Letters to the Editor
-
The old days
I kind of agree with dottygirl. In the old days, everyone in one's social circle knew pretty much everyone else's history. Jerk or jerkette behavior soon earned one a reputation around town. Modern anonymity means the jerks and jerkettes can present a false front a lot easier. I've been way, way too willing to grant the benefit of the doubt in the past. I don't plan to grill someone in the future or have a checklist of questions, but I plan to try my best to keep my heart in check until I know the person a lot better.
-
Quack Therapy and Lazy Reporting
Any article that references John Gray as a credible source of relationship advice rates a big fat "zero" on the credibility meter. How about using a *real* expert rather than a diploma-mill hack who has made a fortune peddling misogynistic pablum to gullible fools?
-
37, single, cautious--disappointed
I think getting to know someone before jumping in the sack is a good idea. Physical intimacy has a powerful influence on what you think about someone. I think it’d be nice if other people didn’t have to go through a divorce to figure out this might be a good idea. Everywhere you look in our culture, sex is pushed as the most awesome thing, the must-have. I think people advising a little patience on nooky is a good thing. Sadly, Salon picks some Christian dweeb as the representative. It’s easy to make fun of morons, to reveal charlatans, and so on. And that’s a valuable activity, if the moron or charlatan matters. But are your reporters and editors so reactionary in their thought that they can’t imagine intelligent, sensitive, non-cross-burners wanting to be patient with their choice of life partner?
-
As long as we're getting harsh
Let's do mention that the statistics at the beginning of the article on the number of singles in the USA are probably heavily tilted because of the number of older folks living as singles. My 94-year-old granny is single, but somehow I don't think she's looking for relationship advice. She's not even prone to giving it.
-
Question about Integrity
I am concerned about the extent to which one of the organizations mentioned were willing to offer a "Christian version" of their program, which altered the group's advice on an important subject to accomodate the beliefs of that audience. How much alteration were they willing to countenance to get more business? Would they consider a "Sharia version?" How would this differ from a "Pagan version?" When does "accomodation" become "pandering?" And what does this say about how strongly the group really believe what they teach, or how important their specific advice is?
-
If the poor aren't different, why do they get help?
A few people took issue with the mention of class in the article, and certainly no one could contest the fact that social pathologies exist among wealthy and middle class people, but lower income people, as a group, ARE different. That is why the government at all levels, and charities, provide social programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, Section 8 Housing, Job Corps, food banks, and countless others. The poor are statistically much more prone to be both perpetrators and victims of crime. They are much less likely to be high school or college graduates, and generally score in the lowest percentiles on standardized testing. They pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, and often have difficulty obtaining and holding substantial employment. They are less likely to marry, and have more teenage pregnancies and out of wedlock births than higher income people. Statistically, they don't live as long. I find it hard to believe that an average person can't tell when they are among the poor by their dwellings, automobiles, clothing, and general demeanor. You don't have to be Charles Dickens! So there is no reason to think that with so many differences from the other classes, and so much help being provided in other aspects of their lives, that these folks might not need some CULTURE SPECIFIC help in their interpersonal relationships. I challenge anyone who disagrees with this premise to go to an "at risk" high school in an urban or rural area, and watch how the different sexes interact. Then compare the pushing, grabbing, and cursing at each other that constitutes much of the FRIENDLY interplay among young men and women with what goes on in a more subdued high school in the leafy suburbs.
-
I would think that
our incapacity to establish relationships is only a symptom of a greater problem. Why focus on marriage and relationships. If people were taught to have healthy selfesteem, economic and emotional independence, as well as the possiblity of finding more in life than marriage, I believe this problem would not be such an issue. Also, all those letters mentioning how much better past times were, remember that previous encarnations of marriage usually included socially and legally accepted wife beating, difficulty in divorcing even under extreme circumstances and in many cases women's property became her husband. We seem to remember the public face presented by previous models of marriage and not its dark underside.
-
It's important to identify red flags and dealbreakers
For all those who have said that love is not about attributes and checklists, I have to disagree. Not that anyone should pull out a notepad during a date and take notes on how his or her date answers questions, but everyone has dealbreakers -- as well we should. Many others have red flags that you ignore at your peril.
I have a close friend who has made terrible relationship choices for the past several years because she thinks love is about chemistry and feelings. She just cannot, no matter how often I am right about her emotion-driven, self-defeating decisions, introduce any modicum of reason into the picture. And she is suffering mightily for this handicap. She is single and desperate, and it's really sad to watch her make the same kinds of mistakes again and again and again. I think that one of these seminars would benefit her immensely if she was able to take anything from it.
On the other hand, once I learned to combine reason and sound judgment with my emotional reactions to people I dated, I soon met my wonderful husband, with whom I have chemistry but who also passed all of my assessments with flying colors. It wasn't a crass process of checking things off on a list -- it was an honest look at his past, his character, and what I could expect based on that. Maybe looking at people that way isn't "romantic". But I would venture to guess that people who operate like this are a hell of a lot less likely to make poor decisions and end up getting divorced. Attraction is not the whole ball game, folks. I would advise people who think it is (sorry if this sounds harsh) to grow up.