There is a sentiment that it is not a good thing to have a type. For there to me a commonality in the guys you fall for or just the guys you date. The sentiment says that it places human beings into small little categories, implying a interchangeability or sameness to humanity. It implies a devaluing of others. I wonder if we have been looking at it all wrong. What if it isnt a fear that you see others as all the same but instead a fear that you, throughout your life, are always the same. If we are what we eat, and we always eat the same things, then do we ever change? Do we ever grow? The mutability of type over time has often been spoken of in terms of growth or evolution. Out tastes evolve and so that must mean that we do as well, right? But what if you always want that big tall football player? Or that slim black guy? Or that round brown guy? No one ever claims that these guys arent distinct and unique but if you are drawn at 18 to the dark and swarthy and find yourself 35, after a slew of false starts, failed launches, and epic explosions, still going after the dark and swarthy one? Maybe this one is a little more mature, a little more stable, a little more into you - hes clearly different but are you? There may be a corollary sentiment to the first sentiment saying that every relationship is between two new people - and maybe there is a fear that if the second boyfriend looks somewhat like the first one, then maybe you are going to be the one that needs to have changed. Flipping between disparate men may thus be a way to make change without actually being changed. And change is good. Change is pain, sure. But any change of who you are now is going to require some pain. Pain is the way we grow, the way we change. And thats ok - if it is the change we need. Otherwise, it is useless pain, taking you to dead end paths, and as St. Francis Underwood says, we can not abide useless pain.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 21:48:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015