i had to lead the class discussion about marriage on friday. me. marriage. aaah. but it went really well and it made me think about realtionships because the people who wrote the book we're studying (Beecher and Beecher... "Beyond Success and Failure") have a very strange viewpoint about them.
The Beechers think of marriage as economical.. two people who decide to commit to making it through the long haul together by each fulfilling their separate roles creatively and devotedly. they see romance as an illusion that sends the wrong message -- relationshisp aren't about feeling good. so when young couples get married based on the warm fuzzy feelings and the sex, they quickly get disappointed when faced with bills and grocery store visits and such. my professor always says to go by the 80/20 rule.. 80% of life is going to be crap... 20% will actually be the good stuff. they get discouraged about the 80%, or they have no sense of independence and therefore lose themselves in the romance... and they quit.
my professor has a lot to say about relationships. good stuff. first of all.. never say "you always... such and such" or "you make me... such and such"... because they don't always, and no one can make you do anything. she don't always get defensive or use that tone. he doesn't make you mad.. he inspires that emotion in you. and our emotions reflect a lot about how we think.
anger: entitlement. we're entitled to something we aren't getting, and it pisses us off. and that's silly.. because in the grand scheme of things, are we really entitled to the things we want?
depression: retreat. we can't do it anymore, it's hopeless, it's time to quit. depression can actually save us from destroying ourselves. depression can be healthy
shame: we violated a social norm. which beggs the question.. is the social norm rational?
Dr. Ellis was kind of an ass... he made people mad and insulted them to get his point accross in therapy. and he was vulgar.. but smart. he coined the phrases "you're should-ing all over yourself" and "quit must-erbating." both phrases are offensive... but then again, so are the actions they're describing.
so somewhere in ellis and the beechers and my theological background, i found some stuff i like... some stuff that makes sense, as far as relationships go.
romance is the fruit of irrational love... and while irrational love is clearly not as ideal as perfect, rational, heaven-directed love, it's a refleciton of our imperfection. and flowers to guys are dead plants... i get that. but to me, they're gorgeous reflections of God's beauty and creation. so they're not pointless, as Beecher and Beecher would claim. romance and rose petals and star-gazing and cuddling and cold noses and goofy dancing.. those are all practical ways to impractically love. take that, beecher squared.
but it's important not to get lost in the romance.. something deeper has to be there. sometimes romance is a fruit of that deepness, sometimes its a way to try to force it. the first way is amazing, the second is no good. the really dangerous side is the secular tendency for guys to "use" the romance to get some. getting some isn't love. not at all. love is not getting some.. its the self-denial that says "i love her more than that, and i can hold off until she's ready"... it's being a trooper about it and finding better ways to love in the meantime.
i don't know.. i'm the type of person where staying up all night talking about God or faith or fears or dreams is so much more romantic than anything else. maybe i'm silly. the Beechers would think i'm a goob, i'm sure. i think i'm okay with that.
the thing is... i've always been taught that those conversations should flow naturally. what a lie.. like any part of a relationship -- even with faith as the cornerstone, it's going to take work. more importantly, time.. trust. trust takes time. a lot of time. especially when you've been burnt before.
i have a lot of trouble trusting. it's probably my biggest flaw.
so that's my opinion.... that's what beecher and beecher lack. they get so caught up in being independent that they leave no room for vulnerability. emotional vulnerability comes first... and when that is secured and trust blooms, marriage fosters sexual vulnerability. but that last part is dangerous.. because it's everything you have. so you commit to it. you commit to giving everything you have.
oh my gosh so beautiful... so much more beautiful than beecher squared's lame-and-practical passionless description of love. lots more room for hurt and pain and craziness, but that's good. it's a lot more practical than trying to be practical.
just thought i'd share.
No comments:
Post a Comment