Sunday, 8 March 2009

I Wonder...

If you can't get a hold of your boyfriend to break up with him, is the fact that the relationship is over implied? Am I now free to date other people although I have not had the opportunity to tell him that I would like my life a lot better without him as my boyfriend. He owes me some money and has my keys, so I don't want to piss him off by ending it via text or email.

This reminds me a Seinfeld episode where George is avoiding his girlfriend, Alison, because he knows that she wants to break up with him. Here's a clip.



Perhaps I should get a mutual friend of ours to break up with him for me. This what Alison eventually had to do. Ironically the reasons Alison had or very similar to mine.



I'm hoping that when I do finally speak to him and let him know it's over, he doesn't behave like Maura did.



So should I just proceed with my life as though I'm single although I can't get a hold of him to end this properly or am I stuck as a lame duck girlfriend until he actually hears me say the words, "It's over"?

Many thanks to Seinfeld for providing me with humour about this whole affair.

2 comments:

Gorilla Bananas said...

Of course you should assume you're single! He borrowed your money and is now hiding to avoid repaying the debt. What a bum!

k-go said...

Go on your merry way, grl!