From our original archives! Please forgive any old links and formatting quirks.
My dear friend Demetri and I just had an interesting gchat convo about modern (post-modern?) love & relationships. So if Demetri and I are right – and love boils down to a daily decision and we’re all living relationships, or non-relationships, of convenience, or of inconvenience – where DOES that leave romance, passion and, most importantly, commitment?
In the timeless words of the Beach Boys: God Only Knows What I’d Be Without You. And the 2010 reply: I’d be a movie star! A Nobel prize winning scientist! Happy! Are we headed full-speed toward a world where love is the ultimate ball-and-chain?
7:01 PM
Demetri:i loved the happily seperately after write-up
me: oh thank you!
isn’t it a crazy story
7:02 PMDemetri: i love the parallels with the non-date
7:03 PMme: how so?
Demetri: basically we have our needs so well-met that the real economical and biological benefits of formalized relationships wither away to nothing
7:04 PMlike, you don’t need to cohabitate with someone you love any more than you need to ask someone out on a date… these are just social constructions that no longer serve much of a purpose
me: that is excellently put
7:05 PM
Demetri: and the epilogue about those, two, that they only moved in together because of the economy, sort of reinforces that
me: totally!
7:06 PMI want to see the finished movie to see what happens!
7:07 PMDemetri: heheh…hopefully they realize that marriage is about love+logistics
and only the truly fortunate don’t have to worry about the second half of the equation
me: love + logistics… not so romantic…
7:08 PMDemetri: well, it’s varying degrees of romance
depending on the size of the logistics component
technology and wealth shrink it
7:09 PMme: do you think that’s true though?
I think technology and wealth can actually reinforce alienation
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the happiest marraiges are between people of small means…
who have no choice but to be happy andmake it work
Demetri: right
me: prosperity breeds discontent
Demetri: that’s a very good point
7:10 PMi guess i didn’t articulate it well
technology and wealth can mask the lack of affection, but there is still a risk of it falling apart
7:11 PMsome don’t have wealth or tech to bolster their marriage, and have to work harder to maintain that part of things
idk
7:12 PM
me: that makes sense
it would be interseting to find a way to study – I bet someone has
Demetri: like, it is easy to be in love if you don’t actually have to do anything difficult as a result
me: yes exactly
hence the honeymoon period at the beginning of any relationship
Demetri: it also makes it very easy to fall out of love
because there is less investment
me: that’s why I feel like love is a decision above all else
7:13 PMbecause ultimatley in life you are going to need to KEEP deciding to be with that person. and the problem with modern life is we’re bombarded with reasons and excuses to decide not to be with the person…
Demetri: and technological and monetary lubrication that makes it easy not to be
7:15 PMyes… it is all about decisiveness
| Mar 14, 2010 |
0
F-YEAH!
|
1 conversations |
WTF?! Columns
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly struggle with this: why, in a lucky life of satisfying friendships, economic stability, and the, at times, overwhelming difficulty of bringing two people with varying needs and lives together, do people fall and stay in love? Perhaps what is not accounted for in the coversation above is that love is nice, intimacy is nice, sharing your life, accomplishments, failures, and the mundane with a signifanct other who undertands you most of the time, is a relief and joy despite the difficulties or the lack of social conditions that would have historically forced people together. I like love and living together is hard, yes, and so is compromise and the dissappointment that will inevitably come of two people struggling to understand each other, but I still think it’s worth a shot.