i do not know if they serve drinks in hell, but i do know this: it is 7 p.m. and one hundred two degrees outside. and as odd as it seems, it kind of makes sense.
like this statistic from a recent article regarding marriage and infidelity: that three fourths of those who suffer thru such indiscretions maintain their relationship.
for all the discomfort we endure, for all we go thru for that moment in time in which we instinctively seethe and boil, in the end we stay.
we move on, but we don't move away.
. . .
my parents were divorced before i even knew what a marriage looked like. or what a relationship was supposed to encompass. my eight year old brain still imperceptive to anything more dense than pop tarts.
my friends had parents that served as childhood role players. the moms volunteered in the pta and made kool aid so we had something to drink after running around outside. the dads stayed late at work, came home defeated, and wanted to have dinner and a beer in front of the tv and not much else.
perhaps they had deep rooted connections that i was never privy to, or maybe they were too busy fulfilling the demands of being responsible adults, but i don't ever recall my parents, or anyone else's at that time, having shared anything i can recall as emotionally or physically substantive.
what i do remember is this: surface tension. how we all gravitated to the same room to maintain a sense of civility when there was trouble. i remember the silence of angry wives. the occasional slammed door. but not much else.
and i don't think any of it was unusual. not for the time, anyway.
these were the seeds in the soil of the divorce era; the genesis of a blossoming selfishness that would mark the next few decades, and in its wake produce generations of demanding, self important offspring with obsessive compulsive disorders.
. . .
another excerpt from said article: '...the strongest risk factor for infidelity, researchers have found, exists not inside the marriage but outside: opportunity.'
this idea makes my head spin.
it could mean:
your partner (or former partner) is not completely morally corrupt afterall; they simply exist in an environment which affords them more opportunity.
and if you are socially active and still morally solvent, than you must be a saint.
or your company must be decidedly boring and unattractive.
or you must be a troll.
. . .
it was so much easier to think of infidelity as the dividing line between the good, the bad, and the ugly. but this new bit of information turns my brain inside out.
it makes the whole thing more of an equation than a condemnation. and all the people involved just factors in a defined mathematical statement.
if so, the there really is no one to blame.
the people you see on tv.
the people who live down the street.
the people who live in your house.
it's all just a matter of opportunity.
immunity is futile.
everyone is guilty.
everyone is innocent.

