However, today this must change. Incidentally, many people have asked with sincere interest concerning the state of affairs I find myself in when it comes to dating. Interestingly enough, I have quite an opinion on the subject and the social norms of my generation. Ironically, I have been asked to write up my thoughts
as well as even present them in a fireside like setting. I’ve always felt like most of my peers would have little or nothing to do with anything that I came up with. To put it mildly, my generation is in BIG trouble.I have come to my conclusions through careful self-analysis as well as by thorough observation of others. Now, I realize also that I stand as a hypocrite in regards to much of my conclusions, but because I’ve learned some things over time, I would be a hypocrite if I continued to act similarly to the past in spite of my knowledge of the present.
I still feel that my key term for this on a spiritual level spurns this advice: “Don’t trade non-eternal priorities for your eternal progression.” What does that mean exactly?
Well, it means that whether the guy you are dating has his degree finished or not is of no eternal consequence in the whole scheme of things. Similarly if you’re a man, the woman does not need to know how to make everything in the Betty Crocker cookbook to meet eligibility for marriage.
More and more I see a bell curve when it comes to the correlation between age and desirable attributes in a potential mate.
Take for instance women in their early 20’s. For LDS women at that age, they want a guy that is a return missionary, treats his mother well, and is capable of spontaneous fun.
By late 20’s to early 30’s a woman can find all of those predetermined attributes in just about any guy in a singles ward any where in the world. They are a dime a dozen. However, by this time it’s not enough. Now a woman needs a man who meets those earlier needs but has his degree finished, working on a career, doesn’t live at home and in all actuality probably owns a home, and is practicing to one day make an established campaign for Bishop or Stake President.
Furthermore, a woman approaching 30 more than likely has a college education, and established career, and owns a townhouse somewhere. Some deep down whether they admit it or not say to themselves, “I got this far without a man, so when Mr. Right comes along, he’ll conform to my lifestyle.”
Once late 30’s and early 40’s hit, a woman isn’t so much worried about whether the guy is an RM, or has an MBA. Most don’t care if he’s divorced and living back at home with mom and dad. (Although this isn’t preferred.) By this time, they just want a good, honorable man that will be loyal and stick with them in tough times.
Hence my bell curve theory.
Men are just as bad. Early 20’s they just want a Barbie doll for a wife. By 30, and partially due to the expectations of the women, they have to have their degree done, a house, a career, and a 401k established before they can even think about getting married. Then 40 hits and they want a Barbie doll again. (Sometimes referred to as mid-life crisis.)
This brings me to the point of this rant. A guy friend of mine clued me into a recent article. It was probably the most concise and well-articulated dose of reality on the subject of marriage that I’ve ever read. It’s mostly for and about women, but men can learn a lot from it too.
It’s written by a woman with some life experience who is in her 40’s and not married. Interestingly enough, I tell people I meet who are in their early 20’s to get married as soon as possible. I’ve lived long enough to realize I should’ve done it much earlier.
The author discusses the term and aspects of ‘settling.’ Now, red flags and sirens are going off for some of the women reading this right now. To you I say, “KNOCK IT OFF!” Open your stubborn minds and think for a moment. Just to help create warm fuzzies inside, I would change the word from ‘settling’ to ‘removing non-eternal priorities.’
Now, read this article and when you’re done, if in fact you can find a point of argument where the author is just dead-wrong, I encourage you to write me.
The Atlantic: Marry Him!
As a follow-up to these thoughts, tomorrow I will provide more enlightening conversation about how it is, how it was, and how it really should be.
6 comments:
I don't know you but stumbled on this post via a friend.... hope you don't mind the comments from a 30yo single woman. You say that in our 20s we're looking for a testimony, RM, fun, etc. Why does the criteria become more specific as we get older? It's true that some become too "picky" or superficial... but the truth is more of us now know ourselves better, too, and thus have something to base our "search" on besides Jack Weyland novels. We've also watched lots of our friends struggle through marriage -- and some through divorce. We meet a guy in his late 20s who is an RM, fun, nice but still "working on" his bachelors and we see a lack of direction or motivation that can cripple a relationship and bring resentment from both sides to a marriage. Yes, as I've spent the last 10 years finishing college and grad school and being successful in my different efforts, I expect to be with a guy who has done the same -- not because I want a new home and a BMW in the driveway, but because I want to be with someone else who makes the most of his "Plan B" time, rather than one who spent his 20s playing with friends, dinking around with college, and working part-time minimum wage jobs while he waited for Ms. Wonderful to come along and give him a reason to be an adult.
Thank you for your thoughts. They effectively clearly illustrate the point of 'non-eternal priorities.'
This dysfuntion is not limited to one sex. In my opinion, both men and women have a problem distinguishing what truly is necessary for eternal marriage.
For example, is having a college degree mandatory for eternal marriage? Meaning, does not having that completed keep someone from achieving exaltation? No.
Of course people are attracted to other people who are similar. Just as 'light attracts light,' like attracts like. There isn't anything wrong with holding out for someone who is like you.
I don't know that I agree with you on the, "more of us know ourselves better," point. I suppose I agree that older is wiser (usually) but the context of this screams out an underlying, "I've become more set in my ways." Knowing yourself better is one thing. But subconciously calculated increase in limitations placed upon potential suitors does not increase the finding pool. It makes it much smaller. The point of the article is that women (and men) keep shrinking that finding pool with all of their self-imposed prerequisites while the pool is already shrinking quickly because they've placed non-eternal priorities ahead of eternal ones. Of course the cause most to blame for shrinking opportunities is time and procrastination and the options are becoming less as one gets older; not more.
Although I am married and have been for five years I know I can't possibly relate to being single and in my 30's, but I do wish to put in my two cents. I do believe that most women should be careful not to become too picky with their choice of a spouse, and I do think that we can get too caught up in the whole romance thing sometimes, but I truly don't believe that we should "settle" with no romance just to have a spouse. Although I do believe that any two people striving to live gospel standards can have a sucessful marriage, but that would be all there is to it if you "settled", "a successful marriage". Drawing from my own experience being married, romance does play a big part of my own marriage and I feel is necessary for a successful and HAPPY marriage. I believe it is also essential to have similar intrests and things you enjoy together. My husband and I both have college degrees and I find that it was essential for me to have someone in my life who is just as, if not more educated than myself. If not I would be a very bored, frustrated person. I have a few friends who are in their 30's and still single. I don't believe for one minute they should settle, just because they are single and not married yet at their age. I truly believe what it comes down to is continuing to have faith in the Lord that your life will be in line according to His will. When we are striving to live the Gospel to it's fullest we will be the most happy with or without a spouse. I also truly believe that if we are doing those things I stated above and striving to live according to His will, then we will find and marry in the Lords timing for us. For most it's this life and for some it will be the next. I do leave my advise though to those who are single: continue to strive to have balance. That's what it's all about finding balance in all things. You can have what you are looking for just don't be too extreme and always include the Lord in your choices! I promise it works!!
Rebecca,
While I appreciate and agree with much of your comments I think you may have missed the key point of the article and/or at least where I was coming from.
That's ok. I may not have expressed it clearly.
First of all, my definition of 'romance' involves something that is created. 'Romance' is created through effort and action on the part of two people. (One can initiate but both must reciprocate appropriately)
You say that without romance, all there would be left is a 'successful marriage.' (Sounds pretty good to me) Or rather, in your next line, it is insinuated that there can be UNHAPPY but successful marriages. Just a bit confusing there, but I'm sure it's relative to what you might define as 'successful.'
I agree that it is important for attraction to be involved. It may have been 'essential' for your husband to have a college degree, but it is not on the list of pre-requisites for eternal exaltation.
The 'settling' reference is made as an analogy for setting aside the 'non-essential' aspects and how people often will become so wrapped up in the process, they confuse themselves as to what is truly essential, and what is not.
Of course heavenly guidance is important, but too many rely solely on it. It's kind of like the guy caught in a flood. The fire department drives up and offers to help him out of the house. He declines saying, "No, the Lord will save me." Eventually he's on his roof and the helicopter comes and to rescue him from the rising flood waters and he again declines, "No, the Lord will save me."
He dies. He sees God in heaven and asks, "why didn't you save me?" God replies, "I sent many to save you and you kept turning them down." Apparently the man really didn't want to be saved.
Point is the Lord places many opportunities in front of us that meet the 'essential' requirements we are looking for. However, many get in the way of their own progression because they get hung up on the insignificant or mundane and think that the opportunities are like buses. Another will be along in 15 minutes anyway.
But I suppose it's always a nice fuzzy feeling.
Micah, here's my response - http://aeschylus-turtle.blogspot.com/2008/03/mountains-and-stars-counterblog.html
- and I wonder if YOU didn't miss the point of the article. You may have been creating an analogy, but the author of the article wasn't. I think your responses to other people's comments say much more clearly what you were apparently attempting to say in your blog post - which evidently had nothing to do with the article you quoted, other than the fact that you asked people to let you know if the author of the article got anything wrong.
Well, she did. And by extension (as per the title and evident support of her article) so did you.
I'm happy for you that you enjoy pot-stirring - I suppose I just wish you'd put your prodigious ("just ask him!") talents to better (or at least better-supported) use.
You still don't get it. But that's okay... one day you will.
Post a Comment