So there I am, watching House when an interesting - albeit obvious - line was uttered.
"For relationships to work you have to make sacrifices."
It's something I've heard for years, and TV does a good job of regurgitating this idea. An idea, I must confess that is full of crap. And no, I don't mean to say that relationships requiring sacrifice is crap I just think that making sacrifices to be with anyone is crap. Call me proud, but I don't feel like there's anything I'd be willing to give up (time, money, position of power) in order to be with someone. It may sound selfish and perhaps even chauvinistic, but if I'm going to be in a relationship I won't be the one giving anything up. I've already had to give up so much in order to get to where I am. Of the things I've had taken from me the one irreparable gap is that of time. I don't get my two years back. I'd be more than happy to be in some manner of relationship, but honestly I'd want it to work around me more than anything.
Ultimately that idea is flawed, and I recognize this. It's why I won't be in a relationship in the near future. I don't want to, nor do I feel like I should sacrifice anything. There are a lot of women out there who are perhaps worth giving up certain freedoms, but I'm not in a position where I feel like that's enough. College has presented me with an entire campus of women and while I may find some of them interesting, it's a tainted interested. Tainted by a resentment I feel towards having to make collective decisions, having to be half of the whole. I want to be whole and complete with or without someone in my life. I'd want them to be complete without me as well. If I happened to meet someone I'd rather we were close friends, but individuals all the same. Relationships demand that your decisions must be run through an intermediary before they become final. While this can vary in its extremes, there's always going to be those questions you have to ask your partner if you want the relationship to work.
I don't know if that's a maturity thing, or what. I just don't feel it. There's women I've met since starting school who I think are legitimately interesting people, but there's this giant brick wall in my mind that I cannot (and choose not) to overcome. On this brick wall in large yellow letters are the words, "You are all you'll ever need." I can't argue with such a bold statement, especially one painted on stone and mortar.
That's really all I had to say tonight, and perhaps one day I will look back on this post in utter disbelief that I was once so pessimistic.
Very academic. "I am a rock, I am an island."
ReplyDeleteMade for a good song. Often taught in high school English classes. I'm not sure if it is pessimistic so much as it is defensive and guarded. That is fine for now. And completely and entirely to be expected. I'm sure the thaw will take place. Slower or faster, depending on how things unfold. Be in the moment.
This is an interesting opinion, but you may find it to be worth changing this viewpoint some day. Or, perhaps not...
ReplyDeleteWe get a better picture if we separate the two opposing mentalities as a) and b), and pardon my unnecessary guile:
a) Non-sacrificial (ideological relationships): From a logical standpoint, yes, why the hell shouldn't someone be able to operate on their own when in a relationship? If a relationship should serve only to make each individual happier than without, then sacrifices should not be a part of that. The objective of a this relationship is to achieve only happiness. In fact, this was my thought process a few years ago as well. Unfortunately, this kind of relationship is a fantasy and I'll tell you why in a moment.
b) Sacrificial (real relationships): This kind of relationship is what most "couples" you see have. It works because each person is complimenting the other's flaws or weaknesses by giving something that they have. The objective of this relationship is to achieve definition and completeness.
Now, the problem with b) is that NO HUMAN is complete. Ever. No one is ever so sure of themselves or fulfilled in life 100%. And so, no one can operate entirely on their own from the moment we enter this world. This is the entire purpose behind the b) relationship. We are attempting to give ourselves a purpose or a goal. If you want to be on your own then you might as well be a chair or a table; you are the be all and end all of your life, but you would be happy. You would be everything, for that matter. And nothing.
The reason why a) is impossible is because you physically can not be involved in another person's life unless you sacrifice SOMETHING. Time, for example, is the most basic and essential thing you end up giving up absolutely and involuntarily. Then come the others; money, sweat, thoughts, etc.
To me, this is irrefutable. A relationship does not get you happiness all the time, nor does anything else in life. As such, it's just one of those things you work through, and the happiness comes out of the satisfaction of the payoff of the sacrifice.
Just so I know, who is Anonymous the 2nd?
ReplyDelete