trust me in the morning

could it be that we only maintain close relationships with people in our lives who are able to acknowledge the moments we experience as significant. Do those who contextualize a relationship serve little other function than to give these moments purchase? 

we look for support in those we are close too just as we look for validation that what we are feeling, experiencing, or remembering legitimate emotions in response to an event. what gives us this validation is the exposition rendered by an informed observer. 

so, a drunken, impulsive indiscretion on the surface is given redeemed purchase to the individual who realizes that this action is the result of 12 years of sexual tension and hypothetical expectations. 

here we are validated by those in whom we confide because they do not require us to justify our actions. Just the same however, do we have to justify our actions to the party of our inhibition? what if this person does not see these actions in the same context? 

how do we justify the perception of those party to our desire? is it fair to assume the confidant with sufficient exposition is considering the perception of the other person involved when validating our actions? 

no. 

as a result, is it then impossible to validate discretionary actions taken in or out of context? how do we redeem our sense of control over the evolution of a long standing relationship without this validation? 

is it possible to justify any action, no matter how small, without context or exposition?

in other words, can our emotions, experiences, and feelings exist free of justification? Can we experience emotions without context? and without it are our emotions valid?  

how does one validate the emotional evolution (or devolution) of a relationship without the awareness of mediating factors? It makes me wonder if any relationship can exist on its own without baring the weight circumstance. 

the days it's true

"the reappearance of the lady is a matter of individual taste."  - will goldston, tricks and illusions

what is the significant part of this ritual? is it the consistent reappearance after any amount of time passed? or is it the continued disappearance at the end of the night?

is there enough magic in disappearing in a puff of smoke to make the lady reappear only to watch her vanish? what is the sought after illusion? if you think of ritual/ relationships as magic tricks . . illusions . . then which part makes us re-enter the theater and buy another ticket for the same show? 

are we attracted to the subtle set up? the erotic distraction that draws the audiences attention away from the trick? is it the glamour of the act, entering the box, shackling the wrists? or is it the big reveal, when the box opens and she's gone, no trace left other than the memory of her once being tangible? 

and if the lady reappears before the curtain goes up are we disenchanted? is the assistant a mere tool to be beckoned to? waiting for her cue? or is she ultimately in control? because there is no magic if she chooses not to disappear . .  

truthfully the magic lies in the hands of those willing to facilitate it.