February 01, 2004

Trust Me, Love me: A Confession

Due to the sensitive nature of the subject in this post, the specifics to which this post applies are left absent. (I’m just saying that if you’re looking for something juicy, you won’t find it here.)

When it comes to romance, I'm far from expert. (I'm not even sure what "expert" means in the context of romance.) But I am honest, loyal, and fairly sensitive. But in the context of romance, I'm also very non-verbal. It is difficult for me, if not impossible for anyone, to describe the shades of love directly and concisely. I've found that action is both easier and more precise.

But from time to time it's good and necessary to speak one's mind on the topic in words, which brings me to two truths I've come to know in my few years of experience.

1) It's a lot easier to dislike than it is to like. Disaffection reflects a statement of qualities that an individual counts as undesirable or wrong. When it comes to being wrong, there are infinite combinations. But affection is a statement of self-recognition. When you love someone, you're saying, "This person possesses those virtues which I value as most high." That's a big deal.

2) When it comes to trust in romance, all statements are self-referential. By that I mean that when someone says, "I trust you," or, "I don't trust you," they're talking about themselves and not the person to whom they’re speaking. The man who constantly suspects his lover of infidelity is generally very close to being unfaithful himself.

Really, in love time is spent mostly talking about yourself even if the subject of your statements is your partner.

I don't think that it's possible to over-intellectualize things, unless that means that one thinks without or in place of acting, but love is such an all-consuming topic that it is difficult to analyze.


Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 09:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: From Old Blog
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Well, not to brag, but I am something of a love expert having "loved" several hundred people at once in a ritual known, in some cultures, as a "gang bang."

Seriously, though, I think you make good points: especially the one about a lover who accuses his partner of infidelity being close to unfaithful himself (we learned about that concept in my psychology class last semester).

I disagree, however, with the statement: "I don't think that it's possible to over-intellectualize things..." I think that's precisely the problem in most relationships. I relate it to family: you can explore the many dynamics of your relationships with your parents and your siblings, but at the end of the day they're still your parents and your siblings and there's nothing you can do about it. Similarly, when you fall in love, examining the nuances of the relationship may seem worthwhile, but if he's the "one" (and I know that's a trite concept, but I believe in it) those nuances become irrelevent: you can no more change his role as "the one" than you can your mother's role as "mother." Your mother is your mother even if you storm off in a Winnebago and swear you never want to see her again.

However, with that said, there may be circumstances that make it so that "the one," despite the brightness of his constellation in your universe, proves dangerous or unhealthy to your planet. It makes me think of the A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi. They were constantly at each other's throats; fights that their children recall with genuine horror. There was a clip, though, that stays in my mind and seems relevant here. Lucy, speaking on Desi: "He was the love of my life and that's why I couldn't live with him: we were going to kill each other."

I think that sums up my points pretty well.

[Trey Givens responds]You make some valid points but there is one premise that should be stated explicitly for me to go along with it: Love is conditional.

I choose who "the one" is. I choose why I love him.

The same goes for my parents. I can't choose that I am their biological progeny but I can choose how much they are involved in my life to such an extent that I may disown them if they do not meet the terms of the relationship.

The point of analyzing things is to understand them and when it comes to personal relationships it is vital to understand what you're putting in and what you're getting out. Or is it 'putting out' and 'getting in?'

Either way it's entirely conditional. You must be at least this tall to ride this ride. I mean that philosophically and psychologically.

Posted by: Adam at February 01, 2004 03:55 PM (d+Y6f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Post is locked.
25kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.0412 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.0248 seconds, 127 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.