I'm with Mick Jones

Sure, I'll hop on that train.

What the fuck is love?

See, I know what it is for me. I know what it means by my own definition. I feel it when it's there. I have an endless amount of love for my daughter. She turned seven a couple of weeks ago, and in these past seven years I've discovered what love is by the look in her eyes when we're just hanging out. I feel it in the pulse beneath her skin when she falls asleep on me as we're watching a DVD.

That's familial love, though. The love of a mother and child has long since been documented and from what I've read, I'm right in the thick of it. It's still not something that you understand until you're there. You can't explain it to someone. Hell, I'd love to be able to possess the writing ability to get people to understand it. I can almost see the crazed interest that some people have in chasing after it, with their weird notions of parenthood and getting science involved.

But I'm really more concerned with romantic love. According to most books, movies, music and other various forms of artwork, romantic love seems to have a fairly clear definition.

You feel physically impaired when the person of your affection is not around.

OK, I've been there on that one. I've felt physically pained when there have been people I've been obsessed with who stumbled out of my line of sight. I don't know if I would consider that a characteristic of love. I think it's more a lust thing. But then again, I don't know what love is.

You feel the need to think about them, or otherwise express your feelings about them.

Well, some of my best writing has been about people that I very clearly understand that I loathe. I've been in positions where I've written hippie-dippy, kissy-face, sap-drenched bullshit that I believed to be true about people that I was obsessed with. But does that really equal love?

Hell, the majority of the things that we're supposed to know about love I can tie into obsession. (Sorry, I'm tired of thinking up and listing that shit. I bore so easily these days.)

I sit here wondering if I've ever really shared romantic love with someone. I say "I love you," quite a bit and I mean it as well. The definition of the meaning leans back toward the same thing about not being able to explain it. I have felt love for people. And I tell them so when I'm in that mood.

But romantic love?

Institutions. Moral obligations. The sense of what is "right" and what is "wrong." It all confuses me.

I watched a movie yesterday that floored me in parts. There was a lot of artsy bullshit that lent itself to the movie's stage play origins, making it a confusing overall watch for me. But there was a scene where the two lead characters are in a forward thinking church lead by a Reverend played by a young, bearded Donald Sutherland. It is the best scene in the movie and it is resonating deep within me.

I like it when I watch/read/listen to something that can do that. Good or bad, gray matter massage or psychological fingernails on the chalk board. Sometimes I just need something that wakes me up.

I found the passage in a review listed on imdb.com. I hope the person who transcribed that portion of the movie doesn't mind if I use their work here.

Rev. Dupas (Sutherland): You all know.. why we're here. There's often so much sham about this business of marriage. Everyone accepts it: ritual. That's why I was so heartened when Alfred asked me to perform this ceremony. He has certain beliefs, which I assume you all know; he is an atheist, which is perfectly all right, really it is; I happen not to be, but inasmuch as this ceremony connotes an abandonment of ritual in the search for truth, I agreed to perform it. First, let me state to you, Alfred, and to you, Patricia, that of the 200 marriages that I have performed, all but seven have failed. So the odds are not good. We don't like to admit it, especially at the wedding ceremony, but it's in the back of all our minds, isn't it: how long will it last. We all think that, don't we? We don't like to bring it out in the open, but we all think that. Well I say, why not bring it out in the open. Why does one decide to marry? Social pressure? Boredom? Loneliness? Sexual appeasement? Love? I won't put any of these reasons down, each in its own way is adequate, each is all right. Last year I married a musician who wanted to get married in order to stop masturbating. Please, don't be startled, I'm NOT putting him down. That marriage, did not work. But the man TRIED. He is now separated, still masturbating, but HE IS AT PEACE with himself because he tried society's way. So you see, it was not a mistake, it turned out all right. Now, just last month I married a novelist to a painter. Everyone at the wedding ceremony was under the influence of an hallucinogenic drug. The drug quickened our physical responses, slowed our mental responses, and the whole ceremony took two days to perform. NEVER have the words HAD SUCH MEANING. Now THAT marriage, should last. Still, if it does not, well, that'll be all right, for don't you see, any step that one takes is useful, is positive, has to be positive because it's a part of life, even the negation of the previously taken step is positive, that too is a part of life. And in this light, and only in this light, should marriage be viewed: as a small, single step. If it works, fine! If it fails, fine; look elsewhere for satisfaction. To more marriages, fine, as many as one wants, fine. To homosexuality? Fine! To drug addiction? I will not put it down, each of these is an answer for somebody. For Alfred, today's answer is Patricia. For Patricia, today's answer is Alfred. I will not put them down for that. So what I implore you both, Patricia, and Alfred, to dwell on, while I ask you these questions required by the state of New York to "legally bind you" -- sinister phrase, that -- is that not only are the legal questions I ask you, meaningless, but so too are the inner questions that you ask yourselves, meaningless. Failing one's partner, does not matter. Sexual disappointment, does not matter. Nothing can hurt, if you do not see it as being hurtful. Nothing can destroy, if you do not see it as destructive. It is all part of life, part of what we are. So now: Alfred. Do you take Patricia to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love -- whatever that means -- to honor, to keep her in sickness and health, in prosperity and adversity -- what nonsense! -- forsaking all others, -- what a shocking invasion of privacy! Rephrase that to more sensibly say, if you choose to have affairs, then you won't feel guilty about them. -as long as you both shall live, or as long as you're not tired of one another.. ?

Alfred: Yeah.

Rev. Dupas: And Patsy, do you take Alfred to be your lawfully wedded husband, to love -- that harmful word again, could not one more wisely say, communicate? -to honor,-- I suppose by that it means you won't cut his balls off, but then, some men like that! -to obey,-- well, my first glance at you, told me you were not the type to obey. So I went to my thesaurus, and I came back with these alternatives: to show devotion, to be loyal, to show fealty, to answer the helm, to be pliant. -General enough, I think, and still leave plenty of room to dominate. -in sickness and health, and all the rest of that GOBBLEDYgook, so long as you both shall live.. ?

Patsy: (confused, speechless.. finally stammers:) I do.

Rev. Dupas: Alfred and Patsy, I know now that whatever you do.. will be all right.

That is from the movie LITTLE MURDERS. (I am acutely aware of the fact that I capitalize all movie titles now. It's a requirement of both sites that I work for, so cut me some slack.)

The character of Alfred is played by a young Eliot Gould. Alfred is a nihilist who doesn't believe in fighting for anything. (Look it up if you don't know what a nihilist is.) When he meets Patsy, a very emotional woman (in the film, she states that she's 27. I really liked that.) who falls for him because... well, she's not entirely sure. And the audience hasn't been given much to understand why she might come to that conclusion as well. As the movie wears on, you understand why Alfred has fallen for Patsy, even though from the very beginning he explains that he's not sure what love is.

I could never be a nihilist because I'm a fighter. I'll fight over what breakfast cereal I think people would be better off eating. I'm forever poised and looking for a fight. I don't believe that everything is nothing. But I don't believe that everything is something either.

I read that passage to the ManPerson last night and he commented that it sounded cynical. I believe he also used the term "bitter." My point is that he perceived that perception of marriage as being rather negative.

I thought it was quite realistic.

Troublesome.

The ManPerson believes in romantic love. He might argue the point when I say that he believes in it like the little girls reading their fairy tales. Hell, I was a little girl once and there's still a part of me that would like to believe that it's all true. All the its. All the what ifs. All of it.

But in my brain of brains, I know that it's not.

Everything we do, is a step forward. Everything we do is a continuation of being. And it's all "alright."

Love, however you deem it to be, in the romantic fashion or otherwise... it's alright.

The fact that I can't define it and probably never will? That's alright too.

Convincing myself that it's alright is going to take a whole other lifetime, however.