Yeah, I did just jocked a piece of a wedding ceremonial speech for the title of this blog post but what does it mean when someone says, "And In Sickness And In Health?" Would you stay with someone you so called love if they were sick from a minor cold to being a vegetable or paralyzed? Could you stand by someone who is no longer the person you come to know? At face value, most people would answer yes. But is that really so? How many people break up and make up based off of petty arguments or miscommunication, yet you'd be down for that same person if they were in a car accident and mentally lost in a coma? Probably not, and the chances of you being loyal diminishes if you're NOT married to him/her. Life isn't a romance book or film where there's an unrealistic happy ending. We live in a self gratification society where we want, what we want, how we want it and on expedited shipping!
Now when we look at our grandparent's age, the 30, 40s, 50, or 60s they were the definition of "ride or die." Whether it be husband went off to war and wife made care packages and sent letters religiously to him. Husband had an outside baby and wife knew about it, didn't leave him, and didn't fuss about him seeing that child. Husband fought for civil rights, and wife was right there by his side (Martin and Coretta). These relationships started extremely young, and the couples typically tied the knot around late teens to early twenties and they made it last. People in our grandparent's era hardly faced divorce, and if they did, it wasn't until the kids were grown, out the house, married and had kids of their own. So what changed?
The times, needs, qualifications, morality, seriously the list can go on and for some people this might not apply to them but what we can all agree on is that we're more blunt with our personal wants and desires than to mutually give in, comprise but not break. Compatibility isn't the objective, it's "what you can do for me." Back then people were married young due to short life spans, economic instability, family arrangements etc. but today with women making the same power moves as men and successful men having the pick of the litter why be faithful to one person? You can have side chicks, side dudes, boyfriend number 2s, cutty buddies, and situations. Why build a foundation that can last a lifetime when you can have temporary joy? This mentality is the Y generation's motto, yet we're not fulfilled by it. How many times have you heard "I got trust issues." "These hoes ain't loyal." "Niggas ain't shit." "All men are dogs." "Women are users." "Don't trust anyone." "Men will say whatever to get in your pants." And the list goes on.
You see, the human experience is based on the connections and interfaces we have with one another whether good or bad. We want intimacy but fear rejection or being hurt, but that's all a part of the human experience that gives us depth. How can you say you lived without trial and error? The belief of 'I want things to be how I want it on my terms or else I don't want it' isn't beneficial to you or the person you're with. Not everyone you come into contact with will be a permanent fixture in your life, but they will leave a lasting influence on you whether good or bad. Babies from the womb instinctively yearn for their mother's affection, so why would we as adults say, "Fuck these hoes," but then turn around and say, "I get lonely." Contradiction much? We desire to be loved and understood and when we don't have that we turn cold but you have to reciprocate the wants you desire to the person that you're trying to make a relationship work with. I heard an excellent quote from David Beckham in response to how he felt about his relationship with his wife Victoria Beckham, "She is my best-friend; would you want to hurt your best-friend?" With that being said, would you want to hurt your best friend with your egotism or would you find a happy medium? Two opposite thoughts can't occupy the same space at the same time.
Be Entertained. Be Enlightened. Be Loved. ✌