The Theory Of Availability -a further dig at Love

[note to all who leave comments. this site ain't a forum for discussion and i won't reply your criticisms or commendations although they're welcome. this site be a commentary-satire for comic relief. meant to entertain, that's it, that's all. ]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

for those who understood the point of the previous article; Sex, Lies & The Theory Of Love, this piece is an extension of the same vein of thought.

The Theory Of Availability expounds on how almost all relationships (don't fuck me on the proportions) is based on availability, not love as we know it.

allow me.

"oh my god, becky, guess what i heard -marshall's got a crush on you!"

how does becky proceed from this? likely options;

1."errrr, he's a geek, no way!"
2."wow, he's a rapper! fuck me now!"
3."what? marshall? he's gorgeous! but he's only here for one term!"
4."really? he's got a cute arse! i'll let him hit on me and see what he's got to offer"

therein lies the theory of availability -that many relationships stem not from genuine mutual affinity (though it might result that way later on) but from mere availability of a partner.

you see, we are flattered by attention. read -a prospective partner is good to have, more so than a partner itself. show me a man who doesn't feel good if there are women flockin at his feet? show me a woman who doesn't feel good if there are men queuein up just to smell her hair. flattery does wonders for one's self-esteem and at a time of crisis, loneliness, weakness, undecisiveness, boredom, whatever, who is to blame you for givin a new option a shot? as long as a prospective partner satisfy a few pre-requesites on your partner criterion list (e.g. he may not have a car, but he ain't ugly and has a sense of humour etc.) you'll find no reason to let a perfectly good opportunity pass. if only i could be sure about the reasons behind the romances of celebrities like posh and becks or antony and cleopatra.

next, the continuity of a relationship is also based on the continuity of availability. a previously explained example was the case of the woman with the MIA husband. that was an extreme example, because of the totality of non-availability (you have no idea whether your partner is alive even). but let's examine the simple case of a long-distance relationship. here, two competin thoughts are at play;

absence makes the heart grow fonder

v.

out of sight, out of mind

which is victorious? the former is likely to take the lead at the initial stages;

"oh my darling is in ukraine on a business transfer, i miss him so much!"

time is vital to this transition, but eventually loneliness and other factors manifest into

"i don't think i can wait for him any longer, i need him so bad!"

and later a further more fatalistic resignation,

"i can't torture myself waitin this way, i don't know when he'll get transferred back"

of course, the intensity and the preciousness of a time previously spent will prolong this lead but as we progress, throw in the possible new twist of the third party and we will inevitably see

"nah, he ain't ever comin back and paolo's such a nice guy! and that bum..ooooo"

may i quote the immortal genius of diana ross and the supremes -"if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". life must go on. and so it does.

now a compellin argument is that of wernyz' who champions this idea but inter alia contends that the MIA husband scenario can be viewed another way -that life does go on, but movin on should not undermine the 'realness' of the love previously shared. you can look back on it with fond memories and rest in the security of the knowledge that it was a happy time indeed. somethin like 'bring it along, but put it aside'. sound view, this.

however, how does this tie in with The Theory Of Availability? it only reinforces it to me! not that i do not advocate movin on but the fact that we do move on is the perfect proof of how there shouldn't be a The One in the first place. sure, you can argue that you can't possibly be sure of who is The One -you were young, things change, whatever. get this, the identity (or even the existence) of The One changes to suit your convenience and to facilitate your desired lifestyle. if you're able to concede this, then you'll appreciate that The Theory Of Love and The Theory Of Availability are the only forces that should govern your decisions. there is nothin shameful about it for it is preservation of self and preservation of species, but it must be respected that we are naturally selfish. in short -we do what we gotta do.

what then is true love, you have to ask? holdin as true the two theories, it can only mean that true love is love that we must accept as possibly temporary from the outset itself. you cannot tell your wife you love her till the end of time at the altar. you cannot tell your girlfriend she is the only one you'll ever want. all because you cannot be sure to mean it. considerin this, all casual romances with no promises are true love. all scandalous mistresses who accept their possible shelf-life love truly. the two-timin men who lie to them about their future (e.g. i'ma divorce my wife soon, i swear) but know that they know it's just accessorisin words to facilitate the viability of their romance love truly as well. and finally, the paragon of true love i believe is this;

i love you liv tyler! i don't care if you don't even know i exist! you can't stop me from lovin you! i love you! i love you!!!

ciao.

[Tune in for another excitin spin-off episode -The Theory Of True Love -the unreturned kind]

_______________________________________________________

Word Of The Wolf today is renege \rih-NIG; -NEG\,

intransitive verb:
To go back on a promise or commitment.

"Courtney thought about their past, how it was all beautiful, but she knew she had to renege on her promises because she was in love more with the memories of Kurt than Kurt himself."

_______________________________________________________
Renege is from Medieval Latin renegare, "to deny again, to go back upon," from Latin re-, "back, again" + negare, "to say no, to deny."