A friend of mine always tells me that just reading the opinions some people leave on social media is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. Sometimes I think she's right.
However, I can't stop doing it. I'm almost always disappointed. But every now and then I get something worth thinking about.
Over the course of the week, three reels and their respective parade of comments blew my mind.
In the first, the Argentine psychologist and writer, Gabriel Rolón, stated that "something terrible" does not have to happen for us to separate from someone:
"Isn't it enough not to be happy, not to be living in peace, not to have shared dreams or common projects? That's enough. There's no need for a tragedy, a betrayal, a moral fraud. But people don't understand it and you're almost judged for saying 'I separated because I wasn't happy', as if it weren't enough.", He said.
Then, in the comments, a sea of indignation appeared: "I don't agree, family comes first," "to make a decision as big as breaking up a family something very, very serious has to happen," "in search of that supposed happiness many people are destroying families and children," "what they say is nice but if it were like that couples wouldn't last two years," "it's not like that, you have to endure, resist, fight."
Reading them, I couldn't help but remember a cartoon from 'The Romantic Assholes' where the woman says to the man: "Let's stay together. I just don't want to end the most stable and functional relationship I've ever had just because we're not in love."
And mind you: I am in favour of bonds, I believe that they are built day by day, and we should not abandon them because “oh, it provoked me”, “it's just that today I woke up like this... weird”, nor because of the idealisation of the past, of what was not lived or of what is new.
But with the case of Rolón I can't help but wonder:
At what point did it stop seeming important to us that we were NOT happy, that we had no peace, that we did not share a single plan with the person who sleeps and wakes up every day beside us? What do we understand by “family” and why is it so “sacred”? What prevents us from forming different structures? Where do our fears lie? How long will we believe that someone outside our relationship has the power to destroy it?
It seems that Mimí Lazo is right when she ironizes with her "I won't be happy but I have a husband"When did it become more important to “not be alone” than to be loved or to love? At what point did we buy into staying together, even if unhappy, because “we’ve been together for so many years”?
Ana Milán would say: «We have to stop thinking that the love that works is the love that lasts for many years. That is absurd. In fact, when you ask someone who has been with the same partner for 30 years: what is the secret? They tell you: endure, bear. We did not come into this world to endure. We have to get rid of the idea that 'forever' is what works, what works is what makes us happy regardless of time.»
Ah… under these precepts couples wouldn’t last a damn thing? Well, we have to accept it. But in the broadest sense of the word. That is, from asking ourselves: do I really want to live my whole life next to this person? Is it viable? Yes? No? Why? And if it’s a yes, work daily so that love and mutual happiness last. And if that’s not possible, say goodbye in a healthy way… because that’s also love.
The second and third reels are a bit about that: is this couple viable?
Presenter Corina Randazzo says:
«When you have a healthy relationship with yourself, if someone doesn't contribute to your life, expand you, share your values and expectations, you don't open the door. For example, if you maintain healthy habits, but the other person smokes, drinks alcohol, parties, there is no compatibility. If you take care of your mental health, you have worked hard to heal your wounds, even cultivating your financial education, why accept someone who doesn't? You are not their mother, you want a partner. Don't settle or accept less than you deserve.»
Once again, the comments caused a ruckus: "I don't agree with the financial issue, there are bad situations that are not due to one's own decision", "it is quite classist not to want to meet someone because of their finances", "you have to be there for the good and the bad", "this egoism leads us to loneliness", "it is very selfish", "maybe someone has financial stability but loses it after 3 years".
Let's see: Economic status is one thing and financial education is another, one thing is having little or a lot of money and another what you do with it, and of course the economic stability of those of us who were not born rich from the cradle is a perennial roller coaster, but even in those cases it is important how we navigate it, one thing is trying to solve and another is going to sleep, and of course this influences a relationship, the fact that two incomes are needed for the little ones' diapers does not make anyone a classist.
Does thinking like this lead to loneliness? Then it would surely be better to be alone. Is this very selfish? Oh, but if someone said the opposite, they would also go out and shout: "A little self-love, please!"
The third video is a scene from the movie P.S. I Love You, where actress Lisa Kudrow walks around a bar looking for love without much fuss. That's why she asks every guy she approaches the same thing: Are you single? Are you gay? Do you have a job? And depending on his answers, she stays or goes. When all the answers resonate with her, she kisses him, but if she doesn't feel anything, she leaves too. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Combining non-negotiables with passion. Is it difficult? Sure, very difficult. But the opposite is true: getting together with a married guy, a gay guy, a lazy guy, a guy you don't feel the slightest desire for.
Still, the pattern was repeated in the comments: "She looks desperate," "When you're over 40, you can't be so demanding anymore," "If a man did that, he'd be crucified.", blah blah blah.
Is someone desperate if they don't want to waste their time? Suddenly, people who get together with anyone just to avoid being alone and, in the end, suffer just as much seem much more "desperate" to me.
When we turn 40, we can't demand anything? Do you really think that when we finally know what we want, we're not going to "demand" anything? And if a man did that, he would be crucified? Come on, aren't we in a country where a bunch of forty- and fifty-something guys are looking for 20-year-old girls?
But, putting that aside, I find a guy who is clear about what kind of woman he wants at his side is quite sexy. Not only sexy, I find that admirable, much more so than a happy egg.
We continue.
By: Jessica Dos Santos /Instagram: Jessidossantos13
Tell me your story, write it however you like, together we shape it and share it. In life, spreading the different forms of love is always necessary: lasultimasnoticiasdelamor@gmail.com
Read other stories:
I think that the concept of love you outline here is very superficial.