the three p's of paramour

Love Part Deux

"If loving you with all my heart's a crime, then I'm guilty."

when i heard this real mushy and corny song on the radio some 6 years ago, i thought to myself: wow, this is a real mushy and corny song! but today i kind of see the lyric differently. recently i was thinking about the meaning of love, and then this song popped in out of nowhere and gave me one of those eureka moments. the concept of love and crime suddenly appeared to me like similar concepts; i started to draw parallels between them...

law enforcement often describes the three contributory factors to an alleged criminal's guilt regarding an alleged crime: means, motive and opportunity. i started on the supposition that lasting love probably has symmetrical attributes vis-a-vis actual crime. i ended up with a whole bag of surprises:

means -> passion
if the means of a violent crime refer to weaponry, then the means of a true love between persons is the fire that burns between their hearts. say it in french: PAH-SEE-onh. oooh, so atas. it must be true! at the start of any relationship, this is known as sparks or chemistry; it appears spontaneously and seemingly crackles without effort, but after young love, this fire becomes the responsibility of both partners to maintain. if it lives long enough to mature, it does so beautifully, like a smouldering coal that bears no flame but is still pretty fucking hot if you know what a barbecue is like. hmm sambal stingray o wait i digress. if the fire of passion dies out, however, they have a problem. if one party is always having to provide more fuel than his/her counterpart, they have a problem. if one party is afraid of fire, they have a problem. call 995.

motive -> purpose
im certain that personality does not play a major role in loving relationships, insofar as to the ability of incompatible personalities to break bonds and actually cause relationship failure. what is relevant instead is willingness for compromise brought on by maturity of thought, which is a feature though more available to some kinds, is not exclusive to any personality type. when two lovers know and can agree on the shape of the path of their relationship, by extension, they also know its destination. obviously the journey is for two; it bodes well that the both of them know where they are going and how they wish to get there (the best buses obstensibly being trust & compromise). i would say then that the unions of such couples indeed have acknowledgeable purpose and are bound for longevity.

opportunity -> proximity
if the opportunity for theft is simply money on a table with no prospective witnesses in the vicinity, then proximity is that magic factor that makes a relationship either real enjoyable or plain shitty and headed for the dumps. long distance relationships rarely survive--they might if the passion and purpose are concrete, but they usually crumble otherwise. it seems like petty reasoning, but this is extremely real. people break up all the time because they couldnt keep the fire alive across thousands of miles and fully-booked schedules. any relationship forged in the convenience of close proximity (school/office romance) should be built with sturdy foundations of the other two legs. if circumstances in life were to somehow change as they always do, and that third leg called proximity was yanked out from below a relationship, well then, youre screwed. c'est la vie. the sad thing is that you wouldn't even be that sad when this inevitably happens because, it doesnt feel like there's much left to be lost at that point...

means, motive, opportunity. the trifecta of crime guilt. passion, purpose, proximity. the three p's of paramour. they function like a three-legged coffee table. a good table is balanced on all three legs. i realise this can be rather cold to read and appreciate, but i am who i am; i see faults and fiery aftermath before most people can just see the hairline cracks so this is my two cents. some would say that it is quite rewarding to always have a table around; the same some who use it till it breaks and then just go and get a new one (which reminds me i need to go to ikea one of these days). and then theres some who would rather drink coffee off the floor waiting for the right one to come along and build a good lasting table with.

pretty depressing shit. let me summarise in a joke that will not make you laugh: a good coffee table is balanced on all three legs. a three-legged coffee table with one short leg is perfectly fine once you know which leg to stuff a magazine under. a two-legged coffee table stands fine, but i wouldnt put too many cups of coffee on it. a one-legged coffee table is just ridiculous while a four-legged coffee table is just you trying to be funny with me. a zero-legged coffee table is actually a disk that i am about to throw in your face!!!!!