Lovable: An Optimistic View

There have been a couple of posts recently that have got me thinking and reminded me of something I wrote on my old blog four years ago (the original title of which I have used for this post), which I will republish in a moment. The first is Yohami’s thoughts on what a healthy relationship looks like. It’s a little corny (I guess girls like that kind of thing though), but it is still worth reading because it is true. I particularly liked the last two lines:

What they share is bigger than each one apart.

They offer each other their true reflection. And with a look, they both are illuminated.

The other is at Dalrock’s: Marriage lite: mistaking “No sex before monogamy” for a moral statement. Here Dalrock details how LTRs are really just another form of promiscuity, but are accepted as being somehow more moral than hookups and that these kinds of relationships are nothing at all like marriage. This is important as it shows how far wrong this culture is with regard to marriage and why it is becoming something of a lost art.

So do read those two posts, then come back and see what I had to say about this topic before I discovered the manosphere.

 

Originally published on July 9th, 2007

I recently saw a documentary entitled Lovable, and in it someone commented that relationships today are like extended one-night stands. Hearing this was at once horrifying and revealing. Are we really that cheap and shallow? Sex on tap until this flavor gets boring then move on to the next? Move in together to save the bother of having to find another one-nighter each time the urge hits? Of course, not too many of us are actually thinking this when we embark on these things, but perhaps this is exactly what we are doing. It’s no news that we use mental tricks to talk ourselves around things that, when viewed in the full light of day, would mortify us. At least an actual one-night stand is honest; this is just infinitely worse, especially when these ‘relationships’ produce children, who pay the ultimate price when the inevitable split happens.

The instant I heard that phrase, extended one-night stands, I realized that this was the problem all along. I’m not so much unsuccessful at relationships; I’m not sure I’ve ever really had one. Then I thought of how much I am a product of the age I live in – raising two kids alone after a series of extended one-night stands [my "marriage" having been not any different in its essence than any other LTR]. It’s depressing on the one hand, but liberating on the other.

There is something strange about relationships today, where everything is on fast forward and the idea of suffering through hard times seems an antiquated notion. The question more often asked is, “Why martyr yourself?” and the popular consensus is that one’s personal happiness and ‘fulfillment’ are of the utmost importance, everyone else be damned. Yet we refuse to let go of the romantic fairy tale of ‘the one’ and instead of growing old as a couple, finding love with that one person over and over, we throw each other away like an old pair of socks. Furthermore, we expect to be continually ‘fulfilled’ in a marriage, to be always lusting after each other in a perpetual state of teenage-style arousal (how exhausting, yeesh). When this doesn’t happen, we figure we must not have found ‘the one’ after all: better keep looking and sampling.

But I feel all this discontent myself; I can’t picture myself living with the same person, year after year. It seems dreadfully stifling to the point that I’d rather remain solitary. Maybe I’ll change my mind, since I do find something rather delightful about finding new love later in life so perhaps it really doesn’t matter if I am unattached for the time being. It is also easier to relax in the knowledge that there are plenty of ‘older’ single people around these days and that one is no longer a social pariah for being single past the age of 25. I can pine away for something that doesn’t exist, living on cruel hope, or I can accept the situation for what it is. There are things I’ve always liked about being on my own, so just as in a relationship one must find ways to get through the tougher times, as a single there will be times of loneliness, sometimes profound, that must be accepted and taken as they are. In each case, the trick is partly to just slow down, be more comfortable with the flux, and not seek instant relief as if from torture.

 

7man:  CL, now you see the alternative and that it is possible for a “later in life” man and woman to develop such a thing with honesty, introspection, commitment and a dose of humility? Like Yohami said (at HUS), I too only imagined such might be possible.

Anger is a Choice

We all feel angry at times. Anger alone is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it forces us to act, sometimes things are revealed there. Where it moves into destructive territory is when we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed to the point of saying things we regret later. Words, once spoken, are hard to take back, especially in marriage.

It should be noted that anger is a secondary emotion – it is always a result of hurt or sadness or some other “negative” emotion. Think about that for a few moments; when you have been angry, what has caused the anger? You own your emotions – no one else can cause you to feel something unless you let them. A good example of this is the “guilt trip”. If a person is not guilty, you cannot make him feel guilty. Likewise, if you are not guilty, no one can make you feel guilty – unless you allow them to. You are responsible for your own emotions and how you allow others to affect them.

It is of the utmost importance to NOT allow angry words to fly in a relationship. These are some of the most difficult words to retract later. It can take some serious self-control to hold your tongue no matter what someone else says about you. I have done this against insulting tirades from the very person I had chosen to love (I broke eventually, and there was no going back), so I know from my own experience that it is possible to do this.

There is no point in responding to certain kinds of attack, but this is not my point at the moment, which is that if you choose to love someone and promise them your love, you have to resolve not to allow angry words to pass your lips. You may not always be successful, which is where forgiveness comes in, but if you can find the strength to keep quiet, to find a more constructive way to say things, all the better.

I believe that it is entirely possible – even probable – to never have angry words exchanged, to never cut down your beloved in anger.

Instead of: “You are so lazy; you never do anything to help out around here.”
Say: “I would really appreciate your help.” Perhaps add an offer to do something for him too.

Even if you are thinking “That lazy MF!” it is what you say, the way you say it, that matters at this stage. This is loving behaviour; attacking someone’s character is not. Not everything needs to be expressed in the immediate emotion. This requires maturity and introspection as well as patience with each other. If this is a marriage, you have a long time line and there is no need to address every little blip the moment it happens. Patience. Endurance. Love.

So what do I mean, anger is a choice? It’s a catchy title, but is it true? Perhaps an explanation in terms of attraction versus love would clarify. Attraction is not a choice; love is a choice. Feeling hurt/sad/irritated/etc. is not a choice; getting angry about it is a choice. Therefore I submit that anger, like love, is a choice. You can choose in your hurt to be angry at your beloved, or you can choose to love him, in spite of everything, since he is an imperfect human being, much like you are.

Caveat: This assumes that both people are relatively sane and willing to work together. This should always be a two-way street. If you are the only one putting in effort in a marriage, it’s possible that your spouse has a personality disorder (which seems to be unfortunately more common these days than it used to be) and there is nothing you can do to help them.

Affirmative Action: Bad for Society

This was published at Ann Barnhardt’s webpage (no individual post links available – scroll down to December 1st to find it); it is an email she received from a retired FBI agent and it is telling as far as a root cause of the problems we are now facing as a society.

Ann,

I just listened to your interview on financial sense. I am a retired FBI White Collar Crime Supervisor who supervised a Securities Fraud Desk, in the {city name redacted} Division, prior to retiring in {year redacted}. Your analysis of the CME, the Obama Administration, and the sad state of our republic is right on the money. In addition, your 8(a) minority, affirmative action hire comment could not be more true. The effectiveness of federal law enforcement has been jeopardized by the politically correct hiring practices ongoing since George Herbert Walker Bush was elected President in 1988. My squad was responsible for the investigation of complex, white collar crime investigations (primarily securities fraud and corporate fraud). My career in the FBI spanned 24 years in five field divisions including New York, and FBI Headquarters. When I began my career, hires and promotion were merit based. The quality of agents working complex white collar crime investigations was high, most having worked for big eight accounting firms or brokerage houses prior to hire by the FBI. By the time I retired, minority and female agents were being assigned to my squad with no pertinent qualifications, and no apparent talent, dedication, work ethic or experience. As a result, senior agents had to double up on complex investigations, and my minimum threshold for initiating investigation was dramatically increased to assure the greatest offenders were addressed adequately. Needless to say, cases that should have been addressed were no longer addressed due to the lack of qualified agents capable of successfully investigating and taking through trial, complex white collar crime cases. After 9.11 the FBI all but abandoned complex criminal investigations, and transformed itself from the premier law enforcement agency in the world to a fourth rate domestic spy agency more concerned with violating citizens constitutional rights in the name of “protecting the general public from terrorism” than in completing its primary mission, enforcing Title 18 of the US Criminal Code. [Barnhardt's emphasis]

She responds:

I’m SO GLAD he mentioned women as a subset of affirmative action hiring. I always forget to mention that. I think most people associate “affirmative action” with black and Hispanic hires – but a HUGE component of affirmative action is the hiring and elevating of monumentally unqualified WOMEN, and the placing of unqualified, untalented women in positions of corporate governance. Any time you are around a company that is bragging about how many female executives they have, RUN. Run for the hills as hard and as fast as you can, because most of those broads shouldn’t be doing anything more complex than ANSWERING THE PHONE.

The men of civilized societies are not the Taliban. If a woman has brains and chops, she will do better than fine. Feminism and affirmative action are a SCOURGE on civilization. Perform and excel or sit your candy@$$ down and stay out of the way of those who can perform and excel.

This is the case at every level of societal institutions and is THE problem with the family courts and divorce law. THIS is why good men are getting the shaft in all areas of American life. If women know what’s good for them, they would stand down and get out of the damn way. Of course, that won’t happen, so we are facing the inevitable collapse as we have sown the seeds for our own destruction.

It is maddening to see the problem yet know that nothing will be done; that mealy mouthed politicians will never dare to speak about the reality of the problems and will only pander for votes. It is hardly worth bothering to vote when this is the way things are, when your vote is only going to be for a “lesser of two (or three) evils” – there is no “lesser evil”; only evil. If you vote for the so-called lesser evil, you are still voting for evil.