Sunday, September 25, 2011

Better To Have And No Longer Or To Never Had At All?

I know it's loved and lost versus never loved, but I think that's setting the scope too narrowly. Let's go broader and say Is it better to try things and to have to (or decide to) give them up, than to never tried them at all?

I like that more.

Now, I've loved and lost, perhaps in a more literal sense than most people I know, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Having loved, I've seen a new side to life, knowing there's more to companionship than friendship. Sure, the backlash is rough, but I can honestly say it was worth it.

When I say tried and given up I mean it, as opposed to never trying at all. Sex (done and not looking for more), drugs (considered, but not taken up because they're too bloody expensive and I've gotten too much out of donating blood), and internet (I'm on what you might call a diet) are the big ones. Food never was a hobby for me, something I never derived pleasure from; too many people find it more alluring than drugs, but for me, it's just sustenance.

So that's it. I would have tried more but for things that got in the way (like money or lack thereof, and blood donation).

I vote for the former and pity anyone who chooses the latter.