In Answer To Heart of Darkness

Heart and myself had a kind of debate the other day, and since she thought it worthy of writing a post on, I though I'd expand on it.

To be honest, I find myself in broad agreement with much of what she writes, there are only really a few small areas I disagree on.

But this is ultimately because I believe ANY form of love must serve a CONstructive, not a DEstructive purpose.
It cannot be treated in isolation, but only terms of whether it actually achieves anything.

Someone else said something to me recently, which resonated, in fact it's something I've kind of been grasping at for a while, but they said so much better.
'You can love, or be in love, but not always both at the same time.'

And this, of course, is the problem. This is the deadly legacy of the institution of marriage.

Love, yes, love is a good thing. Love is about sacrifice, wanting what's best for the other person- and yes, Heart, feeling protective towards them. It asks for nothing in return.
But don't you feel that for a dog, Heart says?

YES! Not a stray dog, maybe, but YOUR OWN DOG. Fact is, dogs make it easy for us to love them. People try less hard. Dog knows if it gives unconditionally, it gets it back unconditionally. People don't seem to grasp that.

Except we do. We love our children that way- or some of us do. I love my mates that way- and I don't mind saying it, I love them. Of course I do. The close ones. I feel protective towards them, I sacrifice time and money for them and I treat huge areas of my life as essentially, matters that THEY TOO have a right to have a say in. Because of how our lives intertwine.
If I planned on moving, I'd consult them.
If I was thinking of applying for a new job, I'd get all of them to read the terms and contracts.
If I was seeing someone seriously in a romantic context, I'd run her by ALL my close friends, all of them essentially possessing veto powers.

Because what I do with my life affects them. After the years we have spent together, our paths through life will march together to the grave. Anything new in my life, is something new in theirs, and ultimately, I will not do anything with my life, that doesn't meet their approval.
They mean that much to me.

Now of course, the ideal that I THINK Heart is talking about, the TRUE ideal, is a friend of that closeness and quality, with all the rest thrown in. The platonic friendship, plus the intimacy.

Right.

Thing is, for a few thousand years we've botched the whole thing. Why?

Infatuation. Fact is, we've got these daft hormones running round and they fool us.

It's this whole idea of 'chemistry'.
Fact is, a man and woman can collide and some 'chemistry' is set off. They think they're soulmates. Think that fate drove them together.
Crap. Yes, you might click immediately. But do you at this point know how?

Because True Love, is platonic at its root. Its based purely on a connection of the mind. Quite obviously, it's much more than that, but WITHOUT the platonic root, it remains, it stays, just an infatuation.
And infatuations wear off. They wear off once the soil washes away, and with no platonic roots beneath, they collapse and die.

Thing is, you can't always tell at the start. The hormones are busy talking. They'll keep talking for a few months or so, by which time, in nature, they've assured successful copulation and the passing on of genes. And then they've served their purpose.

Now this is the reality of why most relationships tend to last that period. It's also the reality round the sheer misery of most working class marriages of the past few hundred years.



Boy meets girl. Boy has tumble with girl in the hayrick. Everybody knows. Boy feels compelled to marry girl. Boy and girl have babies. Boy and girl discover after the novelty of copious amounts of sex has worn off, they have nothing in common.

But are we to blame? No, our genes FOOL us. They WANT the successful copulation. So they just override our logic. They weren't to know that humans would invent marriage for life and tie people into it before they'd discovered if it was lust and infatuation, rather than a genuine platonic unity that they felt.

Quite often these infatuations turn into something nasty- they can't actually stand eachother, but feel they own eachother, so won't let go of the other.

That of course, is the proof it isn't love.
If you truly loved the person you say you love, yes it would hurt if they suddenly turned round and said they loved someone else.

But you'd LET them. That old piece of wisdom 'Do you love them enough to let them go?'

You see my view is, if you TRULY love someone, you strive to be a positive part of their lives in whatever way is best for the other. Without conditions.

Perhaps the true proof of love, is when it is taken away. Do you hate them, or would you rather stay friends, because that keeps you in their lives, in a good way, to still care for and protect them?
Would you still love them for life, even though they've chosen someone else?

Love is a gift, and a gift confers no rights on the giver.

That's love, I think.

True Love is capable of objectivity, it is the ULTIMATE objectivity.
Infatuation is purely subjective.

It's kind of been a dominating thought of mine since last October, when various events happened to effectively force me to decide what my position on all this ACTUALLY is.
And put bluntly it's this.
Were I to collide with someone I DID fall in love with, even if I was pretty certain she felt the same, the chances are, I'd reject it.

There you go.

Wouldn't stop me loving them, just I'd be BETTER able to do that as a friend, than as a lover.
Fact is, accepting their love and making a commitment, is almost certainly a recipe for disaster. Love isn't enough in itself, not to force two people into a situation which would satisfy neither. Which is what it would be.

If I truly loved someone, why would I try to sell them such a shoddy deal? I work, I blog, I go out with my mates. Don't REALLY see much room in there for anything else. That pretty much fills the schedule. Hell, I've not seen my own grandmother for months and she only lives ten minutes away. And that looks like how it'll be for the foreseeable. Quick flings are feasible, but if I really care for someone, I try steer them away from me, in that sense. It couldn't do either me or them any good.

A few weeks ago I was out for a drink with Dizzy, and I admit I'd had a few and was getting all emotional. Because the funny thing is, I do KIND of love Dizzy. And I think she kind of gets it. We flirt at work, but it's only play flirting. As she once said and I smiled in acknowledgement 'If I ever turned round and said 'Yes xxx, come on, let's do it!', you'd run a mile, wouldn't you?'.
Yes, is the honest answer. I like to stroke her hair, I like to hold her hand, sometimes I even want to kiss her, but the idea of having sex with her just seems so WRONG, even the idea would appall me. It would feel like incest. She's a mate. I just want to protect her.

And yet...
Here I was, after eight pints, my hands in hers, tears in my eyes telling her 'If ANYONE. EVER. Hurt you. I'd hunt them down. You know that don't you? Dizzy, if anyone ever hurt you, you mean so much to me. You're good to me, that means a lot. I just want you to know I care, I mean, not like that, but I care, right? I never want anything from you, except for you to know that.'

That's how I feel about her.

I guess if a woman doesn't inspire a certain sense of protective instinct in me, I find her hard to even LIKE, let alone LOVE.

If her man hit her, I'd intervene. If our boss shouted at her, I'd intervene. But I'd never presume to desire her for myself.

And in point of fact, she's not the only woman I feel that about.

I've always looked back on the moment I lost all respect for Claire. You could say, it was the moment that whatever I thought was love for her, just died.

I came home an hour late- I'd been for a drink with work colleagues. We were supposed to be going for a meal. The fact was, the place we were going still served for another hour at least, but Claire wanted to use it as an excuse to bicker. No, she wasn't going out now. Too late. Eight Thirty is too late to go to the Wetherspoons which serves food till ten.
So I just left her to it. I went to the pub.

I was chatting to Erica the cute Lithuanian barmaid. About Claire, obviously. Not in an especially deragotory way, just trying to make some sense of her more illogical mood swings. Erica's opinion was that Claire was way too possessive 'She hastes me, you know? When I come over, she looks death at me if I even come near you. She thinks I'm going to take you away.'
I nodded in agreement, because Claire thought that about all women, one of the features I most dosliked about her.
Anyway, in storms Claire. 'Well? are we going now?'
I looked up 'You should have been reasonable back at half eight. They HAVE stopped serving now. Do you want a drink?'
'NO! I'm not staying here!' She glared at poor Erica.
I shrugged 'Well, I've got a fresh pint.'

Off storms Claire.

Erica leaned forward 'See? See what I mean? You shouldn't let her speak to you that way, she has no respect for you. You really should consider if you want to be with her forever!'

At this point, Claire suddenly reappeared, as if from nowhere. She grabbed me by the arm and said 'WE ARE GOING NOW!'

And poured my pint over Erica 'And that's for you, you cheap foreign tart!'

And as she dragged me out of that pub, all I wanted to do was run back in and comfort Erica.
Claire lost every tender sentiment I had towards her in that instant.
And she never got it back. She couldn't. Because in that instant, Claire DIDN'T need protecting, another woman did. And the whole reason I stayed with Claire so long, was a gut feeling she needed protecting- that without me to calm her down, she'd just have a nervous breakdown.

So to me, yes, a huge part of love is wanting to put someone under your protection.



So in answer to Heart's post, my view is this.
If you love someone you always want what's best for them. That means protecting them, yes.
It means always acting in the way you think are their best interests.

It means that if you can see that their interests- plus those of the wider human community- are best served by you being their lover- then fine.
But if not, you'll instead make sure you are their true and loyal friend for life.

And I'll finish with the clip Heart did :)