No wait, that's not what I wanted to talk about. I've been reading some old LiveJournal entries of a friend of a friend of a friend (hereafter referred to as FOAF3). A Bacon Number of 3, if you will. Also, the transitive property does not apply here.
Anyway, FOAF3 was writing about breakups, and how if someone breaks up with you then it means that they don't love you and never did, because love should be enough to survive anything. Some people agreed, others disagreed - pointing out that while love is necessary, it's not sufficient and that other things like distance, conflicting schedules, changing interests/situations, changes in common goals, etc. can override the romantic notion of love surviving everything.
So, who's right - The Beatles or Patti Smyth?
From my own experience, I agree with the "love is necessary but not sufficient" arguement. Not always quite romantic, but there needs to be a balance between romance and practicality for survival. Sometimes one may outweigh the other, depending on the current situation, but both should always be there.
Case in point - my last breakup.
Distance...check (five times more than I had signed on for).
Conflicting schedules...check (nights vs. days).
Change in situation and comon goals...check (college vs. "uncollege" being the biggest one).
Psychological issues...check (at the time, on both sides).
All you need is love - The Beatles
Baby, sometimes love just ain't enough - Patti Smyth