn't." One of the things I found really interesting was her timing, which was something to the effect that she wrote to you after she broke with M. Now, what that seems to me is that it was real convenient that, while she had M, she didn't need to write to you because her needs were being satisfied by somebody else. 'I'll show you! I have another boyfriend! I don't need you!' That kind of thing.

And then, when he broke up with her, her heart was broken and maybe she started to reconsider how valuable she was as a girlfriend and decided, "Well, T was good to me and maybe he'll take me back or be friends with me at least to help soothe my wounds." I think her timing was very interesting. As far as being sincere, and her admitting she was wrong... In the back of her mind, I'm sure that she was still blaming you and thinking that you were a terrible bastard for what you did. 

By the same token, she never seemed to me to be very pleased with you the way you were anyhow. She didn't like the way you were physically and she would say things like you should go lift weights, and that she was intimidated by you (intellectually), or, those kinds of things. If she felt that way, you would think that in the back of her mind, at least in some small quarter of her mind, she would be relieved that you just shut it off before it became anymore awkward for her than it obviously was. She didn't like the confrontation. If she didn't like the idea of moving to California which you said that you'd move to Pennsylvania... Did you say you'd move for her? She didn't like your smoking marijuana, those kinds of things. If there was so much about you that she didn't approve of then how could it be so traumatic for her to lose you?

I still doubt that you can unconditionally love someone—which is what I call "pure love"—which is the only circumstance under which you should marry somebody—if you unconditionally love them. You love them and you have no desire whatsoever to change (him) and you want nothing more from other than the same kind of love in return. That's what I think perfect marriages are built upon. If you go into it wanting to change, you're in trouble.

To me, it just seems like she was so far away from having that... I don't know. I really don't know.

*****

After getting to know T, and falling in love with him, I felt that neither J nor his second girlfriend A were "worthy" of his attention. J's main issues were that he was too thin and not muscular enough for her on a physical level and that she didn't like his way of directly discussing problems when they had them. She was more inclined toward the silent treatment or dropping topics of contention. She also felt that he was trying to show off his intelligence when he talked about things she was not knowledgeable about or used words that she was unfamiliar with. This was not the case as T was very intelligent, but was not inclined to use his intellect to talk down to anyone. J was very insecure and what she wanted was some buff beefcake that stood by her and made other women admire her and who wasn't sufficiently smart to make her feel dumb.

It's important to note that I also did not feel worthy of T and was not necessarily thinking those girlfriends were inferior whereas I was more on his level. The main difference was how I saw us each as unworthy. I saw J as unworthy in terms of her honesty (as she had so little of it), her values (which were so shallow), and her intellect (which was average). I saw A as unworthy in terms of her appreciation of the attention she got from T during their relationship since she was constantly trying to get him to send her less communication and I saw her as unworthy in terms of her physical affection levels (as she didn't like to be touched and wasn't especially sexual). For myself, I felt inferior in terms of social and economic status as well as my body. I felt that being fat meant that I was immediately of greatly lesser value than T. This was, after all, the mantra that had been drummed into me nearly ever day of my life since about age 10. 

The "Cast of Characters" (Reference sheet of initials/relationships)

My LDR took place in a network of people. The way in which people interacted could be rather provocatively described as "incestuous" (operating within a discrete "family" of people) or more appropriately described as a relatively closed circle. As I go along transcribing bits of tapes and written correspondence, it is clear that an outsider might become lost in all of the initials and who the players are. I'm typing this up to help anyone who decides to pay attention understand who is who.

This network of pen pals was drawn together based on two factors. The initial factor was that all of us, except T, were fans of the rock group KISS. Once we connected via classified ads in magazines that ran ads to help us locate other fans, we then connected via referrals from one another. T found me through both J and A.

S (female): 

Me, the writer of this blog. A graduate of a local state college with a degree in psychology who once worked at a halfway house for people who were either hospitalized or institutionalized for serious mental problems. I also lived abroad for 23 years and was a teacher for quite some type as well as have worked as a writer both of textbooks and magazine articles. I was born in Pennsylvania and grew up in poverty in a small rural town.

T (male):

The object of my long-distance affection and relationship. A graduate of a local state college with a degree in business and a minor in finance. He grew up in a middle class family in a small city close to Stanford University (California).

J (female):

T's first girlfriend who was a pen pal of mine for quite a few years before T was given my address and started to write to me. J worked a series of dead-end jobs and went to beautician's school for awhile. She and T were together for nine months in a long distance relationship. He ended their relationship. J lived in a blue collar suburb of Pennsylvania and met T via a pen pal of hers who was an in-person friend of T's.

A (female):

T's second girlfriend who was also a pen pal of mine, though for fewer years than J. A got a degree in journalism from a private college in Connecticut (where she has always lived). A was in a relationship with T for nine months. She ended that relationship.

D.H. (female):

A mutual pen pal of both J and S. She was younger by about five years than most of the members of our network of pen pals. She lived in Georgia and worked at a county courthouse.

H (female):

A mutual pen pal of J, A, and S. She lived in Alabama and visited S as well as J in person once.

Correspondence July 11, 1987 (cassette tape - tape 1)

The numbers on both tapes were written by T. I slapped my shorter labels over the top of his, but the one that covered side 1 fell off a long time ago revealing his handwriting.

On July 6, 1987, T called me on the phone for the first time. He did this with the help of a little sleuthing as he called me while I was at work and didn't have the phone number. What he had was the name of the city I was working in at the time and the social services agency that had employed me. The call cost him 45 cents a minute. In 2015, that was equivalent to 97 cents per minute. It was a steep price to pay to talk to me in real time, but I was thrilled that he had done so.

My little office in a converted former funeral home did not receive calls directly so the secretary in the main office intercepted and transferred them. She wasn't the brightest bulb and seemed to have some hearing comprehension issues to boot. When she told me someone was on the line for me, I didn't know that it was T despite her giving me a name.

Select transcript July 11, 1987 (tape 1):

Let me begin by telling you how much I really, I mean I already said this, this'll be the third time I said it, I already said it once on the phone, once in a card, and now on tape, how much I truly and sincerely appreciated the call that you gave me at work. I mean now my tone is down quite a bit from when I got the call, but after I got it, I ran down to the secretary and I said, "That was one of my friends from California! Oh my God, I can't believe it!" And then I was so excited that you called that I said, "I'm too excited to work!" So I walked up to the post office and mailed the tapes that I was going to send you. 

I made them all on Sunday and I planned on mailing them on Tuesday when I got off of work. I can leave work sometimes* and walk to stores and walk to the post office obviously or I wouldn't have mailed that one package of yours from (city where I worked). But, I was so hyped that I had to do something so I trotted on up to the post office which is a nice quarter-mile hike there and another quarter-mile back. It's decent exercise. 

The really funny part was when the secretary answered the phone, she must've got your name wrong or the connection must've been bad or something because she said-she buzzed me up in my office... She goes, "T--off" T--olof". I didn't know who the hell she was talking about. If I had known that it was you, you wouldn't have been on hold for about the 20 seconds that you were on hold. I would have got on that phone a lot quicker. I didn't know who it was when I picked up the phone. I thought, "Gee I wonder... " It did flicker through my my mind, but I thought, "Nah, it couldn't be." 

But, I was so happy for you to do that. Nobody's ever done that for me. Very few people have even called me here at my home let alone called me at work. Wow! I know it was no big deal to you... well, I don't know if it was a big deal to you or not. I guess 45 cents a minute should have been a big deal to you. I just want you to know that if you ever feel like doing that again, I'll appreciate it just as much.

In connection with this, people calling people-to me-it's always a very special thing when a pen pal calls or anybody calls long distance whether it be a pen pal or a friend or whatever because they're paying for it and they're paying quite a bit. You can do it on tape all the time and it's just an extra special thing (to be called on the phone). I have a question for you because I'm going to relay an experience. Have you ever called somebody and not had a good reaction other than A? I don't know because, from what you've told me, there have been times when A-I don't know, you say that the calls go well regardless of what sort of mood A is in-so I better not say regardless of A. 

Have you ever called anybody long distance and gotten a really bad reaction like they don't even want to talk to you because I've had this happen to me twice and it's been the same person. (Story about how I called a mutual pen pal and she ended the call or put me off each time.)

...

I don't know how it goes with you and long distance calls, but it's very, very rare that somebody that somebody calls me and I make sure that I end the call because I have something to do. I may at some point say, "Oh, geez, should I cut this short so that your bill's not going to be ten stories high," because I do have concern for that. I know that I didn't have too much concern for that when you called the second time.** Yeah, let's keep him on the line! For the most part, if I'm going to say anything about the length of the conversation, it's going to be out of concern for their financial welfare, but realistically, maybe I shouldn't mention that. It may be in poor manners, but I do care about the people who call me and I do care that they've been on the line with me for an hour and a half. Even though I've been enjoying it tremendously, it's just sometimes difficult when you make a call to end it because it just goes well sometimes.


*Generally, I had to be present at my workplace at all times. One program worker was obliged to be present when clients were in the residential facility. We could only leave if someone else from the office was present to "babysit" the clients. My boss or another worker would usually give me a break for a short walk or a breather during my 24-hour shift so that I could get out for at least a little while each day that I worked so that I did not have to be cooped up in the house for the entire day.

**T wanted to talk to me longer than he could initially because I had work responsibilities, so he called initially then called me back later. There were two separate calls, but the initial intention was for there to be one call.

*****

These days, I've been told that people not only do not appreciate phone calls, but actively would like to avoid receiving them. One of my friends said he rarely or never picks up when people call him and prefers that they text him or leave a voice mail. It seems incredibly ironic that those of us acting at a distance so valued talking with one another in real time that were willing to pay significant amounts of money to do so. These days, people can do it for free and do not want this happy privilege. It seems like we devalue and take things for granted because they are free or cheap and easy.

"Being Real"

A very long time ago, I once read a book by a man who had lived in Japan during its economic "bubble" era. This was back in the days when Americans were freaking out because the Japanese were buying up their real estate and works of art. Local governments in Japan had so much money that some of them purchased gold-plated statues for their municipalities. It was an age that the Japanese felt smug and superior about, and thought would never end.

Eventually, the bubble deflated and Japan entered a long and slow decline. People started to forget that it was ever that much of a threat and eyes turned toward China as the next looming economic powerhouse. The book I read, called Japan: It's Not All Raw Fish, is as outdated as the idea that the Japanese were going to take over the world. However, I have never forgotten something that was mentioned in the preface as I am continually reminded of it as I go about my days in America. An old Japanese lady said something to the effect that Americans felt their opinions were facts. She was absolutely right, though she certainly would have gone further in expanding on that had she known Americans even better.

One of my frustrations as someone who was repatriated after 23 years of life abroad has been the limited scope of most American lives. Not only do they tend to live in little bubbles existences, and this applies even when they travel for tourism, but they are absolutely certain that their limited worldview is the only correct one and that it is a very informed one at that. I have had more than one discussion with an American in which a person has asserted that "we don't know" something to be true when the truth is that he or she does not know something to be true because that information has not penetrated the bubble they've constructed around them. The attitude is often, 'if I don't know, it is not true or known by anyone.'

It has been equally the case that I have encountered people who apply the same arrogant assertions to many other situations. If I can't do it, then it can't be done by the average person. If I haven't experienced it, it does not happen. If I don't believe it, it does not exist. Even if someone has indeed done it, they immediately deny the veracity of the claim or they insist it is an outlier experience and therefore invalid as a general rule.

My most recent experience with this involved an exchange with a woman in an LDR who insisted that the parents of young folks in distance relationships couldn't understand how they could work because, when those old people grew up, they lacked the "tools" to conduct such a relationship. Since I had my relationship in 1987, I took issue with the idea that such tools were indeed insufficient to carry on such relationships. She snarkily insisted that she was right and asserted that she was just 'being real' by saying that people could not conduct LDRs without the benefits of instantaneous text communication and video chatting. That was what was "real". My experience was obviously an outlier because she couldn't imagine making a relationship work with the limits that I did. Her experience was the arbiter of "reality," and my experience bounced right off of her bubble rather than find its way in and become part of a new version of truth.

This attitude stunned me because she was adopting the exact same posture as all of the doubters who sit in judgment of LDRs. For them, they believe that an LDR can't be "real" because it is a requirement that you be in person. When they say distance relationships don't work, I'm sure they feel they are also "being real" by setting the bar at needing physical proximity because they couldn't have a relationship any other way. She set a bar as well. Hers was just having access to technology. She even said that she and her boyfriend could not have their LDR without those things. I wonder if this is an opinion that she has shared with her boyfriend. Hopefully, they are on the same page in this regard or someone could end up getting hurt.

I'm sure that the reason she got a bit uppity with me was that I said all that was necessary was commitment and dedication. The tools help, but ultimately I said that it was about what you put into it, not how you carried through with it. This idea was likely threatening to someone who felt her LDR would fail without the comforts and immediacy of all that cell phones and internet connections bring. She probably felt I was questioning her dedication and commitment, but the truth was that she was the one questioning it as a result of what I'd said as I knew nothing about her relationship until she made her assertions. If she couldn't make her relationship work without her necessary tools, then no one could... except for me, that freak outlier. It was that American attitude I've grow so tired of encountering rearing its head again.

People who were born before me suffered far greater difficulties of separation than I did in my LDR. Men went off to war and left their families behind. Their wives still loved them and they wrote very infrequently and constantly faced the threat of permanent loss. Diplomats and political figures traveled during times when sea voyages were common. John Adams adored his wife Abigail, but they endured huge separations—sometimes spanning over a year—as a result of his career. Love somehow maintained itself despite enormous obstacles and relationships remained intact. That is what I'm talking about when I say that it takes devotion and commitment and is not dependent on the tools at your disposal. It's about a shared perspective that you have a connection and do whatever you can to maintain it, not about how you do it.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone pursue an LDR lightly and I certainly wouldn't recommend ignoring every possible tool at ones disposal to ease the difficulty. However, I will say that, if you can't have the relationship without a particular type of communication, then it's time to think about what your relationship is all about. Absence is supposed to make the heart grow fonder, not make it grow bored, cool-hearted, and restless.

Perhaps this is an "evolution" of relationships based on the modern age. That's the same age that has dramatically reduced our attention spans and decreased our distress tolerance until we've all turned into stimulation junkies who can't bear any deviation from our expectations. It's what has us following Twitter and screaming at a barista who puts one too few squirts in our vanilla latte. Perhaps I was a freak outlier, but I have some confidence that some people are made of similarly devoted stuff when it comes to their LDRs, though I'm guess that "being real" girl is not among them.

Correspondence July 4, 1987 (greeting card)

The fact that I was writing T a greeting card on a national holiday reflected two things. One was my as-yet-unspoken crush on him. The other was the fact that I worked my 24-hour shift at the halfway house on Friday and came home early Saturday morning and picked up the mail I'd missed during my work-induced absence. It was becoming more common to find his tapes each Saturday and to spend the day—a day that often followed a sleep-deprived night—listening and taking notes.

As always, click on the image to load a larger version that can be read.

Outside of card:

Inside of card:

Transcript of interior:

Dear T,
     Answer to your hypothetical question: "How would I, S, feel if for one reason or another you taped and said, 'we're finished.'
     Answer: I would be crushed, devastated, and angry as hell. Why? I value your thoughts, opinions, and the "company" I get by spending time with you on tape. Indeed, I have an "emotional attachment" as well as having many "needs being met" by an intelligent, honest, and lovely person. I'll expand on the topic on tape but you'd better not be considering it (I doubt that you are).
     Your tapes arrived at an opportune (spelling?) time and I thoroughly enjoyed the first 12 sides (which is as far as I am right at this moment) and will probably enjoy the rest equally.
     So far, you're very wrong about things "leveling off" and it becoming "only T!" It's still, "oh wow, tapes from T!"
     This is getting disgusting, isn't it? Anyway, you're terrific and I thought I'd tell you so...
     Tapes will soon follow.
     Very soon!

S

Transcript of back:

Quote from Think by Dr. Robert Anthony: "There is brutality and there is honesty. There is no such thing as brutal honesty."

Just a point to ponder...

*****

One of my "problems" was that I was often too honest or blunt for most people's tastes. That went for saying both positive and negative things. I included the Dr. Robert Anthony quote in reference to this troublesome personality trait of mine, but T was rare in that he wasn't intimidated by my particular brand of honesty.

Correspondence June 28, 1987 (notes - part 2)

This is the second part of a post about the types of notes that T and I tended to take when we taped each other. The first part is here.

You'll note that there are two sets of numbers on each page. The number in the upper right refers to the page of notes. The number on the left side is a reference to what side of the tapes that he received that he is taking notes on. Five sides are referenced here. That means that he's responding to a package in which he'd received three tapes from me.

Page 5 (of 7):

Page 6 (of 7):

Page 7 (of 7):

*****

Note: T was a very good chess player as a child and still excellent as an adult. The "postal game" that he refers to is a game of chess. I could play a bit, but I didn't know about formal things such as opening moves and known strategies.

If nothing else, these notes should give a good idea of the range of things we discussed. They included myself, T, our mutual pen pals and those who they knew and spoke of, and whatever things we were doing or were holding our interest at the time. One of my friends was flabbergasted that we could talk for hours as we did. It's not that we never ran out of things to say, but rather that it took quite some time before we did so.

Correspondence June 28, 1987 (notes - part 1)

With pen pals with whom we had a particular rapport, we often referred to the tapes we received as "marathons". That's because it was often one person talking alone for many hours. For T and me, it was not uncommon for there to be between three and six 90-minute tapes in one package, though he usually sent more than I did as he not only spoke more slowly and with more pauses, but he also was better at asides. I tended to stay more on my "script" or work from notes when I spoke.

The tapes were an attempt on our parts to carry on "conversations" with both distance and time separating us. Distance is something that still can't be solved in LDRs, but modern technology has allowed most people to overcome the issue of time with simultaneous or nearly immediate responses being possible via chat, Skype, or texting. For us, we were lucky if only five days had passed between the last word leaving our lips and the first word being heard by the recipient.

The way in which we attempted to conduct these ersatz conversations was to listen, take notes, and then use those notes to construct our answers. I usually wrote copious pages of notes, including not only what was said that I wanted to comment on, but often notes on what I wanted to say in reply. As I recorded my answers, I would often cross off items then throw away my pages of notes. None of my taping notes survive to this day, but one set of T's do. I still have these because, at one point, we each asked the other to send our notes so that we could get an idea of how we each carried out this particular task. I saved the 7 pages of notes that T took on a set of my tapes (pre-relationship).

It is important to know that tone and context are entirely absent when viewing these notes. Some things were said sarcastically, some as jokes, and some as hypothetical considerations. That's my way of saying not to take too much at what appears on these pages at face value. This is what was jotted down rapidly by someone listening to a young woman from Pennsylvania spout her nonsense for about three hours. 

Note: While I usually transcribe written correspondence for clarity, I will not be doing so in this case since the nature of the notes is so erratic. Also, again, you can click on these pictures to load a size that should be readable and you can increase the size of the graphic using your browser's controls if it isn't big enough once the picture is loaded (control plus +  on a PC or command plus + on a Mac).

Page 1 (of 7):

Page 2 (of 7):

Page 3 (of 7):

Page 4 (of 7):

Comments of use: "Gene" refers to Gene Simmons of KISS.

The second part of the notes is here.