The Art of Lending: Hairbrushes and Rakes


I am not a morning person. I don’t greet the morning to be “healthy, wealthy and wise.” I don’t cherish the sunrise, and I’m not happy to be alive. I want more sleep. Sleep is an inconvenient conclusion of the night, but a precious commodity in the morning. When I told a fellow waiter about this in the break room of a restaurant we both worked in. I expected him to find my analysis humorous. He didn’t. 

“Don’t sleep your life away kid,” he said. He was old. He was happy to be alive. 

The morning of my first paycheck was different, however, and I knew it the moment I awoke. There was no mid-morning delirium when I woke up that morning, and the first words out of my mouth were not a swear word. I threw my wonderfully warm blankets off and couldn’t wait to begin the day. I even had a mid-morning smile on my face, and that hadn’t happened since a certain someone ruined Christmas for me. I don’t remember the bus ride over to the restaurant, but I remember stepping off the city bus, knowing that my paycheck was waiting for me inside the restaurant.

A woman named Paula handed me my first paycheck. She didn’t last long at our restaurant for reasons endemic to her character, but she was the one who handed me my first paycheck, so her face is enshrined in my personal Mount Rushmore. It was just another payday for the workers at the restaurant, and I had to remember that. I had to conceal my squeal. 

This now internal squeal was a result of never again having to ask my dad for money. I was as free as a teenager could be. That day was the day I learned the power of the dollar, firsthand, and it’s still one of the top ten greatest days of my life.

My first official purchase, with my money, was a hairbrush, and I considered it an argument against my father and grandfather’s claim that I would never learn the value of a dollar. My grandfather lived through The Depression and my father lived through the aftermath of it, and they knew the value of a dollar and the subsequent scarcity of it better than I ever could. They tried to teach me to value the dollar, products, and the economic system, but their words went in one ear and out the other, until I cashed that first paycheck. Buying products with my own money, introduced me to the power of the dollar, but the more profound lesson I learned occurred soon after the intoxication with my financial freedom led me to blow that first paycheck in one weekend. I went from being a power player, now in control of my financial fate to the vulnerabilities inherent in being dead broke in the course of one weekend, and the only thing I had to show for it was a hairbrush.

My father and grandfather informed me that when I purchased a product, I was to care for it in such a way that could extend its life cycle beyond generally accepted norms. “You should proactively care for your products to pay homage to the power of the dollar, and the men and women involved in the process of its creation. It was created for your convenience, and the care you display for it will show your appreciation.” If I purchased a meal with my money, “You should all but lick that plate clean in appreciation.” If I purchased a rake, “You need to create a peg in your garage to hang it, and you should hang it in such a manner that it doesn’t fall off its peg, and/or collect any water that might cause rust. There’s no excuse for a rusty rake,” they added, “and if one should fall off a properly secured peg, its rattling tone will reverberate throughout our genealogical tree.”

Their lessons also suggested that while I should care for the products I purchased, I should display greater reverence for the products another might lend me.”If a man lends you his rake, in your time of need, not only is it not yours, it’s not yours.” You not only return that rake in a timely manner, but you are to return it in the condition in which you received it, or replace it for the man if it was not.” Their dictums on borrowing stressed me out so much that I did not borrow rakes, hairbrushes, or anything else from my neighbors or friends. If I couldn’t find mine, or I failed to keep them in good condition, I just bought a new one. If I were to encounter a moment of desperate need, without the resources necessary to purchase another one, it was much less emotionally taxing on me to simply do without. 

Purchasing a new rake is not easy for me either, for doing so is a condemnation of how I treated the previous one. As such, I would much rather use a rake that is not 100% productive than endure the personal embarrassment and remorse I feel when replacing one. Even if my standards and practices lead the productive lifespan of the lawn tool to last ten years beyond its life expectancy, I still experience a small scale Oskar Schindler dilemma when I throw away an old rake thinking there was something I could’ve and should’ve done better to extend the life of that old rake.

I know most people did not receive the philosophical training seminars on preservation and conservation I did, but when I decided to loan my beloved hairbrush to a friend, and he disrespected it, I considered him unprincipled. I worked hard for that hairbrush. It cost me approximately one and a half hours of manual labor. As a general practice, I didn’t keep that hairbrush in the family bathroom, fearing that others in my family might use it, ruin it, and alter its life expectancy. I knew where it was at all times, and I developed a spot for it that I hoped might prevent me from losing it. That was another lesson my father and grandfather taught me, “If you don’t want to lose something, or at least lessen the chances that you will, follow ‘the everything in its right place,’ model.” I did, and I still do with everything great and small, create a place for products I need. The lessons are so ingrained that an observer might call me OCD on such matters.

***

As a result of the drumbeat my grandfather and father placed in my head, I had these rules on continuous repeat, and I still do. I do not ask others if I can borrow things, and I’m notably uncomfortable when anyone asks me if they can borrow anything from me. Most of these people are good people who don’t want to borrow things from me, but they’re in a time of need, and they don’t know how it violates my constitution. I have nothing against them, but I can’t understand how they fail to view the stress of such transactions.  

I loaned my precious copy of Queen’s Greatest Hits cassette tape to a friend. I was still young, at this point, and I had no marketable skills, so this cassette tape cost me approximately two hours of labor, and I valued it accordingly. Although this tape endured thousands of plays, over the years, its condition was excellent relative to usage. The friend I loaned it to managed to lose the plastic jewel case and the inner jacket sleeve within a week, and he had to spend another week locating the cassette tape. He never found the jewel case or the jacket, but he did manage to locate the tape. The friend didn’t offer to compensate me for my loss, or display any of the guilt that should’ve followed such an egregious violation. I would’ve considered this a reflexive response if the roles were reversed. He did not. When I informed him, in a heated argument, that he should compensate me accordingly, he said. “It’s just a cassette tape geez.”

“It’s my cassette tape,” I said, “and you do not dictate its usage.” He decided to compensate me for the loss later, much later, after I offered him a month’s long sampling of my father and grandfather’s many lessons on value, relative value, and the penalty of violating those standards in regards to his character. In the aftermath of this incident, my friend found it less stressful to buy the products he wanted, rather than borrow anything else from me. I felt no guilt stressing him out in this manner, as I considered that stress a natural law of the universe. 

The thing that still grates on me is that the friend who borrowed my cassette tape knew all the details of my hairbrush, and the friend to whom I loaned it. He even joined me in condemning my hairbrush friend. So, “It’s just a tape geez,” was what I considered a violation of the values I assumed he and I shared. I wasn’t sure if I should continue to befriend him if our values were so disparate, and I told him so. “It’s just a tape geez,” he said, and he added my name at the beginning of this repetition to strengthen his case that I should rethink my whole line of thought on this matter.

There wasn’t a whole lot of clamor for usage of my beloved hairbrush, as it was as generic as a hairbrush can get. I don’t think it even had a brand name attached to it. I think it was one of those that a store puts out with the store’s name attached to it. I didn’t care if anyone else thought it was nice, fancy or extraordinary in any way, because I didn’t want people borrowing it. I often hid it, in its special place, to safeguard it. Anytime anyone assigns value to anything, even discreetly, people notice, and the unspoken, intangible qualities we assign seduce them to assign greater qualities to it.  

When my friend asked if he could borrow the hairbrush, I was reluctant, and that reluctance accidentally revealed the value this hairbrush had for me. I tried to tell him that I consider the whole practice of loaning items out rife with unforeseen ramifications: 

“I don’t think we should do this,” I said. “As I don’t think either of us will gain anything in such a transaction.”  

He thwarted that with the “You loaned me this without argument, and you loaned me that without hesitation” argument.  

“But if you return it in acceptable condition, it will be almost a relief to our friendship. The friendship will continue as is without any EKG style disruptions. Anything less could cause turmoil and tension between us that could damage the friendship,” I said as a friend who basically wanted to gently guide him out of this transaction. When I saw that I wasn’t successful, and he still wanted to borrow it, I began laying out stipulations of usage for him to consider before using it, but he cut me off halfway through.

“It’s a hairbrush,” he said, adding my name in the beginning to emphasize condescension, ” geez! I’m going to brush my hair with it a couple of times, and I’ll hand it back to you. I promise.” His intention was to make me feel silly for valuing a hairbrush in such an inordinate manner. When he added the words ‘I promise’ after evaluating me, it revealed how uncomfortable I was with the notion of lending out my beloved brush to anyone, even someone I considered a best friend. I felt foolish, and I begrudgingly acquiesced, but I watched him use it intently.

He watched me watching him use it, and he informed me that I have some hang ups that a psychiatrist might find fascinating. He then pretended to throw it, and my near hysterical reaction caused him joy. As anyone who knows anything about psychology can probably guess, my friend asked me if he could borrow my hairbrush as often as he could from that point on. He enjoyed watching me squirm. I lied at times, and told him I didn’t have it on other days. He spotted it, on one of those days, in my gym bag, as I was searching for a pen. 

“I thought you said you didn’t have your hairbrush on you,” he said. “It’s right there.” He caught me cold, right there, in a lie. He didn’t care about the brush in the broader sense. He enjoyed catching his otherwise honest friend in a lie. He didn’t say, gotcha, but the effect as the same. The hairbrush, as you can tell by this point, took on a life of its own in our friendship. I didn’t value things as much as my grandfather and father taught me, as I loaned him everything I should’ve valued more without complaint or hesitation. I didn’t consciously assign the hairbrush value, based on the fact that it was the first product I purchased with my first paycheck. I wasn’t sentimental about it in a conscious vein, but I think that gave it some subconscious value.

My friend’s message was made clear throughout our friendship, “If we are going to be friends, you will lend me that hairbrush whenever I need it.” It was a powergame on his part.

He knew I was lying whenever I said I didn’t have it, and he often interrogated me. A part of him, I can only guess, enjoyed doing things that might cause me to lie, and he tried to force me to prove that I didn’t have it by opening up my school bag. I told him that I would not be emptying my bag to show that my hairbrush was not there and that he would just have to believe me. I also speculate that he knew I wouldn’t be able to use the hairbrush for the rest of the day, in fear of revealing the lie. When he knew I was lying, I think he enjoyed the idea that if I wasn’t going to allow him to use my brush, then he would develop a way to prevent me from using it too. 

To avoid having to go through that again, I told him he could not borrow my hairbrush on another occasion, and I offered him a pre-planned explanation. I informed him about the hygienic concerns he should have when using another’s hairbrush. I wasn’t concerned about such matters, but I considered it an excellent excuse regarding why he shouldn’t want to borrow another person’s hairbrush. When he proceeded to rip that excuse apart, I endured that rant with the knowledge that my rationale was sound.

***

After a couple years, a piece of plastic splintered off the mainframe of that hairbrush. The splinter started as a simple fracture, but it grew over time, until it was sticking out from the brush at a length as long as the average person’s index finger. The splinter that became an embarrassing break was an eyesore, but I didn’t want to cut that piece off or try to fix it in any way, for it had been my experience that whenever I tried to fix something I only made it worse.

When I allowed him to use my hairbrush, he began fiddling with that splintered piece of plastic. His fiddling included twisting the splintered piece in such a manner that it would eventually fall off. I caught him in mid twist, “Wait a second,” I said. “What are you doing?”

“Oh, you want that left on?” he asked.

A brush is just a brush, and a rake is just a rake, but it seems common sense to me that when two parties enter into a social contract of lending, an unspoken stipulation accompanies that agreement that suggests the recipient of another’s largess has no standing when it comes to the condition of said product. This, it would seem to me, is an ancient rule that compels both parties to recognize the guiding principles of such a transaction, regardless of the relative value of the product in question. I realize that I might be over-schooled in this concept, relative to the rest of the world, but I would think that everyone would have a firm grasp on the elementary aspects of conscientiousness and respect. 

I understand that a rake is just a rake, but if I was to borrow another’s rake, and I damaged one of its rake teeth, I wouldn’t say, “It’s just a rake, geez. Just favor the left side from now on.” I would consider such a statement an atrocious violation of my personal constitution that I wouldn’t be able to look the owner in the eye ever again, and I don’t understand how other grown adults, with presumed mentors teaching them about guiding principles, can violate them and absolve themselves of any guilt by commenting on how inconsequential the item in question is. It’s not your product. You have no standing in this arena. 

I have tried to understand such matters in an objective manner, and I can report to you that these two friends do not engage in subterfuge. They might attempt to excuse their guilt away, but I do not believe they do so to insult me, or minimize my valuables. I think they genuinely believed that my tape and my brush were disposable items that would eventually be lost, broken, or in some way ruined. The fact that it happened while in their possession was simply the laws of chance occurring in that brief window of time. In the case of my friend who lost the Queen’s Greatest Hits tape, he wanted me to buy the idea that because I owned the product for ten years, it was bound to be lost sooner or later whether I loaned it to him or not. He did not say those words, but that was the gist of his reaction. He also inferred that I purchased a very popular album that had no value in the world of scarcity, and the actual tape inside the cassette was old and worn down, which would further diminish any value it might otherwise have on the market. “All true,” I said, “but you’re forgetting the inherent value it has for me.”   

I could go into further details on this matter to break it down into the minutiae involved in such an agreement, but I consider them so fundamental that neither party involved should be required to undergo the near-militaristic training I received, in this field, to understand its fundamental role in a civilized society. Expressing such concerns in the hope of changing their mind, or opening it to the possibility that they should reconsider how valuable these products are to me, and that they should value them accordingly, is an exercise in futility.

Neither of these friends intended to damage, lose, or destroy my products. They did not seek to insult me by placing so little value on my possessions. They were just careless people who didn’t learn the same principles I did in this regard. In the case of my hairbrush friend, he was also an unconscious fiddler. He fiddled with everything he could get his hands on, and that fiddling often led to an unconscious destruction of everything he didn’t lose. I knew my friend’s habits, and I knew that the subtext of his condition involved a mother replacing everything he lost or destroyed. 

My friend and I came from different sides of the track in this regard, for if I was a fiddler too. I fiddled with my Trapper Keepers, my pens and pencils and I wrote lists of my favorite bands all over my notebooks. I ruined my valuable possessions in ways that required replacements. I lost other things I needed, and I destroyed others. In order to have these things replaced, I had to provide what might amount to a ten point, oral presentation describing my careless act, and why a young man, my age, might want or need a hairbrush in the modern era. We also have the inherent value in the idea that I worked hard for that brush, as the busboy for a restaurant that was the busiest in the franchise, in our region of the country. My grandfather talked about blood, sweat and tears we shed for a product, and the sweat I shed for that hairbrush was literal, and all my friend had to do was turn to his mom and say, “Mom, I need a new hairbrush.” 

Say what you want about the binary constraints my father and grandfather placed on me, but their stubborn, frugal ways led me to learn their lessons on value long before I was able to purchase products on my own.  

If my friend and his mother valued their products in ways I could not see, they had no regard for the products of others. I knew if I loaned one of my products to my friend, and he destroyed it, it would take nothing short of a civil case to get his mother to replace it. I knew that if he destroyed my hairbrush, I would have to work another half hour to buy another one, and I would have to budget accordingly. He didn’t understand any of this, because he didn’t have to, and he considered my desire to have my hairbrush returned to him in the condition he received it, quaint and a little quirky.

I spent most of my teen years hanging around this friend, and I watched him blow through money like a high stakes Vegas gambler. He had no regard for the various components of power money wielded. He spared no expense when it came to having a good time. He didn’t make discerning choices with money in the manner one might to make his good times last as long as possible, but, again, he didn’t have to. I was the tightwad who made discerning choices. 

I decided, for example, not to throw a softball at the target to win my girlfriend a prize at a fair, because I knew I would not hit the target. I also knew that when I didn’t hit it, I would play the stupid game until I could prove to everyone involved that I could. The idea that winning a girlfriend a prize at the fair is a time-honored staple of a relationship was not lost on me, but I knew my competitive instincts often overrode any good sense I might have. I knew if I started, I would end up blowing through whatever money I did have to win her a prize of minuscule value.

At various points in my life, I knew what it felt like to have money, and I knew what it felt like to have no money. I knew that the kid with money had a lot more power and prestige than the kid who didn’t. Even though I knew I would endure some abuse for it, I decided against playing the stupid softball game. I decided, instead, to spend my limited resources on tickets for her to ride the rides at the fair with me, and I bought food for her too. I thought the fun we ended up proving that I made wise, thoughtful choices with my money, but the only thing they remembered from that weekend was my refusal to play that stupid softball game.

That night at the fair, my hairbrush friend played every stupid game the fair offered, and he won his girlfriend prizes, and he ran out of money. He called his mom to inform her of this, and he chastised her for her lack of foresight. “I told you $20.00 wouldn’t be enough,” he said. Not only did my friend’s mom avoid commenting on my friend’s irresponsible spending habits, she accepted her role in the incident by not showing enough foresight to give him more than $20.00, and she felt guilty about it. She then drove from her home to the fairgrounds and handed him more money. One would think that that transaction would lead to some gratitude from her son. How many mothers would leave the comfort of their home and drive to the fairgrounds to apologetically hand their son more money? Not only was he not grateful, he continued to chastise his mother for making him look foolish in front of us friends for not having the foresight necessary to give him more than $20.00. This exchange was so foreign to my experience that the only reaction I could find was laughter. 

One would think that at this point, we would start listing the ramifications of my hairbrush friend’s financial downfall. We might also detail, in some subtle manner, how the author wallowed in the glory of that man’s eventual realizations. This is not one of those stories. My grandfather and my father told me my friend’s story would end in financial ruin, or he would learn some painful lessons along the way. “One way or another he will learn,” they told me. “Every man does in his own way and on his own time.”

One might think that my friend learned this lesson after going broke a number of times, but it had little to no effect. After an employer fired him, the idea that he didn’t save a dime to prepare for such a moment led him to file for unemployment, then disability, and then welfare. “I don’t agree with the principle of government assistance,” he said, “but I can tell you they saved my tailbone.” After discovering a loophole in the bankruptcy laws, he found a way to file for bankruptcy twice. Subsequently, when he needed a loan from a bank, he knew his credit rating was such that they would turn him down, so he and his wife filed for it under his wife’s name. I thought our principles would reveal our relative characteristics over time, but they didn’t. The reader might suggest that falling to a point where he had to use such resources was a punishment in and of itself, but my friend had excuses all lined up for anyone who might condemn him for his irresponsible spending habits, and he believed every single one of them on some level. As for as any shame or remorse he might have felt, it took some time to understand how the system worked and how to manipulate bankruptcy laws, and all of the other systems that provided him more money. He took great pride in figuring all that out himself, and he loved telling others what he learned about how the system worked, and all of the loopholes he found “to get me some money.”

***

“So, why are you still friends with this guy?” people have asked when I tell various parts of this story. My first inclination is to say, he and I shared some values. We talked about values all the time, in all the indirect ways friends do. We talked on the same page so often that we became brothers. Yet, when I try to come up with a defense for why I’ve remained friends with him, the words “good friend” don’t come to mind. I want to say that, “For all his faults, he was a good friend,” but he wasn’t a good friend. He wasn’t always there for me. He wasn’t loyal or trustworthy. He wasn’t a good husband. His kid didn’t turn out too well, from my limited experience around the young man, and his parents ended up falling prey to some newsworthy charges. All I can say, in defense of our friendship, is that he and I became brothers in the formative years of my life, and we have been brothers ever since. I view friendship as a precious, limited quality that I value in a manner that reveals the strengths and the flaws in my value system. Anyone who has a brother understands that he can be 180 degrees different from us, and that might confound us considering that the two of us were born and raised in the same way, but we’re still brothers. We realize that shortly after our disagreements turn into fights, and our fights turn to animosity and grudges in the short term that the two of us can sit down together to strengthen the unbreakable, inexplicable bond between us. It’s not a quality answer for anyone looking for quality answers, but even the most rational minds often let emotion dictate their path. 

The search for any lessons my friend taught me requires a deep, philosophical dive, and it has something to do with the fact that my friend never learned the basic definition of value. The objects involved in this discussion are of relative minuscule value, but if we do not value the relatively meaningless articles and aspects of life, it ends up forming an underlying layer of definition of our character that surfaces throughout our life. 

Why didn’t he value any of the big stuff (friendship, marriage, and fatherhood) in a manner most of us do? Why didn’t he have any regard for the little stuff (other peoples’ hair brushes)? How does one learn to value people, places and things? As I wrote earlier, most of what our fathers and grandfathers say go in one ear and out the other, when they preach about values. When we find ourselves backed into a corner of desperation and desolation, however, we remember what they said, and we finally see some value in what they were saying. We also take stock of what we do have during such moments. A sense of desperation and desolation are relative to the person of course, and some might say that all of the problems listed here are first-world problems, but they still lead us to value everything we have a little more than we did yesterday. If we never end up in such a situation, however, it’s usually because someone stepped in and helped us avoid ever having to do it. Those who have always had someone come in and spare them from ever having to be backed into a corner of personal devastation never do.  

“She always believed in me,” my hairbrush friend said at his mother’s funeral. “Even when she probably shouldn’t have, she always had my back.” I considered that sentiment a touching tribute to his mother, in the moment, and in my experiences with the two of them, it was 100% true. His touching sentiment was a testimonial to how much he valued her influence on his life. It was so touching that I spent a moment studying his face after he said it. I saw how genuine it was in his eyes and in his half smile, as he attempted to compose himself. ‘What does it mean that a person who values nothing values another person who taught him to value nothing?’ I asked myself on the drive home from that funeral. As someone who spent most of my maturation without a mother, I figured I probably valued her unconditional loyalty to him more than he did for most of his life, but she was the one who taught him those values, so how valuable was their connection? I did not see this at the time, of course. I just saw a man who had a loving, caring mother, and through comparative analysis, I thought he had it all. That jealousy blinded me to the idea that although unconditional loyalty can be a beautiful thing to watch, it doesn’t always serve the recipient well.

 

You Don’t Bring me Flowers, Anymore!


“You’ll make it work in the end,” an adult baby said with a hand on his wife’s shoulder, as she pined over their financial affairs, “you always do.”

The wife recognized the compliment for what it was in the moment, but the full import of the gesture failed to register with her at the time. She had no idea, for example, that her husband would not be participating in the sacrifices needed to “make it work out in the end,” unless she was adamant, and she could be adamant. Even when she was adamant with detailed instructions, he would alter his lifestyle for only as long as he deemed necessary to get over what she declared their dire financial state.

The adult baby intended the compliment to serve as a standalone, a statement of appreciation for his wife’s abilities. He wasn’t lying, and he had no ulterior motives. It marveled him how she did it, and he wanted her to know he would stand by her, as long her findings didn’t affect his preferred lifestyle in the long term.

The wife did have an excellent record when it came to making their lives work, and he wanted her to know that he recognized that. Her record of achievements in this regard did not begin and end with finances however. The family made sacrifices to offset his irresponsible behavior, and she informed him of the sacrifices they needed to make to offset his actions. He saw the effort she put forth, and he was aware of the idea that his family needed to sacrifice, but he viewed it from third-party perspective.

Adult babies are like small children playing with toys in the living room. Neither party expects children to clean up after themselves. Children simply don’t put that much thought into it. If no one instructs them to pick up their mess and no one enforces the practice to the point of making it the child’s habit, the idea of cleaning up doesn’t enter their purview. They play as much as they want, then, without any effort or sacrifice on their part, the area is clean. They won’t even notice that the area is clean, when they return to it, it just is. It always is.

Adult babies hear about financial problems, but like those mysteriously disappearing toys on the floor, they hear about these financial pile-ups so often that even adamant tirades go in one ear and out the other. They know everyone in the family must make sacrifices, and they might even echo the wife’s sentiment to the children, but no one knows how these blips end. They just do. She probably has something to do with it, and we should congratulate her just in case. 

The wife might have to work some overtime and even take on a third job to keep food on the table, but no one ever starves. He might not have much involvement in the lives of his children, but they get the attention they need. All he knows is that the home is always sound, so sound that he can eat his tortilla chips and watch his shows in peace. The little woman may harp, and she might nag a little, but she gets over it once she’s had her say. She always does, and to keep a happy home, he knows that he has to let her have her say.

If he wants to continue doing what he wants to do, he will not only have to endure those occasional rants, he will respond with a line that suggests that the woman is always right. A nice “Yes dear!” sprinkled into those conversations makes the clocks run on time, balances the books, and allows him to live the life he’s always wanted.

The adult baby has no powers of reflection. His woman might adamantly ask that he look around on occasion, but she’s not adamant very often. If she was adamant more often, he probably wouldn’t be an adult baby, for the adult baby species would be on the endangered list were it not for its enablers.

***

“I used to love getting flowers,” the wife named Sheila confessed, “until I found out how much I was going to have to pay for them.”

Sheila’s ex-husband, Craig, used to bring her flowers. He bought flowers for her when they dated, and he continued to buy her flowers long after they agreed to tie the knot. Craig loved Sheila, and he didn’t want to be an ordinary man who brought a few roses home to the woman he loved. He bought flowers. The rooms of flowers he bought and choreographed made cinematic statements of how much one man can love a woman, and he did so regardless of the effect it had on their financial statements.

“How can you put a price on love?” Craig would ask when she interrogated him.

As far as finances were concerned, Craig would be the first to tell you that he knew little to nothing. “The wife takes care of all that,” Craig said on one occasion, “and she can be a real drill sergeant. That woman has a gift for turning symbols of love and romance into economic principles. She can be so anal-retentive, like that character on the show Friends. Monica Geller. That’s what we call her,” he added with a laugh.

“Money is her big topic,” Craig said when he talked about how she was always harping on him.

As is often the case when one person complains about another, Craig refrained from offering any of the details from Sheila’s side of the argument, for those details might have revealed the substance of her argument. Craig did not say anything about how Sheila complained about his spending habits. He didn’t acknowledge her complaint that he signed up for multiple credit cards without telling her. He also would not repeat Sheila’s line, “You spend money like a child learning the power of money for the first time, and what’s worse is you’ve done so for so long that it’s obvious that you are incapable of gauging the consequences of your actions.”

I made the money she complains so much about,” Craig said to conclude his rant. “And I’m a grown-ass man who worked as hard as any man I know. I don’t know who she thinks she is, always trying to tell me how to live?”

As with most adult babies, Craig lived by his own set of rules and standards. As far as he was concerned, no one –not even his beloved wife– was going to tell him how to spend the money he earned. He confessed that he might have had some problems with impulse control, “But who the hell doesn’t?” he asked. Spending money and purchasing things gave Craig a sense of identity he couldn’t explain. He confessed that purchasing products gave him a rush.

“You’re selfish,” Sheila said the day she found evidence of yet another one of Craig’s out of control spending sprees, evidence he usually hid better. “You’re the most selfish person I’ve ever met.”

“Only to you guys,” Sheila said, quoting Craig’s reply.

Craig was referring to Sheila and their two daughters when he said, ‘only to you guys’. We all say such things in the heat of the moment. If someone accuses us of something, we defend ourselves, and most of the things we say are impulsive, knee-jerk responses to an accusation. We don’t evaluate how our responses might be perceived, and we don’t calculate the public perception.

Craig apparently said this without reflection, and to remind her that he was not a bad guy. “People love me,” he added, assessing his character via perceived public opinion. “While I might seem a little self-involved when it comes to you three, I’m not a bad guy. I know better. I help people Sheila. Your opinion doesn’t extend beyond these four walls, so don’t try to tell me that you know who I am.”

‘But those three should be the most important people to you,’ someone outside his family might argue. ‘The perceptions of the common people you encounter in your daily life, on the job, shouldn’t be half as important to you as those of your family.’   

These things we say, in the heat of the moment, reveal what we believe our image should be, and what we believe others see in us or what they should see. As far as we’re concerned, those aren’t lies, fabrications, or exaggerations. We might step on a landmine on occasion that exposes our failure to mature in all the ways our peers have, but, hell, everyone makes missteps.

While not all adult babies are male, the majority of the demographic consists of over-nurtured, 40-something males who are unable or unwilling, to shake the leash of the people who control them. Women have reminded them of the need to share, that they need to eat their peas, and that they need to clean up their own messes, but at some point, the adult baby becomes fed up with it. Women have set their clocks, raised their children, and handled the more inconsequential matters for most of their lives, while they did what was necessary to provide. Even though their wives have had to make sacrifices and they’ve done whatever was necessary to supplement the family income, the adult babies argue:

“I’m the one who’s been clocking in and out for decades, without complaint, and now you’re asking me to do more? Where does it all end?”

“I’m not asking you to do more,” the wife counters, “I’m asking you to do less. I’m asking you to stop doing what you’re doing. You’re making my job impossible.”

“Women have it so good,” the adult baby says. “They get to sit home and watch their shows, while the man goes to work and caters to the whims of a boss. Whatever happened to the idea that the man is the king of the castle?”

If the man wants a new motorized vehicle that only travels on water, he gets it, even if he lives in a land-locked state that requires the vessel to sit in a high-priced storage unit 364 days a year. If the man wants a leaf blower that has a high-powered engine, when his is working just fine, he gets it, and if the man wants the electronic gadget or device, that one of his friends has, he gets it. The woman is in charge of the accounting, and she does what she can to balance the books in the wake of his attempts to indulge his desires. “I don’t know how she does it,” the adult baby says if his friends ask how he can afford such luxuries, “but she always makes it work out in the end.”

Experts might have informed Craig that his current predicament resulted from a cycle of dependency, but Craig probably would’ve dismissed that as daytime talk show gibberish. He was unaware of his role in the matter, and he was naïve to the fact that as soon as the first eighteen years of his cycle of dependency ended, he married a woman, straight out of college, who reminded him of his mother. He was not cognizant of the fact that the responsibility for his welfare transferred from a mother who coddled him to the wife tasked with doing the same.

Craig was crazy in college. He “got drunk” in a manner that suggested he was trying to make up for the time he spent acquiescing to his beloved mother’s request that he act more responsible. He also engaged in a number of sexual liaisons, until he met the good woman that could cook like his good old ma’. Craig never lived alone. He didn’t encounter the pratfalls of being irresponsible in those years, and he never learned the level of freedom that allows one to succeed and fail. Craig was thus deprived the lessons that young people learn during these years and carry with them throughout life.

Even when we marry, buy a house, and have kids, there is that constant need to relive the crazy, college years when we were old enough to know the complexities inherent in adulthood, but young enough to shrug off the consequences of ignoring them. Back then, we thought we were equipped and entitled to show all those who mattered that we were no longer children, back when we were young enough to shrug off the ramifications that come with continuing to live like them. In our adult years, we flexed the muscles of independent living in college, all while our parents footed the bills. We were in a zone toddling between adulthood and childhood that allowed us the freedom to form an identity without any concerns for the responsibilities that might help better form it.

Few, however, have the resources to make those crazy college year last well into adulthood, and the lack thereof requires most to make choices no one wants to make. We work hard to put ourselves in a comfortable position in life. We kowtow to bosses, and we hold our tongue when our peers have said things with which we disagree. We try to build an empire that will allow us to do most of what we want, but some others who just do it. That’s the gist of their answers to the curious who question how they’re able to afford such luxuries on their salary, with two kids, “Like Nike says, you just do it.”

Most full-fledged adults know the despair that results from crushing debt, and they learn to fight off the impulses and temptation that could drive them to shut-offs, red box “past-due” notices, and shameful credit ratings. We’ve all made our share of mistakes. We’ve all been broke at one time in our lives, and we all know the horrible feeling of not having as much money as someone else, but we’ve all come to terms with bitter reality that the good times of living like a child ends. For some of us, this is a long, painful process. Others might never have to face these inevitable truths because others make it all work out for them.

The women in the lives of the adult baby learn to do everything they can to avoid leaving them to their own devices. As a result, the babies don’t experience embarrassment, aren’t required to deal with inadequacies, and ever fail. They are good boys and good sons that become good and honest men, but they are the half of those relationships rarely held to account for their failings.

“I never spent us into unmanageable debt,” Craig said. It was his best defense, for in those moments when the family had to sacrifice Craig decided to control his spending, in the short-term. He refrained from purchasing big, luxurious items when the family budget hovered near ground zero. He even felt some guilt for the role he may have played in the familial sacrifices, albeit only in the short term. To rectify whatever damage he may have caused, Craig bought his wife flowers, but he didn’t just buy her flowers. He made his apologies cinematic.

“You can’t buy me flowers anymore!” Sheila shrieked, “We’re broke!” Sheila would later say she felt bad about the times she yelled at him like that, because she knew he meant well. She said he bought her flowers, because she used to love flowers. “They used to be one of my guilty pleasures,” she said, “until I realized how much I was going to have to pay for them.”

In the wake of their divorce, Craig entered the house to collect those prized belongings of his not listed in the decree. Craig also considered this his opportunity to tell us his side of the story. He answered all of the questions posed, as listed above, and he pointed out the days when he acted “all growed up” to counter Sheila’s claims. Craig also provided us a list of the purchases he didn’t make, because he knew the family couldn’t afford it to counter Sheila’s claim that he was such a spendaholic. He added that that list was not comprehensive.

Who does that? Who submits a list of purchases they didn’t make in defense of their financial responsibility? If a member of his defense did such a thing, the judge might privately advise that Craig fire his lawyers. That judge would know that we, the jury, would consider Craig’s list as noteworthy because it details how rare, to the point of memorable, it was to Craig that he didn’t impulsively buy something he wanted.   

As Craig worked his way through the list, collecting all of the trivial items he did purchase impulsively, we were reminded Craig of one of his favorite sayings, “Money is power! Money is freedom!

“Was I saint in our marriage?” Craig continued, as we loaded his final belongings into the moving van. “I was not, but I was not an idiot. We always found a way to made it work. Somehow or another, she always made it work in the end.”

As Craig ran back and forth from his car, we couldn’t help avoid thinking he slipped up in the second sentence saying she as opposed to we in the second sentence. He did that, that was Craig, we thought as he slipped a final bouquet of dead roses into a living room now full of dead roses to complete what he considered a final cinematic statement to his now ex-wife.