2.05.2006

A friend/co-worker and I had a longish and, admittedly, heated discussion regarding the nature of love, men v. women and the affects of expressing versus not expressing. Basically, we wrote a dissertation.

We concluded that, in an ideal world, everyone should be allowed the luxury of truth. If party A is fond of or even in "love"--normative sense--with party B, then A should be allowed, without repercussions, to express said feelings. Additionally, B should be allowed to accept or reject A's advances without repercussions.

--Example conversation--
A: You mean the world to me, B. Since the first time I saw you I knew you were the letter for me.
B: Thank you. Your feelings flatter me, A. Alas, I do not return your feelings, and I probably never will.
A: I understand and respect your decision. Our friendship will remain the same.

Why is this the ideal? Since humans have very little control over the logistics of falling in love, rules of rationality dictate that neither party should be mad with the other for liking, disliking, accepting or rejecting. To further illustrate, consider laughter. Some people's laughs are more annoying or shrill than others. Do you get angry or upset with your friends A) if they have an annoying laugh or B) dislike your annoying laugh? To do so would be absurd. Granted, this is not the best example; I'm sure you get my point.

We also discussed the nature of male/female communication. Our problem was that we represented the topic groups. Thus, we were speaking different languages. I would make a point, she would "counter" the point by repeating what I said in different words and force me to concede my/her point. This went on for quite some time before I realized what was going on.

This further proves that women are the superior sex.

No comments: