Monday, November 24, 2003


I got to thinking (I do give it a whirl sometimes) and thought how it's funny how when you're dating multiple people simultaneously there's not much to talk about with your girlfriends. "How's Jim, Bob, and Smith?" Reply: "It's cool, they're fun, you know, everything's cool." Succinct yet, vague. This is not intentional but, it is the inevitable when there is not one focus. But, if you're actually in that elusive one-on-one situation, there's a plethora of topics to discuss i.e., he's a bastard because (fill in the blank), or he did the sweetest thing, he (fill in the blank). Or, better yet, when there is no one, endless rants persist on the gripe of the lack thereofs.

I suppose this is because when you're multi-dating, no one particular really means anything. If there is just the one, the others would be a mere disruption. Now, the real question is, does that prevent anything from developing into anything serious, or do we practice such a juggle as a measure of caution? I know, I know this is not a new lament from me but it is reiterated because seemingly, this is an issue that prevails from college to marriage, girl to guy, guy to girl and coast to coast.

Words like "serious," "exclusive," and, of course, "commitment" have become words of taboo in the realm of dating. Fine. It's perfectly okay to desire other things in lieu of a relationship. There are notions that suggest that a lot must be sacrificed if not, at least compromised to engage in a steady relationship and that's just too much work. It is a separate-togetherness that is sought. Then, as a result, has independence become an easier trait to acquire than co-dependence?