simple things

as far as stereotypes go, i've often heard that women are complex - in their machinations and ideas, their intents and thoughts - that everything that one should do is not taken as an impulse, for granted, or without attention to repercussions thereof. and of men? men are simple, doomed to do as is, and predictably so. i'm not sure how much i agree with this, but let us say it is generally true; i can testify that there are few situations where men are at least as complex as the fairer sex, if not more so.

you are awarded no points for guessing that being in love is one of those situations, and even less if you were quick to point out that it is untrue - that men love on whims, easily and as fickle as any fleeting emotion could be, to dwell upon one today, and jump to another as soon as opportunity arises (or departs, if rejection were to doom it). i say the latter because that is no true love, and we are all allowed our fleeting fancies, men and women, if only as a(n excusable) prelude to what love may utopian be.

i am a simple person, and i cannot claim to have tasted the sweet (and/or bitter) taste of love's kiss. in fact, i would deign the opposite, in that i have only known spurn and wrath, though not incitingly so; perhaps a mild rebuff at love's scornful beck, and at most, a proffered attempt at obsequiousness in courting such loves. nay, i wouldn't claim to know love, but i can see enough in others to recognise what (i hope) it should be. herein, i include my godson and -daughter, wahhaj and maryam, as a frame of reference, if only for myself.

but, i have felt, true to the words of the expression, 'makan tak kenyang, tidur tak lena, mandi tak basah' (translated: to not fill from eating, not peacefully rest from sleep, not be wet from bathing) - well, at least the first two, as i would not claim to have bent the laws of physics for anything, though attempted love might come close. it is only through familiarity with such a hideous thing that i have learnt to eat and sleep (and bathe?) through remembrances - and that has been a godsend. a man in love cannot be simple, i conclude, but a man who is simply in love is either blessed, or knows little of what it is to love (and in that ignorance, he is also in bliss and bless).

as far as stereotypes go (with regards to being in love, for either gender, though i write in the feminine), there is her face engraved upon my eyelids to haunt me in my sleep. there is here fragrance, that whiffs from heavenly graces. there is her laugh and jaunt, and onomatopoeia in the creaks of the furniture settling in; that keep me awake and aware that she is a million miles away.

as far as stereotypes go, every loving couple is one that could have been her and i, but are instead her and another - old and young, passionate and platonic, overt and implied. every smile is hers, paltry in comparison, but sufficient as a reminder. every kind gesture could have been, but is never as good as, if it were by her hand.

as far as stereotypes go, i would have nothing else, except everything. including everything. only everything. and even that would only be as good because it already has her. but selfishness is the bane of happiness, because how could one want for something knowing that it degrades in one's presence? like a flower picked, or a fruit pared, or clothing thoroughly worn. rather, one might hope it is (beyond his sight and knowledge) deflowered by another, and in the end made life just that much happier for others, though not at the expense of oneself? i wonder if that is even possible.

i can only imagine how much more fitful it must be to have a woman in love, as i know that i have never been acquainted with such things - surely it must be horrendous and revolting.