Empty

on

You kept taking
I kept giving
Till all I had was nothing
Emptied of myself

I don’t hate you
I hate myself for
Letting you
Take it all

As I travel along
I realize that having you
But losing myself is
A fate worse than death

So, I choose this pain
Of losing you
So that I will
Find me.

Image used courtesy http://www.google.com

Advertisements

18 Comments Add yours

  1. willow1945 says:

    Very insightful.

    1. topazo says:

      thanks willow.
      I think one of the factors that cause resentments in relationships is that sense of loss of identity. what is your take?

  2. Yemie says:

    Hmmm….. Such selflessness! A great disservice to oneself! A person can only give soo much before buckling under the pressure of such an unhealthy and toxic relationship! This is a beautiful composition, it rocks for shizzie! Kudos Doc, rock on! Lolz

    1. topazo says:

      healthy relationships is all about give and take…there you know who you are and freely give of it to your partner….giving without receiving is a prelude to resentments and troubles…what do you think?

      1. Yemie says:

        Love and life’s give and take! Relationships can only thrive where a balance is maintained, otherwise; all comes crashing down! Love’s a two-way street and feelings must flow both ways as well as giving, taking, and sharing. That’s the big idea, in the grand scheme of things!

        1. topazo says:

          true words…should you find yourself in a relationship where you give your all at the demand of the other and do not get in return, what will you do?

          1. Yemie says:

            Let me first of all state this, I’m a realist! Always have been, always will be! I don’t kid or fool myself one bit! If the above mentioned scenario is not pointers enough that the guy’s just NOT that much into me, then I bloody heck don’t know what is! Love cannot be forced and I’ll just as well hit the road without a backward glance cos then and only then; can I close that chapter and usher in another. Who knows?! My luck might just be in! Lolz

            1. topazo says:

              you will just leave? someone you are so deeply in love with? wouldn’t your love be enough to carry the two of you? love bears all things…

              1. Yemie says:

                The words ‘love’ and ‘art’ are the most violated words in the world today. When I’m done deluding myself and my love’s done carrying both of us for a period of time and I snap outta my reverie, I’m still gonna get a move on, right? Seriously Doc? That you would think that is preposterous and downright silly! And NO, my ‘love’ will not carry jack, gosh! *RME*

  3. fade says:

    Wow… whether it’s well written or not o, I don’t care. but there is one thing: this poem is reflecting my situation and my present decision. It met my need. Thanks bruh…… ##I decided to chose the pain of losing her so that I will find myself.##

    1. topazo says:

      Hi Fade, it’s sad that we have to trade one pain for another. That’s life but I think in the end the pain of loss of loved one will fade and can’t compare to that of losing one’s self which is deeper and can even make one to lose the loved one too

  4. James Melbin says:

    One thing about me: I don’t believe in the word ‘love’, sorry; I believe that all love is lust, I don’t believe that any two human can really love themselves. Do I resemble anyone in this contemporary age?

    1. topazo says:

      I doubt very many people will identify with you…true love does exist. else the world would be drab and we would be a bunch of unhappy people.

      you should know that ‘lust’ is a form of love too…strange but true

  5. James Melbin says:

    O yes, well said: “lust is a form of love too.” And I don’t doubt that there is ‘love’, at least a little, of the kind that Christ commanded, in the heart of most of us.

    But ‘love’, the one that we suppose is basis for a man-woman relationship? It’s not actually love, it’s lust althrough (okay, lust is a kind of love, like you said).

    But it’s not actually love that make people to marry, it’s lust; Apostle knew this when he said “it’s good for a man to not touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

    It’s like saying, “it’s good that you people should remain focused on Christ and not lust after the opposite sex; but if you see that you can’t control your lust for the opposite sex, then you can choose just one person from the opposite sex whom you can always satisfy your lustful desire on: or else you may find yourself randomly satisfying yourself on several opposite sex, which is fornication.”

    Majority will claim that they married because they love each other, but is that really true? Can a marriage be without sexuals?

    If marriage were based on love without lost, then what need is there for marriage at all? Love means to care very mush about someone: and I think, even while being friends, you can care for anybody very much.

    But marriage happens so that, okay, “let me care for you, most especially in the sexual way, then we’ll do other things like give birth and, maybe, have joint accounts”

    1. topazo says:

      I like your arguments.

      love exists in three basic forms- romantic, filial and unconditional. all three are needed to form relationships. all are intertwined. Marriage is one form of relationship where you need all three for the relationship to be successful.

      if you merely have sexual interest in a woman, what happens when you have sated that urge? what happens when the novelty of the experience have worn off after many years? but yet many marriages last longer. why? the other two kinds of love hold it together. when marriages break it is because one or more of these forms of love is missing

      you love your dad, mum, sisters but you don’t ‘lust’ after them, you are not sexually attracted to them. you have filial love towards them which is as strong and as fiery as romantic love or affection. no matter what they do, they will always be family.

      with marriage, you cannot love a woman who before you met was a stranger to you with filial love and unconditionally if you do not have some passion and sexual attraction. the bond of love is formed when the two people become one during the sexual act and exchange bodily fluids that serve as the connection between them.

      note that there can be no love without a bond. with family, the bond is the same womb shared by the siblings and the blood and genetic material shared with the parents. with lovers, its the exchange of secretions with each other during mating; with friends, it’s the physical contact and emotional bonding of shared interests and ideologies. the more the biological matter shared, the stronger the bond. that is why friendship is the most transient because the bond is not formed with exchange of life material and why ‘friends that sticks closer than a brother’ is celebrated because it is rare and unique. that is also why when in cults and other alliances, when they seek to strengthen the bond, they enter blood covenants- exchanging bloods while making oaths.

      when paul said marry and not burn, it wasn’t a mere sexual thing. humans are by nature wired to have affection for each other, male to female. some, like paul for the higher calling sacrificed this and disciplined himself to quell this natural order of things. he wanted the others to be like him but he realized that not all men could do that and so he said to them “if you feel attracted to a woman and wish to shower affection on her and you cannot contain yourself from quelling the affection which is like a fire that burns inside you, there is no sin in pouring this affection on your love object as long as it is done in a biblical way which is in the institution of marriage”

      if you read further in that passage you will see Paul saying things like “he that has a wife is distracted from the work of God because he must always see to pleasing his wife” pleasing your wife is not same as lusting or just having sex because if you ask the womenfolk they would tell you that pleasing them and making them happy is more than the sex. it takes showing care, being sensitive, listening, serving, nurturing…in other words “loving them” and this love would be in the three forms of romance, filial devotion and unconditionally sacrificing and showing affection.

      the same Paul said somewhere else that husbands should love their wives and model it after Christ who is described as the husband of the church. why? marriage is the highest form of relationship where love can be shown in its purest form with filial devotion given unconditionally and with passion, a union of heart and body, where two individuals cease to exist but now becomes one. just like the church is one with Christ. if you don’t think there is romance between God and his people, read the bible again and see how he woos us with gifts and all things and read Isaiah and Jeremiah how God calls his people His bride and calls them unfaithful whenever they erred.

      see, how long a reply I gave you? I am passionate about love…thanks for this interesting discuss. looking forward to more

  6. James Melbin says:

    Thanks for the time. I do not dispute any of the things you said above. They are all truths (at least, from my own side. Afterall, all seeming facts are not facts to all)

    Do you know what I’m arguing about? That the basis of all man-woman marriage is lust.

    Here alone, I stand with a belief that lust is not a sin until it proceeds out of marriage. So I hope you’ll notice with me that if there is no lust, there is no marriage. No marriage, as I can see, is based on love in it’s pure form (that is, the uncondition) without being mised with an impure form of love (that is, the lust)

    If marriage were based on unconditional love, then there wouldn’t be any need to marry. For, I believe, you can unconditionally love someone without marriage. Even the word “marriage” in itself has added a conditional tag to the love.

    This is how I see marriage: Marriage is like a bound which because a man and woman lust after each other, they’ll go to a priest so that a bond will be added between them — a bond that says, “you must care for this person, be attentive to him/her, be ready to trust him/her, etc, because you have decided to lust after him/her alone.”

    1. topazo says:

      First, Lust is a totally pure form of love…it is passion and affection towards a person and the desire to know another person intimately and be totally one with another….

      Secondly, there is no relationship where unconditional love is being exhibited more than in marriage…do you know what it means to stay true to just one person for life? to love them despite their weakness and flaws? to commit to them even when they hurt us? to keep the vow despite ‘better’ alternatives? Man, marriage is where unconditional love is modeled after the Love of God for man…

      1. James Melbin says:

        Alright, you won. But I still doubt that the state of most of the marriages today is unlike what I said about ‘marriage’ (that occasion, that oath and all that which was done on the wedding day) being the reason why most people stood true with just one person for life.

        Most people are like ‘hooked up’ in marriage, they didn’t divorce (maybe because they are Christians); but it’s like they are hooked up. To us, it’ll look as if they stayed true to just one person till the end but deep there, the truth is they are just there living together with their hearts separated.

        ** Pls, refuse to mind how stupid my way of thinking might seem.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s