SLC-S24/W2 - Powerful Debate | Love vs Capability
Greetings,
In a world where romantic love is romanticized and idealized as the very essence of what a relationship is, I am constantly wondering, can a marriage ever really be sustained without love? Can two people survive life side by side only on loyalty and shared understanding?
Let me drag you into a house where it all looks good, spotless galleries, grouped tabs, family meals, jovial buddies. They are regarded as the quintessential couple, not a harsh word spoken, no dramatic events. But there is a story too quiet to be seen behind the fleeting smiles.
This couple had once truly loved each other. They made friendship by the beauty of plain everyday life— notes scribbled in the margins, whispers about dreams, and lost conversations into the late hours. But with each year, love did gradually fade – not with struggle, not with betrayal, but with a soft-resignation. What was left was a formula of mutual esteem, loyalty and daily collaboration. Functional. Steady. Loveless.
They never tormented each other, but never strived to apprehend one another. The emotional distance was a comfort, a pact of peace, in which the silence stood in for the intimacy.
Is that enough?
I belive that loyalty and understrooting makes good bones in a relashun, but love is the beat. Without it, you may travel in the same direction for miles together, but never know the journey. Being viewed as "perfect" is meaningless if you weep silently in your heart.
What are your thoughts about being seen as the "perfect couple" for outsiders but truly having no feelings for each other and having a huge emotional distance?
Being viewed of as the last couple in the world by the planet is a double edged mask. Outsiders admire the calm, the coordination, the smiles in public photos—but only the couple knows the weight of unspoken words and cold silences. It’s like playing a scene from a play with both actors having forgot their lines and yet the audience still applauding.
Emotional distance is unseen yet screaming. It eats at the silent crevaces between sentences, in not being touched, in how the eyes reject each other. The world sees it as a happy occasion, whilst the couple is left to mourn what they lost between them. Avoiding the aching vacancy becomes the simpler option than confrontation.
Love shouldn’t be all contract with an occasional smile. It should be chaotic, hectic, rightly overwhelming you. Without that, even faithfulness and peace begin to become meaningless. Being "right" for the world is not ever worth losing the love that enabled two people to choose each other once.
Is it wiser to hold on to peace or to chase what sets the heart on fire?
Deciding between peace & passion is like having 2 crossroads, to choose between comfort & chaos. The main character in “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho has learned “When you want something, the universe conspires in helping you have it.”
SSThis is a lesson for us, that following your hearts desire – though uncertain, this is where true satisfaction occurs.
However, peace has its own quiet loveliness. As Rumi used to say, “Do not resist change. Instead, let life express itself through you.” Sometimes keeping peace keeps the storm of emotions away from us. And still the question persists—does it feed the soul?
Passion may flame, but it also shines light. Peace may calm, but it may also anaesthetize the soul. Wisdom doesn't rest in the avoidance of flame or grip of fist, but in understanding which one your soul can truly do without. Some flames are worth being burned for.
Regards
artist1111