Thursday, 3 May 2012

best. drama. series. ever.

i never really understood relationships. parents and children; boyfriend and girlfriend; husband and wife; etc. even the most basic relationship between friends continues to puzzle me to this day. i think this enlightenment about my lack of knowing came when i first saw an episode of house, where the anti-hero (house) mentions to his best friend (wilson) that friends only exist because of a 'social contract'. i cannot remember the philosophy in its entirety, and the episode probably did not centre around this, but of importance is the concept that we are all predatory beings, and friendships are a mutual benefit, where we invest (emotionally, financially, temporally, and cognitively) in the hopes that one day, when we require cashing - out, that friend is bound by some moral value, or reciprocation, to return the favour. this is why morally bankrupt individuals can exploit the system, like parasites who feed when they need but feel no desire to extend their friendship beyond what is necessary, and some friends would quickly abandon all concept of relationship when the times get tough, or at least the outlook is bleak and there would seem to be no further use of said friendship. of course, even the most optimistic amongst us could argue for the flaws in this idea, but it is an easily-extendible one, that those who see past the simple use of friends are just more patient or play their hands closer to their chests. for posterity, in the episode of house, though he preaches so, house eventually ends up acting above and beyond his ideals, and though he will not admit it, the episode will go on to show that even the cynic in him is soothed by the need for his one real friend.

moving on, as all will quickly question the motif of this post, is the even more complex relationship between partners. most easily described as boyfriend/girlfriend, i am not quick to exclude boyfriend/boyfriend and the various variants of vagary-inducing relationships. semantics and generalisations aside, i cannot fathom the need for this, but let us pen it down to being 'human nature' - the need for another so special that (s)he / it warrants a whole new set of rules and relationship dynamics. having myself reached but failed to grasp any semblance of this, i cannot begin to explain the concepts that apply, but, just like the 'social contract' idea between friends, i would imagine that this rule does not yet break. but i am wrong. apparently.

in its simplest, i would hope that the very basis of friendships holds true (first and foremost) in a budding 'love' relationship; that the portends of mishap may be reason to abandon ship, but otherwise, we tread cautiously and hope that the increasing value of investment does not creep up upon us that we one day wake up bankrupt or in debt. debt so deep that we cannot exit the relationship any more - and this is what is defined as commitment. alternatively, some may want to invest entirely, and (god forbid) hope that the other does as well, and i must admit that i am guilty of such charge, though no longer. the individualist in me (and us all) should rise above this, for it is ironic that such reluctance to invest is perceived as a strength and only encourages the other to invest - a cat and mouse game that i will never understand.

and yet, going back to that basis, one would imagine that cradling and nurturing said investment would be an advantage in all situations, even though commitment is undesirable (though in most cases, imminent). and here, my theory falls flat, again... and i am confused as to why this is so. maybe when one develops a 'loving' relationship, one proceeds to test it. vigorously and unrelentingly, savagely and brutally, till it is battered and broken and unsightly and appalling, and then, should it survive like a mangy mongrel that nobody will want or care for, that is when we adopt it, full on, and without want for reciprocation (as love is blind, but also pure and expecting no reward *sarcasm here*). just like the most bitter medicines are the ones that work the best, the most thoroughly-tested relationships may last the longest? i suppose there is logic in this, but as a person of logic and wanting open lines of communication (as opposed to this whole covert operation of indirect testing, though i must admit, like a beautiful experiment, there is an aesthetic value here that i am yet to appreciate in its entirety), when does one relent? when does one abate, and finally settle? and most importantly, when does the testing stop upon oneself? how much more can one endure before it is no longer worth it? is patience the key to success, or a recipe for disaster? i cannot begin to answer all of these, for i am not even in the slightest way close to any of these checkpoints in a budding relationship. however, i can say this, i don't think i will want to put up with any of this. and, as the wise saying goes:

b*tch, please

if i wanted drama, i'll just go watch another episode of house.

No comments: