Sunday, October 6, 2002
This is not a theory, but it’s an idea I’ve had after a few failed relationships where I felt I was the only one aching afterward. It’s the concept of mutually-assured destruction in the relationship arena. Mutually-assured destruction is a term borrowed from the Cold War wherein two countries, both armed with nuclear weapons, are deterred from launching an attack on one another for fear of a counterattack that would destroy the “first-strike,” the state which initiates the attack, country, too. In the realm of love, it essentially means that both people must be equally emotionally invested in the relationship to a point where if one person hurts the other, the “hurter” is hurt just as much as the “hurtee.” To steal another phrase from international politics, say, like NATO, an attack on one member of the relationship is an attack on the whole, of which all parties are affected in the same negative way. If I hurt you, then I hurt and you hurt. If you hurt me, then you hurt and I hurt. If the relationship is attacked from outside (which, really, goes above and beyond my previous thinking on this subject) we both hurt, too.
And a completely unrelated thought:
There are few people I spend my time and energy actively hating. Usually, when I use the term “hate” in conversation, I mean dislike. There are few people that I extremely dislike, too. I tend to withhold judgment in those areas (while I’ll criticize parts of them I don’t like that doesn’t mean I’m against the whole). But there are a very select few for which I’m willing to fly to China to collect bamboo sticks, sharpen the ends and use them to stick these people like a pig. Or maybe a warthog. Ugly, slow, stupid people. And they usually screech quite loudly.