Tuesday 6 July 2010

'Money Can't Buy Me Love'' - The Beatles



















Now this blog has been inspired by someone. I know on most of my posts I tend to speak from personal experience but, seeing as how I have never been a sugar-daddy for anyone, I can only relay the thoughts of said muse. What I can offer though is my belief that money should be one of the last reasons you fall in love. This, to most people, I think is a given. Yet it continues to amaze me how people can rank monetary issues above things like trust, fun, and chemistry. On the flipside, it also amazes me that people use their financial status in such a way that makes them believe they are more worthy of love than others. Throwing money at an unhappy partner to keep them quiet certainly isn't a scenario I want to have in a relationship, and if that tactic works then the person you are throwing the money at clearly isn't with you for your companionship. When being told of my friends situation, I listened as best I could, and was in fact given the Beatles quote by her as a summative quote of her story. She had what others would describe as 'it all'. She was in Australia, was given a job by her partner's parents, had clothes bought for her, was taken to fancy champagne dinner parties; was essentially given whatever she wanted. Now, the tragedy of this is that from the start she loved him for him. She fell for him and who he was. However, it would appear his answer to anything was money, and that sort of life became incredibly overbearing and, ultimately, was what sent her coming back to the simple life in the UK. Just having the money changed his priorities, his actions, and how he dealt with those he loved. It is the above lyric in action. Now, I'm not going to sit here and deny that money can be appealing - God knows it is what we work for, and the vast majority of the population concur that it would certainly take the stress of the everyday out of life. If anything, you could say that having financial freedom allows you to be more free to experience opportunities in which to find love, and to be in the right mindset to make that love work. I think the problem arises when people make money the substitute for everything I believe should be valued in a relationship. Yes, times are hard - they always are and they always have been. Yes, with that in mind a partner with money is a bonus, but that is all it should be: a bonus. I must admit, whenever I have been in a relationship, I have always loved spoiling the one I'm with, but have always yearned to be able to give them more. More of what I think they want. More material things because I thought that was important. Trying to show that I'm a good guy, practically shoving it in their face, saying 'Look how much I love you by how much I give you'. It's a dangerous thought. In some ways I am happy I didn't have that opportunity. By thinking these things are important, rather than just loving each other and being grateful for the things you share that money can't buy, you can shift perspective in both parties. Again, as I have never been in the position to spoil someone as much as I think they deserve to be spoiled, this is merely conjecture. I think money can buy you the illusion of love. It can buy you a facade. Would I want that? I think not. I'll compare it to my view on religion: I am not a religious person, I am a child of science and always will be. But I believe religion holds great value to many people so would never debunk its worth, it's just not my bag. My thoughts are this: If both myself and a devout religious person had nothing, no job, no family, and were living on the streets, I, to all intents and purposes would indeed have nothing - but a religious person would still have their faith. They would still have faith in their lives. I see this as being the same with love and money. You could take two people, rich people, and strip them of all their wordly goods. One would have nothing, but if the other was in love, truly in love, then the loss of all those things would be secondary. They would have love in their lives. So they would have everything they need.

Alan

Wednesday 23 June 2010

''It's not always Rainbows and Butterflies, it's compromise, it moves us along'' - Maroon 5























Now, under normal circumstances,this belief goes against all my idealistic views on love: I want it to be 'Rainbows and Butterflies' and all the things the songs tell us that love could be. However, being a member of 'the single people club', I get constant reminders from my attached friends just how 'lucky I am', and how they 'envy the freedom' that I have. I, in response, question why? They, in turn, respond thus: 'Alan mate, you get to go where you want, when you want, and don't have to answer to anyone.' This is normally followed by some gentle ribbing about said friend being 'under-the-thumb' and other cliches that single people use. Now, over the last few months I have tested this 'freedom' theory. I have done what I want, where I want, when I want, with who I want. I think I can safely say that I miss having someone to come home to. Someone I can spoil. I tell my friends that the life that I have, that they mock-envy, is a prime example of the grass not being greener. What they think they lack in 'freedom', is more than compensated for in companionship, trust, and having someone care for you and care about you. This is totally backed up by the fact that for all their protestations and complaints, these friends stay with their partners, go home to them, and share life with them. There must be a sprinkling of 'Rainbows and Butterflies' keeping them there. I was discussing this with another friend of mine, who is a true advocate for being single. This guy can literally not see himself in a relationship at all and, when asked why, he retorted that he 'wouldn't want to compromise himself'. I explained that not all girls would make you compromise who you are, that the girl who manages to make him want to be in a relationship would be one that would want him for who he is, not who she could turn him into. I shared that I felt a successful relationship is one where you take two independent people and entwine their lives. They keep their independence and identity, do what they want to do with no guilt trips from either party, and generally support their partner no matter what. You can't really ask for more than that. His response was that a woman who would let you be independent doesn't exist. Well I suppose you can't convert them all. But I do think that if he, or anyone, finds someone like that - then there will be more 'Rainbows and Butterflies' than you thought possible.

Alan

Sunday 6 June 2010

'Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder' - Loudon Wainwright



The question I ask is: Does it? Yesterday I was privy to two of my very good friends saying goodbye to each other. The scene: we were at an airport - classic. The story: Boy and girl are good friends. Girl has boyfriend. Boy starts to like girl. Girl starts to like boy. The unspoken is obvious to all but remains unspoken. Girl breaks up with boyfriend. Boy and girl spend some quality time with each other, as boy has to leave to another country. Participant C (myself) - a good friend of both boy and girl, plays chief listener and advisor. Participant C invites girl to come to the airport with both himself and the boy to say goodbye. Participant C says goodbye to boy and makes his excuses to leave boy and girl alone to say goodbye (I really didn't need a bottle of water from the shop). Participant C peruses books for ten minutes before returning to a glum looking girl. Cliches are thrown back and forth until a conclusion that sometimes 'life just gets in the way' is reached.
Now, as a romanticist, my hope is that whilst the two spend an indeterminable amount of time apart, within that time Loudon Wainwright's sentiments ring true. That they pine, that they yearn, and that they miss each other in general so that upon their reunion they take that step that was unspoken about - that they become a couple. My worry is that in that interim, life will indeed get in the way. People forget. People move on. I've done it myself. If anything, you could say time is the healer that people will need to recover from said heartbreak. Memories of happy times past, rather than serving as a reminder of where you've come from as a couple to where you are now, become exactly that: memories of past times. Times from a different, never-to-get-again time. And that those times get consigned to being just another stage in their lives that, because of life, they have to move on from. Some of my fondest memories from my younger years were ones that I had to move on from, and it was time that helped me do that. Absence forced me to move on. However, through such experiences, I think that when love seems so hard to find, that those people you share such happy times with are an absolute rarity, then no matter what life circumstances there are you should do what you can to keep that special person in your life. To stop them from being absent so that Loudon's theory doesn't even get tested - or at the very least work to keep them from being absent no matter what the distance. Why give up on something that could be amazing because of something so trivial? If that person you yearn for is worth the yearning, absence certainly shouldn't get in the way. That is what I hope for girl and boy. Are they right for each other? Is their sadness at this time apart justified? Only time will tell.

Alan

Wednesday 19 May 2010

''I'd rather live in his world, than live without him in mine.'' - Gladys Knight and the Pips




Now that is sacrifice. When someone can love another so much that they would give up their dreams, their lifestyle, what they know, all to be with the person they can't live without. Gladys Knight sang about that kind of love, and sold this belief to millions. After all, isn't that what people search for? What people like me attempt to write about? My question, however, is that if that person was so worthy of love they would never make you change or give up things that mean so much to you. The things that give you your identity. Over the last few months my sense of identity has got stronger, through not having to compromise any aspect of me to please another. I know more about me now than I ever have done, and I know the world I want to live in. I want someone to share my world and love it as I love it. Of course in a relationship you compromise, but it should be practical things that are compromised, not your character. The person who is right for you would never make you be anything other than what you are, and they will love you all the more for being that person. Sharing your world with someone worthy is a goal, but sharing it with someone who already lives there without compromising THEMSELVES is the ideal. Can it be found? This perfect match? I like to think so. Never settle for something less than amazing. Preachy rant over.

Alan

Monday 17 May 2010

"You can't be wise and in love at the same time" - Bob Dylan


It's true. You can't. The very notion of being wise negates all we have ever learned about how love makes you feel. There is a cynicism that comes with it. A mindset that drags 'movie-love' kicking and screaming into the real world and stamps a big 'Doesn't Happen' mark on it. That is not to say that all realists are wise, but the aspects of love that make people want to love in the first place do not go hand in hand with the realist view. It is an ideal that people yearn for. Why be wise about love anyway? Does that not take the fun out of it? The whirlwind of emotions that we are promised comes with love: would it not be better to just fly with it, rather than step back and rationalise and question and worry about and a hundred million things that could nullify that feeling? Of course the realist's argument is always strong - you hear more stories about the failure of a relationship. The failure of said relationship gets questioned, answers are given, and a summation is summised. This conclusion adds ammunition to the realists' argument arsenal, and is embodied in one word: experience. Experience makes people wise. So how can a wise person be in love? Truly in love? Well I like to think that a wise person would be wise enough to know that no one has 'experience' in what lies ahead. We are all hurtling towards futures which will no doubt shape our views on the world, in the same way that our pasts have shaped who we are now. I say to those who are wise, next week you could fall madly, deeply in love - your world could be turned upside down and back again, and for all your 'experience' you will not know what hit you. And you will be converted. And you may never be wise again.
Alan

"To those who can dream, there is no such place as far away"

So. Here I am. Finally letting the idealistic things that swirl around in my head out into the world for people to read. I've been told I think too much - let's see.

x