When I hear the term marriage I automatically think of the theme song
from "married with Children" that 80s sitcom. So which do you think is
more important? Marriage or Relationship?
Most folks would pick marriage but that couldn't be further from the truth. A marriage is made up of several relationships co-existing. The relationship between you and yourself, you and your spouse; between you and each of your children, between your spouse and each of the children and between your spouse and him/herself. If one relationship fractures it puts stress on all the relationships involved.
You have problems with your spouse and it affects the relationship with your children. You have problems with the children and it affects your relationship with your spouse. You have problems with yourself; body image, sexual orientation, sexual expression, weight etc and you'll have problems with everyone. It's all interconnected. All relationships have to be healthy in order for a marriage to survive. There are folks who are financially stable, have unhealthy relationships and end up divorced while others are poor with healthy relationships who stay together for 50 years.
That's why some newlyweds can lose every cent they own but still stay together. They haven't formed unhealthy relationships with material objects such as the house, car, and bank account yet. They are still focused on what's important and that is the relationship between themselves. You don't save a marriage in order to stay together. You have to save the relationships in order for anything positive to happen even if it means letting the marriage go.
The fracture that occurs in a relationship does not happen in the last year or months of the relationship. The fracture usually happens years before and is never re-set, sets badly or ignored. A relationship cannot be saved by one person. It takes two, if you are a couple and the entire family if you have kids to save all the relationships involved. Notice I did not mention saving the marriage. You don't need to keep the commitment to stay bound together in order to have a healthy relationship. All you need is a discussion, communication, listening and then solutions that are in the best interests of all involved. There are lots of folks who find they have better relationships after divorce than when they were married now that the stress of all the material stuff is out of the way and they can focus on what's important. The people.
What is divorce really? A separation. Like division. It doesn't mean that you don't still have a relationship with that person; especially if you have children. No one dies. No one loses a parent. The only thing that will change is the material possessions while what is important is cared for. The relationships.
I see folks who fight so hard and the only thing they talk about is "saving the marriage" without a thought to the people involved because at this point the people don't count but the material things they stand to lose do. The house. Steady joint income. Quality of life. Is it worth it to have all that but have no loving relationships? It's an empty victory.
Most folks would pick marriage but that couldn't be further from the truth. A marriage is made up of several relationships co-existing. The relationship between you and yourself, you and your spouse; between you and each of your children, between your spouse and each of the children and between your spouse and him/herself. If one relationship fractures it puts stress on all the relationships involved.
You have problems with your spouse and it affects the relationship with your children. You have problems with the children and it affects your relationship with your spouse. You have problems with yourself; body image, sexual orientation, sexual expression, weight etc and you'll have problems with everyone. It's all interconnected. All relationships have to be healthy in order for a marriage to survive. There are folks who are financially stable, have unhealthy relationships and end up divorced while others are poor with healthy relationships who stay together for 50 years.
That's why some newlyweds can lose every cent they own but still stay together. They haven't formed unhealthy relationships with material objects such as the house, car, and bank account yet. They are still focused on what's important and that is the relationship between themselves. You don't save a marriage in order to stay together. You have to save the relationships in order for anything positive to happen even if it means letting the marriage go.
The fracture that occurs in a relationship does not happen in the last year or months of the relationship. The fracture usually happens years before and is never re-set, sets badly or ignored. A relationship cannot be saved by one person. It takes two, if you are a couple and the entire family if you have kids to save all the relationships involved. Notice I did not mention saving the marriage. You don't need to keep the commitment to stay bound together in order to have a healthy relationship. All you need is a discussion, communication, listening and then solutions that are in the best interests of all involved. There are lots of folks who find they have better relationships after divorce than when they were married now that the stress of all the material stuff is out of the way and they can focus on what's important. The people.
What is divorce really? A separation. Like division. It doesn't mean that you don't still have a relationship with that person; especially if you have children. No one dies. No one loses a parent. The only thing that will change is the material possessions while what is important is cared for. The relationships.
I see folks who fight so hard and the only thing they talk about is "saving the marriage" without a thought to the people involved because at this point the people don't count but the material things they stand to lose do. The house. Steady joint income. Quality of life. Is it worth it to have all that but have no loving relationships? It's an empty victory.
You're doing it....again. Where exactly do you get this idea that gay men, or women, are redefining men? Each individual man defines himself. How a gay M.A.N can redefine the meaning of M.A.N is beyond me. He's a MAN isn't he?
If you believe someone is redefining men then maybe you never defined yourself to begin with. Eh?
What you don't seem to get is that most relationships are based on an assumption these days. The assumption of "what does my partner WANT me to BE" instead of just being who you already are.
When you are dating, do you plan to give flowers every day? Do you plan on pouring bubble baths every day? All the pampering and spoiling that goes on? The exercising and jogging? No. Is it what you think women WANT from you in order to give you the time of day? Yes Is it what she NEEDS from you? No.
I don't think I've ever been anything other than myself with my partners. What you see is what you get. If you can't handle what's in front of you then, sorry, it wasn't meant to be. That's honesty. A man always knows where he stands with me because I refuse to pretend.
Don't get me wrong. Women do the same thing. Hair, makeup, bra inserts, cleaning before you come over... I remember laughing with one of my buddies about this gal he was dating who turned into another person after they moved in together. Both sides are to blame for the pretense. Don't go pointing fingers. Glass houses and all that.
Posted by: Tyni1 | August 14, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Heterosexual Man's commentary on Male/Female Relationships in this new "Genderless" society. I didn't write it but I sure agree with it.
The New Gender Deal?
It's time for men to give women the ultimatum. I know that such language doesn't sound conciliatory, and it not. It's not intended to be. Here's the New Gender Deal. It is addressed to women. They have to right to accept or reject it. They have the right to seek out men who don't agree with it. However, women should not be surprised if many men champion the sentiments of the New Gender Deal. It ultimately does not matter how the New Gender Deal is received by women, or even by men. The New Gender Deal stands on its own merit.
To women:
You have a choice. The choice is between two options. They are as follows:
1. The traditional choice: If you look to a man to abide by traditional understandings of masculinity, then you must abide by traditional understandings of femininity. Special social obligations imposed on men necessitate special obligations imposed on women. Gracious displays of chivalry from traditionalist men must be rewarded with gracious displays of subordination from traditionalist women. If a man pays for the dinner date on Friday night, then a woman should fix his lunch on Sunday afternoon.
Women in previous generations understood that their role was to serve their husbands. The husband's ambitions and dreams took precedence over that of their wives. Remember the saying, "Behind every great man is a great woman"? Women of yesteryear achieved their self-fulfillment vicariously through their husbands' successes. The price of asking a man to be the "breadwinner", etc. is that you must be subordinate to him in the direction of the relationship. You have the duty of deferring to his opinions before he has any duty of hearing yours. If you have eschewed the responsibility that comes with leadership, you must eschew all benefits that come with it as well.
The egalitarian choice: If you want more say in your relationships with men, then you must accept more responsibility. If you want fathers to be more involved with domestic duties, then mothers need to be more involved with paying the bills. If you want to earn more money than the men around you, then be prepared to earn more money than your husband. If you want power and influence, then you must use it to help those who don't have it (including men).
-----------
What are these options about? Real trade-offs. Real parity. Real justice. That's what men deserve from women. None of the immoral showing of partiality where a select caste of human beings have the best of all choices because they were born female. In addition to making one of these choices, you must also abide by the following code of ethics:
You must eschew the cultural trend of demeaning and insulting men. You must acknowledge that conduct commonly regarded as inappropriate, demeaning, and dehumanizing does not suddenly become justifiable for women in how they treat men. Case in point, if it is tasteless to joke about harming women, then it is tasteless to joke about harming men. If it is wrong for men to play the field and jerk women around in the dating game, then it is wrong for women to do the same to men. If it is wrong for men to judge women primarily or solely on external attributes (looks or weight), then it is wrong for women to judge men in the same way.(job & height) If it's wrong for women to be blamed for the stupid choices men make, then it's wrong for men to be blamed for the stupid choices women make (no psychobabble please). This is not about affirming that the sexes are identical. It is about affirming the equal worth of both men and women.
A man's worth. Hollywood can't define it by how many women he beds. Churches can't define it by how successfully he convinces a woman to take his last name. Heterosexual men do not need to conform to womans... or gays mens(re)definition of manhood. Real men define themselves. They can have happiness and self-worth apart from having an intimate relationship on others peoples value systems.
A man has a right to reject a personal relationship with you. He has a right to question your desirability as a mate. He has a right to disregard your opinions about gender relations. Real men make decisions based on their own self identity and value structure. Real men ACT like men.
Posted by: WTR | August 14, 2009 at 01:40 PM