Even a “true” relationship doesn’t guarantee perfect equilibrium between beloveds. Many dawdle their whole “romantic” life, without understand-ing any distinction between relationship and situationship. Thanks to media construction of love, though.
Anyway, I’m not consciously angry at them (people or their media), since I am uninterested to judge anyone’s “private business”, but assumed to clarify few so-called romantic points. You may disagree with me at your own discretion.
The general perception pertaining to love or relationship(s) seems to be hopelessly inured with the modernism movement.
Romanticism can be seen but it isn’t in sync with postmodern thought? Chuck my philosophical approach towards love, now, and let us initiate a “rational” approach to decode the general perception. The general perception asserts a layer of bemusement, quixoticism, uncontrollable imagination, incoherence, etc. In this regard, according to me, in the context of cheating, I have chalked down few significant headlines that seem to never gibe with my coherent attitude.
Incineration of external communication
Beloveds could believe that their “external” communication with “others” can be incinerated, without notifying their respective partners. In the long-run, sun, moon and facts cannot stay hidden.
Incineration is a disputable subject too, because situations are subjective. But, this action is inherently liable to cause suspension, suspiciousness and incredulity. Bilking isn’t always about sleeping with any “other” party. I count incineration of external communication without personal notification in the caste of cheating, unless there’s any adequate rationalization.
The great nostalgia
Time could be an illusion, when you thoroughly question the law of physics. It is insensible to sustain any confab with the past tense, in the present tense. The action to rejuvenate fresh talks with the past tense should stand avoidable, in order to advance yourself in future tense, normatively speaking. It could beget a culture of distrust, emotional dissonances and polygamy, in any way.
Is there any value to rethink of the previous conclusion in your new introduction? By the way, it holds zero value. Test it out, empirically speaking.
Agreed that we might gibe with “emic” approach in our own perception, but the longevity of your relationship is also dependent upon abundant production of new generation. Choose your volition well, before taking permanent decisions against temporary sadness.
Promises aren’t meant to be broken
Can you use your words like arrows, before endeavoring to open your mouth? A closed mind with an open mouth doesn’t vouch anything, by the way. Relationship stands apolitical, and – therefore – promise only what you think doesn’t cost your demagogy later. There isn’t any tool to measure feelings or words, except you’re doing PhD with any public university. Assurance of louder actions speak well against populism or promises.
Without accountability, your relationship stands null. It’ll fade away or make you dull, when the podium of responsibility is absent. It shouldn’t ratiocinate any incoherent adjustment or compromise, but sustaining the open efforts of transparency can serve greater good between you both. Open communication or undiplomatic confrontation aren’t taxable too. This, holistically speaking, can create a succinct picture on both of your actions.