Dinner with DB tonight (amongst others). Neutral territory, to the extent to which T's house can be considered neutral. Not sure if this little shindig has been set up because DB is feeling miserable again, or if T just needs some company whilst her husband is studying rocks in the Lake District, but I thought I'd made my "non-engagement" strategy pretty clear after the last time I was invited to something like this. If T had suggested the idea to me before inviting us all over Facebook, I would have tried to nip it in the bud, or at least asked what it was in aid of. As it is, I had to choose between turning up and making it clear that I wouldn't be going. T was nice enough to agree to scrap the whole thing if I didn't want to do it, but it's a little late now, y'know, which I suspect she knew from the beginning. I hate being the sort of guy who starts avoiding women when things don't work out, but there genuinely are times when the cleanest possible break is really the absolute best case scenario (where "best case" at this point essentially means "least bloodstained"). I can't do that if I have to keep seeing her all the time on the grounds that if I wanted to avoid her I have to deliberately make a point of it rather than it just being understood that having us both in the same room won't be a good idea for a while.
Some might point out (not without a case) that I'm arguing for the coward's solution, i.e. I get to cast her aside without having to confront her about it or deal with the fact that actions (specifically mine) have consequences. But given the alternative is that we keep getting thrown together until one of us (not necessarily me) explodes and we have another firestorm on our hands, I think the "cowardly" approach is also the best one. You can't heal a broken heart by aversion therapy. And if you have to keep seeing each other the best you can do, to borrow a phrase from Studio 60, is to turn "walking away" into "burning down the house". I still keep hoping I can avoid that.