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.