I don't understand this awkward skewed perception of relationships anymore. I don't understand why it has become a favored m.o. to find someone and define them as "yours." I could easily excuse recent happenings to senior-weirdness or a spring break fever, but I don't think that it can be dismissed that easily.
The breaking point seems to present itself when someone finds it necessary to define what they feel for the other person. Now, while I'm all for being forward, I don't think this is always a necessity. Especially when time is a limiting factor. Yet we seem to think we can hold onto something/someone longer if they're under the pretense of belonging to us. I think the moment you commit yourself to another person you actually distance yourself. No longer are actions needed to demonstrate your connection; words manage to take their place.
I found myself in a similar situation a year ago when I realized I no longer felt what I was proclaiming to feel; how do you manage to salvage yourself from a loophole like that? I didn't. Not entirely, at least. I lost a lot of who I thought I was to sheer ignorance--I forgot to think; I forgot to remember. Now, an entire year later, I watch in fear as situations much like my own a year ago, unfold all around me.
When you're on the outside looking in, it's much easier to critique and find holes you keep falling into. I remember being told exactly where to watch my step, but I also remember ignoring the warnings, taking no heed to the brightly flashing caution signs. So now, it's only expected that when I plug in the signs for others who have forgot we have working electricity, that I take no offense when I am ignored. The only way to realize you're in a loophole is to find it yourself, and to be strong enough to walk away.
All of this, however, is easily side-stepped. Relationships are dynamic, and therefore can change instantaneously. I find myself on the brink of very murky waters, waters I'm not sure I'm willing to step back into. I will just remain how I am, staying constant with my affections and decision to destroy the unnecessary label. Whether I think it's strictly friendship, or more than, is irrelevant. Quite simply because I'll remain constant with who I've become, how I feel, and the accepted fact that we don't need anything or anyone.
We can get over this weirdness, all we have to do is be.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
fear is the heart of love;
what I've written?
people who matter :)
music
- Robbers & Cowards, Cold War Kids
- Transatlanticism, Death Cab for Cutie
- Woman King, Iron & Wine
- Like a Virgin Losing a Child, Manchester Orchestra
- Architecture in Helsinki
- Say I Am You, The Weepies
- Bottoms of Barrels, Tilly and the Wall
- Good News for People Who Love Bad News, Modest Mouse
reading?
- Choke, Chuck Palahniuk
- A Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood
- The Pleasures of the Damned: Poems 1951-1953, Charles Bukowski
- The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde
what I am?
I am just a girl in the world.
1 comment:
When I read this, I thought of this bit from Emerson's Self-Reliance: "The objection to conforming to usages that have become dead to you is, that it scatters your force. It loses your time and blurs the impression of your character. If you maintain a dead church, contribute to a dead Bible-society, vote with a great party either for the government or against it, spread your table like base housekeepers, under all these screens I have difficulty to detect the precise man you are. And, of course, so much force is withdrawn from your proper life. But do your work, and I shall know you. Do your work, and you shall reinforce yourself. A man must consider what a blindman's-buff is this game of conformity. If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right. Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere. We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest asinine expression. There is a mortifying experience in particular, which does not fail to wreak itself also in the general history; I mean 'the foolish face of praise,' the forced smile which we put on in company where we do not feel at ease in answer to conversation which does not interest us. The muscles, not spontaneously moved, but moved by a low usurping wilfulness, grow tight about the outline of the face with the most disagreeable sensation."
Well, that was a longer quotation than I was planning for, but it seemed relevant.
Post a Comment