Fear 'e not my angels!
My premises are as follows:
The mere fact that Geet has a past
The path was laid for Maan to have a past
Just to prove the mathematical equation that
- x - = +
That two negatives make a positive. If that is the clause then I think that premise sucks. At least for me, it does!
In this day and age of divorces, second marriages, marriages between spouses who have children from previous marriages, marriage between young guy- older woman, marriage of convenience, marriages that are against societal norms or any strictures, open marriages,
it is SO NOT NECESSARY:
- That both have a past!
- That both need to be wounded in a previous love!
- That both need to have been victims of a previous failure.
- That both need to be sufferers to come together.
I think we need NOT take recourse to such a typesetting.
Or that we need to justify love that could happen to anyone and everyone unless if they happen to be barbarians at the gates of hell.
Let's please not clutter the setting of a love that can be all encompassing and all overpowering.
A love that can go against any stipulation or standard.
A love that can silence the storm and bring about a calm.
Does it mean that if ONE of the people in love does not have an equally painful past they cannot accept the other person's past?
Is that love? OR is it conformity and conditioning? Is it not just like saying that unless both of us are sufferers we will fail to understand each other and stand by each other.
- x - = + is okay in Mathematics but NEED NOT NECESSARILY APPLY to LIFE or LOVE to make sense of either life or love.
For MAAN to love GEET and understand her past, he need not have to have had a past nor does he need to be a victim to understand someone else's pain. That is a fallacy on which life does not depend on in some instances. Romantic idealism? Well, absolutely!
- Luv
Bridgette
comment:
p_commentcount