Sunday, September 28, 2008
what's love got to do got to do with it?
the ironic thing about a major breakup is how, after spending a great deal of time with a person, and forming an extremely close, indelible bond with them, you're expected to hate/loathe/detest that person and forget, or "get over" the bond you shared (ok, fine--that was a little extreme--but it's kind of customary that you at least feel negatively).
it's also ironic and quite strange that the notion of hatred is even an option when you think about all the love that was once shared. like, why would something so horrible even flourish amidst tragedy? it should just be the opposite, even stronger love, on a more segregated, individual basis, that would facilitate both parties' recovery, or even remove the need to recover altogether--simply granting both people the ability to move on with their lives in a linear manner, all the while maintaining the person with whom they shared a relationship as a near and dear friend.
unless the person who instigated the breakup did so with a sharp object or inflicted any sort of harm, a mutual agreement should be the default. i think it should be purely a societally-influenced thing--involuntary emotion and any involvement of the psyche should NOT be an option. we have enough to worry about. to quote jawbreaker, an amaranthine cinematic classic of our adolescence, "life is hard enough without added anxiety." and true that, especially since relationships, are, after all, auxiliary aspects of our lives. they're completely voluntary, and, at the end of the day, an added bonus. they've equally got their benefits as well as their downfalls, and since they're purely elective, why then must their demise cause such despair?
if society can gradually give to acceptance for men fucking other men, then we certainly can alleviate all the hoopla surrounding old-fashioned breakups, and live happier, healthier lives.
who's with me?