Monday, December 6, 2010

Romantic or Stalker?

This I found quite funny. I used to say to friends back at the university that a women call an insistent man they've rejected a stalker, and one whose attentions are welcomed, a romantic; some gals there would protest seriously to this description, other gals I know or have known who've actually entered real marriage bonds, however, agree wholeheartedly and laugh at the description. There's two that come to mind: one a gal in Fort Collins whose husband she thought a loser (in any romantic sense, at least) and rejected outright as a romantic partner, whom she shared many friends with and eventually relented to and with whom she's now quite happy; another who is my room mate's wife and a friend since middle school: he was a masterful debater throughout his youth, winning competitions, awards, and even political attention for it, and he had to argue her into even giving him a chance (mutual friends of hers and mine actually sat outside the door listening to him at this; these two very much like each other, though unfortunately for these friends and this fellow, they're -1- not all that close and -2- so dissimilar and aggravating to each other that they likely never will be).

Actually, given the legal environment of our day where you are guilty of a crime if even an innocent comment makes someone "feel" uncomfortable, the regulation of intimacy, and the criminalization even of consensual contact between two people where later one or the other claims some kind of environmental interference such that legally smart people require consent forms even from their spouses before engaging in any activity describable as sexual, it's no wonder we don't see more lasting marriages: the cheap, silly, shallow, easy ones where two idiots who have nothing more than attraction are all that can produce marriages because the other potential unions end-up with the romantic in jail or imprisoned (in the overwhelming number of cases, probably a male) because the object of their attention has been indoctrinated about their right to feel comfortable and never ever be bothered again after rejecting even the first time someone has dared even approach them. I guess that means we have to re-interpret old fables, that is, if our legalist preachers have their way, making all those old, celebrated literary pieces of initial rejection followed by re-appraisal become a source of forlorn hope and example of stupidity where potentially the persistent one is a fool who could, and even after acceptance still can be, liable to punishment, rather than moral edification where the "debate" is a worthwhile endeavor.

No comments:

Post a Comment