From the box office to catchy songs on the radio, our culture is saturated with perspectives about romantic relationships. When the skeletal frame of these narratives are analyzed, we find that they tend to fall into one of two impulses: retaining love, or obtaining love. In the former, a pre-existing love is framed as endangered and in need of reform. An example of this tendency is the song Free Xone by Janet Jackson, where she says “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets cute girl back”. The speaker typically begins with unity, introduces separation, and then ends with unity again.
In the latter, love does not exist … yet, and the goal is to convince the desired partner of what will be once it comes to fruition. An instance is the song Breakin’ My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) by Mint Condition, where Stokley sings “you know I see you, it’s a disguise the way you treat me, you keep holding on to your thoughts of rejection, if you’re with me you’re secure”. The speaker typically begins with separation and ends with a dream of unity. As a culture, we typically think inside these two frames.
I would like to expand our understanding of love a bit further.
Relationships Are Jars for Fireflies
While these impulses are different, they both make the same assumption about love: that it can be and needs to be captured. From these perspectives, love is either a firefly to be retained in its glass jar or obtained in a new one. The problem is: these impulses are woefully out of step with a constantly changing reality. There is no stability in the universe: the oceans ebb and flow, our hearts beat, and the trees grow. The world is constantly in motion – a fact that is both beautiful and frightening. On the one hand, we are amazed and puzzled by its freedom; and on the other, we are afraid because we do not control it. Human beings crave stability, so we invent categories to create predictability in an otherwise unpredictable world. This is the case with love. What we call ‘romantic relationships’ or ‘marriages’ are simply ways of reducing the unpredictability of the universe. Relationships are glass jars that attempt to trap the firefly of love. In applying too many rules, we often fail to realize that we were drawn to the firefly because it was not in a glass jar – but because it roamed freely. Inside the jar, everything that made the firefly interesting and beautiful may begin to die away. The attempt to preserve love can destroy it. The elusive nature of love is not a problem to solve, but a reality to embrace.
The Hole That Makes the World Whole
When we speak of structures, we tend to think in positive terms: the presence of this, the presence of that. However, it is important to realize that every structure is based upon a lack, loss, or void. Just think of the architecture of a house. Many people think that the foundation supports the entire structure – but they miss the fact that a hole had to be dug in the ground to build that. The presence of the house is made possible by a foundational absence. Without the hole, the whole is impossible.
The same goes for love. Love is structured and animated by loss. Love is not an answer, it is a question – a quest to return to the peaceful place of childhood where we found and lost our first love. We say we are “in love” – as if love is a place that insulates us from harm. The template for love is the womb – the place where we were safe and spared from the responsibilities of a harsh life (Brown, 1965;1968). The mother-infant dyad is the original model for loving relationships, which may explain why many people call their significant other “baby”.
Let’s take a step back to the beginning. According to Jacques Lacan, infants are attached to their mother/caregiver. Infants are unable to use language – they communicate to their mother/caregiver in the original, unadulterated tongue: crying. As they grow older, they are weaned off the affection of the mother/caregiver, typically by a domineering paternal figure who screams “No!” For the first time, infants desire their mother/caregiver – meaning they perceive a lack between the goal and its actualization. Child-like cries must be upgraded to a socially-approved form of communication: language. However, language alienates the child because it imposes a world of meaning from without; whereby needs and desires must be framed through the words of an Other, forcing the child to compromise/repress themselves. Thus, “language is a substitute for the body of the mother/caregiver” (Pound, 2008:9) that the child uses in a desperate attempt to restore unity. But the mother/caregiver is forever lost – as the movement of language is set in motion by loss.
Once we begin to use language, there is a hole in our being that can never be made whole. I reject all those movies and novels that end with ‘happily ever afters’. At this point, I introduce a much more sensible perspective on relationships. Recently, two thought provoking questions/statements were posed by Dr. K E Garland regarding biological sex and degrees of commitment to relationships: “What does this mean? Men seem much quicker to say, ‘I don’t think I can deal with this woman.’ Whereas, women are much quicker to say, ‘I can work with this man.’”
At one level, we might account for this in terms of sexism: the fact that men reduce women to accessible and dispensable commodities, whereas women are socialized to ready themselves for a marriageable man (i.e. young girls are being indoctrinated into a ‘Say Yes to the Dress’ culture – where they demand their day in the spotlight in an expensive gown, as opposed to demanding equal pay, health insurance, etc.).
There is another, likely related, explanation here: relationships require a lack to function. While the two statements posed by Dr. Garland appear contradictory, they also share the common denominator of unhappiness. When a man says ‘I don’t think I can handle this woman’, his statement expresses a disenchantment that he is unwilling to work through. When a woman says ‘I can work with this man’, her statement expresses a disenchantment that she is willing to work through. These are opposing responses to the same structural manifestation of loss. Both statements demonstrate that a lack is what constitutes loving relationships.
“There Is No Such Thing As a Sexual Relationship”
The relationship between men and women requires a never-ending chase. Men run away from women, and women run toward men. We cannot call this a “relationship” because the parties in question never “meet” at the Symbolic level. To demonstrate this point, by way of the philosopher Slavoj Zizek, watch this short beer commercial:
In this advertisement, a woman finds a frog and kisses it – transforming it into what she deems a handsome man. When the handsome man appears, the woman prompts him to kiss her. He hesitates, and then kisses her – transforming her into a can of beer. After enjoying a few sips, he asks the beer “you haven’t got a sister, have you?”
There are at least two critical implications here. First, there is an asymmetry between a woman’s fantasy and a man’s fantasy. The woman raised a lowly frog to a perfect man; the man raised a lowly woman to a perfect can of beer. Second, there is a structural difference between the positions of men and women. We can point out that the woman raised the man from a frog – symbolizing a masochistic tendency. But we must remember that women have fantasies without power; while men have fantasies and power. The woman fancied a relationship among humans; the man fancied a relationship to a commodity. The man addressed the woman only when she turned into a can of beer, at which point she was unable to talk back. The fact that the woman disappeared altogether from the commercial demonstrates that, like the house described above, femininity is the hole that makes masculinity whole. A woman can only be recognized to the extent that she beckons to the language of men. Bearing this in mind, we can now state that “love” is what we call the gap between the structural positions of men and women. For this reason, Jacques Lacan argues “there is no such thing as a sexual relationship” because women are positioned as an absence in a world dominated by men. Stating this is not to deny that genitals intermingle. Rather, this is to argue that in the eyes of men – the only eyes that count – women do not exist as women.
References:
Brown, Norman. 1965. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History
Brown, Norman. 1968. Love’s Body.
Pound, Marcus. 2008. Zizek: A (Very) Critical Introduction
See generally the works of Jacques Lacan (specifically, Seminars X and XI)
Prompt: Cling
January 10, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Hey!
I enjoyed reading your post! I look foward to reading more of your posts! Good luck and happy new year!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2017 at 7:20 pm
Hello, thanks for the read and for the follow! I look forward to reading your work – which I will this evening! Happy New Year as well 😁
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Wowzers! I have to think on this for a minute. There are so many good points here. I found myself copying and pasting entire paragraphs! I’ll be back…tomorrow. But I do agree with much that is here. It’s almost as if women don’t exist without men’s approval and acknowledgment, which we know isn’t necessarily true, but it is a social construct from which women continue to try to break free. Okay. I have to think on some of this. But I will respond tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 10, 2017 at 9:12 pm
Haha. Cool! I look forward to your commentary =D
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I agree, K, I actually started reading this the other day but did not immediately comment because there was so much meat here.
Don’t you love it when someone gives you that kind of food for thought?
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 13, 2017 at 2:56 pm
That’s what it is all about, right? I’d rather argue something that is interesting (possibly controversial) as opposed to writing the same material that I know people automatically agree with. That way people can engage =D. I am glad you came back. I saw you read one of my pieces but didn’t “like” this one and I was like awwwwww I alienated herrrrrrr! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 2:58 pm
I did comment love. Check your spam. I’m never not gonna comment😂😂
Your stuff is too juicy just to ‘like’
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Wait what? On which piece did you comment? I see you commented three times on THIS piece. Are you saying you commented on that poem I wrote, too? WordPress better stop messing with my comments!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:05 pm
10-4. I loved the poem and commented. 🙏🏾
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm
lmaooooo. let me check! sorry. i don’t even know how to check my spam. i’m not technologically savvy like that! i need tech support!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:01 pm
And thank you! Apparently I am a “10” on the juice-o-meter lol =D
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:05 pm
LOL!!!
LikeLike
January 13, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I’m bout to be driving so I’ll hit you back on this comment✨
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Darryl is always feeding us through these interwebs 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 4:19 pm
I know right? 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 10, 2017 at 9:51 pm
There is a lot to digest here. I’ll be back bruh! Well written, well researched, and well presented arguments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 10, 2017 at 10:01 pm
Thanks Brother Malakhai! I look forward to your engagement with this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2017 at 11:00 pm
Wow… Really interesting points and a lot of food for thought here! This topic is an obsession and people never stop analyzing it, myself included. The beer commercial is interesting — although what a terrible message, LOL! Upon deeper analysis though — we see that the man might need beer (let’s say sustenance, like food or water) and that is what he really ‘gets’ from the relationship (in the form of sex, reproduction, children.) The woman traditionally needs support (let’s say shelter, protection, provisions) which she ‘gets’ from the man. So the woman will turn the frog into a man (to provide for her) and the man will turn the woman into a beer, or object to satisfy his needs.
Ah, that is just a thought — but historically accurate anyway! It does not put either sex in a good light. But once upon a time women could not own property and sex outside of marriage was considered vulgar and unacceptable…
I like your theory on ‘baby’. I have often wondered about that. I think you are right. The problems come though because both partners expect the other to care for them like a pregnant mother — impossible to do. And of course in the mature relationship they realize they must care for each other.
A lot of other deep thoughts here. I will need time to ponder. them… Great post!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 12:40 am
Hi Christine! I like your take on the beer commercial. It definitely does not put either sex in a good light: women are depicted as naive masochists, and men are depicted as opportunistic sadists. I am mad the dude had the nerve to ask the glass of beer if “she” had a sister!! Geez! Smh!
You raise a good point about some of the progress women have made. Do you think this progress has improved or destroyed the symbolic position of women (i.e. the deficit, lack, absence) in the social order?
For a while, I would kinda scoff at the couples that called each other “baby”. I did not understand them until one of my close friends, who is married, had a child and told me that she never understood love until she was pregnant. Its almost like the cosmos play are playing a cruel joke: we are happy when we are infants who lack consciousness, and by the time we are able to think for ourselves, the happiness is gone. It is like the story of the Garden of Eden: where Adam and Eve were living in paradise without knowledge, but as soon as they acquired knowledge, they were banished from paradise. The Bible is filled with metaphors – so perhaps we can read this as a story about child development and the trauma of being ripped away from our mothers? Definitely interesting!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 12:57 am
The commercial is degrading to both sexes, but we cannot be too hard on men or women for the status they (we!) have been placed in by society’s traditional structures.
I’d say it has definitely gotten better for women. Now, however, I hear talk of ‘femi-nazis’ (over the top feminists) and also MGTOW (men go their own way) which really alienates all of them! You talk to some of these people, it is like they cannot STAND the opposite sex!
It is all a bit of a cosmic joke. Some people claim they can remember the time in the womb. I cannot, I can barely remember toddler stage!
The Bible is filled with metaphors and some say every single story IS a metaphor. So it is perfectly plausible to compare the Garden of Eden and child development. That makes sense, and it is everyone’s experience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:26 am
Good points! Wow @ claiming to remember the time in the womb. That is a huge stretch – because studies show memory begins to form around 2-3 years old. So I would say such people are confusing their desire for safety/symbolic analysis with actual memories!
Perhaps I am a pessimist/nihilist who is detached, but I find it comforting to state that it is a cosmic joke. Don’t you? I find it liberating! It helps me not take life so seriously/ not cry about how cruel life actually is!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 1:42 am
Yes, those ‘time in the womb’ memory people might be confused…
Oh Darryl, there are SO many cosmic jokes in this world! ‘Nature is a Mother… Murphy’s Law’ LOL! Most of the time we are just living so backward. On the other hand, humans are so resilient. They come out of the womb a tiny feeble thing, and look what they grow into. The human body is really amazing, and humans do have amazing capacities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 1:55 am
Christine, I admire your ability to see both sides of the story! Honorable, as we are complex beings. Humans are paradoxes, right? We engage in all sorts of cruelty, but at the same time, we find ways to transcend those conditions. Given this spirit of resiliency, I ask for your wisdom here: what are some things that need to be done, or not done, to improve or change the conditions of women?
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 6:25 am
Thanks Darryl! I have many ideas… To improve the conditions of women we start young, when they are little girls. Parent – daughter relationships are so important. Father – daughter and mother- daughter too. We teach then they are ‘smart, kind and important.’ (Leave out ‘beautiful’, that is too arbitrary! Even if they are gorgeous, someone at school will find a way to tease them about something. So I like smart, kind and important as a foundation for self esteem.) We should get girls involved in sports. Sports build self esteem plus there are less teenage pregnancies when girls are in sports. I also think music and chess are good mind stretchers.
There should be equal pay for men and women, and many institutions have it — but a lot of private industries are not paying women enough. So there should be some system of checking that, an H.R. department. It is so important women get paid what they are worth!
We have to keep reproductive rights for women. I believe in tax funded birth control and abortion. Birth control is the bigger key, abortion as a last resort. Also, adoptions should be made easier. There is too much red tape and shady dealings involved with adoptions.
So I think all that would improve family and work relations and help women. People do these things already, but we could do more. (I will probably think of more things, but those ideas are what come to mind…)
Yes, humans are complicated indeed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 9:30 am
Wow! Nice answer! I like your trilogy of “smart, kind, and important” as opposed to including beautiful. Being beautiful IS arbitrary, and it fixates at the exterior level. Women have to be seen as more than just biological beings that look good!
I did not know about the link between sports and the decrease in teenage pregnancy. That is interesting. The assault on after-school programs in inner cities, with a higher amount of girls of color, now makes more sense; as there are higher teenage pregnancies in these areas (last time I checked).
We have similar views on abortion, birth control, and adoption. This stuff should be common sense, right?! I agree with you that the standing of women has improved (but, as you have pointed out, not equality). Scary thing is: in a week and a half, the Trump administration is coming to town, and they are staying for at least 4 years. They are promising that they will cut health care, elect conservative judges to repeal Roe v Wade, and shut down Planned Parenthood. This is a war on women! These are attempts to maintain the “hole” of femininity that makes masculinity “whole”. In their eyes, women are gaining far too many rights and gaining far too much recognition – and this ruins the entire game for men. The game only works if women are excluded. If women become equal to men, men cease to be ‘real men’ and the system falls apart. They are trying to cut all these rights because freedom for women is a crisis for men.
This is where that resilient spirit you mentioned comes in. On Inauguration Day, there will be a Women’s March on Washington to protest Trump – and there will be a lot of protests around the country. I hope that this consciousness stays alive afterwards!
LikeLike
January 12, 2017 at 4:08 am
There is much work to be done. But they cannot put Jeannie back in the bottle now that she’s out! I do not think they would dare overturn Roe v. Wade (they’d have a real mess on their hands.) However, I do worry about restrictions — a big one would be not being able to get an abortion in your own state. Women having to travel to a different state, the expense, a strange doctor, would be very traumatic.
The sports thing with teenage girls is statistically true. Girls use their energy and aggression — a lot of the hormonal urges are channeled. It is a sin they have cut so many extra-curricular programs in schools. Not just sports but many arts, etc. with nothing to replace it. They say they have no money, but believe me, CEO’s, Superintendents, etc. get paid BIG bucks.
‘Smart, kind and important’ I stole from Viola Davis 🙂 Her line in ‘The Help’ (Great movie if you have never seen it!) The line stuck with me — I thought wow how enlightened! I noticed they left out ‘beautiful’ and I realized how really damaging ‘beautiful’ could be. But tell a kid they are smart, or kind — they will remember that and strive to BE that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2017 at 11:18 am
You are right about Roe v Wade: they will, are, and have been hobbling women at the state-level. I saw that Kentucky recently put more restrictions on abortion this week. You are right: much work is to be done. Many people are finding ways to fund Planned Parenthood by making donations, sometimes, in the name of Paul Ryan or Mike Pence lol.
I know you are familiar with this Christine, but I am going to drop the link to the donation page here so everyone else can see it: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Donation2?df_id=12913&12913.donation=form1&s_src=Evergreen_c3_PPNonDirected_banner&_ga=1.76350037.1780363571.1478968800
I agree that it is a sin to cut these programs, create a vacuum, and not fill it. What are these children supposed to do? They definitely have the money to fund these programs, they just don’t want to. They have the audacity to cut the programs that make young girls (and boys) feel valued, and then they wonder why they turn to sexual relationships or a life of crime to gain a sense of meaning/purpose. And the education system itself is under assault by a wave of charter schools – which is nothing more than capitalism stealing money from the public coffers but not being accountable to the public. The whole mentality is hostile – and the kids suffer. We see it with the fact that cops are in classrooms dragging little girls.
And exactly, its like labeling theory: whatever you call a child, they were internalize it and act it out. We have to convince them that they are smart and kind at any early age if that is what we want from them later on!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 12:20 am
Agreed on both points. It is ironic — a pregnant woman is the one who can truly decide whether she has the means and resources to keep her baby — and yet they would take that right away from her. Then, at the same time, they remove the school programs that MOST help out with parenting. It is an insane asylum!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 12:22 am
My only question from this amazing dialogue is you say love acts as a space or a place we are in. So does that apply to death as well? Like when someone dies and you say “I’m in mourning or I’m in grief.” That was also a very powerful analogy about women’s fantasies don’t necessarily have a power or conquest motive. Do u think that is due to the fact that men can’t produce estrogen? But women can produce testosterone? I’m just curious
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:06 am
Hey Tareau – great questions!
About love, space, and death/mourning: in psychoanalysis, there is a connection between the womb and the tomb. Both places symbolizes safety. The womb is a safe place before birth inside our mother. The tomb is a safe place after death inside Mother Earth.
I think there is a difference between being “in” love and being “in” mourning/grief. Being in love is a safe place, being in mourning is not. We go our whole lives subconsciously grieving the loss of our childhood happiness/ our mothers – so we are always “in” mourning/grief, which makes loving relations so difficult.
That is an interesting point about the production of estrogen and testosterone. I have never considered this. I think that women’s fantasies (at least, as far as the commercial is concerned) stems from their social position. The woman fantasized about a human to human relationship, partly because the woman is not considered human, and she just wants genuine contact.
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:16 am
To dive deeper into the love analogy we have to factor in that when a lady gives a vaginal birth, she creates oxytocin the attachment hormone compared to cesarean. Generally speaking (case by case) women who get cesarean do not have that bond due to them losing out on creating oxytocin. Similar to breastfeeding. Can it be argued that love is not a guarantee in life but death certainly is? Children are not created out of love anymore, so how can the seeker of love, know what it is, when it has no giver? It’s synonymous to there’s no law saying someone has to love you but there are several laws (religiously, morally, spiritually, and even federally) involving death.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:59 am
I agree that love is not promised but death is. That sounds like a good title for a forthcoming work on your part, by the way lol.
You raise a good concern about the “analogy of love” as it pertains to vaginal births and cesarean sections. I am glad you are asking this, as people may read psychoanalysis as stating “facts”. At the end of the day, though, this analysis is exactly what you described: an analogy. That stated, the connection between mother and child is often biological, but it does not have to be. For instance, there are a lot of adoptive mothers/caregivers that love their children. The infant does not know who their biological mother is – all he/she knows is someone is holding them, feeding them, and giving them warmth – and they associate them with “love” and “care” – terms typically associated with “mother”. So even in the absence of breastfeeding and oxytocin, I think there is still a love to be “lost” by growing older, because love is not simply biological. Love is also spiritual. Do you think there is a difference between the connection of a birth mother and that of a non-biological caregiver, and does that determine the quality of the connection or love?
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 9:46 am
Hahahaha forthcoming work on my part hahahaha. I’m being lazy. Hahaha. But yea you are right. A non biological caretaker can and will provide the same love As a birth parent. Let’s use the movie fences for example. Viola took the Lil girl in and raised her as her own. But what happens when the Lil girl grows to a woman and finds out she was adopted? The psychological behind this is most (case by case again) will fill a certain void at that point and probably deception (which is normal). So in a way left field analogy, the little girl theoretically learning love from a lie. A great lie but just black and white it’s a lie. We also have to factor the post modern depression after births as well. I think you are on to something and it’s all connected…
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 10:24 am
That is a great connection to Fences! You are right. I am glad you brought this up, because Rynell was adopted by Rose because her birth mother died. Here are a few possibilities:
If Rose tells Rynell that she was adopted, she is forced to tell her that she LOST her mother years ago. And if Rynell feels deceived by Rose, she may feel as if she LOST her adoptive mother, as well. She may feel as if she lost two mothers at one time.
Loss is what brings love into motion. So, in an attempt to understand the deception/loss of mother(s), she may become pregnant with the unconscious intent of giving the child up for adoption, or adopting a child and not telling him/her about it until later in life. We are governed by our trauma, and we often repeat what has been done to us.
Rynell may put her birth mother on a pedestal as perfect. Whenever she is confronted by a stressful reality, she may imagine what life would have or should have been if her birth mother never died – and she may compare Rose to her birth mother (her image of a perfect world will simply be named “birth mother”).
Or she may just accept the information and feel grateful, lol. It depends on the person.
You raise a good point about postpartum depression. The feeling of carrying a child, I have been told, is absolutely beautiful – beyond words. It is the bond of all bonds – a being that you brought into this world loves you for YOU. I am sure there is a biological explanation as well, but I view it more spiritually/symbolically than anything else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 10:31 am
Man spot on my man. Spot on
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Thank you for sharing great posts Darryl. You have made a meaningful point in the end.
When you said that the man only speaks to the women when she had turned into a beer (Consumable Material) when she has no tendency or power to answer. This point also justifies numerous situations of love (so called) relationships where only man’s opinion and choices matter but there is absolutely no time and realization of what would the woman have to say about things and matters of daily life.
In some backward regions of my country, couples, even who had been married for a long time, spend their lives as if the woman is only there to have sex with, take pleasure from and reproduce to have a family (all on demands on the man, head of the family). In literal meanings, the woman in such relationships would not be allowed to have a single opinion about any matter of household or life. If some brave woman dares to break the traditional silence, she would be labelled as a bad wife.
Love is, unfortunately, caged in many parts of the world. You have made a great post here! 👍
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Hello Habiba. Thanks for sharing the situations in certain regions of your country. That is absolutely horrible. This has been the case and is the case, to varying degrees, all over the planet it seems.
The beer commercial struck me – because reducing the woman down to consumable material and not allowing her to speak just shows that she is a either a “thing” or an “absence” in his eyes.
I am glad you know to say that there is “so-called love” – as, under such a system, we have to problematize what we conceive of as love. To paraphrase Jimi Hendrix, we have a love of power, when we need to believe in the power of love.
Thanks, as always, for tuning in =D
LikeLike
January 12, 2017 at 5:22 am
Exactly.. I am glad you have come forward with this observation which is simply ignored in a wide population.
I feel blessed to have a background of Humanities and Social Sciences because of which I can pin point many things issues like these. May I know if you have relevant academic background as well.
It is a pleasure to read your posts.
Best
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2017 at 10:59 am
Yes! Thank you for reading Habiba! It is a pleasure to be in touch with you, and to read your posts as well!
Looks like you and I have something in common: we both have backgrounds in Humanities and Social Sciences! Specifically, I have a Masters in Sociology and a Bachelors in Psychology. What specific field(s) do you have backgrounds in?
LikeLike
January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm
I see! Your posts clicked in my mind just that. I had Sociology and English Literature as my majors in High School. My bachelors is in Development studies.
Psychology is one of my interests though. I have a great will to study psychotherapy in particular, soon.
Good to have met you in blogging community Darryl. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Hi Habiba! That is awesome! Those fields are right up your alley! I am glad to be in contact with you =D Have a great weekend my friend!
LikeLike
January 14, 2017 at 2:34 am
It is a pleasure! Cheers! 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Awesome post. That’s all I have to say 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 1:37 pm
Thanks for your support my friend! It means a lot =D I hope you are having a good week!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 2:47 pm
Thank you! I hope you’re week is going good too! I’m sicker than I have been in a LONG time, but I’m straight otherwise! Thank YOU for always coming with the thought provoking entries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2017 at 7:58 pm
☺ Sending positive vibes your way! I wish you a speedy recovery!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm
aw thank you so much!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Aight Darryl! I’m back my dear. #1: “Human beings crave stability, so we invent categories to create predictability in an otherwise unpredictable world” yes, yes and YES! This baffles me to no end. I agree that we tend to use love and relationships as means for predictability and stability, all while ruining the very liberation of it all. Love CANNOT be captured or retained. The most one can ever do is live in each moment, if one can do this, enjoying what’s here and now. This includes love! I so agree that we’ve tried to use marriage as a way to KEEP love. It’s impossible though. Even if I think in an extreme, death, that which was will one day never physically exist. Nothing is forever.
#2: “Once we begin to use language, there is a hole in our being that can never be made whole.” I’m not sure about this one luv. I struggle with thinking that there is a hole that can never be made whole. I tend to believe that we’re already whole and that we spend our entire lives seeking that which already exists within ourselves, love and wholeness. We seek this through what we’ve mentioned above ^^^ love, relationships, marriage. To what end? We don’t need other people to make us feel whole, whether those are parents, spouses, or children. Ultimately, what you need is within you.
#3: This final point is conflated with media, which usually rely on societal stereotypes, so I’m not sure I can agree wholeheartedly. For example, “We cannot call this a “relationship” because the parties in question never “meet” at the symbolic level” predisposes that we’re starting at the same stereotyped point that you make right before this statement. I don’t want to necessarily argue the point here, but I do want to mention this is why I use qualifiers, such as “seems” and “sometimes” because, as you know, all men do not function the same, and neither do all women. So, I guess my point is that there can be a such thing as a “sexual relationship,” pending the two individuals begin at a similar level of emotion and understanding, which I believe can be done.
#4: I want to also share my opinion about something that you and Tareau discussed. I was adopted when I was over a year old. I didn’t find out until I was 12. I felt exactly what you and Tareau said. I felt immediately detached from my adopted mother and also deceived by her and my entire family. I also felt abandoned and detached from my biological mother, who I’d never met. From my own experience, I can say, yes love can develop between a non-biological parent in lieu of the biological love one might have developed; however, circumstances can also cause that love to dissipate, quickly.
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 13, 2017 at 12:39 pm
” I tend to believe that we’re already whole and that we spend our entire lives seeking that which already exists within ourselves, love and wholeness. We seek this through what we’ve mentioned above ^^^ love, relationships, marriage. To what end? We don’t need other people to make us feel whole, whether those are parents, spouses, or children. Ultimately, what you need is within you.”
K!!!!!!!!! YAAAASSSSS!!!!
This is exactly what I think. It’s all an illusion; this idea of separation and being made to feel that completion only comes through our relationships (mostly romantic ones).
That said, I am still in awe of so many of the points that Darryl made.
As I was reading the part about the woman being turned into a can of beer, I couldn’t help thinking of the saying:
“Women marry men hoping they will change while men marry women hoping they won’t!”
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 13, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Hi Dr. Garland. Sorry for the late response. Until Lady G liked your post and responded on it, I was not receiving a notification for what you wrote. Otherwise I would have responded sooner.
Thanks for reading and engaging this piece! As you know, this was inspired by what you wrote – and by now I think you are seeing a trend, that whenever I interpret your work I take you wayyyyyy out to left field lol.
I like the second point you raise. I can certainly appreciate someone being uncertain about or rejecting the claim about language. This comes from dense psychoanalytic theory – which is notorious for outlandish claims. In the interest of conversation, allow me to offer two perspectives: one that pushes your uncertainty/disagreement a bit, and one that agrees with you. I know you are not religious (either am I), but I think the point about language creating a hole aligns somewhat with the story of the Garden of Eden: humans were living in a wholesome paradise, living as “One” with God with no self-consciousness. The minute they acquired self-consciousness, they acquired sin and became death-bound beings who needed to beg for forgiveness. Language, here, can be interpreted as the self-consciousness that damn us: once we develop knowledge of ourselves, we lose that original state of paradise and wholesomeness. The moment we become conscious of ourselves, we become conscious of what we are not: we are not our mother – thus meaning we suddenly realize she is at a distance from us, and that she can/may leave, etc … a loss.
I admit: I have my own reservations about the theory of language, as I have always liked Eastern philosophy (particularly, Alan Watts and Jiddu Krishnamurti), especially those who argue that we are part of a universal Self, One, but we are playing a game of cosmic hide and seek. The word “search” derives from the same word for circus/circle ; because whenever we are searching for something, it is an absolute circus, and we are walking in a circle. It’s like watching a dog chase their tail. We are looking for ourselves. Just a few months ago, I posted a very short poem on my page that aligns with your view. It is titled “We Are the Only Destination”. I have condensed it a bit here: “when our dreams are forgotten they accumulate to create millions of planets. Telescopes are haunted by a faint sense of déjà vu. The quest for knowledge is a desire to return. We are the only destination.” I think the point about language is kinddd of compatible with your view – as there is an agreement that we were whole, and that we are trying to become whole again. Psychoanalysis is just a little less optimistic as to whether we actually do so lol =D
To your third point: do you think there is more at stake here than media stereotypes? Sexism is a political, economic, and social system that uses the media to degrade women via stereotypes. Usually, when we hear of something being a stereotype, we know it is false. But we should also remember that stereotypes are powerful, as they are handed down by those in power. Stereotypes are a version of reality – it does not have to be true, or ethical, or morally correct, it simply has to exist. All Mexicans are not rapists, that is a stereotype. But the stereotype persists because it is handed down by people in power (Trump) and because it has power over people: Mexicans are arrested and deported for being rapists. So stereotypes, while clearly false, still create material consequences. That is why I included the beer commercial. Of course, I do not agree with it – but the larger point is that people in power circulated it in an effort to maintain their power over women. Do you think that stereotypes captured in the media have pedagogical value? Did the beer commercial cheapen this piece? Add nothing? Enhance it?
I like your point about qualifiers. Thank you, and thank you for telling us about your adoption.
I like your view that a sexual relationship can exist “pending the two individuals begin at a similar level of emotion and understanding, which I believe can be done”. I agree with your statement, as long as there is emphasis and clarification placed on the “can”. It can certainly be done … right after we destroy the structure of sexism! How can there be a “sexual relationship” if there is no human relationship? The words “Men” and “Man” and “Mankind” are used to refer to the entire human species, but when we say “Women” or “Woman” – we are only referring to the feminine gender. This is because men, the masculine gender, is the template for humanity. To be human is to be recognized as a man. Women are not recognized as human, because they are not men. This begs the question: can women EVER be considered/recognized as human? I think we need to rethink the entire category of humanity, as it is thoroughly tainted by maleness. That is why, at one level of analysis, there can be no sexual relationship because one of the parties does not properly exist. It’s a relationship of a human to a thing; a relationship of a human to a …lack. Until we address this, the “emotion and understanding” between the two individuals is, more or less, a reflection of the power imbalance at the societal level. Or do you think it can exist IN SPITE of this?
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm
mmmhmmm..lol I thought you were just thinking for a long time, like me!
I appreciate all of these questions and the fact that questions always bring about more questions. I’ll be thinking about these questions…offline 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 4:31 pm
=D you see, this is why I started blogging! You’re the best! Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Wow Dr. Garland. This was a great response and input To Darryl’s already brilliant commentary on love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 14, 2017 at 2:27 pm
Thanks luv! I thought about it for a minute lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Go head on Man!
You’ve started so many meaningful and valuable conversations with this post!
And yes…we are always on a similar wavelength!
Do I need to tell you that I am a fan?
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2017 at 2:52 pm
Lady G! How are you doing?! This was the post I was referring to: when you talked about being a mom it made me think of this lol. I am glad you support my work – even if you do not agree with everything. Total agreement is overrated, right!? That’s boring and not generative of any discussion! I am a fan of yours always =D
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 10:51 am
I am going to be that person and say why are you crushing my happily ever after dreams? lol Although I know it’s full of shit but I am such a cheesy romantic at heart. lol I’m also a person who thinks a lot too and so I do wonder if the way we, as a society, think of love is really healthy for us. You make some of the points I thought about like love not really meant to be kept in rigid confines. Love, at its best, is free-flowing and with that comes a lack of control which is scary for us humans, which you, too, also mentioned. I also wrote about the fairytale and how it ties into media that was given to us as children. You can read it here if you like: http://www.tunisiajolyn.com/2016/02/16/the-potential-reason-why-men-and-women-have-a-hard-time-understanding-each-other/ And I see you took it one step further with the womb/infant stage which would make sense. Everything does seem to come full circle in this Universe whether we realize it or not. Love is definitely not absent from the full circle stages as well. Thanks for this thought-provoking piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Hey!!! I am glad this piece was thought-provoking for you. I felt compelled to write this piece because everyone seems to have the same linguistic vocabulary for love – and yet, many women are in downtrodden positions. So yes – I wonder if there is something wrong with the way we are conceiving of love from the jump.
Lol – I subscribe to a similar view of love as you do. I think it is necessary, right?! If we don’t, we are in a very dark place where we cannot enjoy the company of our loved ones to an extent. Maybe life requires illusions just so we can remain sane – and love is a joyous illusion (one that is absolutely necessary, though … if that makes sense, lol). I am on my way over to your page to check out the piece you have linked here! =D
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 4:40 pm
I believe love is who we are once we take off all the human stuff. lol I remember seeing an interview with Marianne Williamson and she said like “You know when you meet someone for the first time and you two are in complete bliss and then it changes? Well you were actually more yourself in the beginning stages but then your fears and doubts made you more cautious and less open to love.” I am totally paraphasing but it went something like that and I was like wow… I never thought about it that way. So that’s another angle one could take too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm
“love is who we are once we take off all the human stuff” … now THAT was a bar, lowkey!
I like that perspective. We all put on masks and end up being disingenuous. It is hard to sift through all of those layers – the mask ends up fooling us! There are so many different perspectives on love – it is great. That is the beauty of it. We all have our different takes on it; it ultimately evades definition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Yup that’s true. I guess the best definition is love is love. And then everyone can throw in their interpretations in that definition. lol
LikeLike
February 1, 2017 at 6:06 am
Hi Darryl! I’m not sure that I agree with everything you say, but I do think you expertly argue your case on many points. I personally think ‘love’ is stable. The way humans treat/react to/interpret love varies widely from individuals to communities, to nations. That said, because we as humans have our own individualistic interpretations of the way love features in our ever-changing lives does not in my opinion mean that it is an unstable structure. I think it is humans who ‘change’ and not ‘love’. Love is quite simply what it is: A quantity which shows that you feel very deeply for another individual, cause, or a belief. That does not change. You can change how you ‘feel’ about the individual, cause or belief, but it is you that changes, not love that changes. It is like saying that sugar is sweet, but if you want you can also decide that it is bitter, depending on how circumstances have changed for you. That is of course is a nonsense. Sugar is sweet and will always be sweet until you change your opinion of it. In the same way love means that you care deeply for something or someone and you will stick by that come what may.
On another point men and women are equally capable of deep and great love. In my view, men don’t necessarily run from it and women don’t necessarily run toward it. That sentence alone makes a mockery of the great and wonderful emotion that is love. Men and women may feel may feel many things, and they can choose to love or not to love. That is life. Men and women can also pretend to love in order to gain favours. That is not love in its true sense – that’s plainly ‘using’ love as a tool. Through history there is much evidence of this. For instance in many cases in order to get sex, many men will tell you that they love you. They don’t love you they want sex – this is a strategic approach. Women, historically have been fed a whole lot of nonsense about ‘Prince Charming’ coming and ‘living happily ever after’. What that is all about – nobody knows! I bet you probably have an answer to that though along with a quotation from some Professor or other. LOL
My conclusion is that love is stable and powerful and necessary and does not change. The thing that is variable is the way humans interpret it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 9:44 am
Hello Marie! Thank you for reading and leaving such a beautiful comment. I am glad that you disagree with some parts – that makes life much more interesting!
I am struggling to comprehend your position here. Would you be so kind as to clarify your main argument? I will quote you verbatim:
1. “I think it is humans who ‘change’ and not ‘love’ ”
2. “Love is quite simply what it is: a quantity which shows that you feel very deeply for another individual, cause or a belief”
3. “You can change how you ‘feel’ ”
4. “Men and women may feel many things, and they can choose to love or not love”.
5. “..the great and wonderful emotion that is love”
6. “My conclusion is that love is stable and powerful and necessary and does not change”.
Based on these statements, you are stating that human emotions change, love is a human emotion, but love does not change. Your conclusion contradicts the premises of the argument – as the logical conclusion is that love DOES change.
How did you arrive at your conclusion? There seems to be a piece of information that is missing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 11:29 am
Thanks Darryl. I will get back to you on the points you raise at some point, just not this afternoon – sorry!
One thing, I do have the energy to say though is that I stick by what I said about love not changing. Human emotions and the concept of love are not one and the same thing. It’s how you interpret love that changes. Love (the quantity that I talked about, for want of a better description does not actually change. If you look up the meaning in any good dictionary you will see what it means to love.
Respectfully, Marie
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 11:54 am
Hi Marie. The main point of this piece is that we need to move beyond the dictionary. Why? Because when we use words to define a phenomena, we are putting it into a cage. There is an old saying: “the word kills the thing”.
I will say this: no dictionary on the planet defines love as a quantity – because a quantity is a mathematical term that refers to amounts, not feelings.
Are you religious, Marie? I am not judging, I am simply asking .. because your argument is that love exists outside of human interpretation, and never changes – which is similar to the Christian argument that God is inside of us, but He is also outside of the universe and never changes. Therefore, love = God. If this is, indeed, your argument – let me know – so we can switch gears a bit.
Speak soon,
Darryl
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I am not avoiding your question Darryl, but I am a bit tight for time to answer fully at the moment, so now I have two answers pending! 🙂
But what I will say is how do you define an ‘unknown quantity’. I have used this quite a bit – and judging by what you say, I have been using it incorrectly. I had assumed that an ‘unknown quantity’ related to something that you were unsure about and needed to give some thought to. That is what I meant when I said ‘quantity’. You’re obviously more intelligent than I am or will ever be. I have not gone to university, nor do I have a degree, and I sometimes find when talking to ‘educated’ people that I am out of my depth. Oh Hum! 🙂
Perhaps we’d better just leave this topic alone because I feel a leetle intimidated – maybe it’s the time of the month. I don’t know! LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Ms Marie – please, come on! Talk to me, why do our conversations always turn down this road? It is not about intelligence level – whatever that may mean. I am just asking you questions because I want to have a dialogue with you. Love is something we can all testify to – and I just want you to elaborate on your original comment. I would not press you if I did not care about your opinion.
Lol @ it being your time of the month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 12:42 pm
I am talking to you sweetheart! If I wasn’t I would’ve just ‘liked’ and not ‘commented’ at all. I’m feeling a little fragile at the moment, and I really need to concentrate to address your questions as I know you don’t suffer fools gladly. I don’t want to dash off a comment for you to come back and rip me apart. LOL
It is NOT FUNNY the time of the month – believe me!
I am going to get back to you in the next day or two so watch this space. 🙂
Our conversations don’t ‘always turn down this road’ – I beg to disagree! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Okay. I look forward to your thoughts! Have a good day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 1, 2017 at 12:44 pm
🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 5:02 am
Hi Darryl. I said I’d be back to respond to your comment of 1st February. I don’t think I’m contradicting myself at all. I think that you might be struggling to understand my position because it doesn’t fit in with your view. And that’s ok, because I don’t think that you necessarily need to agree with me. Love doesn’t change. It is the human response to ‘love’ that changes. I can’t put it any more simpler than that. The concept of love will always be the same and how it is defined. I think love means that you support and care for someone in good times and bad times and more especially in bad times. If someone does something to make you feel differently about them e.g they break your best china tea cup and you stop feeling that you want to stop supporting. caring in good times and bad times, then it is ‘you’ that has changed, and not love that has changed. You have changed your feelings – love hasn’t changed at all. It still means what it meant initially. That doesn’t change. I’d like to quote Shakespeare here (badly, because I don’t have the exact words to hand) : “Love does not bend with the remover to remove …”. I take that to mean that love does not change because the person (the remover) has changed their view about loving the person.
Now to me that does not sound contradictory at all. If it does to you, I’m sorry!
If you don’t mind I’ll respond to the other couple of questions you asked here as it is easier to do so, and I’ve lost your original on my notifications page.
Yes I do have a belief but that is not the reason I feel the way I do about your question. In other words, the fact that I have a faith does not necessarily influence the way I support some of the opinions that I choose to have.
The next point is that: [I have just put your points you wanted addressed here] with ref to your final paras about ’emotions’ is that emotions do change, but it is the person that changes their emotions. The actual emotion felt , be it anger, love, anxiety, sadness cannot actually change, but the person feeling the feelings can changet. That is, if you are sad, when you then become happy, that doesn’t mean that the state of being sad changes, it is you that changes, not the sadness.
“1. “I think it is humans who ‘change’ and not ‘love’ ”
2. “Love is quite simply what it is: a quantity which shows that you feel very deeply for another individual, cause or a belief”
3. “You can change how you ‘feel’ ”
4. “Men and women may feel many things, and they can choose to love or not love”.
5. “..the great and wonderful emotion that is love”
6. “My conclusion is that love is stable and powerful and necessary and does not change”.
Based on these statements, you are stating that human emotions change, love is a human emotion, but love does not change. Your conclusion contradicts the premises of the argument – as the logical conclusion is that love DOES change.
How did you arrive at your conclusion? There seems to be a piece of information that is missing.”
What is the piece of ‘information that is missing” here Darryl? I don’t see anything missing, but as you seem to think there is, then please tell me what you think it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 10:05 am
Hello Marie. Thank you for keeping your word and answering my questions! I hope all is well.
Just to clarify: I am not interested in converting you to my view on love. If you scroll through other people’s comments on this thread, you will find that a few people disagree with me. I do not mind that. So my confusion does not stem from disagreement – my confusion stems from your premise not matching your conclusion. I am saying that you are contradicting yourself. This has very little, if anything, to do with my position – I am trying to get you to fine-tune yours.
I will quote you verbatim: “love doesn’t change. It is the human response to love that changes”. Okay. But let me ask you a question: where do human emotions, such as love, come from? They come from human beings. Without human beings, humans emotions do not exist. Therefore, human emotions depend on the existence of human beings, and we cannot have human beings without emotions – so they rely on each other. When the emotions change, the human changes; when the human changes, the emotions change. Human beings and human emotions are connected; you cannot have one without the other. What happens to one also happens to the other. But you are arguing that you can have human emotions WITHOUT human beings to feel them. This is physically impossible. Love does not exist outside of human beings; love exists inside of us. Love is a human emotion, so it cannot just float adrift in outer space with the benefit of being “stable” while the human beings who feel them constantly “change”. And look at it this way: if human beings are not stable, human interpretation is not stable, either. This means that when we interpret love, we interpret it as not stable – which means it is not stable. We are our interpretations at the end of the day. The only way we could argue that love is stable is if we assume the presence of an unchanging, external force who interprets love for us: God. (Shakespeare was religious). Does this make sense?
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 11:26 am
Hi Darryl. Thanks for this. I wasn’t suggesting for one moment that we should agree with each other, so apologies if it might have come across that way.
What you have to say is interesting. You clearly like to argue a point and so do I sometimes, but sadly not on this occasion. I to some degree see what you are saying and to that degree, I agree. But I still think that what I think is valid and makes sense and is not in anyway contradictory. I think you fail to see my point and I am not going to try to convince you anymore – it’s simply not what I want to do. I’ve made a point, I stick with it, and I am not going to change my opinion because you want to have a good debate about this.
I do admire you love of a good discussion and usually if I’m up to it, I’ll argue to the death. But why should I argue about ‘love’? I can’t think of one good reason!
I’m on God and Shakespeare’s side on this one Darryl. Does that make sense? lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Lol fair enough. Marie, I am not trying to disagree with you. I just wanted you to clarify yourself and admit it was a religious argument about God – which is the “missing link” in your original argument. That is all! Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Lol Darryl! So you agree with me? Joke!!! I know you don’t! It wasn’t a religious argument though, whether I believed in God or not, I think I would still feel the same way. So we’re not agreed on the “missing link”, but if that makes you feel happy/better, I’m all for that. As the bible says: “A soft answer turneth away wrath …” 🙂
Take care and have a good Monday now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Lol. Hilarious. Take care hun! Have a good day ☺
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Darryl called me “Hun” everybody!!! You saw it here first!!!! LOL
You’re a good guy – I know you like to debate. Do you belong to a debating society? Did you belong to one at Uni? 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm
I like you Marie. I know you don’t think I do, but really .. I do. Please don’t mistake my pressing you for being hostile – my being hostile is just ignoring altogether.
Lol, nah I have never belonged to a debate society – but I have wanted to! I study lawyers debate patterns and tactics and such ☺
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Oh Darryl I have never ever thought that you don’t like me. I have found you a little intense sometimes because you are ardent about your discussions – I guess you have a love (get it?!) for it.
You are going to go far young man! But please try to see that your ‘hostility’ isn’t mistaken for that – I know now it’s only you warming to your theme and as you get older you might see that you change. That’s not an insult by the way! :)))
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 1:15 pm
I agree. I think I will. I hope that I will. I am trying to become softer in my positions. I need practice. So by all means, continue to have discussions with me so I can improve into the person you know I can become ☺
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2017 at 1:16 pm
That’s a deal! :)x
LikeLike