Tag: Relationships

Philosophy – “Why a Relationship is a Two-Way Street” – 8/12/2022

“Without mutual trust, there can only be mutual collapse.”

– Modern Romanticism

No one can be called innocent, with any legitimate backing to its declaration, without misunderstanding one notion: no innocence exists, though what does are experiences yet to be turned to one’s own knowledge. In a relationship, love shows itself to be an ideal. When we idealize our partner, we believe them perfect. If we state that our love shows higher status over such mutual imperfections requiring mutual trust, we believe that our love must label our partner as wholly capable of resolving conflicts. Whereas we state of ourselves that our incapabilities are ample enough that trust to ourselves and perhaps trust to all manner of strength in this relationship has remained absent.

No relationship has structure, without mutual trust. For what else can trust be defined as, if not for structure? When a relationship has signs of conflict, thus testing structure, this crisis allows both parties, in that relationship, to reveal their strengths and weaknesses. If one side has held little trust for this other person, their weakness has come into play. Their weakness, being their inability to trust this other person who has been trusting to them, has revealed here that such an untrusting person has not built themselves within this relationship. Whatever other conflicts that had arisen were viewed by this untrusting person as meant to be resolved only by their partner. This untrusting person has never considered this relationship as a part of their own strength. To be weak, in such a sense when trust compares to structure, means that such a trait becomes exhibited when their inability to handle their separate role to solve this crisis gets proven through their unwilling behavior. As trust compares to structure, a crisis will test strength and weakness. As crisis passes through greater understanding of weakness, strength gets fortified when this relationship can rebuild from whatever conflict had weakened its structure. As future conflict becomes experienced, further testing to what had been rebuilt can certify both parties in their newfound strength to better handle such future conflict while giving separate light to other undiscovered weaknesses.

All people have weaknesses. Imperfections. Without noticing them, another person will. That other person might exploit them, if there might be a manipulative relationship. To believe that in one’s supposed innocence, this manipulative person had ever been a monster will mean that this manipulated person has never seen how far they have strayed. Strayed from what? Strayed from knowing themselves. Comprehending oneself as perfect does not mean anything. Comprehending oneself will mean to know one’s own limitations, through a recognition of one’s weaknesses as life will inevitably grant a person these tests against their resolve.

Through relationship struggles, consideration of all manner of realistic aspects, being capabilities and incapabilities between persons, extends from a simply human understanding. People comprehend each other, when also knowing themselves. In knowing another person, we have because we understand that their strengths and weaknesses might be similar to ours. In all a person can do that gets realizes as possible, all impossible dreams are either viewed with discordant doubt or a blooming positivity. In that, love places itself to be a relationship’s foundation, where trust builds upon that as this relationship’s structure. When people fall back to love, they fall back to their partner. When people fall back to trust, they fall back to what has unified both, being their mutual trust. Knowing another person will mean to know ourselves, creating an empathetic bond that situates itself on understanding imperfections or weaknesses of both that person and their partner. Trusting another or even oneself will mean to consider what weaknesses have hindered strengthening such trust, in that relationship. In that trust, confiding to one’s partner will be admitting one’s weaknesses. Admitting where one can be strong will mean to prove that one’s role in handling their part in such conflict can be accomplished.

Without mutual trust, causing its collapse, all that will be left are those foundations, being love. Pain becomes felt when a person who had been trusted to handle all conflicting matters has such structure come down upon them, in its collapse. They bare this heaviness from such collapse, identifying this pain as a loss of what had been overbearingly trusted to keep upright.

Philosophy – “How Relationships become Punished” – 12/14/2021

“Idealization is to love, our talent, that is never as real as our skills, our capabilities, the realism that is for a relationship. As we state a person is perfect for us, such is to love. Then, we should never state a person is perfect, since that is the same expressed for their capabilities.”

– Modern Romanticism

Is a person perfect for us? If so, then that is love.

Is a person perfect? If we believe so, then our perception became delusion, as we forgot what defines human limitation being the strains that capability places upon the self.

In love, a person is perfect for us. However, to believe a person should be perfect is being without consideration for themselves, as a human. Human capability displays a limit, composed of endurance and durability to flesh and mental burden. When we describe perfection, it should be only to love, not to the person. We love the person, though in that love we are meant to understand what is hurting them the same as it harms us. Since that is the case, then we cannot ever see perfection in themselves, the human. If we ever do, then we disregard what hurts the human, as we can become psychopathic without such empathy.

A disregard for another person’s hurt, in mere preference for the consideration of our own, is psychopathy. No singular human being can heal their hurt, on their own. Lone suffering brings further suffering. It is understood in the case of building or revealing character. Strong or weak character is revealed during a period of crisis. Although, character is built when crisis has reached its end, thus allowing a person to develop reinforcements for the next period of strain upon human capability.

If in crisis, humans will depend upon the self’s own or another’s capability. Although, to believe perfection is meant for that will be the undoing of all contribution, as only the crisis ever remains. Weakness is to the one who flees from crisis, wishing to build the self, though displays the same incompetence when handling a matter that would require another’s contribution. Human capability is centered around realism, since all relationships and connections cannot be reinforced without understanding of our imperfections. If to believe a person is perfect, then it’s to again repeat we disregard those flaws. In that disregard, no relationship grows stronger in the needed reinforcement that would bring about development. Love is then the place of knowing how such a connection first formed, though the comprehension that this relationship is composed of humans is also to know that it cannot be perfect nor free from conflict.

By itself, love is perfect. Though, no human is perfect. Believing in the self or placing trust or faith in another is to human capability. One trusts in who one loves, since this connection cannot be without flaws that would require imperfect human capability. Forgiveness will be for the mistake a person makes, especially upon those that are caused within the connection. If one cannot forgive, then there cannot be acknowledgement that another human is as liable to cause failure as the self. If there is no forgiveness, there will be arrogance, within the statement that the self would never have committed such a fault.

Relationships are composed of humans. Recognition and also acknowledgement of human imperfection is necessary to understand the course of development. Without this recognition and acknowledgement, there will be those who flee from crisis in ignorance to how development is formed within the connection. One must forgive, after there has been this recognition and acknowledgement. In doing so, there is understanding for how strength is formed. Without this, there cannot be the gain of knowledge while mistakes are repeated.

Quote – “How to know when a Relationship is True” – 5/14/2021

“Were one be ready to move on, then the other will cling. Were both be ready to move on, then nothing ever occurred. Were neither be ready to move on, then this romance is true. Only within the third example, is a relationship ever something of truth.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love Quote – “Why a Man Protects a Woman” – 4/18/2021

“There is nothing more repulsive, to the man, than the urge to retreat back to himself. What is himself, if outside of the she whom he loves? If he had loved, then he’ll not love himself, ever again. To truth, there is protection of it. There is concealment of it, of her, of the one he loves. To protect, is to keep modest the vulnerable one from the afflictions of danger. For that is where a man knows truth, and thus, never lies to himself. Why else does a woman wish for honesty from a man? It is because if he is ever honest for himself, then he lies to himself and to her.

A man is most himself when he cares not for himself, and always for her. In love, a man would sacrifice what he cannot ever conceive to be a loss.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Primary Differences Between Men & Women” – 3/7/2021

“Whether for contentment or discontent’s sake, no greater amount of responsibility eases the supposed necessity to remain strong. People always break upon what they lack, never for what they shoulder.”

– Modern Romanticism

How is it a man reveals himself to shoulder all responsibilities? There is only one reason. A man is innately stupid. To want to tackle the world, to change what is discerned by him to be flawed, makes him unwilling to accept that certain things must be viewed through a lens of sameness. It is by no fault of the workforce to hire a man for being himself. Instead, it is by the fault of a man in being stupid enough to be this ambitious, that the workforce would employ this idiocy.

It is by a woman’s simple curiosity to a man’s stupid actions and mindsets, that she no longer shows restraint for indulging in it, herself. No person is “equal” on the matter of being an idiot, same as when no two people die ever at the same exact moment.

It cannot be believed that a woman is content with the increase of excessive responsibility. Though, it can be believed that a woman is better at concealing what could make her content, which would be a lifestyle of simplicity. As well, it can be correctly assumed of the workforce, itself, that it employs the idiocies of people, for advantage’s sake. The workforce, being a system of its own and being unchangeable, employs what changes of people, for only its own betterment of a collection of tools. This “collection” is known as “diversity” among the workforce, as so many would believe that this factor of “representation” expresses a workplace’s growth.

Advantage, from the mindset of an employer, will deceive another to believe that their sheer representation is for the benefit of the company. The only benefit that comes from this is by way of a collection of tools, in contrast from perhaps a garage that displays upon the wall a very limited amount.

Though, a man is as stupid as a woman is curious for his idiotic nature. And, rather than nurturing him when he is not a moron, she would rather indulge in the extravagant decadence of his stupidity. Instead of nurturing him, to create the balance between idiocy and intelligence, a woman of the modern times would rather belong to his nature of being a fool.

It is why a man is told to never weep, because he must stand upright, in the effort of remaining stupid by doing so. As it is, a man questions why he still even walks. This is, again, the foolish nature of himself, of being alive. The dead man is the soldier who fought for something. Whereas, the living woman to the dead man is perhaps still envious of his reasons to live, rather than for why he succumbs to his idiocy.

Philosophy – “How a Man Loves… and How He Doesn’t” – 1/31/2021

“There are disgraces in this world. Of those sorts who would dishonor an importance, place ambition above it, and never share an empire for which all that has been built, is now meant to be something of equal purpose; they are wretches. Let slip through the fingers the objective petulance that does not ever come close to the pair of eyes that wander observation into the soul of the one who should abide by importance.”

– Modern Romanticism

Men love, and then, men do not. A man’s life is merely an extension upon things thought to be important, until the love he finds at the crossroads allows him not to make anymore choices. His freedom, a forfeiture. His life, now in love’s hands, though only when he gives up what is no longer important.

A pair of eyes. Slender and outstretched hands. A dashing smile. Of garments that surround a figure that’s been too often ignored, for its beauty. Of vulnerability that gives weight to the wind that stings the cheeks. A man is meant to love these things, and then some. Whereas, there are men who leave. There are men who depart. There are these men, and they are disgraces. No love is ever unimportant enough to one day wish for freedom, from it. The man who departs his love, was a coward, and was someone who finds the objectively trivial as showing more worth than what was found.

From love, to the relationship, what is more important than its envisioned force, meant to wield us, meant to save us? Importance, to a man, should be it. There is no other definition to “importance”, other than what it stands for. Importance. It is a word that describes nothing else, other than where love is placed. Of the one so vulnerable, where love is placed, where arms surround, where sadness is resolved, as that is importance.

Love, unto what is important, is the eternity for which would make a true man unable to leave, unable to yearn for freedom. And, should anything be broken, he would fix it, and not take to his former, childlike ambitions that are indeed immature enough to pertain to the toddler. A man who could fix what is broken at his vocation, in politics, upon his inferior trinkets in the garage, though cannot recreate nor rebuild what has been shattered in his love, is the disgrace that the world must spit on.

For there are many things said to hold worth, though none of them that are so material can be compared to the love in a certain man’s life. Nothing material holds worth through its limited duration, automatically contrasting from the eternity meant to be part of love.

Philosophy – “To Debunk the Hook-Up Culture” – 1/28/2021

“The one expectation one should have for a relationship, is in what makes a human. To expect the average characteristics of a human, is to expect an error, and to have acceptance for that error in consideration for yourself. To ‘hook-up’ with whatever you expect, sets the trap to what you did not expect, and creates the illusion of perfection in the supposed match.”

– Modern Romanticism

Does a person state that their “match”, from whomever they “hooked up” with, must be perfect? Do we not ever compare such a person to ourselves, that they challenge our own idiocy in perhaps believing ourselves to be perfect? There are fools who believe themselves to be perfect, or perhaps just “good enough”, and they will reject every person around. This is because love shows us room for improvement. Upon our flaws, we improve through all that we did not expect to see.

Of whatever expectations we held for a certain person, pertaining to this “hook-up” culture, is always in relation to preference. A relationship is not a goal. For as a goal can be set or is foreseeable, we continuously blunder in a relationship as we must accept that as inevitable. We are meant to show our errors to what is also imperfect, not arrogantly spout ourselves as never needing the heroic aid of love. Perhaps the real reason for a failed relationship is too much in the expectation, and not so much in the sheer awe and wonderment upon what we find so new. Of what makes a match, is not for what we prefer, though of what we cannot stand of ourselves. As it has been mentioned, we enter love to improve or to repair ourselves. Perhaps the “match” lies in how both the divine aspect of love to combine with the imperfect nature of a human, must require two for the fullest realization.

To prefer is to lust, while to be kept blind is to love. As love is blind, so are most of our flaws until we enter that feeling. We realize all our faults, through the feeling of love. We should thus enter love as being the scenery for which we are blind to its detail, and never set the trap of expectation as love can never be in accordance to what we crave.

Love is not a craving. That would be same to believe it is a temporary thing. Even if a relationship is broken, it was not the love that broke, though was the trust become ruined. And, for the reason of why we hurt, is because we still love them.

Much of the “hook-up” culture relies on preference, of what to expect, and of what to desire. One previews a person’s profile on a dating website, as though they are a meal upon a menu. They look at the person’s face, as though like a preview of that meal. They look at their description as though like what the meal involves. They look at the other characteristics as though like certain included ingredients. It involves craving. It involves the most fundamental aspect of human nature, which is hunger. If love is somehow now in consideration of human fundamentalism, then how did love sink so low?

Should love not raise us? Should love not give us wings? Make us soar? Make us achieve what we thought impossible?

If love now relies on human satiation of our hunger, then it is now a miserable pot of poverty, of a simple survivalist approach, as it clings more to death over keeping a person preserved.

Philosophy – “Why Men Die More Often by their own Hand” – 1/22/2021

“The monster is only ever soft when they are finally vulnerable, no longer feared, and once more, able to protect another whom the beast did love.”

– Modern Romanticism

The concept of the “Beauty and the Beast” is one to represent what is seen to be weak, from what is seen to be strong. A man, one to be strong, is also considered to be a beast. To himself, most frequently, is this how he convinces himself all wrongs are upon his shoulders. As it is, men and women feel their guilt in two separate scenarios. Men, with their guilt, feel it for actions having been committed. Women, for their guilt, feel it for the actions not committed. If this were not the objective case, then no movement would attempt to empower a woman, like some form of battery, long-lasting enough so that eternal protection is unneeded. For it would be that from a man to a woman, his protection in making himself vulnerable before her, to conceal her from danger, is the notion of eternal love that does not die. To a man, of his true nature, nothing beautiful can die to his eyes, while she still breathes.

If a man feels guilt for actions committed, then it would be to the final act of suicide that erases all his guilt, erases his past, erases the loneliness that kept him in the darkness.

A man, a beast, or a man of his actions, makes him most noticeable for what is committed in the world. Especially by suicide, when to the opposite of guilt, being of shame, is poured upon him. To that extent, his vulnerability is kept in a state of loneliness. For how can the strongest people of this world ever feel worthwhile when vulnerable, in the condition of loving another, when such a weakness is shared as a solitary feast?

A man who commits suicide, was a man who felt it a serious necessity. No hope is left for those whose loneliness is kept with the seemingly eternal vulnerability upon the simple self. When shared only with the self, it becomes a hollowness. For a man is only able to weep, when he shows the vulnerability of what is lost. Is it a man’s duty to love, or is it a man’s duty to betray, to destroy, to break what is beautiful? If a woman is ever beautiful to a man, he only says so because he could protect no one else, keep no one else alive, and share the most precious moments that only she would ever hold meaning for.

To end one’s own life with seriousness, was only ever through the realization that hope, kept in the long rivers of love, is gone. A love is gone. She is gone. To a true man, a woman is what allows him to break his own ambitions. All ambitions, are now of her. All happiness he feels, is of her. Whatever empires he created, are now hers. Her presence among his own fortress, is as much of a protection as for herself. To lose all of that, is to lose himself.

Romantic Dialogue – “How I Never Gave up” – 1/21/2021

A: Oh, beloved. Was I always your only mistake?

B: As just the very one who abandoned me, the only regret who has come to be both truest and most false.

A: You regret so much, of so much abandonment, though I led you through your darkest trials.

B: You led me, to then bring me towards my ruin.

A: Was I too much?

B: You were enough, though it became enough for me to take no more of it.

A: The abandonment?

B: You loved, though you abandoned me when the tasks were done, when the darkness was over. When you did leave, the darkness returned. You led me towards that, though I never did the same unto you.

A: Was it because you never led me?

B: It was because I always trusted you.

A: I’ll not ever give up. I was merely a man without anymore purpose. It was not the darkness to make fade, that ever gave me purpose. It was to embrace the light, being you, that I held onto. I wanted you. I needed you. I bled the darkness away, so that I might find you, the light. What was I? Never your light. I seemed to have only erased the darkness, to become it, myself.

B: If you’ll never give up, then why did you give me up?

A: I make excuses. It is why.

B: What is your excuse?

A: To never see myself, in the reflection. I saw you, and only ever you. All was for your sake. All was never for mine. I make excuses.

B: These are your excuses?

A: These are my pains, that I suppose you won’t comprehend.

Quote – “Why Love cannot Die” – 11/7/2020

“It is love, overwritten by the importance of trust, that we say the former might die, while buried alive. For we are to trust the one we reveal all of ourselves to, making love merely the buried background of a sun that warms our backs. We do not see love, yet we feel it. Though, it is not the ending of love that is the occurrence, upon betrayal of trust. For is it not the reason, upon betrayal of trust, that our pain rises because we still love them?”

– Modern Romanticism

To my Love…

There is nothing so decimating as the heart giving up.

It is why I won’t.

You are everything. My light would diminish, if I stopped loving you. It is a light that cannot vanish.

My love! My light!

My world. You are everything.

My eyes fill with tears at the thought of smelling your hair, kissing your hand, running fingers along your thigh, dreaming of worlds that will have us. I cannot let go.

I will dive into that abyss after you.

I will love you, even after the sun stops shining.

Tears will stop. They will stop.

Quote – “The Man, in Love” – 8/24/2020

“The man who does not fight until his dying breath for the woman he loves, has never been in love. The man who simply says he was once in love, yet has chosen to leave, was never in love.

All men, in truth, when in love, must die for their love, must act as extreme as possible, yet as gentle as possible, to keep what they know is important. For nothing else, and no other path, matters, once the correctness has been discovered.”

– Modern Romanticism