GenQ - For the not so straight individual

Regarding Love

Regarding love, and the claim that for love to blossom everything needs to be perfect. Should we be wary of believing that the two ideas, love and perfection, belong together? Is the word ‘perfect’ a non-existent construct that has no place in human relations? Is it better if everything’s perfect, or would no relationship last a minute if perfection were a requirement?

In a good relationship, each of us sense that the other has our best interests at heart, and we are aware that the word, ‘our’, is both singular and plural. In the light of that, it’s possible to love more than one person, really deeply, and not necessarily sexually, because it is easy to learn to love a person, through consideration, enjoying time together, accepting and valuing what they offer you (if appropriate for you, of course) and having the good and healthy impulse to give of yourself. Not in return—just give of yourself.

Rebecca, aged 8, had this to say about love: ‘When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn’t bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That’s love.’ Rebecca knows what giving of yourself is.

I have a high regard for, and enjoy the company of, many people, and I truly, deeply, love around twenty people. A light in my life would be extinguished, perhaps forever, if I were aware I would not see any one of these loved ones again. Being healthy in myself though, while I would not be compelled to search for another light, I would most likely recognise one if it were flickering on the horizon.

Love is not a demand for total attention, on one hand, and should not (or need not) be, on the other hand, a pact to spend one’s whole life in total commitment to another. (It’s all right to do so if that’s your way—just keep a finger on the pulse. Are you obsessing? Are your emotions too heavy for the one you’re directing them at? Do you have the best interest of the person at heart, or are you expecting a reciprocation from the object of your ‘affection’—maybe ‘fixation’—that’s overly based on your needs?)

‘Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day.’—Mary Ann, aged 4. Mary Ann is empathic. The puppy has not had a good day, let alone a perfect one, but he has gotten on with things and loves to see her. Forgiveness is not part of the equation.

Described lightly, love is care and good feeling.
Described with absolute gravity, love is care and good feeling.

Love isn’t desire, while desire may be a welcome free gift that comes with love—if it’s mutual.
 
Situations change the intensity and worth of all things, and change the meaning of all words; and children who live through different experiences are sure to have different views of love, and the great thing is, when they hear each other’s views, each is likely to say to the other: ‘Wow! I never saw it that way! I wish I’da thought a that.’

With the statement that children may see things differently because of their separate journeys through life, it needs to be said that not all kids see things simplistically, and that seemingly simple statements are often the product of true awareness and a great deal, or concentration of, thought (which need not be a lot of time spent thinking).

‘Love is what makes you smile when you’re tired.’—Terri, aged 4.
A simple statement? Yes.
Simplistic? No.
Someone close to Terri taught her that, by example.
And that is love. . . . and that, my friends, is perfect.