Feed on
Posts
Comments

children of bad marriagesIn his last post, Mike wrote about people “staying together for the kids”, and how it often doesn’t turn out to be good for the kids or anyone else involved.  I agree, but I think his reasoning (though very common) is way off base.  This is an issue I’ve had cause to consider in great depth, because I’m Catholic.  As you probably know–even if you know nothing else about Catholicism–the Catholic church does not acknowledge divorce.  Doesn’t just frown on it or even forbid it, but sort of shakes its head and says, “Yeah, sorry.  You’re still married.”  And the number one response/complaint/question I hear with regard to that issue is something along the lines of “Am I supposed to believe that God wants me to be miserable with someone I hate for the rest of my life?”

“Um, no,” the response goes.  “God wants both of you to work at letting go of hate and anger and treating each other well and thus not being miserable.”  Now, you may or may not believe in God, or believe that God frowns on divorce or care one way or the other.  But isn’t the issue somewhat similar? 

Mike (and millions of other people) suggest that it’s no good for kids to grow up in a household full of hate and anger and constant conflict and depression and all of the things that can occur in bad marriages.  And that’s true.  But the place I always stick is the apparent assumption that those are the only two choices.  If, in fact, two people are committed enough to the welfare of their children that they’ve truly decided to try to stay together “for the kids”, doesn’t that effort extend a bit further?  Don’t they make an effort to find common ground, to stop making each other miserable, to support each other and continue to function as a family unit?  If not, they’re lying when they tell you they’re staying together for the kids.  Parenting takes work, every day, just like relationships do, and simply remaining in the same house is a far cry from “staying together for the kids”.  It’s a lazy, self-congratulatory way to pretend that you’re the victim and the hero without investing any actual effort.

There are, of course, circumstances in which it’s difficult or impossible to live a normal, healthy life with another person.  For instance, that person might be physically abusive or addicted to narcotics or seriously mentally ill.  But in those cases, it’s hard to imagine that anyone could in good conscience argue that they were staying together for the children–it’s not good for a child to be exposed to violence and drug use.

In the case of two decent people who sincerely care about putting their children first, the answer is often (C); it’s not “split up” or “be miserable together” but simply “choose to work hard at building something that works for all of you.”  Maybe you can’t make yourself “fall back in love”, but “we get along well and respect each other but we’re not passionate about each other anymore” is a far cry from “we’re so miserable it’s a bad environment for the kids.”

Bookmark and Share

I thought that I was happy.   Or, at least, I thought I was putting on a good illusion of being happy.  Whichever it was, I didn’t want my kids to know that my marriage was draining the life out of me and leaving just a hollow shell.   I nearly had myself fooled and thought that I had fooled others as well.  I heard a line in a movie once that was something to the effect of, “Be careful who you pretend to be.  Because, in the end, that’s who you really are”.  If I pretended to be happy, I would think that I would be.

A few years after I got divorced, my ex-wife moved back in with me.   It worked, as a sort of arrangement but not as a marriage.  It lasted for four years.  Another four years that I thought I was happy.   At least, I thought I had everyone fooled into thinking I was happy again.   When it ended, my daughter decided that she wanted to stay with me.

Once I decided that I was ready to start dating again, I was worried about my daughter’s feelings.  I thought that she may have held out hope that Mom and Dad may get back together someday.   Of course, if I started dating that hope would fade.   I heard a grown man once tell me that he still hoped his parents would get back together, it would make the holidays easier.   Another person told me that he knew, growing up, that his parents were staying together just for him.   He actually wished they had simply gotten a divorce and lived happily ever after.   Even as a child he could sense that they were just not happy.

When I talked to my daughter about this, she said that she did not hope that I would get back together with her Mom.   Surprisingly, this twelve year old girl said, “You were not yourself when you were with Mom.  I have my Dad back and I don’t want to lose you again”.   Lose me?   She actually felt like she had lost her Dad.   Fairly accurate assessment when you think that, in my own words, I was “just a hollow shell”.

I know that people stay together for their kids but it may not be what is best for them.  Sure, it might be what they want.  But, if you are truly unhappy in the relationship with the other parent, you are probably cheating your kids out of one parent… You.   It has to be judged on a case by case basis with careful consideration of who you are and who you could be if you were separated.  Sometimes, what our kids want is not what’s best for them and we have to be the adults and decide.  Otherwise, our kids would be eating cake and ice cream for dinner every night and we all know that’s not healthy.

Photo courtesy simmbarb @ sxc.hu

Bookmark and Share

A few days ago, Mike pointed out that no relationship stands a chance if the people in it aren’t motivated to make it workBoth people.  He’s right, and frankly I’m glad to hear him say it, because you probably all know by now that Mike is no stranger to the belief that he alone can hold a relationship together by sheer force of will.  

It’s one of those observations you run across from time to time and think, “Wow–that’s so obvious. Why have I never thought about that before?”  But the answer is pretty clear, and quite possibly the same answer to 90% of questions that begin, “Why didn’t I ever realize…?”  We don’t want to.

Recognizing that no relationship can survive if you don’t have the will to make it work means that you have to either commit to doing the work or accept responsibility for letting the relationship die.  Recognizing that no relationship can survive if the other person doesn’t have the will to make it work means accepting that you can do everything right and still lose.  Holding a relationship together really isn’t within your control.  Your partner can’t do it alone, but neither can you.

Is marriage still a commitment?But how does knowing will is required help?  Maybe it pushes us to work harder, and maybe it occasionally helps us realize that since our partner’s head isn’t in the game,  it’s just not going to work out.  Once upon a time, the will to make it work was something of a presumption.  People decided on partners and went into marriage believing that no matter what, they were in it for life.  In those days, summoning the will was a given–the relationship wasn’t going anywhere, so it made no sense at all to give up on making it as good a relationship as possible. 

For better or worse, that’s no longer true.  Walking away is an option, and one that’s regularly exercised.  And because it’s an option, will is no longer presumed:  when things are rough, you can either invest the effort in making it work and hope your partner does the same, or you can just move on to someone else with whom you can share that effortless burst of new passion.  Making it work seems to be growing less and less popular; it’s considered a personal achievement to walk away from a bad relationship and start over.  And that changes the entire landscape of maintaining a relationship (or not).

That’s why, I think, people talk about physical attraction and honesty and trust and humor and all of those attractors, not just in the screening process but years into a marriage.  Because without the power of a commitment that meant something, without a vow to stay together for life rather than until it no longer suited, most people require those motivations in order to find the will to make it work.  And perhaps that’s as it should be, at least in the relatively early days, at least before marriage and children and major life entanglements are in play.  Why, after all, would you want to find the will to form and maintain a relationship with someone you couldn’t trust, or who was unkind, or who created constant financial problems for you?

Bookmark and Share

When asked what the most important thing is in a relationship, the number one answer is surprising.   From what I have seen, “love” seems to be number one.  Trust appears to be coming in at a close second.   Honesty is another heavy hitter in the “Things we want” list but it still won’t win the prize. Granted, these are all good contenders.  But if the prize is to stay together, they will all fall just short.

I did a quick search on Google to find out what people think is the most important thing in a relationship.  I was not surprised to see that a good sense of humor or even sex made it on the list.   But even the list of the top five (that seemed very official) lacked the answer I was looking for.  I know that I have managed to salvage a marriage, temporarily, with perfectly timed chocolate. But I wouldn’t put that on my list.  At least not in the top 5.   I would say that fidelity is important.   We did a poll on monogamy recently (just thought I’d mention that).

John Lennon once said, “All you need is love”.  That sounds nice but love, trust, honesty and a good sense of humor doesn’t amount to anything without the willingness to be together.  In fact, the first question that marriage counselors normally ask is, “Are you willing to make this work”.   If the answer is “no”, love is not all you need.

I’ve been guilty of wasting my breathe by spouting out a laundry list of reasons to stay in a relationship with someone that had simply lost the willingness to stay with me.   It still doesn’t seem like the math adds up, a thousand reasons to make it work and only one reason to give up.  However, that willingness thing trumps all.

Bookmark and Share

There’s been quite a bit of discussion on our Facebook fan page this week about monogamy and whether or not humans are really built to make it work.  The discussion is getting a little heated, so we thought we’d put it to a vote:

Are Humans Made for Monogamy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Bookmark and Share

I was in a fairly crowded convenience store and purchased two lottery scratch off tickets.  The store clerk asked me if I had any preference as to which ones.  Now, to me, it doesn’t matter.  I have to figure that the whole thing is randomly generated by a computer and winning is all left to chance. Not surprisingly, I found my answer setting off a powder keg of radical ideas from the other customers in the store.   The crowd began spouting out a plethora of theories on how I could actually pick the winning tickets.

Years ago, a good friend said to me, “You wouldn’t look behind the door unless you’d hide behind the door”.   So, I have to figure that the man who is telling me that the winning tickets are at the end of the roll so they can make their money up front is probably not a very scrupulous business man.  No, this guy doesn’t trust anyone.   However, I thought it was very interesting that he volunteered to share his convoluted thoughts so easily.

It gave me an idea for some questions that I’d like to start asking on a first date.   Normally, I would steer clear of any sensitive topics like politics or religion and I still think that’s a good idea.   But, asking about less sensitive issues like the lottery would give some good insight into the mind of the person sitting across from me at dinner.  If she thinks the whole thing is a scam, she might have trust issues.   Then, I could follow up by asking her what she would do if she won.   I would probably get a fairly good idea of her hopes for the future, whether she is charitable or selfish.    As an added bonus, I’m sure that I could tell if she is an optimist or a pessimist.   If she doesn’t play the lottery, she’s probably a realist or is good at math.

I don’t mean to imply that I have stumbled across the verbal equivalent of the Rorschach test.   Or, that it would be fair to use psychological evaluation tools on a first date (I try to save my ink blots for the second date).   I was just surprised that this one topic got total strangers talking so openly about their beliefs and hopes for the future.  It made me think about how many people spend a first date talking about favorite colors or music and miss out on an opportunity to actually get to know something real about a person.

Photo courtesy upn@sxc.hu

Bookmark and Share

The rush to intimacy

Speed datingTiffany once told me that physical intimacy is like a placebo, an illusion of real intimacy.   I’ll be the first to admit that I immediately thought she was wrong and just being…girlie.   How much more intimate can you be than being “intimate”?   However, my obsessive brain and habitual recreational thinking lead me on a path to prove here wrong.   That path didn’t go the direction I wanted.

I seems that she is right (she’s gonna love that) physical intimacy is a replacement, placebo or even an oxymoron.   It is, however, the easiest and fastest way to get that immediate feeling of being close to someone.   But seriously, I don’t know how “close” I am with that one woman at that party whose name I never even knew and yet was “intimate” with?   What a horrible revelation, it seemed so real at the time.

Intimacy comes from getting to know someone, opening up to them, sharing and building trust.  It comes with a risk of being hurt.   It’s that vulnerability factor that makes intimacy.   Which makes a great analogy to physical intimacy, are we not vulnerable with our clothes off?  Sure, but probably not as vulnerable as we are when we let people in to discover our weaknesses, fears, hopes and dreams.

Now, I say that this is a process that happens over time and I think we both agree on that.   I think that where we have a difference of opinion is how much you should reveal about yourself in the beginning.   I think it’s a better plan to ease people into your quirkiness and bad habits.  See, you want to give them a good mixture of, “I’ve got this going for me and this working against me”. Tiffany argues that any bad habits or “quirks” should be disclosed up front.   I believe that people are the sum of their parts and there’s a good chance that the positive qualities will outweigh the bad if given a proper chance.

Bookmark and Share

You may recall that I’m not a big fan of online dating.  I did sign up for an online dating service once, about the same time that we started this blog, and with a lot of fortitude and chanting of “give it a chance…give it a chance…” under my breath, I was able to hold out for a week.  I never deleted my profile, though, and once a month or so I log in and check my messages and maybe post a few comments in the forums. 

When I logged in last week, I had a message from a man whose user name seemed a bit odd to me.  It just didn’t seem like the kind of thing a grown man would call himself.  I even mentioned it to Mike before I opened it, wondering what kind of man would give himself a name I’d associate with a baby or a litle girl’s toy.  Mike, of course, had a hundred possible rationalizations–his mission in life is to spray paint red flags a friendlier color so that we can all move forward unhampered by warning signs.  So I opened the message and…wow.

He’d included a picture, and he was reasonably good looking.  His grammar and spelling were–unlike so many others’–excellent.  His message was short and to the point.  In just a few lines, he described his preferred lifestyle, and it suddenly became clear to me why his screen name had conjured up images of diapers and baby dolls.

My first thought was that this was an odd way to introduce oneself.  But almost immediately, I reconsidered.  I remembered an article I read years ago in which women who’d had mastectomies talked about dating and sex.  They found themselves in a bind no matter which way they went.  If you meet a guy at a bar and say, “Hi, I’m Sally…I only have one breast,” he’s probably going to run like hell.  Maybe he’ll run because you only have one breast; maybe he’ll run because he thinks you’re a nutjob for announcing something so personal two minutes into your conversation.  But it seemed to be one of those “the longer you wait” issues.  Do you tell a guy when you’re ready to leave the bar together?  One man quoted said that was unfair, and left a guy with only two options–looking like an insensitive jerk or pretending he didn’t care because it was too late to walk away gracefully. It seemed, for many women, like a Catch-22.  If they told too soon, it seemed odd and started things off on the wrong foot.  If they didn’t tell soon enough, it sometimes inspired anger and they were accused of misleading men. 

I suspect the issues are somewhat similar for my would-be online friend and many others.  If something is a dealbreaker for you, if it’s likely to be a dealbreaker for other people (and perhaps in the opposite way), at what point do you share?  Mike says you reveal things about yourself slowly over a few dates, and something like that should never be your lead–and if people were getting to know one another in casual contexts, I’d agree.  But that isn’t how it usually works today; people shop for mates and date with a mission, and if one of those intimate details is something that seriously impacts a person’s marketability as a mate (or the type of person he’d consider getting involved with), does it make sense to hold back, go through the first few dates, build hope on both sides and then drop the bomb…over and over and over again?

I don’t know the answer.  It’s a tough balance and one that makes me glad there’s nothing particularly unusual about me in one direction or the other.  What do you think?  How much information is too much?  Are there certain things that should be disclosed before even beginning to test the waters, or should the big surprises be unveiled over time just like the details of everyday life?

Photo courtesy of Tina Phillips via freedigitalphotos.net

Bookmark and Share

In his last post, Mike said, “But, if you are simply filling a void with fantasy it makes no sense to me that the fantasy has to be a real person.”  I guess he’s right, but that’s a big conditional.  I think what his statement really means is that he and I differ about something much bigger than whether or not it’s necessary to know the object of a “crush”.  Because for me, the two key words in Mike’s statement–”void” and “fantasy”–have little or nothing to do with crushes.

crushing on rock stars and celebritiesI suppose that if you conjure up a crush on a rock star or a fictional character, there’s a  bit of both involved.  After all, if your attention is fully focused on a real-life partner, you’re not likely to take time and attention away from that to build an imaginary relationship in your mind.  And if you’re focused on someone you don’t know, then fantasy is a key element because there’s nothing real to focus on; you have no day-to-day interactions or experiences to form the foundation of your crush.  I think that’s common–possibly the most common approach to “crushing”.  It’s a nice diversion, it’s safe and (perhaps above all) it doesn’t require any effort whatsoever. But it’s not what I was talking about in my crush post.  Not even close.

No, I was talking about something that exists in the real world, not as a romantic relationship but as a real-life interaction.  It’s not dependent on fantasy; it’s all about enjoying the things that are really happening:  witty banter, a smile that cuts through the early-morning winter darkness, encouragement that means just a little more than it would coming from someone else, the pleasure you take in watching him “perform” at whatever it is that he does best.  It’s not about what-ifs and if-onlys–it’s about the little crackle of positive energy that comes from what is.

Of course, that can’t happen with someone you don’t know, because there is no “what is”.  There are no interactions to enjoy, no pats on the back to revel in, no moments when you see his eyes sparkle in response to something you’ve said.  In my mind, that’s what a crush is.  Just like having an exciting new friend, only sexier. And there’s no reason it can’t be the candy sprinkles on an already-delicious frosted cupcake–no void required.  A crush, just like a romantic relationship, can and should enhance an already full life.  Another person–real, fictional, acquaintance or lover–can’t fill a “void”.  That’s just painting over the cracks with diversion.

Bookmark and Share

A crush is fun and can inspire us to live better.  I noticed that I have a tendency to develop crushes on fiction characters.   One of my longest lasting crushes is Dorothy Boyd from the movie Jerry Maguire.   It’s not necessarily any physical characteristic that draws me in, it’s her personality quirks and her view of what love is.   She is so uninhibited when it comes to loving someone that it would be impossible to be with.   Hm…sounds familiar. Sounds a bit like me and my crush on a character that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I’ve come to realize that I can learn a lot about myself from the crushes that I seem to develop.   Because it’s not a certain physical characteristic that I’m looking for, I can determine what qualities I’m looking for in a person who, well…actually exists.   The information that I gather from the women I date ends up being more of a “what I don’t want”.  Which, may or may not be more practical than a list of what I do what.

Where Tiffany and I seem to differ is that she claims that she must actually know the object of her crushes.   But, if you are simply filling a void with fantasy it makes no sense to me that the fantasy has to be a real person.   By definition, “fantasy”, is not real.  If it was, it would be reality.   Granted, there may be slightly more satisfaction to actually be in the same room with your crush than simply watching her in a movie.   But what good does that do if you have no intention of acting on it?   I have the added benefit of the delusion that I would act on my crush with the safety net of, “if only she actually existed”.

Photo courtesy anouchka @iStockphoto

Bookmark and Share
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Older Posts »