its what i want.

I've recently realized that in most relationships, whether romantic or friendly, at any point in time there is a dominant individual. One of the two has the control. They call the shots, they make the plans, they take the photos... you get the idea. What I'm trying to decide is whether or not that is a good thing.

Romantically, when one person gives their being to another, not just in love, but in interests and in books and in everything, I believe they assume a dominant role. If their lover accepts these things as their own, they are in agreement, and therefore recessive. This can happen many instances in one relationship. Person A "owns" music, and person B owns fashion. Person A owns architecture and design, person B owns art. Its interesting how one can become the authority on an entire subject when faced with the microcosm of only two people.

But what happens when stuff is involved? When one person takes the photos. When every memory that exists of this relationship is in Photo-dominant-person's possession? The recessive person can leave, virtually scot-free. Do relationships exist without the tangible pieces that came from it? Can the recessive person forget easier? Is it better to leave behind these things in order to move on? And more importantly, when you do move on to a new dominant being, can the cycle continue? Basically, is it better to be recessive, to give and to take what you need, with virtually no tangible remains? And when you live this way, when you may make the plans, but you never take the photos; or when you write the notes, but never receive them, what happens when the relationship ends? Nothing changes.

I would like to live this way, because inevitably, people change and things lose their meaning. I think its the right idea: to live only in that moment, to take what you need, and to leave things behind when its all over. To be sentimentally minimalist.