If I have one pet peeve in life
(sidebar: I use that as a cliché-d opening because I have many, many pet peeves
in life) it’s the demand for reciprocity within relationships; relationships of
any kind. Now, a reciprocal nature can be very vital to a functioning
relationship. It means that one party doesn’t end up doing more than fair share
of work, paying more than they should, or putting in more effort. I’ve had
friendships where the reciprocal balance is paramount because one person
had to put more of an effort in, and so in that case I felt I should give more
so that person didn’t feel cheated. (Note: I know this may sounds confusing, or
maybe it doesn’t but I’m confusing myself. It’s just hard not to name names.)
But what I detest is when a
person refuses to give without taking. It’s a very unattractive quality to me
if someone won’t “call them cause they don’t call me”, or something to the same
effect. Now granted, people often do like to take more than their fair share of
things and if we realise a friend/partner isn’t putting in the effort, then it
is completely reasonable, in my opinion, to relinquish your own efforts. But to
have the kind of nature where you only see benefit for yourself seems very
immature to me.
I think
the reason it annoys me so much is because it eliminates the act of kindness.
If you are only doing something for someone because you know there are benefits
for you, then you aren’t performing a good deed, merely a selfish one. And as
someone who was raised a certain way, I believe performing good deeds, and
selfless deeds, is integral to relationships, whatever their nature.
So
whilst Mama Morton may have a point when she says “When you’re good to Mama,
Mama’s good to you”, I’m going to adhere to Miss Emma Goldman:
“If love does not know how to give and take without restrictions, it is
not love, but a transaction that never fails to lay stress on a plus and a
minus.”
And no, of course I didn’t know that quote. I Google-d it.
