What do I want, really?
She's beautiful, my girl. Inside and out. And I love her. Is that enough? I'd like it to be an active love, but it hasn't taken that shape. It has been an underlying current, like an aquifer waiting to be tapped.
And, Archer wants monogamy... which he doesn't seem to see as something which would preclude me having a relationship with Fae (as I will call the Wrestling Fairy). At times I think this is because he doesn't consider my relationship with Fae to be more than friendship, because of its passive nature; at other times, I think perhaps it's just because Fae is a woman, and therefore isn't 'challenging' to Archer's very masculine way of thinking.
Both lines of reasoning bother me to degrees, though I do understand them from his point of view.
The first does make sense - if the relationship is inactive, it appears nonexistent because relationships are (from Archer's perspective) defined by the behaviors of the participating individuals. However, I've always been of the opinion that relationships are defined by the participating individuals; they can choose to define their relationship by behaviors, or not. They can choose to define their relationship by the emotions they share, and then choose their actions based on that emotion. That's the path Fae and I have taken. When we are in close proximity, we behave as any other couple. For now we are far apart in both geography and goals, and I have no desire to influence her life decisions. I do not want that kind of power in her life, no matter how much I wish she were nearer. I only want her company, either physically or spiritually, and I have that. I have her love; I love her. Yes, "girlfriend" is a poor word for our relationship, but what other word is there? It works well enough, as a label, as long as it isn't dissected. What bothers me about Archer's evaluation is that it allows him to define my relationship with Fae in a way that is inconsistent with my feelings for her, and for my relationship with her. I do not know whether it bothers me more that it is inconsistent with my feelings (and could possibly indicate that my feelings are not the defining key to a relationship), or whether it is only that his evaluation seems to wrongly overstep the bounds of what another person does or does not have the right to define. This is where I am, on that.
The second reasoning makes sense only from a biological, primitive 'male mind' perspective, and I don't consider it inherently wrong - after all, our biology got us quite far as a society - but I do consider it, well, unevolved. And, I'm certain that it's not a rationale Archer would use in any logic-based debate. It's a feeling, a biological impulse; and in that light, it's understandable despite its unappealing, tradition-based footing. I think it's wise to acknowledge such feelings and take them into consideration, but not necessarily make decisions based on them. To be clear: I don't consider relative gender to be a valid reason to define a relationship out of existance.
From my point of view... I'm stuck on the first line of reasoning.
I need Fae's perspective.
She's beautiful, my girl. Inside and out. And I love her. Is that enough? I'd like it to be an active love, but it hasn't taken that shape. It has been an underlying current, like an aquifer waiting to be tapped.
And, Archer wants monogamy... which he doesn't seem to see as something which would preclude me having a relationship with Fae (as I will call the Wrestling Fairy). At times I think this is because he doesn't consider my relationship with Fae to be more than friendship, because of its passive nature; at other times, I think perhaps it's just because Fae is a woman, and therefore isn't 'challenging' to Archer's very masculine way of thinking.
Both lines of reasoning bother me to degrees, though I do understand them from his point of view.
The first does make sense - if the relationship is inactive, it appears nonexistent because relationships are (from Archer's perspective) defined by the behaviors of the participating individuals. However, I've always been of the opinion that relationships are defined by the participating individuals; they can choose to define their relationship by behaviors, or not. They can choose to define their relationship by the emotions they share, and then choose their actions based on that emotion. That's the path Fae and I have taken. When we are in close proximity, we behave as any other couple. For now we are far apart in both geography and goals, and I have no desire to influence her life decisions. I do not want that kind of power in her life, no matter how much I wish she were nearer. I only want her company, either physically or spiritually, and I have that. I have her love; I love her. Yes, "girlfriend" is a poor word for our relationship, but what other word is there? It works well enough, as a label, as long as it isn't dissected. What bothers me about Archer's evaluation is that it allows him to define my relationship with Fae in a way that is inconsistent with my feelings for her, and for my relationship with her. I do not know whether it bothers me more that it is inconsistent with my feelings (and could possibly indicate that my feelings are not the defining key to a relationship), or whether it is only that his evaluation seems to wrongly overstep the bounds of what another person does or does not have the right to define. This is where I am, on that.
The second reasoning makes sense only from a biological, primitive 'male mind' perspective, and I don't consider it inherently wrong - after all, our biology got us quite far as a society - but I do consider it, well, unevolved. And, I'm certain that it's not a rationale Archer would use in any logic-based debate. It's a feeling, a biological impulse; and in that light, it's understandable despite its unappealing, tradition-based footing. I think it's wise to acknowledge such feelings and take them into consideration, but not necessarily make decisions based on them. To be clear: I don't consider relative gender to be a valid reason to define a relationship out of existance.
From my point of view... I'm stuck on the first line of reasoning.
I need Fae's perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment