Oh, the irony.
You've got a boy you don't really want. But still you are with him because he's the closest you'll have to what you think you want. You tell me everything 'is not amazing' like it was with your ex (he who broke your heart in little pieces because it got on the way of being his pretty self) but it was still 'ok'. And that you enjoy his company yet you don't want to 'give in' to the 'relationship'.
He's leaving -eventually- and you feel (very justifiably) that you don't want to be someone else's doormat again. I'm with you. But also, I notice the ambivalence there. I know you want the emotional attachment yet crave the beauty. You want the security yet desire the taut flesh, the sinewy contours of the bodies you find attractive (yet I do think he's very attractive, but you and I have very different conceptions of 'hot' in guys that very seldom converge). You want the security of a husband and the lust of a lover. The Madonna-Whore dichotomy. Reinvented. Not.
But we usually have one or the other. Very seldom we have them both at the same time. Those lucky motherfuckers don't even know how easy they have it. I believe that is one of the most striking balancing acts in the world: really wanting-and loving- the one you're with. Because that is unusual. That is why we consume bodice rippers by the ton, why we go to the movies. Why we blog.
Because we live vicariously through our fantasies or other people's fantasies. Because very seldom we really really have what we really really want.
Note: the amazing photos come from SLAVA