Today and over the past few days and weeks I have found reassurance in one thing.... I am not alone.
I have spent the past few weeks observing, and obviously consumed with my own situation, I didn't give enough thought to what I was seeing in others. What I have discovered though is one truth: one person cannot love enough for the two. It. Will. Never. Work.
Those of you who have read my blog know there is this guy. He has been here. He has gone. He has returned, and my heart transitioned every time he made a move, but inevitably every time the bottle of sand and water was shaken, the sand always settled back to love. But THANKFULLY today is not about me. It's not about him. It's most definitely not about us. It's about every one else.
I can think of many couples upon immediate recollection where one person is doing the loving. One person is doing the catering. One person is doing the work, and I believe that is because at some point along the way (as I had) that one person decided that s/he could love enough for the two of them.
There are many senerios, but in order to not protect the privacy of those who have entrusted their stories to me, I won't go into detail. I will only say that I am reassured to learn that guys deal with this just as hard as we gals do.
I have this one dear friend, and he loves. He loves hard, and harder than the one the loves. I used to believe, "well that I how it's supposed to be. The guy is supposed to love first. The guy is supposed to love harder." But after watching my friend love, and love, and not get nearly half of what he's reciprocated back, quite frankly it pisses me off. And maybe he should love hard. Maybe he should love first, but that word in itself indicates there is or should be a second, and that second should be the one he loves meeting him more than halfway.
The title of this blog says reassurance and disturbance. I am DISTURBed because I wonder WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THIS METHOD?!?! I have always-- for obvious reasons- had issues with love unrequited. But it really leaves you to wonder what SICKO could come up with such a thing. Love, unconditional love, true love, is hard enough as it is. Why would someone allow love to be one-sided. Does the keeper and bestower of emotion really not have a clue to how absolutely painful to continuously pour your love and wait with the smallest ounce of hope that it will at some point be poured back.
I still believe the guy should love first. He should love hard, but that is because his charge is great. He is to be the provider, the protector, the head of his home. Just like presidency that title is great but with such a great title comes great responsibility. Therefore, I too believe that the the responsibility of the recipient of that love is great. One cannot successfully provide, protect, and lead without support. So should a woman -- the recipient of this great love-- cater to her protector, provider? Yes. Please understand i am not using protector-- provider in the "normal sense." I am not saying women should be barefoot pregnant home/baby makers... I am all about women independence. But in the context of relationship, she should support her man -- ideally this is the same person who should without hesitation give his life for hers.
This doesn't nearly come close to all that I have to say on this subject. But I had to get that part out -- but now I have to get back to cleaning my house (it's a seven hour process-- but it looks like help has arrived!).
The last thing I will say, is that things would be tons easier if we just used Cupid and his arrows, or went back to the bethrotal process.... I know my life would be easier, and my heart would have a lot less superglue residue from the rebonding of pieces that have been shattered repeatedly over the past decade.
I have spent the past few weeks observing, and obviously consumed with my own situation, I didn't give enough thought to what I was seeing in others. What I have discovered though is one truth: one person cannot love enough for the two. It. Will. Never. Work.
Those of you who have read my blog know there is this guy. He has been here. He has gone. He has returned, and my heart transitioned every time he made a move, but inevitably every time the bottle of sand and water was shaken, the sand always settled back to love. But THANKFULLY today is not about me. It's not about him. It's most definitely not about us. It's about every one else.
I can think of many couples upon immediate recollection where one person is doing the loving. One person is doing the catering. One person is doing the work, and I believe that is because at some point along the way (as I had) that one person decided that s/he could love enough for the two of them.
There are many senerios, but in order to not protect the privacy of those who have entrusted their stories to me, I won't go into detail. I will only say that I am reassured to learn that guys deal with this just as hard as we gals do.
I have this one dear friend, and he loves. He loves hard, and harder than the one the loves. I used to believe, "well that I how it's supposed to be. The guy is supposed to love first. The guy is supposed to love harder." But after watching my friend love, and love, and not get nearly half of what he's reciprocated back, quite frankly it pisses me off. And maybe he should love hard. Maybe he should love first, but that word in itself indicates there is or should be a second, and that second should be the one he loves meeting him more than halfway.
The title of this blog says reassurance and disturbance. I am DISTURBed because I wonder WHO THE HELL CAME UP WITH THIS METHOD?!?! I have always-- for obvious reasons- had issues with love unrequited. But it really leaves you to wonder what SICKO could come up with such a thing. Love, unconditional love, true love, is hard enough as it is. Why would someone allow love to be one-sided. Does the keeper and bestower of emotion really not have a clue to how absolutely painful to continuously pour your love and wait with the smallest ounce of hope that it will at some point be poured back.
I still believe the guy should love first. He should love hard, but that is because his charge is great. He is to be the provider, the protector, the head of his home. Just like presidency that title is great but with such a great title comes great responsibility. Therefore, I too believe that the the responsibility of the recipient of that love is great. One cannot successfully provide, protect, and lead without support. So should a woman -- the recipient of this great love-- cater to her protector, provider? Yes. Please understand i am not using protector-- provider in the "normal sense." I am not saying women should be barefoot pregnant home/baby makers... I am all about women independence. But in the context of relationship, she should support her man -- ideally this is the same person who should without hesitation give his life for hers.
This doesn't nearly come close to all that I have to say on this subject. But I had to get that part out -- but now I have to get back to cleaning my house (it's a seven hour process-- but it looks like help has arrived!).
The last thing I will say, is that things would be tons easier if we just used Cupid and his arrows, or went back to the bethrotal process.... I know my life would be easier, and my heart would have a lot less superglue residue from the rebonding of pieces that have been shattered repeatedly over the past decade.
Comments