Friday, August 19, 2005
Women are the Rake:
I watched the movie "Rounders" again tonight. As a poker player, I have, of course, seen this a ton of times, but this time I had the special edition version from Blockbuster.com. I rented this version for the commentaries, but I also decided to watch the regular movie too. In one scene, Ed Norton's character, Worm, says "In the poker game of life, women are the rake." In poker, the rake is the money that the house takes out of each pot. I suppose one could consider that the saying is true for many men when it comes to women as we have to pay for dates and gifts. Later, men are expected to support the family. Even in the modern household, where the woman works, the man still has to support the family when his wife is on maternatiy leave. My point here is not to debate the validatity of this statement. I've spent a lot of money on Beata, but I don't consider it lost money as I would the rake in poker. Instead, I can't help but think of Beata when I see Gretchen Mol's character leave the Mike (the main character played by Matt Damon.)
When I first watched "Rounders," in 1998, I had never really dated anyone, so I was still naive when it comes to love. I kept wondering how Mol's character could leave the man she loves just because he started playing cards again. I really believed that if two people love each other, then love should conquer all, and poker shouldn't have caused those two characters to be apart. For me. there is definately evidence that Mol's character loved Mike. I don't believe the length of the relationship is mentioned in the movie, but it is obviously long enough for them to have decided to live together. That's no small step. Furthermore, when Mike goes busted in the opening scene, we find that the relationship continues after that tramatic event. Even at the end of the movie, when they are broken up, Mol's character still hints that she cares about Mike when she assures him that he can count on her to deliver the money.
I believe that Beata and I loved each other. We were together for two years, and she stayed with me through all the hardships I've been through. We had broken up numerous times but we always ended up coming back together. At least, that was the track record until our seemingly final breakup on Tuesday. She hasn't called me, and I haven't felt a desire to call her. Today is an exception: after thinking about this all, I'm tempted to call, but I'm not close to giving into the temptation. When we talked on Tuesday, she still reiterated her statement that she would be happy with me, and would stay with me, if I just went and got a real job. Of course, I refused, and we found ourselves at an impasse. I think we finally realized on Tuesday that this issue truely cannot be solved.
I'm left wondering why this issue leaves Beata and I at an impasse. The optimist in me would like to believe in my idealist interpretation of love. I still like the scene in "Keeping the Faith" where Ed Norton's character basically says that he was willing to give away his life and career as a priest for love. I always figured that when I finally found myself in love, I'd be willing to do the same. On the other hand, I figured if I had met my perfect soulmate, then though willing, I would not be asked to give up all because a woman would accept me for who I am. As I've seen for the past two years, I am not willing to give up poker for Beata. This could mean two things.
One interpretation is that this problem is just an obvious sign that Beata and I were never truely in love. Having never had a serious girlfriend prior to this relationship, I was never able to gauge my feelings properly. Sure, we were in love, in the sense that we cared for each other more than couples that just started dating, but we were never truely in love (the love that bonds two soulmates). The pessimist in me wants to believe in the other interpretation: Beata and I were and are in love, but love is not enough to sustain an relationship. In our case, poker and the lifestyle associated with it are not compatibile with Beata's view of the world and desires for her future. As much as she might love me, she can't be with someone that is going to have as unstable a life as I will since I want to be a poker player.
I don't know what to think. After all the drama, I think I'm starting to feel closure, though I'm sure it will be weeks (more likely months) before I'm ready to enter into another relationship. I'm sure I'll ponder love for years to come. At points in the relationship, I really did think that Beata and I could get married. I know I'll find love again similar to what I had with Beata. As I've been a more optimistic person for the past few months despite the setbacks I've faced, I think can find true love. By true love, I mean the idealistic, and maybe naive version of love which I made some attempt to describe two paragraphs ago. Of course, that love of soulmates would be more than just what I attempted to describe. I'll leave further description to the poets.
I watched the movie "Rounders" again tonight. As a poker player, I have, of course, seen this a ton of times, but this time I had the special edition version from Blockbuster.com. I rented this version for the commentaries, but I also decided to watch the regular movie too. In one scene, Ed Norton's character, Worm, says "In the poker game of life, women are the rake." In poker, the rake is the money that the house takes out of each pot. I suppose one could consider that the saying is true for many men when it comes to women as we have to pay for dates and gifts. Later, men are expected to support the family. Even in the modern household, where the woman works, the man still has to support the family when his wife is on maternatiy leave. My point here is not to debate the validatity of this statement. I've spent a lot of money on Beata, but I don't consider it lost money as I would the rake in poker. Instead, I can't help but think of Beata when I see Gretchen Mol's character leave the Mike (the main character played by Matt Damon.)
When I first watched "Rounders," in 1998, I had never really dated anyone, so I was still naive when it comes to love. I kept wondering how Mol's character could leave the man she loves just because he started playing cards again. I really believed that if two people love each other, then love should conquer all, and poker shouldn't have caused those two characters to be apart. For me. there is definately evidence that Mol's character loved Mike. I don't believe the length of the relationship is mentioned in the movie, but it is obviously long enough for them to have decided to live together. That's no small step. Furthermore, when Mike goes busted in the opening scene, we find that the relationship continues after that tramatic event. Even at the end of the movie, when they are broken up, Mol's character still hints that she cares about Mike when she assures him that he can count on her to deliver the money.
I believe that Beata and I loved each other. We were together for two years, and she stayed with me through all the hardships I've been through. We had broken up numerous times but we always ended up coming back together. At least, that was the track record until our seemingly final breakup on Tuesday. She hasn't called me, and I haven't felt a desire to call her. Today is an exception: after thinking about this all, I'm tempted to call, but I'm not close to giving into the temptation. When we talked on Tuesday, she still reiterated her statement that she would be happy with me, and would stay with me, if I just went and got a real job. Of course, I refused, and we found ourselves at an impasse. I think we finally realized on Tuesday that this issue truely cannot be solved.
I'm left wondering why this issue leaves Beata and I at an impasse. The optimist in me would like to believe in my idealist interpretation of love. I still like the scene in "Keeping the Faith" where Ed Norton's character basically says that he was willing to give away his life and career as a priest for love. I always figured that when I finally found myself in love, I'd be willing to do the same. On the other hand, I figured if I had met my perfect soulmate, then though willing, I would not be asked to give up all because a woman would accept me for who I am. As I've seen for the past two years, I am not willing to give up poker for Beata. This could mean two things.
One interpretation is that this problem is just an obvious sign that Beata and I were never truely in love. Having never had a serious girlfriend prior to this relationship, I was never able to gauge my feelings properly. Sure, we were in love, in the sense that we cared for each other more than couples that just started dating, but we were never truely in love (the love that bonds two soulmates). The pessimist in me wants to believe in the other interpretation: Beata and I were and are in love, but love is not enough to sustain an relationship. In our case, poker and the lifestyle associated with it are not compatibile with Beata's view of the world and desires for her future. As much as she might love me, she can't be with someone that is going to have as unstable a life as I will since I want to be a poker player.
I don't know what to think. After all the drama, I think I'm starting to feel closure, though I'm sure it will be weeks (more likely months) before I'm ready to enter into another relationship. I'm sure I'll ponder love for years to come. At points in the relationship, I really did think that Beata and I could get married. I know I'll find love again similar to what I had with Beata. As I've been a more optimistic person for the past few months despite the setbacks I've faced, I think can find true love. By true love, I mean the idealistic, and maybe naive version of love which I made some attempt to describe two paragraphs ago. Of course, that love of soulmates would be more than just what I attempted to describe. I'll leave further description to the poets.
