Boymeat (boymeat) wrote,

  • Mood:


In an otherwise schlocky gossip piece within The Week, there was a quote from actor Terrence Howard that struck me. He's talking about how his father and uncle both influenced his dating habits, having instilled into him the following philosophy:

"They taught me that in every relationship, the person least interested in maintaining it is going to dominate it. So you have to always maintain that position of least interest, and you'll always control the relationship."

Now, at first glance, these two sentences repulse me on many levels. The concept of a mutual partnership in a relationship is certainly out the window when taking into account the above philosophy. So is honest communication - this entire concept smacks more as game playing than healthy relationship development. And Terrence agrees:

"It was unfulfilling because you never give, because you never need to. And then the other person goes onto a happy life because they were able to give and cry, while you never opened up."

Well, yes, that is where my mind went too. I can't imagine happiness out of such an arrangement.

But then I got to thinking. When in a relationship, I always make sure to give. It's what I do naturally - I give sometimes until it hurts, to coin a cheap cliche. And yet, I have also been the person who gave and didn't get it returned. Where there was a feeling of disinterest coming back. The statements of desire have been there, but they sometimes felt empty.

When those relationships ended, I was left being the one who was unhappy. The one who gave was the one who got hurt. Because the one who didn't could just walk away from it all without losing too much in the way of an emotional investment. At least, so it seemed from my viewpoint. I recognize I could be completely wrong, but that feeling was there.

And what he said about "dominating" the relationship is so true. When one person is doing the giving, and the other is not, an unbalance is created. The giver keeps trying to give more to somehow overcompensate for the lack of balance, and winds up taking the lead of the other. The non-giver does get complete control of the relationship. Its almost a fucked up version of D/s, this time subtle and not necessarily consensual, yet not necessarily not.

I am most intrigued by the line "goes onto a happy life." All of the giving I have done has generally left me the pained one - not in the happy life.

I have often felt I am too nice. That I am too giving. That I let down my walls so far, thus guaranteeing emotional pain at some point or another. I have thought about trying to be the more reserved one... the cocky one.

I actually tried that once. It didn't work at all. In fact, it probably fucked up something really good.

Where am I going with this? I don't know. I guess there are questions in my mind, theories that I will never disprove because I can only be who I am, and no one different. And this certainly has been a topic that has been discussed in this journal before, always to the same conclusions. I will always be the person who gives. And I will certainly find myself in many more positions where I am given little back. But that's OK.


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.