(This was a hybrid, of sorts. It was a retrospective look, a synopsis, and a regular note at the same time.)
So I'm sitting here listening to Teena Marie's "Ooh La La La"...and it pushed me into getting this next one out. I have to admit I had no idea what to write about until I thought: well, if the last one was written wiith the release date in mind, this one should be too. So, since today (or tomorrow, depending on when I put this out) is Valentine's Day...you can guess what the subject is.
"Love...so many people" - okay, I can't even sing in type. I'll just start by going into the vaults...
Y’all running around here talking about “there’s no such thing” and “love is for fools” and all that need to get it together, stop with the self-pity (applicable if your sentiment was experientially induced), and allow yourself to be every bit of the person you can be. (Volume Three, 03/13/09)
Surprise, surprise: I still believe this. Show me a person who says they're perfectly happy being single and I'll show you a liar - myself included. Then again, I wouldn't say I'm perfectly happy. Happy, yes...but not perfectly happy. It's a "que sera sera"/"it is what it is" situation right now. Someone comes along, great. If not, I have more time to work on me and be that much more right when I do find her. Yes, I'm saying when: Joel's message was to receive your inheritance so I'm going with that.
Single people often talk about how they haven't met the right person. I've said it more times than I care to count, among other things. One classic line that I still believe: there's no one out there worth the time and effort I put into relationships. Even my dad said that was a bit harsh. Be that as it may, I know how I am. I know what I do. In my case, it's a Cancerian trait. We love hard. We put our all into relationships. We can't go halfway. We have to have people who understand and can deal with that.
That's part of what love is about: understanding and dealing with things. As alluded to above, my ideal lady is someone who can take that. She doesn't have to equal my effort (although that's obviously preferable), but she does have to understand and appreciate it. I would be wasting time - and hers - if she didn't fit that criterion. That wouldn't make her a bad person, it would just mean that we weren't the right fit. Same goes for everyone. We all have our lists of things we want - some are more relevant than others, but that's another matter - and it's our responsibility to find someone who matches up well with us. Miss (or Mister, as the case may be) Right isn't necessarily Miss/Mister Right For Us.
So say we find people who are right for us, which is hard enough in itself. Yay for us, congratulations. Now comes the question that many of us are too selfish to ask: are we right for them? Whether it be due to the exhausting search or out of pure selfishness, a lot of us stop with our own happiness. They make us happy, that's all that matters. Um, no. If you really love them (or have whatever caring feeling you say you have, if the word "love" scares you), then their happiness should be just as important to you as yours is. Isn't that part of the point of this whole thing? You can 'not care' about anybody. That's not special. I probably have no connection whatsoever to the next woman that walks in the Tallahassee Mall. Outside of normal human compassion, I couldn't care less whether she is fulfilled in her love life. If you have little to no concern for the other person's happiness, they may as well be your "next woman that walks in the Tallahassee Mall". I told someone once that I didn't feel love was characterized by what one does for you, but rather what you do for them. As is a recurring theme in this note, I still believe that too.
That's what gets me about women - sorry, but y'all do this more than we do - professing their love for their SOs. Most of the time it's because of something the man did. He gives good love, he buys her clothes, he cooks her dinner too (points if you know where that's from). I'm not saying that women are unappreciative of the efforts that their men put forth, nor am I saying that they don't put forth equal effort. I see this as an issue of two things: disclosure and definition. It seems to me that (from the small sample size I know) that women are quicker to tell what their men do for them than they are what they do for their men. If true; I don't know whether it's because 1) the men actually do more, 2) the women want to make the men feel appreciated, 3) the women don't want to be seen as doing more for their men than the men do for them, 4) the catch-all combination of the three, or 5) the super-catch-all "other". I can't remember the last time I heard about (once again, not saying it doesn't happen) a woman doing something and saying she did it because she just loves her man that much. Note: I said doing, not buying. Anyone can buy a pair of Js, but there's something to be said for tasks that take physical effort and/or preparation rather than pocketbooks and purses.
We don't look at things y'all - yes, I'm going there with the generalizations: deal with it - do for us and say "man, I love her because she did XYZ". After the shock and surprise, we say "she must love me: she did XYZ". See the difference? The action causes the feeling - not the other way around. If you love someone for what they do, someone else can just as easily capture your love by doing the same thing. As everyone knows in theory but doesn't always follow in practice, it's better to love people for who they are rather than what they do - or how they look or whatever else.
But I'll get back to people in relationships in a second. First I'll finish up with us single people.
I've talked about our lists and whatnot before, and (yet again) my sentiment on that hasn't changed. What I will say, though, is that it might be good for us to place additional priority on the things that are more likely to remain constant. Stated another way: the less susceptible it is to change, the more it should matter to us. I'd be a fool if I fell in love with a girl for her curly hair and then she got it braided the next week. Obviously that's a superficial example (although hair is important to me for personal reasons), but hopefully it helps accentuate the point. If not, more silly examples: what if you like a man because he's tall...and then he loses his legs in an auto accident? If you like a woman because of her shape and she gets pregnant by you (if it's not by you, it shouldn't matter anyway)? People are most accuately defined by their character: that which does not change.
And now...for the non-single people. This section will be much shorter, as I feel it would be dubious for a single person to really talk about in-relationship activity. Actually, I'll just throw two questions out there. Can you say why you're happy in your relationship? Can your partner? If the answer to either question is no, then there are two more: can you act within the confines of your relationship to become happy without making the other person unhappy? Can they do that with you? If the answer to either question is no, then you all have some thinking to do.
Even if you take that part out, I would imagine that in an ideal relationship you would choose the person you're with today if you weren't already together. As such, it's probably not the worst thing to run the "what have you done for me lately" type activity of asking yourself whether things are as they should be. Same questions single people ask before gtting into relationships, you should probably ask every so often with regard to staying. If you can't say everything's alright, it probably isn't...and it's best to confront whatever issues are present. Talk them out...ah, that leads me to the last part.
Last but not least - actually it's "most"...and it's for everyone: if reading is fundamental, talking is paramount. I'm not saying it's a sufficient condition, but it sure is necessary. If you can't talk, you're most likely in trouble. Communication is a basic part of human life, probably the most important non-biological thing we do. If something that basic isn't right, you're drinking lemonade without lemon flavor - and your situation is probably watered down at best. I'l never get why people have such hard times talking to each other about things.
We try to make all this seem so complicated when it really isn't. Love is pretty much a combination of three things: attraction, respect, and ability to communicate. If you have those three things, you should be straight. If not, then...you shouldn't be. Not "you won't be", you shouldn't be. I can't imagine a successful relationship that doesn't have all three of those things. You need the last two for any relationship, and attraction has an obvious fit here. It's way too simple for books and websites and matchmaking services to make all this money. The process is hard, but nothing worth having is easy. I'd talk about the problems that come with our attempts to make the process easier and/or quicker, but this thing would be twice as long as it already is...so I'll stop here.
*I know some of y'all are probably thinking "wait: he said these things were going to deal with black history and/or culture this month. yet this note didn't have any trace of a racial aspect anywhere". I know. That was part of the point: love is universal, and sometimes we have to remember that we are part of a larger universe. One of the most important lessons that we need to learn - in love and in life - is that it's not all about us (as one person in a relationship or as one group of people being part of a larger societal whole). Looking at the bigger picture can make us better people and allow us to add to black history and culture in a way that everyone can appreciate. If we do that, we can do on a large scale what love does on a small scale: bring people together.
No comments:
Post a Comment