ch-ch-ch-change. when people change, usually we -- the peanut gallery -- evaluate the change as good or bad. someone who is immature and childish suddenly gains maturity and responsibility? good change. someone who goes from controlled partier to drunken lout? bad change. people change for a million different reasons.

but breaking bad habits, gaining new perspectives, buying a new wardrobe, all these things can't be pushed on another person. i'm not only the president but also a member of the idea that it's impossible to change unless you want to change. people can talk to you, they can present you with pie charts and voluminous statistics, they can chain you to the wall and threaten you, but nothing will change until you are ready and willing. outside factors won't change you, only you can prevent forest fires.

so why do we tend to look down on people who change primarily for significant others? someone's girlfriend doesn't like the way they conduct themself in public? suddenly they're watching what they say and working overtime to avoid offending people. a boyfriend hates the way they flirt with every male in the room? suddenly they're the demure princess of propriety. their girlfriend hates how they drink themself into oblivion anytime they're within hailing distance of a bar? suddenly mr lush is taking sips of soda water as friends toast to "world peace, nabisco, and the versatility of cotton."

but don't these changes seem inauthentic sometimes? because if someone is changing for another person, people around them might say that they're really not changing for themselves -- regardless of if the change is for the better. if you're straying away from the known perception of "you," then the blame is placed squarely on the significant other. denouncements of "where's the old billy?" and "man, he's totally different now, it's all her fault" are commonly heard. "we don't like it" is the common epithet uttered during these conversations.

but why? many/most changes are the result of external factors. growth can never occur in a vacuum. so what's the difference between "i'm quitting smoking because those truth ads are really effective" and "i'm quitting smoking because my partner hates it." nothing really. the end result it the same right?

notice though that often the person who's undergoing significant other change will subliminally defend their reason for changing. like "i've decided to stop slurping soup for sarah," and then as a disclaimer they offer up "but i'm also cutting down on my slurping because it's really rude." is having a significant other the tipping point towards change? is being simply rude not enough to induce non-slurpage? it should be enough, but sometimes it's not.

what i'm saying is that while there is no doubt that significant others are usually harbingers of change, the perception of those changes shouldn't be judged based on the motivation for the change, but on the end result.

this is what i say of course, but i don't personally believe it -- i'm very willing to flame people for significant other changes. my personal goal is to never change for someone else, especially a girlfriend. but you know, that probably contributes to my sinking candidacy for "best boyfriend ever." so really, what do i know?

all i'm talking about is the (mis)perception of what is good change and bad change, and how that relates to the motivation behind it.