Frailty, thy name is woman!

When we want to express something and we are lost for words I think it is best to turn to the master's of writing as no one can deny their claim to greatness. Here is what Shakespeare had to say on love in one of his sonnets. This is sonnet # 116 and tells what love is like although some commentators think this is an idealist view of love but I think quite otherwise as I will expound on it once you have had the chance to read the sonnet and digest it a bit.

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Shakespeare really sets the tone in the first sentence "Let me not....impediments," where he is saying very simply that lovers who want to join in matrimony (or just be together as is the case for most relationships nowadays) will not see any obstacles in their paths i.e. impediment. From here onwards he says in no mean terms that love does not change is constant despite the diffifulties it may find; "That looks on tempests and is never shaken." Love does not wilt under the pressures of Time either when Time beckons with its "rosy lips and cheeks... Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom," in short if you love someone you will wait for them till the end of time i.e. doomsday. He gives us a disclaimer, as we are used to seeing a lot these days we shouldn't find it a surprise, at the end when he states that if all that he has said about love is wrong and is proved so as well then he has never written about love and no man has ever loved.

That was my best effort to try and read between the lines of course I had some help interpreting with various sources but this is completely my analysis and is not much different from the sources so suffice it is to say that I have captured the essence of the sonnet without altering much of its significance. Onto more pressing issues at hand and that is the heading of this post which comes from Act I, Scene ii of Hamlet.

Hamlet is by far my favourite Shakespearian play because of the wide variety of subjects it covers; deceit, loyalty, love, revenge, infidelity to name a few. It also shows the nature of human beings in a very cold and brutally honest painting, which upon examination makes us really think into saying to ourselves, "Can we really do that?" Then again that is a key feature of all of nto most of Shakespeare's plays, wherein he captures the essence of human nature without diluting it with dramatic effects.

"Frailty, thy name is woman!"

Hamlet is pissed! He is poppin' mad! He is not happy at all and definitely not in a good mood so I would suggest you to stay away from him at this juncture.

Who is he directing his displeasure?

His mother. But why?

For that we have to backtrack a bit and understand the reasons behind Hamlet's emotions. His father had passed away and Hamlet had just returned to Denmark upon his father's death and lo and behold his mother had already wed his uncle! His father's brother. Now King Claudius.

What is the significance of this juxtaposition? Love and then betrayal? If someone loves another then they wouldn't betray their love. That is utter nonsense. There are many people on this planet who do just that. Offering despicable reasons for their weakness when they wish not to acknowledge it. People in general hate to own up to their own shorcomings but are very quick to point them out in others, which is why these people have not a good sense of right and wrong.

Why anyone would betray someone I can offer insight on but why one would betray love that is not only unthinkable but really hard to reason with. Yet it happens. The only reason I can think of why such a lowly creature would do this is that they have given into their base desires and in order to fulfill them they feigned love. Once the actor or actress (read actress, because it's the most recent and vivid example I have in memory experienced either by me or someone esle and it is for them that this is written) has lured the lovestruck using love as the carrot, they so conveniently place the poor beast in the wilderness. Alone, stark naked, left to dwell and brood, the lovestruck is no longer lovestruck, rather heartbroken; hurt; agonised; played. It is a very disgusting feeling all those are. Indeed to have one's dreams come crashing down because of some whim, one is left to wonder where one went wrong. At that point one doesn't blame the other party because they like animals, in order to fulfill their primal needs did what they had to do. You can't blame a mare for trying to lure a stallion to mate because she is feeling the moment. Similarly you can't blame this animal in human form for trying to fulfill their needs which are generally sexual in nature. One only blames oneself because that is what true love is, you find fault in yourself and not at the other party. Despite being left to wonder and try to reason the heartbroken can not in their heart go against who they loved. NEVER! That is blasphemous. After all a person has truly given it their all for another one but the other one was merely in it for a joy-ride and pleasure trip.

It does happen sadly to this day. In one form or another when you hear the words "I think I'm over you,"; "I want out,"; "My parents would never accept you because of what you are associated with." The list is endless really and you are left wondering at the creativity and skill of some of these thespians. And you thought Oscars should be handed out to a select few. Here are some of the finest, in front of you practicing their art with such a skill and guise that they leave you completely in awe of the reality they create.

Of course some people who have been on the giving end would disagree with me. I ask you people one question and one only, because you don't need to prove me wrong, every rule has its exceptions so too will this one, but my query is this, "If you have not feigned and supposed love then why are you not there anymore?"

Think about it. Your reasons may not be reasons at all.

Common parlance has aptly named such people "whores" regardless of gender. Since the very nature of both's work involved is unethical, low and disgusting but yet there are people who indulge in both. But I say, Nay! They are far worse than whores. For harlots and gigolos, take money for your pleasure and not return pain. These people give back only in pain. Is there any comparison between then two? Is it fair to compare such a person to one who is noble in comparison. Fie upon them. God-Damn them! May God's curse and wrath be on these people who for basic needs taint a pure thing as love.