Maybe I've already exhausted the subject and I'm beating a dead horse. But it's my blog, right?
And I just have a few more thoughts on this that I didn't squeeze into my last post.
So here's another piece on "settling".
By the way, I've gotten more blog hits from so many crazy variations of searches about settling than anything else, I think.
Some have me giggling. "Does nice girl eventually settle for nice guy?" "When does girl settle for good guy?" Poor guy. I can just imagine him typing into his search bar. Dejectedly?
Other gems include:
- "Christian women over 40 don't have to settle"
- "Christian guys finish last"
- "Christian women have to settle"
- "Women settling for wrong things"
- "Women settle for nice guy in the end"
(Some of my favorites are unrelated: "Do christian guys do things differently than non-christian men"; "When attracting a real decent christisn man. should i wear skirts or jeans"; "Where in proverbs 31 does it say get out of my face")
Survey Says: Settle?
I keep seeing all these articles about settling.
Urging Christian brothers and sisters to set aside some of their ideals and just get married, already.
Kevin, in the comments in my last post, pointed out yet another one. This one is called Brother, You're Like a Six.
Before I jump all over these articles, like I love to do, I have one big question:
Why?
Why this huge push to just choose someone and make it work? To what end?
To what end is all this encouragement?
Why is marriage something that just has to be done?
All these articles make it out like it's the exact same way we treat our jobs.
Of course we all want our dream job. But not everyone gets it. We don't always get to be the writer, the painter, the singer, the composer, the CEO, the dancer, the athlete-- even if we're amazing at it. And why? Well, we've got to make it in life. You need money, and to get money you have to have a job. And so you settle. You get the best job you can. The hope is that you'll enjoy it, but we can't always have jobs we love.
Is that how marriage is? You have to just find something that will at least work and that you'll mostly enjoy... For what? It's not for money, like it is when you have to just choose a job.
What is the impetus for just choosing a marriage?
I'm fairly certain that the writers of articles like that, and those who hold similar beliefs, might argue that there's a biblical mandate for marriage.
Where can we find that?
All I can think of is the fact that Paul said that if you're unmarried, don't seek to be married.
How can that be twisted or ignored? Especially if you're going to take the Bible as the literal word of God.
I have never had marriage in the "goal" column in my life.
Well, maybe "never" is a stretch. When we were in the fundmentalist, abusive church, I thought that marriage was my only calling. But even at that point, I don't think I was like, "Here is how I am going to work towards this goal."
And that's what I feel it has become in all these cases where settling is encouraged. A goal. An assumed expectation.
But why?
Is the answer supposed to be something like, "To glorify God?"
He can't be glorified while people are single?
Sacrifice
Something that this whole "settling" thing comes down to (how many times have I used to the words "settle" or "settling" in my last few posts? 10 points to the person with the correct guess. After I go count out of curiosity. And try to find a synonym.) is the idea that it's selfish to reject someone who meets most of the criteria on the list.
Honestly, that line of thinking freaks me out. It's startling because, well, where does it end?
They, as in the writers and proponets of this idea, make it sound like they believe that it's absurd to marry someone who you have absolutely no attraction to. But, where would the line be drawn?
In fact, in the article Kevin linked to, the writer, Scott Croft says (emphasis his):
"What's the big question most people agonize over with regard to finding a spouse: "How do I know if I've found the one?" As my friend Michael Lawrence pointed out in his article "Stop Test-Driving Your Girlfriend," "the unstated goal of the question is 'How do I know if she's the one ... for me.'"
And that's essentially selfish. I don't mean that such an approach involves malice or the intent to hurt anyone. I simply mean that such an approach is self-centered. It conceives of finding a spouse from the standpoint of what will be most enjoyable for me based on my tastes and desires. What will I receive from marriage to this or that person?"
He continues:
"In Scripture, love is described not as a mere emotion based on personal desire (i.e., "attraction"), but as an act of the will that leads to selfless actions toward others. According to Jesus himself, the second-greatest commandment (after loving God) is to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31). He also said "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Jesus' love for us did not result from our inherent loveliness or our wonderful treatment of Him. He didn't go to the cross as a spontaneous response triggered by mere emotion. His perfect love of us was a choice, an act undertaken despite our lack of attractiveness — and it led to both sacrifice and joy."
Let me clarify a few points here.
1. I agree wholeheartedly with loving our neighbors as ourselves and laying down our life for our friends.
The other night I woke up from this weird dream where a gunman came into our store (please tell me I'm not alone in having this odd dream), and held up the kid I was working with at gunpoint. And, in my dream, I jumped in front of him. I woke up before anyone was shot. But, I believe, and hope, that I would do that in real life. I would do it for just a lot of people I know, and especially without a doubt or a moment's thought for those I love.
And it's the smaller, not actual "laying down your life" situations that speak volumes. How do you treat those around you? Do you give deference to others? Anyway, I'm not gonna preach. The point is simply that I do believe in these things.
But how does this figure into choosing a mate?
How is it selfish to just not want to be with a particular someone?
What cause are we supposed to be sacrificing ourselves for when we choose to just go ahead and get married?
The logic just breaks down.
With this line of thinking... whew, so many bad implications.
Arranged marriages would just be the best option. "Is she 'godly' by this list we have here? Good. Is he 'godly' by this list we have here? Good-- let the ceremony begin."
And that's practically what it's become with courtship and all.
But you know what the really hypocritical part is?
When it's not an arranged marriage type situation, atleast one party is wholly interested and has next to zero inhibitions about the whole thing. Someone is pursuing. Because they just like the person they're pursuing. The responsibility, it seems, it placed on the shoulders of the one who is just not quite feeling it.
I guess that's why the whole "nice guys finish last" routine drives me so crazy. Seriously? Shut. Up. You could have a girl. You could have just a girl. But it's a specific girl, or a specific type of girl that you want. Why don't you settle, instead of whining that girls won't stay with you?
Same goes for girls. Quit bemoaning the fact that he just wants a different caliber girl. Quit trying to make that seem like a bad thing.
Phew. Ask me how I really feel about it. Haha.
Where was I? Oh, yes, my second point.
2. Sacrifice within marriage.
Maybe I've come across as a raving lunatic who never wants to make any sacrifices for anyone. While this may be true... just kidding.
The thing that I'm adamantly against here is making ridiculous sacrifices prior to marriage. The "sacrifices" I keep seeing being promoted are just silly, really.
They all require you to let go of your notions of what type of personality you'd like your partner to have.
But why sacrifice your preferences? Why, if there's nothing wrong with them?
Again, to what end?
Within marriage, so called "sacrifices" as far as personality and character will be minimal, I believe.
I think it's silly to be talking about making "sacrifices" to like someone at the beginning.
And yeah, marriage takes work. I'm not trying to say that it always is or always should be smooth sailing. This is true of any type of relationship.
Months ago, my sister told me about an advice column she had read. The columnist had asked her readers to send in their prescriptions for a happy marriage. An 80 or 90-year old lady wrote in, who had been married for... I can't even remember how long.
Her biggest tip?
"Make the right choice in the beginning."
Accept. Make do with. Take. Be happy with.
These are the synonyms I found for settle.
Why would you do that at the outset?
The real sacrifices, I will be making will be after marriage, and won't have to do with my initial choice.
Are you a 10?
I've been talking about "connections" and "spark" and such.
And then I write these blogs because I value them so, and I don't think anyone should be told they should settle for less.
(If you waaant to, go right ahead. Why would I try to convince you otherwise? Just don't try to tell me that your way is the right way.)
So let me make another clarification:
I'm not talking about looks.
When I talk about attraction, I'm talking about personality. Character. The whole package. Some looks, I'm sure. I am human. God created us to appreciate beauty.
Maybe the writers of all these Boundless articles and I define attraction differently. Because every now and then, they mention not defining a relationship based on looks.
I don't. I wouldn't. Who would, honestly? Maybe I'm being naive. Do people really, truly pursue relationships based 60% or more on looks? That, I don't get.
But the general tone I've gotten from these and other articles and commentaries is that you shouldn't base your relationships very much on personality.
And that, my friends, is what I am so opposed to.
In the end...
If you want to get married to have children, and build a home and a family, that is great! Go for it. But don't contrive biblical reasons for why everyone needs to hop on the same train and just get married, already.
Don't accuse others of being picky or shallow or anything like that.
Those of us who have different ideas aren't wrong.
nice posting.. thanks for sharing..
ReplyDeleteHmm . . . I do think the writers of such articles are responding to real problems, though they may have misdiagnosed them. There does seem to be a pathological fear of commitment at large, though whether any one person is single due to that or due to good choices is, of course, impossible to say.
ReplyDeleteI do think the idea of "the right one" is pernicious. There is not "one right person" for each of us, whether that is expressed in quasi-Biblical or secular-romantic terms. And holding out for such a mythical being could indeed make people too picky, since any real human is going to fall short of the ideal. The question should not be "Is he the right one?" but "Do I want to spend the rest of my life with him?" a question that is more likely to have a real answer.
There's also the factor that marriage is always a risky proposition. In the modern world, we have a huge range of options in pretty much everything, and we can change our minds any time. So settling on one person for your whole life is a much greater magnitude of risk than we have any other experience with.
And it's an irreducible risk--if you don't commit to someone 100% you can't ask them to commit 100% to you. You can't parachute while you're holding on to the plane. You may know fully that you love this person now, but can you know who they will be in 10, 20, 50 years? Of course not. It's possible that people confuse this natural uncertainty as a sign that this is not "the one" (there it goes again) when really it might just be a sign that their rational mind has not been completely obliterated by hormones--hardly a bad thing.
Singleness is a fine thing. Marriage is a fine thing. The only people I really have a problem with are those who are out trying to get some of the benefits of marriage (whether emotional or physical) but are not open to making a commitment in the proper course of time.
Great thoughts, Amy.
ReplyDeleteI almost bought into the settling thing because of the weird subculture at the Christian college I went to (I had no idea what I was getting myself into) but I broke off an engagement even though I was judged for it and told I was practicing for divorce. I used to tell them no I'm preventing one!! Anyway my husband and I found each other a few years later and it was night and day! Like having a best friend and lover all in one. I would never trade that for someone who was just "choosing" to love me. I like being liked too. Good post!
ReplyDeleteOh, wow. I am so glad for you (and the first guy; things were probably better for him, too, right?) that you did what you had to do, despite the judgements. "Practicing for divorce." That is one of the worst analogies. Haha, I like your come back.
DeleteI like hearing about best friends and lovers. I'm glad you have that. =)
OK, and because I like beating a dead horse, too . . . reading the articles it doesn't sound like it's a situation where guys are happily living a solitary life, waiting for someone really special. Rather it sounds like the guys described had long-term girlfriends whom they had no intention of marrying. Using another person as matrimonial insurance--keeping Miss Okay around as a backup until Miss Wonderful shows up--is not honest or kind.
ReplyDeleteThe main flaw of the articles was that they did not state both alternatives: be honest or commit. Either say, "Hey, I don't think we have any future together, so you should probably go find someone else," and then be OK being by yourself until you find someone who is a real possibility, or, if the risk of singleness is too awful to you, commit to the adequate person you are with. Whichever. But don't keep another person in permanent limbo.
I do think the idea of "the right one" is pernicious. There is not "one right person" for each of us, whether that is expressed in quasi-Biblical or secular-romantic terms. [...] The question should not be "Is he the right one?" but "Do I want to spend the rest of my life with him?" a question that is more likely to have a real answer.
DeleteI couldn't agree more, and you stated it perfectly: Do I want to spend the rest of my life with this person? That is the question. "The one." It sure sounds romantic, I suppose, but the reality is that there's not just one person out of the 6 billion for any one of us. That might be how it feels, but agonizing over whether or not a person is the onnnllly person you should be with-- that'd just be frustrating and sad.
Singleness is a fine thing. Marriage is a fine thing. The only people I really have a problem with are those who are out trying to get some of the benefits of marriage (whether emotional or physical) but are not open to making a commitment in the proper course of time.
I think some of the guys in the article are, in fact, doing this. Keeping around a back up, just in case. That's just plain rude. And cruel.
I guess the thing that I might tell these guys, though, would be: end it. Don't just keep something lukewarm. Saying, "Just marry her; she's nice," doesn't seem fair to her, or the guy. But especially her.
To me, that's an even worse "just in case" scenario. Don't get married, just in case, or do get married, just in case. Maybe they're equally harmful mindsets.
Looking at older people who have been widowed, though, I have seen a lot of them (including my dad) just look around, find another person of suitable age and beliefs, and get married without all the angst younger folk do. They like being married, so they find someone to do it with and it seems to work quite well. So I don't think just settling down because you really want to be married is necessarily a bad thing. (Of course, it's more likely at that stage of life that BOTH people have a similar approach.)
DeleteI actually still find this difficult to relate to, but perhaps I would feel differently if I were in that situation. Anyway, that's why I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad for people to get married for more pragmatic reasons. But I certainly don't think it necessary.
I don't think it's bad for people to get married for pragmatic reasons at all. That's a fine thing to do. My beef is with those who try to make it seem more righteous to do so, and push for everyone else to follow suit.
DeleteI've seen widows and widowers do what you've described, and it works well for them. They want to be married, they know they do well with marriage; why shouldn't they be married? But it's not as if that's superior to remaining unmarried.
I guess all I'm saying is that we should each be allowed to have our own ideals when it comes to marriage and why we will or will not do it.
Needed to be said!
ReplyDeleteI know there are people who think I didn't marry any of my guy friends because I'm too picky, or snobby, or career-minded, or whatever.
The truth is, I knew all along that I wasn't attracted to them in that way. And I want my friends to have wives who adore them! Why is that so hard to understand?
-Rowena
Oh, Rowena, that is so, so true. That's something I hadn't even brought up.
DeleteIf someone has adoration to offer, they should be absolutely adored, too.
Your blog is awesome.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lindsay!
DeleteAmy! You never should have shown me your blog. I have some friends whom if I showed them this would very quickly fall in love with you. I think five is enough to deal with as it stands. (If it's okay with you, I'm gonna combine thoughts on both of your "settling" posts here. Didn't make much sense to go separately.
ReplyDelete1) Nice Elizabeth Bennet reference in the other post! I hope you do find the deepest of loves.
2) There are different types of settling. (This is one of the reasons I think it is unwise to make lists of what you're looking for in relationships.) If I am being totally honest, I want a woman as beautiful and sexy as a Victoria's Secret model, a musician talented enough to perform in a chamber orchestra, intelligent and diligent enough to teach at the U of M, funny enough to host an open mic, godly enough to lead our small group, an Olympian in Ultimate Frisbee AND table tennis, and on top of that she has to like me and find me deeply attractive. This is a tall order.
Sometimes we forget to differentiate between acceptable and ideal, and on top of that, we ignore the fact that most of these things don't contribute to a good relationship. So, let me revise to the lowest acceptable level. I have to find her attractive -- which covers intelligence and humor -- and she should be able to participate with me in the things I do for fun. I won't compromise on that list, but really, should I have to? It's reasonable, and pretty flexible. Maybe she doesn't play an instrument, but listens to me play. Or sings along. I don't mind if she has a bad voice. Oh, also.... If she's a picky eater? Dealbreaker.
But there's another kind of settling. I know a girl who is currently dating a guy she finds attractive, who treats her well, and she gets along with great. They were, as she said, pretty much best friends going into it. But she is settling, and I pray every day that she realizes that the continuation of this relationship will yield significant heartache for her. A person's character matters much, much more than the superficial things we normally use to sort out our partners.
I... Jeez, I think that's it. I thought I had more than that. Something about insecurity not the same as incompatibility? I dunno. Carry on.