From my own experiences, I can say that it is harder on one's self to love and care for someone who has serious emotional difficulties.
But, it seems almost easier to love them than loving someone who seems so normal, and without issues.
Maintaining a relationship with a stable person these nearly three years has been mindblowingly difficult at times. Sure, she doesn't have bouts of depression, misdirected fits of anger, paranoid delusions, or otherwise unhealthy behaviors. But, when everything is so simple and candy-sweet, a relationship seems too normal, like something must be wrong but it just isn't showing up.
My other girlfriends have all had their share of issues. One had abusively-controlling parents and a bad case of esteem problems. One had gender identity issues and a depressive personality.
But now I am in a relationship with a stable, mostly emotional trauma-free girl. I am, by comparison, the crazy one.
It seems like it's easier to be the proverbial knight-in-shining-armor, that masculine self-fantasy that feminists are fond of discussing. I can't be that knight this time, and that really makes it hard to figure out what I am supposed to be.
What do I do? What do I say?
Maybe there isn't something for me to do. Maybe I don't have to protect her from anything. Maybe this relationship doesn't have to have a point.
After all, I go on and on about how life doesn't really have a point in the end. I've been saying that for years. Maybe it's high time I realized that relationships are the same.
I'm horrible at this whole inner-self exploration thing.
Anyway. K is in Ft Lauderdale this weekend, so I won't be seeing her. Good thing I have to write a paper, or I'd go absolutely batshit.
Commenting on world news, I have to say that I am pretty sure that we will be invading Syria soon. Eventually that might mean war with Iran, and perhaps a war with a new militant Muslim-controlled government in Saudi Arabia.
The past ten years or so, it seems that we have been cleaning up our mistakes from the Cold War. When the USSR fell in 1989, we were left as the sole superpower, and yet we had armed many regimes around the world to supress communist insurgencies (or at least, what we assumed were communist insurgencies). Now, when the curtain fell without warning, we are seeing the second and third order repercussions of that policy.
We are stepping in a self-created hornet's nest in the Middle East, and I think soon we may get seriously stung.
Saddam may fall, but he isn't the only dictator in the world who we armed and wants to see us fail.
What is left, for us world powers, except to continue our imperialism? After all, currents of imperialism have never really ceased. After WWII, colonies started to free themselves in the wake of a weak Europe and a demilitarized Japan (who had largely been responsible for the colonizing of the peripheral regions in the 19th century). But, the US had come to the fore in power, and its only rival was the USSR. The two powers battled for conrol of the struggling periphery, one for the "Free World" and the other for what they saw as historical inevitability (ie. communism).
The Soviet Union has fallen, but does that mean that things have changed, and suddenly we will not be imperialistic, after thousands of years of war and domination?
Not in the least.
We won the Cold War, and now we're after the spoils.
~Halcyondream~
i need to save something