Kate’s “that-was-then” denial of her feelings for Dylan

Kate MacKenna’s “that-was-then” denial of her feelings for Dylan Buchanan is a recurring explanation for why their night together in Boston should remain an isolated exception. She calls the encounter a mistake, stresses the risks of becoming involved, and insists that circumstances have returned to normal. Yet her own reactions unsettle that account: she is troubled when Dylan accepts her reasoning without protest and recognizes that her objections do not fully match her feelings. The phrase gives her a way to define the past as closed; its repetition shows how unresolved the present remains.

The Boston encounter and its proposed limits

Kate’s explanation begins with the night Dylan came to Boston to keep her company. She admits that she initiated their intimacy and describes herself as having come on to him and practically pounced. When she later tells him she should not have acted that way, her reasons are concrete: he is her best friend’s brother, she expects to travel back and forth to Boston, and she does not want future meetings to become awkward. Her account does not deny that the night was enjoyable. Instead, it separates the pleasure of the encounter from the question of whether it can be allowed to continue.

She also presents the episode as unusual for her. Asked whether she often makes the first move and takes men to bed, she says she does not. By contrast, she assumes Dylan has been with many women and therefore considers him comparatively safe: she expects no promises and no regrets. That formulation makes the night sound manageable because it supposedly asks neither of them to expect a lasting commitment. But the very need to specify its limits suggests that the encounter has consequences she cannot dismiss simply by calling it casual.

A rationale built from consequence

As the two discuss the possibility of involvement, Kate expands her case beyond awkward future visits. She says a relationship would be a disaster: Dylan will eventually go home, one of them may hurt the other when it ends, and the risk is not worth taking. This is not simply a denial that she wants him. It is an argument that wanting him would expose both of them to foreseeable pain. She also invokes her friendship with Jordan Buchanan, Dylan’s brother, and says she values that friendship. Dylan points out that she has made versions of these arguments before, including the concern that their intimacy could make the friendship awkward.

The recurrence matters. Kate initially seems reassured when Dylan understands her explanation, but his ready agreement unsettles her. She knows she ought to feel relieved, and does feel some relief, yet resents how quickly he accepts that getting involved would be a bad idea. The difference between the conclusion she argues for and the response she wants is telling: she asks him to accept a boundary, then finds his acceptance painful. Her reasoning can state why a relationship is dangerous, but it cannot make his indifference feel welcome.

The denial meets its contradictions

Later, Dylan makes the repetition explicit by observing that Kate keeps insisting their Boston night was a mistake. She restates that it cannot happen again and describes the earlier situation as unusual, with life now supposedly back to normal. He challenges that version of normal by pointing to a mismatch in her conduct: she says she does not want him to touch her, but became angry when she thought he was speaking to a woman back home. Kate does not answer this contradiction by denying the jealousy. Instead, she returns to the practical case against a relationship, emphasizing the anticipated separation and the hurt that could follow.

Dylan also notes that she has used the same explanation before, including her concern about Jordan. Kate is rattled by the reminder and repeats that she values the friendship. When Dylan says he agrees that involvement is a bad idea, the exchange gives her the outcome she has argued for, but not the emotional reassurance she seems to want. The scene exposes the limits of her rationale without resolving the disagreement between desire and caution: agreement on the decision does not settle what the decision means to her.

The phrase as a shifting boundary

After one conversation, Kate watches Dylan leave and is surprised that he neither acts angrily nor tries to kiss her good night. She recognizes that her “that was then, this is now” explanation has got through to him and tells herself this is exactly what she wanted. The immediate consequence, however, is not uncomplicated relief. She wonders why she feels disgruntled and why he made no protest when she said he could move on. Her thoughts turn to his reputation as a playboy and to the possibility that he will always find another woman; she tries to convert her unease into disgust and then anger at his unannounced arrival and his taking over.

That sequence makes the phrase more than a clean division between a past encounter and a present rule. Kate uses it to insist that one night need not dictate what follows, while her attention to Dylan’s response repeatedly reopens the question. The subsequent argument on the road returns to the same claim and adds his observation that her conduct gives it away. The text therefore presents the denial as a repeated attempt to contain a relationship through explanations—friendship, distance, awkwardness, and the possibility of mutual hurt—while showing, through her disappointment and defensiveness, that the encounter has not become emotionally past merely because she names it that way.