Sirach 40:17-30
Wealth or wages can make life sweet, but better than either is finding a treasure.
A child or a city will preserve one's name, but better than either, attaining wisdom.
Sheepfolds and orchards bring flourishing repute, but better than either, a devoted wife;
wine and music delight the soul, but better than either, conjugal love.
The flute and the harp offer sweet melody, but better than either, a voice that is true.
Charm and beauty delight the eye, but better than either, the flowers of the field.
A friend, a neighbor, are timely guides, but better than either, a prudent wife.
A brother, a helper, for times of stress; but better than either, charity that rescues.
Gold and silver make one's way secure, but better than either, sound judgment.
Wealth and vigor build up confidence, but better than either, fear of God.
Fear of the Lord leaves nothing wanting; he who has it need seek no other treasure.
The fear of God is a paradise of blessings; its canopy, all that is glorious.
My son, live not the life of a beggar, better to die than to beg;
when one has to look to another's table, his life is not really a life.
His neighbor's delicacies bring revulsion of spirit to one who understands inward feelings;
In the mouth of the shameless man begging is sweet, but within him it burns like fire.
Showing posts with label marriages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriages. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Read about this tragedy and learn
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/kenner_murdersuicide_binds_fam.html
***
Now that you have read it, think this through carefully.
The reason that religious "traditionalists" insist on dating, love, marriage, baby IN THAT ORDER is not because we are boring old a**holes who do not understand life.
It is precisely to prevent broken hearts and tragedies such as this.
When a couple "experiments" with love, such as "living together" and then having a planned or unplanned child, it is devastating for one partner when the other decides this relationship is not for him or for her.
Many people like to criticize "violent" men who go crazy when a relationship breaks up. But that is exactly what I am pointing out was kept to a minimum back when people dated for extended periods, and then committed in marriage once they were certain. Many boys and men today are totally devastated when they "have it all" given to them (love, sex, friendship, even a baby), even before they are emotionally ready, and then it is yanked away from them.
Girls and women likewise suffer too, when they think they have it all, and then are "dumped," but it is often a mitigation that girls tend not to be as violent, and rather, fall into very sad cycles such as depression.
It seems the last thing anyone thinks of is the baby. The baby should always be the highest priority, but it is precisely for that reason that baby who comes "first" in importance should be "last" in order, after dating, a period of discernment, and then marriage.
See, young people, you need to understand something about the psyche of humans. Teenagers and young people are devastated when they have it "all" given to them, and then suddenly lose it because they were both too immature, or one partner just "walks away" and needs "time and space." You have all grown up thinking that "living together" somehow guarantees good marriage, by "checking it out first," but the opposite is true. When you "check it out" you are doing so at your current level of growth and maturity. If you marry, you commit, and if as so many marriages do, it fails, it does so over time, while you are both growing and have more resilience and understanding of how and why it failed. Thus a divorcing couple is more likely to have two more resilient individuals who can get through the trauma some years down the road, than a couple who "plays house" and "tries it out," and then in a matter of only months, one partner backs out for whatever reason. Yes, this couple would have been better off taking things slowly in the traditional way and yes, even if after they married they divorced or annulled, they would, obviously, still be much better off (to say nothing of the baby) emotionally and able to cope with the situation which would have more gradually unfolded.
I hope that you find this helpful. This is why you should stop snickering at people who marry frequently, because they are trying to do things the right way, in the right order. Humans need time to grow up, and to "have it all" only to have it yanked away by one partner (no matter how justified the reasons) is a heartache that many young people cannot endure, as they were not meant to be plunged from one extreme to the other. Humans sure would no longer be walking the earth if the order of dating/marriage/children hadn't been followed by 99.9% of humans for thousands of years.
***
Now that you have read it, think this through carefully.
The reason that religious "traditionalists" insist on dating, love, marriage, baby IN THAT ORDER is not because we are boring old a**holes who do not understand life.
It is precisely to prevent broken hearts and tragedies such as this.
When a couple "experiments" with love, such as "living together" and then having a planned or unplanned child, it is devastating for one partner when the other decides this relationship is not for him or for her.
Many people like to criticize "violent" men who go crazy when a relationship breaks up. But that is exactly what I am pointing out was kept to a minimum back when people dated for extended periods, and then committed in marriage once they were certain. Many boys and men today are totally devastated when they "have it all" given to them (love, sex, friendship, even a baby), even before they are emotionally ready, and then it is yanked away from them.
Girls and women likewise suffer too, when they think they have it all, and then are "dumped," but it is often a mitigation that girls tend not to be as violent, and rather, fall into very sad cycles such as depression.
It seems the last thing anyone thinks of is the baby. The baby should always be the highest priority, but it is precisely for that reason that baby who comes "first" in importance should be "last" in order, after dating, a period of discernment, and then marriage.
See, young people, you need to understand something about the psyche of humans. Teenagers and young people are devastated when they have it "all" given to them, and then suddenly lose it because they were both too immature, or one partner just "walks away" and needs "time and space." You have all grown up thinking that "living together" somehow guarantees good marriage, by "checking it out first," but the opposite is true. When you "check it out" you are doing so at your current level of growth and maturity. If you marry, you commit, and if as so many marriages do, it fails, it does so over time, while you are both growing and have more resilience and understanding of how and why it failed. Thus a divorcing couple is more likely to have two more resilient individuals who can get through the trauma some years down the road, than a couple who "plays house" and "tries it out," and then in a matter of only months, one partner backs out for whatever reason. Yes, this couple would have been better off taking things slowly in the traditional way and yes, even if after they married they divorced or annulled, they would, obviously, still be much better off (to say nothing of the baby) emotionally and able to cope with the situation which would have more gradually unfolded.
I hope that you find this helpful. This is why you should stop snickering at people who marry frequently, because they are trying to do things the right way, in the right order. Humans need time to grow up, and to "have it all" only to have it yanked away by one partner (no matter how justified the reasons) is a heartache that many young people cannot endure, as they were not meant to be plunged from one extreme to the other. Humans sure would no longer be walking the earth if the order of dating/marriage/children hadn't been followed by 99.9% of humans for thousands of years.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
School shootings, youth violence and depression
OK, I have to be very blunt here and explain some societal changes that are now coming back to bite people very hard, especially young males. We have just had the shootings in Finland. There is a pattern of emulating Columbine and other shootings, with grievances, fascination and lack of fear of death, a dark seething rage, access to weapons that enable those with no impulse control, networks of like minded youths including the problem of gangs, and last of all, fueling addictions such as alcohol, drugs, pornography.
Now, why are so many youth, especially young males, seething and detached from the joys of life (often totally numb to them) and unable to have patience and fortitude during their youth and difficult times? I bet you expect me to say the absence of fathers and the breakdown of the family, but that is not what I am going to focus on, although obviously that has had a terrible effect. Yet, we see these problems even in families that seem traditional and content, or at least adequate, on the outside.
No, I have to get a little Freudian and also social scientist to explain to you what has happened. Humans have evolved over millions of years to have peak sexuality and lots of energy when youth, particularly men, are in their late teenage years and into their twenties. That is how the human species is wired to survive. Young men have maximum energy to reproduce and take on great responsibility in their teens, though they lack the finishing gloss of maturity, which they get in their twenties and thirties. So here is how humanity used to do things. Young men could look forward to being sexually gratified in their late teens when they were married and became heads of new families (under the watchful eyes of their parents). Young people were paired up in arranged marriages for thousands of years, around the world and in all society, rich or poor, of all faiths and cultures. This way no man or woman was left without a spouse, giving sex when the young man is most driven to obtain it, and also giving him a piece of adult responsibility with marriage. For example, a typical young man would be matched to a young woman in their village and they would obtain a piece of land from the parents to farm. The young man would have sexual gratification, the woman would have a provider, and both would be able to start their own journey into maturity.
Today we have claimed that society is "liberated" and men and women can be intimate with whoever they want. But the result is that as our society has become more highly sexualized (as if humans needed help in that regard) yet access to regular, stable loving sex has been destroyed. Without the pairing that used to take place through family alliances, matchmaking and other customs, many youth are overstimulated and yet excluded from a stable sexual situation (marriage) and also a share in taking on adult responsibility (farming or having an apprenticeship or share of a family trade). As a result we see two extremes in young men. We see a violent seething under culture fueled by alienation, loneliness, repressed sexual needs, inability to be physically and mentally matured by parental and grandparent role models.... or you have the drugging and dummying down of male youth in order to make them feminized and compliant as they work their way through seemingly endless schooling and then into a desk job.
Traditional human culture was much more compassionate in this regard. You did not have many "bachelors" or seething male youth because villages and communities ensured that all possible compatible matches were made. So there was no young man or woman "left behind" because they were not popular or pretty or "hot" enough to get laid or to be matured in a structured way, such as apprenticeship. That is why I have said kind things about arranged marriages, and I know a very content couple who were married in the traditional way. By the way, I'm obviously not talking about "astrology" and "fortune telling" matches. Those were the minority of one society I could mention. The rest of the world through the centuries just cared about "compatibility" and ability to support a family.
As a result we now have two generations in a row of seething, under served (in the sense of being stewarded and ushered into meaningful adulthood via family, community and society), over stimulated (hormones plus all of the agitating addictions and instant gratification society), rudderless (thus vulnerable to depression) youth who are both tossed out on their own earlier than they should be AND infantalized in areas where they should be given adult responsibilities. People used to be matched, married young and given adult responsibilities (trades, farming, apprentice, etc) and now they lack all of that while at the same time being over stimulated in their senses and expectations, fueled by the unreality of life as portrayed in the media, and often aggravated by broken families and low impulse control. For example, a young man used to be introduced to weapons, such as guns, in the context of hunting for food for the family. Now a young man is introduced to guns in TV violence (the previous generation) and with this generation, video games and weaponized "superhero" mentality. This is why even youth from traditional families are vulnerable to the pressures of depression, lack of sexual gratification within a timely marriage when they have peak urge, and dark nihilistic "seeking" of "meaning" and worse, glorifying the lack of meaning. All this is happening in the same evolved biological human bodies that are programmed to "expect" sex and family responsibility by the late teens or early twenties and have an excess of energy that used to be used in sheer survival skills, such as hunting, farming, home building and the military. Now many youth have to sublimate their human "birth right" into alienation, longing, bitterness, depression and hostile escapism. What a terrible problem this is and people need to get real about what humans are really like and what is the healthiest for them in their genuine natures and not in fantasy.
Obviously there is more to say and an awful lot of damage to undo, but I truly hope this gives you, especially the young people, a more generous perspective of the potentials and problems of humans and their human nature.
Now, why are so many youth, especially young males, seething and detached from the joys of life (often totally numb to them) and unable to have patience and fortitude during their youth and difficult times? I bet you expect me to say the absence of fathers and the breakdown of the family, but that is not what I am going to focus on, although obviously that has had a terrible effect. Yet, we see these problems even in families that seem traditional and content, or at least adequate, on the outside.
No, I have to get a little Freudian and also social scientist to explain to you what has happened. Humans have evolved over millions of years to have peak sexuality and lots of energy when youth, particularly men, are in their late teenage years and into their twenties. That is how the human species is wired to survive. Young men have maximum energy to reproduce and take on great responsibility in their teens, though they lack the finishing gloss of maturity, which they get in their twenties and thirties. So here is how humanity used to do things. Young men could look forward to being sexually gratified in their late teens when they were married and became heads of new families (under the watchful eyes of their parents). Young people were paired up in arranged marriages for thousands of years, around the world and in all society, rich or poor, of all faiths and cultures. This way no man or woman was left without a spouse, giving sex when the young man is most driven to obtain it, and also giving him a piece of adult responsibility with marriage. For example, a typical young man would be matched to a young woman in their village and they would obtain a piece of land from the parents to farm. The young man would have sexual gratification, the woman would have a provider, and both would be able to start their own journey into maturity.
Today we have claimed that society is "liberated" and men and women can be intimate with whoever they want. But the result is that as our society has become more highly sexualized (as if humans needed help in that regard) yet access to regular, stable loving sex has been destroyed. Without the pairing that used to take place through family alliances, matchmaking and other customs, many youth are overstimulated and yet excluded from a stable sexual situation (marriage) and also a share in taking on adult responsibility (farming or having an apprenticeship or share of a family trade). As a result we see two extremes in young men. We see a violent seething under culture fueled by alienation, loneliness, repressed sexual needs, inability to be physically and mentally matured by parental and grandparent role models.... or you have the drugging and dummying down of male youth in order to make them feminized and compliant as they work their way through seemingly endless schooling and then into a desk job.
Traditional human culture was much more compassionate in this regard. You did not have many "bachelors" or seething male youth because villages and communities ensured that all possible compatible matches were made. So there was no young man or woman "left behind" because they were not popular or pretty or "hot" enough to get laid or to be matured in a structured way, such as apprenticeship. That is why I have said kind things about arranged marriages, and I know a very content couple who were married in the traditional way. By the way, I'm obviously not talking about "astrology" and "fortune telling" matches. Those were the minority of one society I could mention. The rest of the world through the centuries just cared about "compatibility" and ability to support a family.
As a result we now have two generations in a row of seething, under served (in the sense of being stewarded and ushered into meaningful adulthood via family, community and society), over stimulated (hormones plus all of the agitating addictions and instant gratification society), rudderless (thus vulnerable to depression) youth who are both tossed out on their own earlier than they should be AND infantalized in areas where they should be given adult responsibilities. People used to be matched, married young and given adult responsibilities (trades, farming, apprentice, etc) and now they lack all of that while at the same time being over stimulated in their senses and expectations, fueled by the unreality of life as portrayed in the media, and often aggravated by broken families and low impulse control. For example, a young man used to be introduced to weapons, such as guns, in the context of hunting for food for the family. Now a young man is introduced to guns in TV violence (the previous generation) and with this generation, video games and weaponized "superhero" mentality. This is why even youth from traditional families are vulnerable to the pressures of depression, lack of sexual gratification within a timely marriage when they have peak urge, and dark nihilistic "seeking" of "meaning" and worse, glorifying the lack of meaning. All this is happening in the same evolved biological human bodies that are programmed to "expect" sex and family responsibility by the late teens or early twenties and have an excess of energy that used to be used in sheer survival skills, such as hunting, farming, home building and the military. Now many youth have to sublimate their human "birth right" into alienation, longing, bitterness, depression and hostile escapism. What a terrible problem this is and people need to get real about what humans are really like and what is the healthiest for them in their genuine natures and not in fantasy.
Obviously there is more to say and an awful lot of damage to undo, but I truly hope this gives you, especially the young people, a more generous perspective of the potentials and problems of humans and their human nature.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
More about love, sex, attraction, societal change
A follow up thought regarding my previous comment. What I’ve done is not focus in on one simplistic, though important, issue regarding “hot” or sexy clothes. What I’m doing is starting a series of instructions that will help you examine your own, and your partner’s, character. It is as though the past two generations have forgotten how to fall in love. It really is as simple as that.
Genuine love is falling in love with the entirety of the person’s character. This is different than the common misconception that one falls in love with the total inventory of their attributes. For example, a boy may fall in love with a girl because she is beautiful, kind and exciting. But I invite you to think about this quickie exercise. If a boy is able to rattle off the list of those attributes, I would think to myself that he’s not in love with her character. Her character defies description, because one is so focused on the integrated overall package that one cannot articulate the list of specific wonderful traits. If the boy is truly unable, if asked, to explain why he loves that girl so much, that is a very good sign because it means he is focused on the entire package, which is her character. Character is not an “excuse” word where you love someone who is not so hot in the attractive category, but you say in compensation that she has “nice character.” Character includes beauty! Character includes the “shallow” physical attributes too! Remember, the body is the temple of the soul. One’s character is shaped by one’s body, mind and spirit. Character is the overall integration of all those “components,” since they really are not separated in an authentic person.
So the boy or girl, or man or woman who is unable to describe what exactly it is about the person they love is actually not just a dweeb poor with words, or someone who “doesn’t know what he or she has got.” That person is actually, probably, more authentically in love with the person than if he or she could list their categories of wonderfulness. Real love, and the love that has been celebrated through the ages, has been character based. And remember, the attractiveness of the body or “chemistry” is part of character. Character is not just a catchall word for the “dry” attributes, like “is nice,” “is full of life,” “has a beautiful soul” (yuck, I hate that New Age canard). Character is shaped by one’s body and its attributes, so true love falls in love with even the most beautiful woman in the world based on her character. I know that’s hard to see but if you work on understanding this, you will recapture much of the depth of love that the previous generations knew and actually took for granted. This is what “loving eyes” means. Loving eyes does not mean that because you are “blinded” or “compensating” that you think your spouse or beau is good looking when he or she “is not.” Loving eyes means that because you deeply love the entire character of your spouse or beau that you would pass a lie detector test thinking that he or she is the best looking that there ever was.
I often look at couples and think how hot they are together, and how handsome the guy is and how beautiful the woman, even though if some modeling agency was looking over my shoulder they’d think I was insane. But I can see each person’s “character” and how they are magnified and glorified when the two are together and genuinely in love. That is having “loving eyes.”
See, modern society both overtly and covertly teaches that one should date and select mates according to “categories” of attribute. They rationalize it by saying things like “scientific studies show that monkeys or people do prefer more beautiful examples of the species because the human eye likes symmetry.” However, that is a totally fallacious type of study. Here is why. In the “old days” men and women did not even look at each other in those terms. Their brains literally were not scanning each other looking for optimal in any category, including beauty.
When one singles it out in a scientific setting by presenting, say, comparative pictures of beauty, one gets a specific brain response and preference. But humans actually are not programmed to think that way naturally. They have been programmed to think like that by themselves, due to societal influences, very recently. It is not a “hard wiring.” It is hard wiring that causes the brain to light up in scientific experiments, where pictures are shown and opinions elicited, but that is not how evolution actually programmed humans, and it is certainly not how humans saw each other until recently. I mean, people weren’t blind, sure, everyone knew who the “knockout” of the senior class was, as far as looks. But people did not pine for the knockout, or “settle” for someone else as second best. They were looking for the whole package, the character, that also gives them the feeling, genuinely so, that they have “the knockout.”
For example, men used to have a certain view of beauty related to motherhood. Men could look at a woman who might not be considered by a modeling agency to be the most beautiful woman in the world, but feel that she is because men had a sensual image that included the capacity for having and loving children. Body types that model agencies find unforgiving and unflattering were highly attractive, genuinely so, “back in the day” when men looked at women and envisioned a life together, rather than a stream of individual activities. Men used to look at women and think “forever,” and women did the same. When you think like that you tend to have more “open eyes” to the fullness of beauty or handsomeness. Recently people don’t think that way, and so they have a mental programming of even a potential marriage partner as being the person who is the “best” in a number of “categories” of sequential activities and purposes, including sex, that does not really comprehend the fullness of the person.
Here’s an example. Men used to find women who were fuller figured and rounder the highest of attraction, not for gross reasons, as the media would have you think today, but because men still thought of themselves as providers, and they found beauty in women who could “rely” on them to be softer and less afflicted by life. They would be horrified at the “work out” ethic of today and its effect on “beauty.” To them, a woman who did not have to be lean and hard from working in the fields was beautiful, and they made sure that they did the best they could to provide for them so they’d not have to work as drudges. So a man would genuinely find a rounder, heavier, softer woman than those who are considered the thin beauties of today to be much more attractive and the “knockout.” This is because he would view her appearance within her total character and the image of them together in a lifetime continuum.
Haven’t you ever wondered what it was like several generations ago? While there have always been exceptions, you would not go too far wrong with this image. Before many young people went on to college, but just finished high school, the entire class would often be pretty much matched up in marriage. Once men started going more to college, and women followed, it was very common to pair up and marry upon graduating. Now, in high school, often the first to marry were not the “hotties,” as you would call them today. But they were beautiful couples who thought they have found “the best” in each other. There was the chemistry of two characters that would bring them together. And there really was very little of that competitiveness, or hankering after the same guy or gal; each graduating class tended to sort itself into couples in a remarkable way. They were the foundation of “the greatest generation,” the ones who fought World War II, and who you’d see celebrate their fortieth, fiftieth and sixtieth wedding anniversaries. Today we have the exact opposite, where people do not see each other and recognize the character chemistry that brings along with it the beauty and the handsomeness. Instead people have check off lists and categories, issues and hidden agendas, and visions of a string of separate activities instead of a lifelong marriage, in every sense of the word, where there is overall character compatibility and yes, loving excitement too. It has been very sad for me to see people lose out on that, what I considered the height of human romantic and family culture and its highest epitome of authenticity. People think they are more authentic now, but they’ve never been more fractured, fragmented and fake.
I could write more on this, and probably will, but with all mindset changing (and genuine overturning of some very deep and destructive programming) I know it is best to put these thoughts out in kind of one unit at a time (the opposite of evaluating your prospective partner, ha).
Genuine love is falling in love with the entirety of the person’s character. This is different than the common misconception that one falls in love with the total inventory of their attributes. For example, a boy may fall in love with a girl because she is beautiful, kind and exciting. But I invite you to think about this quickie exercise. If a boy is able to rattle off the list of those attributes, I would think to myself that he’s not in love with her character. Her character defies description, because one is so focused on the integrated overall package that one cannot articulate the list of specific wonderful traits. If the boy is truly unable, if asked, to explain why he loves that girl so much, that is a very good sign because it means he is focused on the entire package, which is her character. Character is not an “excuse” word where you love someone who is not so hot in the attractive category, but you say in compensation that she has “nice character.” Character includes beauty! Character includes the “shallow” physical attributes too! Remember, the body is the temple of the soul. One’s character is shaped by one’s body, mind and spirit. Character is the overall integration of all those “components,” since they really are not separated in an authentic person.
So the boy or girl, or man or woman who is unable to describe what exactly it is about the person they love is actually not just a dweeb poor with words, or someone who “doesn’t know what he or she has got.” That person is actually, probably, more authentically in love with the person than if he or she could list their categories of wonderfulness. Real love, and the love that has been celebrated through the ages, has been character based. And remember, the attractiveness of the body or “chemistry” is part of character. Character is not just a catchall word for the “dry” attributes, like “is nice,” “is full of life,” “has a beautiful soul” (yuck, I hate that New Age canard). Character is shaped by one’s body and its attributes, so true love falls in love with even the most beautiful woman in the world based on her character. I know that’s hard to see but if you work on understanding this, you will recapture much of the depth of love that the previous generations knew and actually took for granted. This is what “loving eyes” means. Loving eyes does not mean that because you are “blinded” or “compensating” that you think your spouse or beau is good looking when he or she “is not.” Loving eyes means that because you deeply love the entire character of your spouse or beau that you would pass a lie detector test thinking that he or she is the best looking that there ever was.
I often look at couples and think how hot they are together, and how handsome the guy is and how beautiful the woman, even though if some modeling agency was looking over my shoulder they’d think I was insane. But I can see each person’s “character” and how they are magnified and glorified when the two are together and genuinely in love. That is having “loving eyes.”
See, modern society both overtly and covertly teaches that one should date and select mates according to “categories” of attribute. They rationalize it by saying things like “scientific studies show that monkeys or people do prefer more beautiful examples of the species because the human eye likes symmetry.” However, that is a totally fallacious type of study. Here is why. In the “old days” men and women did not even look at each other in those terms. Their brains literally were not scanning each other looking for optimal in any category, including beauty.
When one singles it out in a scientific setting by presenting, say, comparative pictures of beauty, one gets a specific brain response and preference. But humans actually are not programmed to think that way naturally. They have been programmed to think like that by themselves, due to societal influences, very recently. It is not a “hard wiring.” It is hard wiring that causes the brain to light up in scientific experiments, where pictures are shown and opinions elicited, but that is not how evolution actually programmed humans, and it is certainly not how humans saw each other until recently. I mean, people weren’t blind, sure, everyone knew who the “knockout” of the senior class was, as far as looks. But people did not pine for the knockout, or “settle” for someone else as second best. They were looking for the whole package, the character, that also gives them the feeling, genuinely so, that they have “the knockout.”
For example, men used to have a certain view of beauty related to motherhood. Men could look at a woman who might not be considered by a modeling agency to be the most beautiful woman in the world, but feel that she is because men had a sensual image that included the capacity for having and loving children. Body types that model agencies find unforgiving and unflattering were highly attractive, genuinely so, “back in the day” when men looked at women and envisioned a life together, rather than a stream of individual activities. Men used to look at women and think “forever,” and women did the same. When you think like that you tend to have more “open eyes” to the fullness of beauty or handsomeness. Recently people don’t think that way, and so they have a mental programming of even a potential marriage partner as being the person who is the “best” in a number of “categories” of sequential activities and purposes, including sex, that does not really comprehend the fullness of the person.
Here’s an example. Men used to find women who were fuller figured and rounder the highest of attraction, not for gross reasons, as the media would have you think today, but because men still thought of themselves as providers, and they found beauty in women who could “rely” on them to be softer and less afflicted by life. They would be horrified at the “work out” ethic of today and its effect on “beauty.” To them, a woman who did not have to be lean and hard from working in the fields was beautiful, and they made sure that they did the best they could to provide for them so they’d not have to work as drudges. So a man would genuinely find a rounder, heavier, softer woman than those who are considered the thin beauties of today to be much more attractive and the “knockout.” This is because he would view her appearance within her total character and the image of them together in a lifetime continuum.
Haven’t you ever wondered what it was like several generations ago? While there have always been exceptions, you would not go too far wrong with this image. Before many young people went on to college, but just finished high school, the entire class would often be pretty much matched up in marriage. Once men started going more to college, and women followed, it was very common to pair up and marry upon graduating. Now, in high school, often the first to marry were not the “hotties,” as you would call them today. But they were beautiful couples who thought they have found “the best” in each other. There was the chemistry of two characters that would bring them together. And there really was very little of that competitiveness, or hankering after the same guy or gal; each graduating class tended to sort itself into couples in a remarkable way. They were the foundation of “the greatest generation,” the ones who fought World War II, and who you’d see celebrate their fortieth, fiftieth and sixtieth wedding anniversaries. Today we have the exact opposite, where people do not see each other and recognize the character chemistry that brings along with it the beauty and the handsomeness. Instead people have check off lists and categories, issues and hidden agendas, and visions of a string of separate activities instead of a lifelong marriage, in every sense of the word, where there is overall character compatibility and yes, loving excitement too. It has been very sad for me to see people lose out on that, what I considered the height of human romantic and family culture and its highest epitome of authenticity. People think they are more authentic now, but they’ve never been more fractured, fragmented and fake.
I could write more on this, and probably will, but with all mindset changing (and genuine overturning of some very deep and destructive programming) I know it is best to put these thoughts out in kind of one unit at a time (the opposite of evaluating your prospective partner, ha).
Friday, June 6, 2008
Excellent summary of Muhammad's marriages
An excellent and truthful commentary about the love that dwelled within and the structure of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) household.
All Christians who are really interested in the truth should read this essay. I've been dismayed at very disrespectful, ignorant and cheap shots taken at the Prophet's marriages by people who do not possess one fact of truth or insight. This commentary is a wonderful remedy to such ignorance.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=110618&d=7&m=6&y=2008&pix=islam.jpg&category=Islam
All Christians who are really interested in the truth should read this essay. I've been dismayed at very disrespectful, ignorant and cheap shots taken at the Prophet's marriages by people who do not possess one fact of truth or insight. This commentary is a wonderful remedy to such ignorance.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=110618&d=7&m=6&y=2008&pix=islam.jpg&category=Islam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
