Saturday, April 24, 2004
Relationship reality check
Take a moment and think about how many times you've seen a talk show, or read an article, talking about what sorts of things constitute unfair or improper arguing techniques with your romantic partner, which ones show disrespect, disregard, insensitivity, etc, and make you a bad person if you use them. What no-no's did you come up with? They probably include things like raising your voice, taking an unfriendly tone, cursing, name calling, bringing up events outside of the topic under discussion, and making threats if things aren't going your way.
Now, try to think of ONE TIME you had an impassioned argument with your partner where you and they did NONE of these things.
As always happens, the pendulum has swung too far in what we think is ok; it's gone, in just a few decades, from being ok for a man to talk with his fists to it not being ok to show ANY emotional reaction whatsoever during an argument... despite the fact that as human beings it's NATURAL for us to become emotional when we in fact FEEL strong emotions, and act accordingly.
In Australia, they actually have a law about how loud your voice can get during an argument, beyond which it's considered abuse and is ILLEGAL; their marriage rate dropped after the passing of this law, and anyone who has ever been married can see the cause and effect reasoning there... try going the rest of your life without raising your voice to the person most able to mess up your life and upset you.
In general, Western civilization has lost its grip on relationship reality. It's not bad enough that there are endless societal factors leading to high divorce rates and the overall destruction of the family, now we're telling people that if their partner shows NORMAL upset behavior when they are in fact upset, this says horrible things about the person and the relationship. Even on talk shows when this is brought up, everyone in the audience will react with shock and outrage to descriptions of an angry couple bringing up something they fought about last year, or calling a name, or uttering a curse word, as if every one of those people hasn't done the exact same frigging things 50 billion times... we as a species have an endless capacity to be hypocritical when we get the chance to do a group condemnation of other people, don't we?
I've heard many male comics refer to how every woman always brings up past issues during a fight, and it gets a big laugh because it rings true to the audience (who also realize that men do it too, when they can remember those details, which they apparently do less often)... and yet just this past week, Dr. Phil, who I'm generally VERY fond of, announced that he can tell with 90% or better accuracy which couples will get divorced if he knows ONE thing about them... whether or not they bring up outside events during a fight. HUH?!! The divorce rate may be high, but it's nowhere near 100%... but very close to 100% of couples bring up past events during fights, so what does THAT tell you? It tells ME that Dr. Phil is encountering primarily couples who are in DEEP trouble, and THAT is why they break up, not because they argue like normal people; he's not taking into account that he's NOT seeing a statistically random group of people, he's seeing those who are having frequent, intense arguments, and thus more likely to be regularly using ALL the "upset behaviors" than regular folks.
When you read advice columns, you see people solemnly advising others that if their partner, GASP, calls them a name, they should be looking elsewhere... like another planet, where angry people don't call names, I suppose? And the same goes for all the other things that people do when they're angry; yes, it IS usually possible to control it if you're in a situation like at work, but the whole POINT of having a committed romantic relationship is that you're supposed to be able to be your true emotional self, not the repressed drone you have to be at work in order to be seen as "professional." If you have to be fake and formal with your partner, what do you gain by HAVING a partner, in these days where everyone can earn $, keep house, and find sex easily?
I'd like to see even ONE talk show host, shrink, or advice columnist admit that angry reactions are normal and ok (within reason, of course-punching someone out is NOT ok, no matter HOW angry you are), and tell people that if all you have to complain about your partner is that they cursed at you when you pissed them off, you need to thank your lucky stars and stop your whining... and give serious thought as to whether you are too immature to have a relationship, or have too little of a life of your own, or both.
Now, try to think of ONE TIME you had an impassioned argument with your partner where you and they did NONE of these things.
As always happens, the pendulum has swung too far in what we think is ok; it's gone, in just a few decades, from being ok for a man to talk with his fists to it not being ok to show ANY emotional reaction whatsoever during an argument... despite the fact that as human beings it's NATURAL for us to become emotional when we in fact FEEL strong emotions, and act accordingly.
In Australia, they actually have a law about how loud your voice can get during an argument, beyond which it's considered abuse and is ILLEGAL; their marriage rate dropped after the passing of this law, and anyone who has ever been married can see the cause and effect reasoning there... try going the rest of your life without raising your voice to the person most able to mess up your life and upset you.
In general, Western civilization has lost its grip on relationship reality. It's not bad enough that there are endless societal factors leading to high divorce rates and the overall destruction of the family, now we're telling people that if their partner shows NORMAL upset behavior when they are in fact upset, this says horrible things about the person and the relationship. Even on talk shows when this is brought up, everyone in the audience will react with shock and outrage to descriptions of an angry couple bringing up something they fought about last year, or calling a name, or uttering a curse word, as if every one of those people hasn't done the exact same frigging things 50 billion times... we as a species have an endless capacity to be hypocritical when we get the chance to do a group condemnation of other people, don't we?
I've heard many male comics refer to how every woman always brings up past issues during a fight, and it gets a big laugh because it rings true to the audience (who also realize that men do it too, when they can remember those details, which they apparently do less often)... and yet just this past week, Dr. Phil, who I'm generally VERY fond of, announced that he can tell with 90% or better accuracy which couples will get divorced if he knows ONE thing about them... whether or not they bring up outside events during a fight. HUH?!! The divorce rate may be high, but it's nowhere near 100%... but very close to 100% of couples bring up past events during fights, so what does THAT tell you? It tells ME that Dr. Phil is encountering primarily couples who are in DEEP trouble, and THAT is why they break up, not because they argue like normal people; he's not taking into account that he's NOT seeing a statistically random group of people, he's seeing those who are having frequent, intense arguments, and thus more likely to be regularly using ALL the "upset behaviors" than regular folks.
When you read advice columns, you see people solemnly advising others that if their partner, GASP, calls them a name, they should be looking elsewhere... like another planet, where angry people don't call names, I suppose? And the same goes for all the other things that people do when they're angry; yes, it IS usually possible to control it if you're in a situation like at work, but the whole POINT of having a committed romantic relationship is that you're supposed to be able to be your true emotional self, not the repressed drone you have to be at work in order to be seen as "professional." If you have to be fake and formal with your partner, what do you gain by HAVING a partner, in these days where everyone can earn $, keep house, and find sex easily?
I'd like to see even ONE talk show host, shrink, or advice columnist admit that angry reactions are normal and ok (within reason, of course-punching someone out is NOT ok, no matter HOW angry you are), and tell people that if all you have to complain about your partner is that they cursed at you when you pissed them off, you need to thank your lucky stars and stop your whining... and give serious thought as to whether you are too immature to have a relationship, or have too little of a life of your own, or both.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Religion vs spirituality
Most people see being religious and being spiritual as the same thing, and throughout most of history you wouldn't have seen many who were one and not the other, but that is changing more and more, and it bears looking into.
For someone to be religious, they have to belong to an actual religion, or at the very least accept the existence of, and have an idea about the powers and requirements of, a deity or deities around which a religion is based, whether or not they go to worship services or identify with an official doctrine of belief in their version of the Almighty.
Being spiritual... well, let's start with some tidbits from the dictionary: "of, pertaining to, having the nature of, or consisting of spirit, as distinguished from matter; incorporeal," "pertaining to or affecting the immaterial nature or soul of man," "marked or characterized by the highest qualities of the human mind; intellectualized."
There are thus any # of religious types who do NOT qualify as spiritual, who grasp the form but not the substance of their religion, and who focus on the old man in the bathrobe up in the sky who can bless or damn them, and never give a thought to the nature of the human soul (or non-human souls), much less the "highest qualities of the human mind" or any of the mysteries of the universe. There are many for whom religion is just a procedure to follow, eg "go to church, sing the songs, say some prayers, and you go to heaven," which they do with the same lack of passion and introspection that they bring to "brush teeth, floss, go to the dentist, have healthy teeth." This makes them religious, but NOT spiritual.
Then, there are those of us who delve deeply into analysis of the soul, the nature of consciousness, thought, emotion, self-awareness, creativity, and all the other mysteries of the universes, both inner and outer, and what it all means, and what the whole is that we're a part of, and... and... there's no upper limit to the questions one asks if one is spiritual, as spirituality is ACTIVE, as opposed to religion which is all too often passive, incurious, unquestioning, unexpanding, static.
Of course, many religious types ARE spiritual. And some abandon religion to embrace spirituality. And some people go from being spiritual to being religious, with or without hanging onto the spirituality. And some are neither... and, while it takes all types, one has to wonder about the intellectual level of someone who has so little curiosity about the unknown that they neither seek answers nor even accept the answers given by a religion.
If you're spiritual, do you need religion, too? Some religious types would say yes, claiming that you'll feel empty or incomplete without it; my response is that anyone who has those feelings probably SHOULD pursue religion... AFTER they've tried things like making friends, getting an education and a career, finding a romantic relationship and working on their personal growth; don't use religion as a cure-all for what you've been too lazy to do in making a life for yourself. If you make a good life and STILL want to believe in some being higher than yourself who's going to handle everything, go for it; there could certainly be one out there, and there's no harm in it as long as you don't absorb intolerance along with the love thy neighbor stuff.
If you have religion, do you need spirituality, too? When I ask that, I'm NOT knocking religion; I firmly believe that all religions have some piece of the truth, and that religion DOES have a great deal of value for many, in that it gives them support, comfort, etc... however, I think you're cheating yourself of an important part of the human experience if you blindly accept answers for some questions, and ignore or deny the validity of others, in the name of following a religion; the truth is out there, whether or not you open your eyes, and your mind, and see it, and isn't it BETTER to see it, or as much of it as you can find? Give spirituality a chance, and see what you come up with... and don't forget to share your discoveries with others. :-)
For someone to be religious, they have to belong to an actual religion, or at the very least accept the existence of, and have an idea about the powers and requirements of, a deity or deities around which a religion is based, whether or not they go to worship services or identify with an official doctrine of belief in their version of the Almighty.
Being spiritual... well, let's start with some tidbits from the dictionary: "of, pertaining to, having the nature of, or consisting of spirit, as distinguished from matter; incorporeal," "pertaining to or affecting the immaterial nature or soul of man," "marked or characterized by the highest qualities of the human mind; intellectualized."
There are thus any # of religious types who do NOT qualify as spiritual, who grasp the form but not the substance of their religion, and who focus on the old man in the bathrobe up in the sky who can bless or damn them, and never give a thought to the nature of the human soul (or non-human souls), much less the "highest qualities of the human mind" or any of the mysteries of the universe. There are many for whom religion is just a procedure to follow, eg "go to church, sing the songs, say some prayers, and you go to heaven," which they do with the same lack of passion and introspection that they bring to "brush teeth, floss, go to the dentist, have healthy teeth." This makes them religious, but NOT spiritual.
Then, there are those of us who delve deeply into analysis of the soul, the nature of consciousness, thought, emotion, self-awareness, creativity, and all the other mysteries of the universes, both inner and outer, and what it all means, and what the whole is that we're a part of, and... and... there's no upper limit to the questions one asks if one is spiritual, as spirituality is ACTIVE, as opposed to religion which is all too often passive, incurious, unquestioning, unexpanding, static.
Of course, many religious types ARE spiritual. And some abandon religion to embrace spirituality. And some people go from being spiritual to being religious, with or without hanging onto the spirituality. And some are neither... and, while it takes all types, one has to wonder about the intellectual level of someone who has so little curiosity about the unknown that they neither seek answers nor even accept the answers given by a religion.
If you're spiritual, do you need religion, too? Some religious types would say yes, claiming that you'll feel empty or incomplete without it; my response is that anyone who has those feelings probably SHOULD pursue religion... AFTER they've tried things like making friends, getting an education and a career, finding a romantic relationship and working on their personal growth; don't use religion as a cure-all for what you've been too lazy to do in making a life for yourself. If you make a good life and STILL want to believe in some being higher than yourself who's going to handle everything, go for it; there could certainly be one out there, and there's no harm in it as long as you don't absorb intolerance along with the love thy neighbor stuff.
If you have religion, do you need spirituality, too? When I ask that, I'm NOT knocking religion; I firmly believe that all religions have some piece of the truth, and that religion DOES have a great deal of value for many, in that it gives them support, comfort, etc... however, I think you're cheating yourself of an important part of the human experience if you blindly accept answers for some questions, and ignore or deny the validity of others, in the name of following a religion; the truth is out there, whether or not you open your eyes, and your mind, and see it, and isn't it BETTER to see it, or as much of it as you can find? Give spirituality a chance, and see what you come up with... and don't forget to share your discoveries with others. :-)
Tonight, on Mad Mad House
The more I watch of this show, the more karmic it feels to me, that although I don't normally watch reality shows I got involved with this one right at a time when I'm exploring some of the darker underpinnings of human nature; I've been learning ALOT.
And it doesn't hurt that Don the vampire looks STUNNING in every episode, of course. ;-)
Tonight, the witch and the voodoo priestess gave all of us who talk about having access to extra-sensory understanding a bad name; the witch misjudged who left a rose on her pillow, and the priestess decided that the contestant who considerately stayed out of her room because she was SLEEPING was in fact DISSING her... it's hard to say which one of those 2 came off looking more clueless.
The rose incident made clear a VERY subtle but important psychological point; the dimwit witch thought that one of the girls had left it for her, and when she found out that it was NOT that girl, she got very disappointed and then MAD at the girl, who was guilty of nothing other than being the victim of the witch's bad judgment. Although the witch didn't vote against this girl herself, she wah-wah-wahed endlessly to all the other judges about her, and she WAS the one eliminated... non-coincidentally. The way that the witch's foolish judgment, and her disappointment that she was wrong, made her turn on the innocent girl was mindblowing... and educational.
Who WAS the rose-giver? None other than the sociopath, who didn't get ANY votes against him in tonight's elimination, and who continues to brag about how he has all the judges fooled. In addition to the rose, he also gave the witch a massage, but his REALLY clever move was that when he had to pick someone to say good things about, he surprised everyone and picked the frontrunner, who he had slammed nonstop before... well, he surprised everyone but ME, as I KNEW he'd try to gain points by picking her. He picked the girl that no one had slammed thus far to say BAD things about; sociopaths have no loyalty, and will ruthlessly hedge their bets. He also referred to 2 of the girls giving their praises to the judges as "ass kissing"; can you say HYPOCRISY, anyone?
The one thing I'm not sure about with him is why he didn't tell the witch right away that it was HIM who left the rose; the result of his silence was to give the witch time to get all worked up about it, and it was really a masterstroke if he did it on purpose... but I don't think he did, or he'd have bragged about it. It's just as well, as the last thing one wants is for a sociopath to be THAT clever.
The frontrunner, interestingly, picked the sociopath to say HER good things about; she chirpily reported that she thought he liked what she did, so she might have done it to try to defuse his attacks on her, or to make him look like a heel if he continues, or both... or, she may have been doing exactly what HE was, but didn't want to admit to it. My guess is the former, unless she's REALLY a great actress.
So, now we're down to 3; the frontrunner, the sociopath, and the pleasant girl who hasn't accomplished much. The latter 2 are going to band together to oust the frontrunner, which is stupid for the pleasant girl to do, as he has already dogged HER out... she needs to focus on her own performance to have any non-zero chance, and let the power players slug it out and MAYBE leave her the only one standing. If she were smart, though, she'd have been doing better in the competitions, NONE of which she has won, so there's little hope for her.
Who'll take the $100K, then, the frontrunner or the sociopath? The sociopath should have lost major points for his endless badmouthing of the frontrunner, but, as is typical with human nature, people have at least partially believed the badmouthing and have held the bigmouth blameless; this is what sociopaths count on to get ahead at the expense of others. The judges have been conditioned by him to look at the friendliness of the frontrunner as fake, and, if they make their final decision on their feelings, rather than on more trials (which the frontrunner would be likely to win, as she does VERY well in the trials), the sociopath will win.
All we need to prevent this is for ONE judge, just ONE, to stand up and say, "this guy has been a nonstop badmouther of others, has been telling us what we want to hear from day one, has made fools of us, and has treated all of our teachings as a joke rather than as a learning experience; don't give him the $."
Don, you've shown greater perceptiveness than the other judges all along; will YOU save the day?
And it doesn't hurt that Don the vampire looks STUNNING in every episode, of course. ;-)
Tonight, the witch and the voodoo priestess gave all of us who talk about having access to extra-sensory understanding a bad name; the witch misjudged who left a rose on her pillow, and the priestess decided that the contestant who considerately stayed out of her room because she was SLEEPING was in fact DISSING her... it's hard to say which one of those 2 came off looking more clueless.
The rose incident made clear a VERY subtle but important psychological point; the dimwit witch thought that one of the girls had left it for her, and when she found out that it was NOT that girl, she got very disappointed and then MAD at the girl, who was guilty of nothing other than being the victim of the witch's bad judgment. Although the witch didn't vote against this girl herself, she wah-wah-wahed endlessly to all the other judges about her, and she WAS the one eliminated... non-coincidentally. The way that the witch's foolish judgment, and her disappointment that she was wrong, made her turn on the innocent girl was mindblowing... and educational.
Who WAS the rose-giver? None other than the sociopath, who didn't get ANY votes against him in tonight's elimination, and who continues to brag about how he has all the judges fooled. In addition to the rose, he also gave the witch a massage, but his REALLY clever move was that when he had to pick someone to say good things about, he surprised everyone and picked the frontrunner, who he had slammed nonstop before... well, he surprised everyone but ME, as I KNEW he'd try to gain points by picking her. He picked the girl that no one had slammed thus far to say BAD things about; sociopaths have no loyalty, and will ruthlessly hedge their bets. He also referred to 2 of the girls giving their praises to the judges as "ass kissing"; can you say HYPOCRISY, anyone?
The one thing I'm not sure about with him is why he didn't tell the witch right away that it was HIM who left the rose; the result of his silence was to give the witch time to get all worked up about it, and it was really a masterstroke if he did it on purpose... but I don't think he did, or he'd have bragged about it. It's just as well, as the last thing one wants is for a sociopath to be THAT clever.
The frontrunner, interestingly, picked the sociopath to say HER good things about; she chirpily reported that she thought he liked what she did, so she might have done it to try to defuse his attacks on her, or to make him look like a heel if he continues, or both... or, she may have been doing exactly what HE was, but didn't want to admit to it. My guess is the former, unless she's REALLY a great actress.
So, now we're down to 3; the frontrunner, the sociopath, and the pleasant girl who hasn't accomplished much. The latter 2 are going to band together to oust the frontrunner, which is stupid for the pleasant girl to do, as he has already dogged HER out... she needs to focus on her own performance to have any non-zero chance, and let the power players slug it out and MAYBE leave her the only one standing. If she were smart, though, she'd have been doing better in the competitions, NONE of which she has won, so there's little hope for her.
Who'll take the $100K, then, the frontrunner or the sociopath? The sociopath should have lost major points for his endless badmouthing of the frontrunner, but, as is typical with human nature, people have at least partially believed the badmouthing and have held the bigmouth blameless; this is what sociopaths count on to get ahead at the expense of others. The judges have been conditioned by him to look at the friendliness of the frontrunner as fake, and, if they make their final decision on their feelings, rather than on more trials (which the frontrunner would be likely to win, as she does VERY well in the trials), the sociopath will win.
All we need to prevent this is for ONE judge, just ONE, to stand up and say, "this guy has been a nonstop badmouther of others, has been telling us what we want to hear from day one, has made fools of us, and has treated all of our teachings as a joke rather than as a learning experience; don't give him the $."
Don, you've shown greater perceptiveness than the other judges all along; will YOU save the day?
Thursday, April 22, 2004
It's all a beauty contest
Dr. Phil's show today included a discussion of sexual confidence in women. He set up a test where 3 men would each spend 10 minutes with the same 2 women (separately), and then be questioned as to the level of sexual confidence of each woman. The one with no sexual confidence was beautiful; the one with extreme sexual confidence was not. My prediction was that the men would all see the beautiful one as sexually confident, and the less attractive one as not, and I was RIGHT; all 3 men got it wrong.
Studies show that when teachers are given essays to grade, they give them higher grades when pictures of attractive children are included with them than when pictures of less attractive children are included with them; managers looking at resumes do the equivalent thing. Good-looking people are more likely to get hired, promoted, and given raises, and they make more $ on the average.
Good-looking people are assumed to be smarter, nicer, funnier, pretty much superior in every way; that's why we all try so hard to be as good-looking as possible... that, and the disheartening fact that we assume that an attractive person will be a hot bedmate, not only because they rev up our biological drives, but because we're subconsciously sure that they're more eager for sex, and will enjoy it more, than plainer people, even when the way they actually feel is exactly the opposite.
I don't suppose there's any point in suggesting that everyone keep all this in mind, and use it to judge both the attractive and the unattractive more fairly, sigh...
Studies show that when teachers are given essays to grade, they give them higher grades when pictures of attractive children are included with them than when pictures of less attractive children are included with them; managers looking at resumes do the equivalent thing. Good-looking people are more likely to get hired, promoted, and given raises, and they make more $ on the average.
Good-looking people are assumed to be smarter, nicer, funnier, pretty much superior in every way; that's why we all try so hard to be as good-looking as possible... that, and the disheartening fact that we assume that an attractive person will be a hot bedmate, not only because they rev up our biological drives, but because we're subconsciously sure that they're more eager for sex, and will enjoy it more, than plainer people, even when the way they actually feel is exactly the opposite.
I don't suppose there's any point in suggesting that everyone keep all this in mind, and use it to judge both the attractive and the unattractive more fairly, sigh...
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Some things never change... unfortunately
When I turned on the TV to watch Dennis Miller tonight, they inexplicably had a program featuring Donald Trump on instead, talking about that show he did and about his life. I never saw the reality show, but the Donald is always interesting, so I watched most of the program, and he brought up a horrifying concept.
When the candidates were divided up into a male team and a female team, the women performed spectacularly, wiping the floor with the men; when they reformed the teams so that each contained both genders, the women immediately went belly-up... and neither Trump nor the interviewer could figure out why.
Studies show that girls and young women perform better academically, and participate FAR more in class, on the average when they are in all-girls schools and colleges.
Experiments were done where men and women were divided into groups of 3, such that each group had 2 of one gender and 1 of the other, and they were assigned projects to complete. When they were done, they were each asked who was the leader of their group; they discovered that in every group with just one man that the man believed himself to have been the leader, and that nearly all the women believed the man in their group to be the leader as well. In each group with 2 men, every group member thought that one of the men had been the leader.
Feminism has FAILED. We got laws passed to give women equal employment and educational opportunities and end most other forms of discrimination, and we persuaded women to exchange their right to say no to sex and have it be ok for the right to openly enjoy sex when they DO have it (I take a fairly dim view of that one, but some find it wonderful), but even the most intelligent and competent women and girls are STILL holding back around men, STILL unable to compete effectively with men, and STILL seeing men as the automatic leaders.
Is THIS what we gave up the right to stay home and raise our own children for? Is THIS what we turned our marriages into strained interactions between 2 stressed and exhausted people who have less than a 50% chance of staying together for? So that we and our daughters can STILL feel inferior to men, and STILL stand back and let men be the stars, and so men can STILL feel certain that they're superior and STILL expect to run things?
When the candidates were divided up into a male team and a female team, the women performed spectacularly, wiping the floor with the men; when they reformed the teams so that each contained both genders, the women immediately went belly-up... and neither Trump nor the interviewer could figure out why.
Studies show that girls and young women perform better academically, and participate FAR more in class, on the average when they are in all-girls schools and colleges.
Experiments were done where men and women were divided into groups of 3, such that each group had 2 of one gender and 1 of the other, and they were assigned projects to complete. When they were done, they were each asked who was the leader of their group; they discovered that in every group with just one man that the man believed himself to have been the leader, and that nearly all the women believed the man in their group to be the leader as well. In each group with 2 men, every group member thought that one of the men had been the leader.
Feminism has FAILED. We got laws passed to give women equal employment and educational opportunities and end most other forms of discrimination, and we persuaded women to exchange their right to say no to sex and have it be ok for the right to openly enjoy sex when they DO have it (I take a fairly dim view of that one, but some find it wonderful), but even the most intelligent and competent women and girls are STILL holding back around men, STILL unable to compete effectively with men, and STILL seeing men as the automatic leaders.
Is THIS what we gave up the right to stay home and raise our own children for? Is THIS what we turned our marriages into strained interactions between 2 stressed and exhausted people who have less than a 50% chance of staying together for? So that we and our daughters can STILL feel inferior to men, and STILL stand back and let men be the stars, and so men can STILL feel certain that they're superior and STILL expect to run things?
Monday, April 19, 2004
When is it love and when is it crazy?
First, today's creepy "coincidence"; I was recalling something a friend had said to me, and was envisioning what I was going to say to her on the subject when next we spoke, and the phone rang, and...
So; love. In America, we believe in the idea of a 2 people falling in love and choosing to be together the rest of their lives, always being faithful and in love... and this is another area where some cultures see us as childish, just as a side note.
In some countries, arranged marriage is seen as the way to pair people up, and they believe that if you arrange properly, this is the best way to assure a lifetime of love; it DOES seem to work, that even if the couple are strangers on their wedding day they come to love each other, and even if they move to countries where divorce is available and common they stay together. Still, to Americans, an arranged marriage, the very idea of agreeing to a lifetime commitment with someone you don't even know, seems crazy, and we don't grasp how love can come of it; I remember a quote by Joyce Brothers about how if you put any man and woman on a desert island together, they would fall in love eventually, which is probably the reason arranged marriages work... it's part of nature's way of making sure that we pair up and procreate with whoever is available.
In some of the cultures that practice marriage as we do, the women expect that the men will have mistresses, and as long as the men are discreet, and are present when expected to be for them and their children, and aren't spending all their $ on the sly...
News flash; Joyce Brothers just came on TV as a guest on the show I'm watching!!
... the wives are willing to let the men do their thing, and still love them, and the men love THEM, and they stay together; to Americans, this also seems crazy.
Even within our own culture, look at some of the crazy ways people act out of love; just within my own circle of acquaintance, I can point to several cases where women waited years, even DECADES, to be able to be with the men they wanted-is anyone REALLY worth waiting that long to get? People can have happy relationships with partners they love and who love them, and then meet some new person that sends their hormones surging and dump the old relationship like it was garbage; is that love or insanity?
True love is certainly worth a great deal of time and sacrifice, but how can you TELL if you're acting in the service of love or if you're just nuts? Or having a midlife crisis, or fear of commitment, or have mistaken a natural low spot in your relationship as a sign it's time to move on, or haven't grasped that it's biologically impossible to have that in love feeling for more than a couple of years, or... or... how do you KNOW?
As someone who tends to over-think things compared with a "normal" person, the idea of arranging a marriage, or having a setup where the man can satisfy his biological urges and still be part of a happy permanent partnership because he cares for his wife rather than just trading her in as American men so often do, honestly DOES appeal to me... but, on the other hand, what if following what seem like irrational flights of passion, even if it means waiting in the wings for a big chunk of your life to be officially with someone, is the way to find the deepest love you'll ever get, and you'll be cheating yourself if you rationalize your way out of it?
Not for the first time, I wish I had had that deeply, blindingly in love experience in my youth, so that I could have some direct experience to judge by; those who HAVE had it always make it sound like a spectacular experience even when it led to a bad end, and even though it seems like an emotional train wreck from the outside, I have the idea that it's like so many other elements of human nature-you just don't know unless you've been there.
So; love. In America, we believe in the idea of a 2 people falling in love and choosing to be together the rest of their lives, always being faithful and in love... and this is another area where some cultures see us as childish, just as a side note.
In some countries, arranged marriage is seen as the way to pair people up, and they believe that if you arrange properly, this is the best way to assure a lifetime of love; it DOES seem to work, that even if the couple are strangers on their wedding day they come to love each other, and even if they move to countries where divorce is available and common they stay together. Still, to Americans, an arranged marriage, the very idea of agreeing to a lifetime commitment with someone you don't even know, seems crazy, and we don't grasp how love can come of it; I remember a quote by Joyce Brothers about how if you put any man and woman on a desert island together, they would fall in love eventually, which is probably the reason arranged marriages work... it's part of nature's way of making sure that we pair up and procreate with whoever is available.
In some of the cultures that practice marriage as we do, the women expect that the men will have mistresses, and as long as the men are discreet, and are present when expected to be for them and their children, and aren't spending all their $ on the sly...
News flash; Joyce Brothers just came on TV as a guest on the show I'm watching!!
... the wives are willing to let the men do their thing, and still love them, and the men love THEM, and they stay together; to Americans, this also seems crazy.
Even within our own culture, look at some of the crazy ways people act out of love; just within my own circle of acquaintance, I can point to several cases where women waited years, even DECADES, to be able to be with the men they wanted-is anyone REALLY worth waiting that long to get? People can have happy relationships with partners they love and who love them, and then meet some new person that sends their hormones surging and dump the old relationship like it was garbage; is that love or insanity?
True love is certainly worth a great deal of time and sacrifice, but how can you TELL if you're acting in the service of love or if you're just nuts? Or having a midlife crisis, or fear of commitment, or have mistaken a natural low spot in your relationship as a sign it's time to move on, or haven't grasped that it's biologically impossible to have that in love feeling for more than a couple of years, or... or... how do you KNOW?
As someone who tends to over-think things compared with a "normal" person, the idea of arranging a marriage, or having a setup where the man can satisfy his biological urges and still be part of a happy permanent partnership because he cares for his wife rather than just trading her in as American men so often do, honestly DOES appeal to me... but, on the other hand, what if following what seem like irrational flights of passion, even if it means waiting in the wings for a big chunk of your life to be officially with someone, is the way to find the deepest love you'll ever get, and you'll be cheating yourself if you rationalize your way out of it?
Not for the first time, I wish I had had that deeply, blindingly in love experience in my youth, so that I could have some direct experience to judge by; those who HAVE had it always make it sound like a spectacular experience even when it led to a bad end, and even though it seems like an emotional train wreck from the outside, I have the idea that it's like so many other elements of human nature-you just don't know unless you've been there.
Intercession
In America, we believe in being direct, so much so that we tend to see not saying what we have to say right out as being weak, sneaky, and even dishonest. The majority of countries, however, see directness as a tactic only a small child would be foolish enough to use; this is one of the reasons that many cultures see Americans as childish.
So, what strategy do people in these others countries use that they think is so much better? Let's say that you needed a favor from your best friend's spouse. The American way would be to just ask the spouse for the favor. In, say, a Hispanic country, this would be handled by telling your friend what you need from their spouse, and asking them to ask the spouse for the favor on your behalf; the logic is that your friend would be very unlikely to refuse you, and the spouse would be very unlikely to refuse your friend, with the end result being that you would be very likely to get the favor... much MORE likely than if you asked directly. This is known as intercession.
This cultural difference is behind the incorrect belief of many Americans that Catholics in countries that practice intercession worship Mary and/or saints; what is actually happening is that those people believe they have a much better chance of getting a favor from God if they can persuade Mary or a saint to ask God on their behalf, and that's what they are praying to them for... to ask for their help in getting God to grant their prayers, NOT to worship them-it's intercession of the highest sort.
I can't speak as to what God, if He exists, thinks of direct prayers vs "indirect" ones, but, much as I share the American preference for people handling their own affairs, rugged individualism and all that, I HAVE tried intercession and seen for myself that it DOES work better, with the added advantages of not having to deal with the stress of asking the person directly, and not feeling awkward if they say no, because they said no to the intercessor, NOT to ME (these benefits haven't escaped those who practice intercession, of course). Give it a shot, and see for yourself why it's worth having this method as an option.
So, what strategy do people in these others countries use that they think is so much better? Let's say that you needed a favor from your best friend's spouse. The American way would be to just ask the spouse for the favor. In, say, a Hispanic country, this would be handled by telling your friend what you need from their spouse, and asking them to ask the spouse for the favor on your behalf; the logic is that your friend would be very unlikely to refuse you, and the spouse would be very unlikely to refuse your friend, with the end result being that you would be very likely to get the favor... much MORE likely than if you asked directly. This is known as intercession.
This cultural difference is behind the incorrect belief of many Americans that Catholics in countries that practice intercession worship Mary and/or saints; what is actually happening is that those people believe they have a much better chance of getting a favor from God if they can persuade Mary or a saint to ask God on their behalf, and that's what they are praying to them for... to ask for their help in getting God to grant their prayers, NOT to worship them-it's intercession of the highest sort.
I can't speak as to what God, if He exists, thinks of direct prayers vs "indirect" ones, but, much as I share the American preference for people handling their own affairs, rugged individualism and all that, I HAVE tried intercession and seen for myself that it DOES work better, with the added advantages of not having to deal with the stress of asking the person directly, and not feeling awkward if they say no, because they said no to the intercessor, NOT to ME (these benefits haven't escaped those who practice intercession, of course). Give it a shot, and see for yourself why it's worth having this method as an option.
