The father was kind of scared so he asked his little daughter,
"Sweetheart, please hold my hand so that you don't fall into the river."
The little girl said,
"No, Dad. You hold my hand."
"What's the difference?"
Asked the puzzled father.
"There's a big difference,"
replied the little girl.
"If I hold your hand and something happens to me, chances are that I may let your hand go.
But if you hold my hand,
I know for sure that no matter what happens, you will never let my hand go."
In any relationship, the essence of trust is not in its bind, but in its bond.
So hold the hand of the person who loves you,
rather than expecting them to hold yours..."
As with all motivational stories, at first glance it warms one's heart.
Yet, what does this say about the peson whose hand you hold?
Hand-holding should be a reciprocal gesture. If someone is unwilling and/or unable to hold on to you, it is not clear that one should hold on "no matter what happens".
If someone is unwilling to hold on to you, "sweet" is hardly the term to describe you if you refuse to let go. As Sting informs us:
If you want to keep something precious
You got to lock it up and throw away the key
Meanwhile, assuming that someone is unable to hold on to you speaks to a very condescending attitude towards the one you supposedly treasure, as well as invoking an assumption of infallibility - that you yourself will always be able to hold on.
Yet, if you want a genuine relationship with another adult, it is not healthy to look down on him (to treat him as "the little girl" in the above example), and to concomitantly presume yourself to be superior (even if only in emotional fortitude). The presumption of infallibility is even more outrageous, and could inflate one's conception of self.
We have a term for people who hold on to another no matter what - stalkers.
