AHEM. I have had an epiphany due to errant and missplaced word usage. Give me (and Miriam-Webster) a little latitude here for a minute.
sen•si•tive
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin sensitivus, probably alteration of sensativus, from sensates sensate
Date:
15th century
1: SENSORY 2 a:receptive to sense impressions b:capable of being stimulated or excited by external agents (as light, gravity, or contact) (pay attention, this is the important part!) 3: highly responsive or susceptible: as a (1): easily hurt or damaged ; especially : easily hurt emotionally (2): delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others b: excessively or abnormally susceptible : HYPERSENSITIVE c: readily fluctuating in price or demand d: capable of indicating minute differences : DELICATE e: readily affected or changed by various agents (as light or mechanical shock)
That seems self-evident, doesn't it? Everyone knows what sensitive means, right? Yes, of course.
But wait just a minute.
self•ish
Function:
adjective
Date:
1640
(again, focus here...)1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Now, since not everyone lives in my head (yes, yes, I've heard all spectrum of comments when I use that phrase), let me again demonstrate what I feel to be the point:
sensitive: delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others
selfish: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
I could actually, honestly see how if you were wholly within one or the other, you could mistake the two. Actually, that's the principle upon which codependence is based - such complete immersion in sensitivity that it becomes selfish...
A sensitive man would know better than to utter the phrase, "You know I have a bad temper, so stop pushing my buttons." A selfish man, on the other hand, would assume that because he feels as though he is in touch with his own emotions, he must be in touch with emotions, right???
It all boils down to this:
I have never - before this point in my life - met someone that I did not at least partially understand. I'm feeling very Bella-to-my-Edward-Cullen about it - I am learning patterns, but they're nothing I've ever seen before, and every time I think I've got something down well enough to predict what's next, I learn something that turns the whole game upside down. I feel like the poster-child for teenage pop songs with all this brooding and angst swirling around... and for the first time ever, both the brooding and the angst are mine. Is it too much to ask for just a little piece of this to make sense? Or is this how all "adult relationships" work? I mean, I guess I can honestly say that since I was married when I was eighteen and, well, we know where I went next, I've probably never participated in a real, no-holds-barred (yes, I find my own choice of words ironic) adult relationship. Not that this is a relationship at all. But how adults relate to one another, you know? If this is that? I think I'll pass.