The problem with tired ole idiomatic expressions is that the damn things are annoyingly true. Take for example that trifling little treasure, “it takes two to tango.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, this is a saying most aptly applied “when you want to emphasize that both people involved in a difficult situation must accept the blame, or that an activity needs two people who are willing to take part for it to happen.” Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion are a decidedly more complex rendition of the same fact:
- Every object will remain at rest [blah blah blah] unless compelled to change [blah blah blah] . . . (Basically, it’s a statement about inertia that says objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion. Hold that thought.)
- The acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables—the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. (In idiot terminology: the behavior of an object is dependent both upon external force and internal composition. Hold this thought, too.)
- For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (In other words, when body #1 does something to body #2, body #2 will respond equally in magnitude, but in an opposite direction. Oh, yeah—definitely hold this one!)
So, let’s apply 1-3 above and my earlier tango reference to relationships. Happy, healthy—sure. But especially otherwise. Let’s be real. Good and great don’t need fixing or commiseration. Like a ‘nother lil’ annoyingly true idiom says, it’s misery that wants company—not joy. Nor would (I’m guessing) a blog called singleat60sings.com get nearly 9600 views? That said . . .
Ladies, it takes two to make a relationship. If it’s not what we want, guess what? Tango. We are at equal fault. Newton-wise ala relationships, men are typically the objects at rest. Literally and figuratively and in every meaning of the word, without the compulsion to change, they won’t. Hell! Assuming Isaac had a better grasp of physics than he did flattering hairstyles, they can’t. Not without the exertion of external force and the inner capacity/ability/willingness to do so. Sadly (and all too often), it’s that second factor many a woman (including yours truly) fails to recognize—or accept.
Which brings us now to us. We are always the force that can effect change. Alas, probably not in him however (see Law # 2, re internal composition). But absolutely in the relationship itself. The problem is, we don’t always want to risk the outcome. ‘Cause let’s be real once again. Not all change is good—at least not in the immediate short term. And if ever we women have a tendency to be short-sighted, it’s in choosing the known “here and now” over a far-off and “what if” unknown. It’s a fearful mindset that has kept many a woman from divorcing. (Been there, done that. So trust me, I get it!) Moreover, given the lousy dating options out there, the same reluctance rules our single lives as well. Ours is world of whack jobs—dead fish holding liars, dick pic sending losers, scammers, breadcrumbers, love bombers and texting ghosts. Small wonder, some of us have settled upon less than what we truly want in exchange for what we at least have. Something is always better than nothing. Basic math, right?
I am learning maybe not.
I am learning better “with” than “without” closes the door on ever having “more.” BTW, here’s a newsflash: If you have accepted (by either conscious choice or subconscious decision) it’s “better the devil you know,” you have hereby forfeited the right to complain you’ve got the devil you know. (Ahhhhhh . . . there’s the segue to Sunday and me you’ve no doubt been waiting for. . . )
As a result of recent events and owing to the truth of Law # 3, this a relationship no longer working for me. But loss is the risk of trying to fix, remember? So, here’s my dilemma . . . but not. Not anymore. ‘Cause bad-hair Sir Newton got it right: nothing changes without compelling it. Score one for the physicists, I guess. And BTW, take one from the mathematicians while you’re at it. As it turns out (and who knew?), “less” is not greater than “zero” after all.