Saturday, January 31, 2004

Should cliched gestures of love be received with hostility or flattery? I've always wondered whether someone could actually be moved to tears when they're compared to the moon, stars, and other geological trappings. I've always wondered this because I think I've reached my breaking point, having read enough of this crap on MSN messenger screen names and other public methods of displaying public affection. The question is: Can true love exist when dexterity does not?

There are infinite objects on earth. Yet, people unflinchingly hold on to traditional symbols of love like a heroin addict needing a fix. Angels? Butterflies? Spare me the cheese. Paging Dr. Clooney and fix this disease. Isn't love much sweeter without the sticky aftertaste? Isn't love grander when you leave things unsaid? Probably. Possibly. Perhaps. And doesn't this also help reveal the type of person your significant other is or could be? Probably. Possibly. Perhaps. So many things can be garnered from a man with a low grasp of the English lexicon, and respect isn't one of them. He could be terribly naive. Easily pliable with words. A creature of habit. Unstable and obsessed. A green-eyed monster who seldom ventures beyond supermarket tabloid fodder. A man who probably still associates diamonds with De Beers and chocolates with Valentine's.

So what if I'm being unfairly harsh. "Maybe he has a learning disability," you argue. That may be so, but who wants to take a man out to dinner and help him pronounce souffle as "sue-FLAY" and not "so-FULL"? I guess I'm a snob. I guess I'm a cynic. I guess I can only like someone half-literate in an eye clinic. That may be the case, but I don't mind. Morons who can't write something worth repeating don't deserve love at all. I stick to that decision!

Ugh. 14 more days before the world implodes upon its syrupy center.

No comments: