Yes, and — IMO — you should consider seeking out relationships with cumulative risk and reward if you don't have them already. Intimacy builds naturally in relationships where people aren't filling roles where they're fungible, like companionship. That's vital, but not sufficienthttps://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1182344417887358976 …
-
-
This all sounds really clinical, but love itself is *necessarily* the kind of commitment I'm talking about. It's a word that's thrown around a lot, but I don't think there's any reasonable usage for "love" that doesn't imply a high-risk, high-reward investment in another person
Show this thread -
To love someone is to make yourself extremely vulnerable to their own outcomes. If what happens to them isn't intertwined with what happens to you on some deeply important level, I don't know how you can call that "love"
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is an important point and something I wish overly-political people would take to heart. Sure you can hope for your Manic Pixie Dream Candidate to become prez. Or you could like, start small, and actually *start* something, today!https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1164556119425114113 …
-
I don’t really disagree with either of you, but in my capacity as the chariot slave at every triumph I must say: not everyone gets to be loved; or in this case, will ever have access to the kind of proactive, directed relationships which high-functioning people can achieve.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.