Parted oranges rot before finding the other half

"Love is cruel

When you realise that you give your life

To someone who has given up on you."

"Blindfold Me" - Marina And The Diamonds

(Some statements respond to a mindset I don't share anymore. I, a year later, am truly disappointed at the version of me who wrote the second half of this post.)

I don't know about others, but I can't help to wonder if what I feel as love is the same another person would call "love". Do we all feel the same or do we just call them the same because we're taught to? Are we taught to demonstrate love in certain ways? I can't help to feel that the relationship model we're constantly being shown is all but assertive or healthy: are we meant to be emotionally dependent on our significant other? Is it normal or should we do something about it? Are we meant to expect them to feel the same kind of dependence on us? What does this lead to?

Many people within Queer Culture theorize about the artificialness of monogamy and romantic relationships, some reasoning about natural instincts on both biological sexes involving looking for different sexual mates when necessary without it affecting an emotional bond between two human
beings. While most people agree they've felt an emotional bond of the kind throughout their lives, some have reticences when it comes to its evolution and duration.

The most assertive theory seems to be that while love has not got a caducity date, it does change and evolve within time. It seems to appear as sexual, animal and irrational but evolve in time towards a more pragmatical state based in respect and mutual support and understanding. However, this transition seems to be a catastrophic disaster for some couples, making them insecure, unhealthy and unstructured due to a failure on making this change.

Okay, end of the mostly-objective part. I know my opinion is certainly unpopular, everyone has theirs and it's okay, but I have to say it. This is what I was thinking of during the reading of the reader of this year. The book, in case you don't know what I mean, features a character who cheats on their spouse and forsakes their family. This, for itself, is bad, but I couldn't help justifying them: even though they didn't appear through most of the story, they were simply the perfect example of victim-blaming for me; we, as readers, lack information about this character: there were probably conversations prior to the happenings between them and their spouse regarding relationship problems and lackings, but we don't question that, we just assume and blame this character for pretty much everything that happens later, because we see it all through the [ignorant and naïve] main character's scope. The most funny point of our beloved sorry-but-I-was-born-last-week (a.k.a. SBIWBLW from this point on) main character is that they refuse this character to "buy" them but SBIWBLW (and SBIWBLW's mother) openly accept total maintenance... but it's okay, because none of them is an adult man, who are clearly pure evil, so it's not hypocrisy.

Okay, I might have been a little mean to our common pet-SBIWBLW, but... seriously. At least he evolved somehow, and he had some good points. But this just made me really angry. If someone does something really bad to me but then shows real regret and will to retake a relationship with me I don't connect with the shortest responses possible like I was a f[...]ing autist. However, the very end of the book seems like a little bit of a forgival so we'll forgive SBIWBLW a little bit as well. But just a little bit.

To read more from me about this topic, check my last year entry "Why do men cheat on women?"