I know I don't have many readers, and this doesn't especially bother me. I don't broadcast my blog's existence so it isn't surprising. However I think I'm fairly safe saying that most of my readers will agree with me that the riots going on recently are not a good thing.
The brazen opportunism, thuggery and wanton destruction are appalling, frightening, tragic and.... just a little bit exciting. I come from a generation that has never really experienced this kind of social unrest in this country. For the first time I am in a position to grasp a little of how my parents must have felt as they muddled on with their lives while the country was convulsing around them.
Granted, this time its different. The rage doesn't seem to have a well defined direction. People just seem to be venting their frustration with their situation in general. They might think they have a reason, but in the majority of cases its an excuse to have some fun making other peoples lives miserable, because they've realised the police can't currently stop them. That bothers me rather... we cant even do rioting as nobly as the previous generation. They at least generally seem to have rioted for a reason. I don't pretend to have well researched justification for that statement, its just a feeling that I get, and any rioting in our moderate country is pretty inexcusable.
But I digress. You've probably read sentiments like the above, better written, all over the internet and heard it on the news repeatedly. What I wanted to talk about was the way the riots have made me think.
I live in the depths of wild Suffolk, far far away from any unrest, yet I have naturally been following the riots with a kind of morbid fascination.
My boyfriend however, lives in Woolwich. Just a short walk from where the rioting happened on Monday night. Thankfully he was away that night and his block of flats remained unaffected (though I was rather worried that as a fairly obvious rich persons' building in the middle of poor underprivileged Woolwich it might have become a target).
When he got home from his trip the following day, he had a wander through what was left of Woolwich on a quest to get groceries. He took a couple of photos of the destruction, and got the bug. This was -real- life, happening just on his doorstep. The urge to witness it first hand began to rise. When he spoke to me that evening he told me he was contemplating going out with his camera and taking photos if any rioting happened in Woolwich again.
I can understand this urge. Like I said, its kind of exciting if you've never witnessed it before. The desire to be involved in history in the making is natural. Yet my first reaction to this was the desire to talk him out of it if at all possible. I love my boyfriend, and the idea of him putting himself in such a dangerous situation willingly, expensive camera in hand while 'surreptitiously' taking pictures of these yobs going about their malicious business filled me with fear. He might get mugged (or worse)! I'd heard the stories of how anyone not taking part in the riots could be a target, and how anyone taking pictures or otherwise recording the events were particularly turned upon. I'd really rather my boyfriend remained nice and un-maimed.
But this got me thinking. How much of a say do I really have? What responsibilities does my boyfriend have to me at this stage in our relationship? He's his own person and, if I'm honest I think I'd love him less if he let me boss him around. At the same time, if he had ignored my anxiety and insisted on going out anyway (he didn't), how annoyed, upset or angry do I have the right to be?
It seems to be a sort of grey area at the moment. If for example a few years down the line, we were married and had kids and a similar situation arose. I'd feel a lot more justified in that situation putting my foot down and saying it wasn't fair of him to do it. He'd have made a commitment to me and have responsibilities to the kids and myself. I still don't think I would feel comfortable forbidding him from putting himself in a dangerous situation, but I'd feel justified in being angry if I weren't consulted and involved in the decision. I would also expect that if he were to be in that situation with kids, he wouldn't need me to point out his responsibilities. He'd probably not seriously consider taking such a risk.
Now suppose we were married but there weren't any kids? What say do I get as a wife? How responsible is he to me? I think we should still make such decisions together, even if he has the final say in -his- life.
When does the transition happen? How do my rights to a say in how my boyfriend lives his life evolve with the development of the relationship?
I think the answer is probably that if we got into a situation where it came up... where he wanted to do something that I -really- didn't want him to do, and he didn't consult me, or ignored my worries without talking them out fully with me and assuaging my fears, then there's something wrong with the relationship at any stage.
I may not have the right to put my foot down yet, but I shouldn't need to either. If he loves me he won't do that to me.
I am very lucky. My boyfriend doesn't have to include me in his decisions, but he does anyway. He wants to involve me, and that makes me feel quite good about our prospects. It also means that the contents of this post have been almost entirely hypothetical.
tl;dr: My boyfriend considered going to photograph the riots, but he loves me so he didn't. (it's a Mini adventure)
