recently, i went out with a friend because he wanted to talk about relationship woes. it’s a talk that kawadjan would call ‘processing’.
here’s a snippet of the conversation:
‘i feel i’m not getting what i need from this relationship,’ he lamented.
‘but isn’t the joy of love in the giving?’ i asked.
‘yes, but i want some consideration’
‘isn’t that something in return?’
‘i guess…’
i told him i heard that in a relationship, you take on a particular role: you’re either a gardener or a flower. the gardener cannot really expect much from the flower except, well – to be pretty. on the other hand, the flower expects the gardener to tend, weed, water, fertilise so it can get to full bloom.
he immediately knew his role.
the thing is, in a heterosexual relationship these roles are usually ascribed by society. the woman is the gardener in the home but the flower everywhere else. the makes for mostly a straightforward guide in hitting the balance in a relationship. in gay relationships however, we precariously navigate the role playing and, in my experience, most want to be taken care of. most, if not all, of us in queerdom want to be the flower.
i know i'm courting real unpopularity in saying this but here lies the rub: despite the comparatively clear cut assignation of heterosexual roles, i have yet to encounter a relationship where i say, this looks like a real give and take. what hope do we have for balance in a gay relationship when these expectations are, at best, blurred and at worse, totally non-existent?
i live in hope that what this means is that we take turns being the flower.
after all, the allure of the tragedy can only last about as long as the flower in bloom before it wilts.
12 comments:
if you can only seen flowers and gardeners, i doesn't matter if there are other possibilities.
whenever we learn within a relationship the role of each other, that is the time we can take turns.
there is no perfect relationship but it is possible to exert efforts on making it perfect.
@ lof - do i hear a hint of reprimand? it's just an analogy. why doesn't it matter?
@ lemon writer - i like your idea of defining your role first then taking turns. thanks for the visit!
I do not believe in this analogy. It is a clear misconception about relationship limited by society's need for norms. Old and outdated beliefs.
With that said, I've been in a relationship for almost 4 years. The key is not "give and take" but in the knowledge that no matter what happens, you will be better off waking up with the same person still by your side.
@ menthos - i feel you, pare.
i do split into condescension on occasion even with the shortest of sentences. but if my statement was taken that way, my apologies, wasn't intended. i was just suggesting that sometimes our view point can harden so that things do not fit easily into our framework are overlooked -- whether we see things concretely or symbolically.
such poetic justice for the passion paradox
@ lof - no worries. wasn't offended. a blog is a free space, right? just wanted to know what you meant. i actually agree with what you are saying.
@ chers - poetic (in)justice is more like it. haha
i guess, in a relationship both parties should always meet in the middle (literally and figuratively). hehehehe
@ wc - i like!
i'm surprised no one came out swinging with accusations of heteronormativity on wc completely ruining the witty comment. you must have a mature and refined group of readers kiel!
@ lof - maybe. or maybe nobody reads me. or worse, they expect me to say foul stuff in the first place! hahaha
Post a Comment