Thursday, 3 April 2008


Ok, I found this in a book, "I loved a girl"...........It's a series of letters between an african couple who want to get married, and their pastor.
It made me wonder. Whether I was wrong.
This is what it says.....

It's true you can say to a girl "I love you", but what you really mean is something like this: "I want something. Not you, but something from you. I don't have time to wait. I want it immediately, without delay. It doesn't matter what happens afterwards. Whether we remain together, whether you become pregnant--that has nothing to do with me. For me, it's right now that counts. I will make use of you in order to satisfy my desire. You are for me only the means by which I can reach my goal. I want to have it--have it without any further ado, have it, immediately.
This is the opposite of love, for love wants to give. Love seeks to make the other one happy, and not himself. You acted like a pure egoist. Instead of saying: "I loved a girl" you should have said: " I loved myself and myself only. For this purpose I misused a girl"
Let me try to tell you what it really should mean if a fellow says to a girl, "I love you." It means: "you, you, you. You alone. You shall reign in my heart. You are the one whom I have longed for, without you, I am incomplete. I will give everything for you and I will give up everything for you, myself as well as all that I possess. I will live for you alone. And I will wait for you--it doesn't matter how long. I will always be patient with you. I will never force you, not even by words. I want to guard you, protect you, and keep you from all evil. I want to share with you my thoughts, my heart and my body--all that I possess. I want to listen to what you have to say. There is nothing I want to undertake without your blessing. I want to remain always by your side."
Only in marriage can love really unfold and mature, because only there can it find permanence and faithfulness. True love never can and never will end. That's why you should use the great words "I love you" very sparingly. You should save it for the girl whom you intend to marry.


Oui, that is indeed what it says.
The book is "I loved a girl" by a Walter Trobisch. It's a true story, and the letters are real. this is a bit from one of the first letters that is contained in this book. Walter's the Pastor who advises. Apparently this book became really famous. I'd reccommend it.

It made me think.........about all those motions I have about love and marriage. Maybe now I do believe in marriage......just not my marriage.

Anyway. Just something I felt like sharing.


Anonymous said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Wireless, I hope you enjoy. The address is A hug.

why me????? said...

a decent excerpt,,,,,,,but i cn only agree 70% with it...............dont ask why

Espèra said...

I still don't believe in marriages.
What people seek from marriages can be got from a live-in relation.
Actually, I guess I still see marriage in a very physical sense. That is, it's not a marriage unless you perform a ritual, or sign on it. And I don't like rituals.

Strange that you did this post. I was thinking of doing one quite related to this. I'll do that later I guess.

theludicrousone said...

one think that really turns men away from the whole marriage thing is fear of divorce.... a very serious threat to masculine financial and social security.

Renovatio said...

That's bullshit. It's a fear of commitment and the fact that stronger women tend to put their ex's balls in their trophy case at the end of the ordeal. Ego too. The fear of divorce comes after they're married.

persona non grata. said...

I disagree with that excerpt so strongly, it's ridiculous.

The excerpt is, in no uncertain terms, bullshit.

The statements qualify love. Whatever love is, it cannot be qualified. This is such a judgement of love that it pains even me; the cynic. Telling someone that you love them is not about you. It is never about you. It is not selfish, it is not 'goal-oriented'. It just is. An irrefutable fact. This sort of value judgement on love ignores the fact that love is after all a human emotion. And just like us mere mortals, it wanes and it waxes; grows and changes and is intense and then it isn't. It is its very nature. And that is so because that is our very nature. To ignore that is to absolutely demean the concept itself.

Which brings me to my second point: Love is a concept. And a concept is what you make it. How you construct it, is up to you and how you apply it, is up to you too. Love, therefore is a neutral construct and a human value object. If you judge it from a specific standpoint; you are projecting your history, your baggage and your bullshit upon it. Therefore, love is not specific unless you make it. Which means, nobody is neutral. Which means, nobody can speak of it with objectivity. Therefore, nobody is an expert on love. Which means: shut up.

Third point: while I realise this is an excerpt, I resent the sexist overtones of it. I shall reserve judgement until I can see it in its larger context.

Fourth: No. No. No. Marriage is another construction. It is a societal function, mode, idea- whatever the hell you want to call it. Love has nought to do with such a validation of 'partnership'. Love must not be bridled as though it answers to tugs and pulls.

Marriage is but a piece of paper to prove something to yourself, to others. Marriage as an institution is sacred in its own way- I do not deny it. I cannot vilify its sanctity by marrying; but I cannot and will not qualify Love by doing the same. Love is beyond such 'human' ideas.

Marriage too, is what you make it. It is more human, but no less a neutral construct.

I apologise for the verbosity of this comment.

Bubbles of FireWhiskey said...

im gona chk d book out... been a long time since i found a decent read

freudian slip said...

id comment but you know exactly what i think.

♥bμşγ-ŵŗϊŧēŕ♥ said...

sigh...books, i've foorgotten how tis like to read em.

sigh. there is no library near by..not even a bookstore so that i can buy em. sigh. and school lib. sucks..they have some few enid blytons and thats it in the un-acads books sec.


Mystique said...

2 wireless: Thanks...

2 sid: Ahh, I get your point, I don't fully agree with it either....

2 espera: marriage=!!!! 1 person to stick with throughout life.
In my case, no guarantees. and yeah, I have a lot to say about marriage and how it's just a document and stuff, but not here.

2 ludicrous: that's the ONLY thing?? naah...

2 reno: fear of commitment, yes, commitment IS a bit scary. lifelong commitment. brr.

2 Png: first- I don't wholly agree with it. I said it made me think.
True, it's no use trying to be an expert on love, it has no sefinition, it is....what you feel...I dunno...
third: yeah it is rather sexist. attribute that to it being a rather old book, when sexism was the norm.
4th, yeah, I'd always held the "marriage is but paper binding for a pretty long time" thing. Why need you legalise love?
(bringing me to "why isn't homosexuality legal???" never understood that)
oh, it's ok, I was verbose in my reply.

2 bubbles: yeah it's a good read.

2 rushi: yeah I kinda do, I guess, but then I wonder if I really do....

2 mon: bleah, enid blytons in a HIGH SCHOOL library?? and I thought ours was bad, but it's pretty ok....

persona non grata. said...

Homosexuality has 'legal' status in some countries. In India, specifically, the law says (if I remember correctly) that 'unnatural penetration' is punishable. Which means, lesbianism is not.

We're an odd bunch; we are.

Sutta said...

Its the other way round as well.
*Think* about it!

plzdonttrythisathome said...

i think its true to the a certain level.. untill hes a anumal in other matter.. hes just raw animal.