Discussions and Ruminations on Love

I should really just pause my brain at the point where she encounters happiness, and quit strategising about the maximisation of utility. :)
Getting laid too easy. Finding discursive women too hard. Doing nothing too boring. Being violent too uncivil. Therefore, blabberation...

The [above] is actually about people who don't seek sustainable operations for their happiness. Some are motivated by their lack of having found an object of happiness that lasts with minimal effort; the variance in the degree of effort is what seems to differentiate the seekers from the builders.
Someone just suggested using the Bechdel-Wallace test as a dating filter. Haha. But, it doesn't seem to guarantee anything in the long run.

Driving hundreds of miles out of affection; near death by backseat driving; being told later it was all a waste of time. Hmm. Just another day. // [rewrite:] On the road again. Bites on my arm. Dinners in the forest dark. Near crush overtaking a truck. Entertaining infinite muses. Thankless tasks.

Drinks constructed each morning, and feet rubbed each night. I have studied all of love, service, and despair. What have you learnt of late?
Do not chase the rabbit. Especially if the rabbit is your ex, looks like your ex, thinks like your ex, or is even remotely female. Just. No.
The strange thing about ex-s, if you're not the particularly romantic type, is that they're just occupying that space in memory until you physiologically imprint on the next partner. Whoever that ends up being... but that's life as a male machine, I suppose.

Relationships are a really low priority in my life. So minimum energy really should be expended on them. The ideal relationship is a low-maintenance relationship, because screw me if I have nothing better to do that fuck around for the sake of fucking around. So in between relationships, remembering what it's like to have someone to love is easiest by just referring to past experiences, and given that memory has a 'stack' or Last In First Out structure, obviously, the last person is the first one to come to mind. Oh well.

2013-07-23: On this article:
Continuing in the productive expenditure of consciousness...

I find that the author's highly inclusive concept of exs is reflective of greater emotional sensitivity than my own. Perhaps also it's the legalistic evangelical Christian background that I have... but my notion of exs excludes...

- friends I've talked about love with, extensively, with whom I've never achieved mutual expressions of interest/commitment
- someone I've cuddled with, whom I considered a friend, even though it was obvious that she'd have liked it to go a little further
- someone I watched a movie and held hands with, even brushed lips with, who just never continued that conversation
- numerous subjects of flirtation

Hmm. More to think about. It seems that I don't categorise a relationship as having come into existence unless there was an explicit agreement of scope. Perhaps I'll have to revise my definition to be more inclusive. I wonder how that affects my ex-count. Oh no. What a horrible term.
I probably should try to avoid dating anyone who regularly develops negative sentiments for people. Neutral or positive is ok. Negative... what's the point?

I'm too lazy to initiate one night stands. Sex without conversation is so boring. Plus probability of bad sex just too high. lol. Which isn't to say that one-night-stands are bad. But they're definitely not "the" way to go.

No comments :

Post a Comment