Who defined our current philosophy of how best to develop a lifelong relationship?
Today's philosophy is largely built around the concept that everyone has someone with whom they are completely, incomparably, and unequivocally 'meant' to be with from day one. Their likes and dislikes are in complete harmony. They understand each other completely. They never doubt one another and never put less than perfect respect and love into their relationship, and there is not turmoil until babies and bills come along. Things just 'happen' easily, and that means it's perfectly in harmony with the plan of the universe. (Nevermind that half of these people in today's reality find each other by searching endlessly on the internet before they find the person they were 'meant' to be with.)
But in centuries past, women married men in order to strengthen bonds between country leaders, to gain financial stability, or simply to make a family. They disregarded things like social and intellectual compatability, and looked instead for a mate that would provide a solid, stable partner with which to raise a family. They allowed their husbands to be the sole provider, the decision maker, and essentially the ruler of everything that transpired in their life. It was more like a business partnership than a relationship. It doesn't sound very inviting to me, but it worked, didn't it?
In more recent years, my own mother fell in love with my father at first sight, and signed up for a romance that would involve 13 months of separation during the very months of their courtship, due to my father's deployment to Vietnam. She married him and began a life as the wife of an airline pilot. Her expectations, outside of the fact that she loved him, were grounded in financial stability and the ability to raise a family with this man. She did not spend countless hours dwelling on how compatible their interests were, whether or not he held the same religious and political beliefs as her, or whether or not they would want to travel to the same places. And over the years there have no doubt been moments when they both have stopped and thought, "who is this person, and why do I put up with this?" But somehow, without all the training that we have in today's society of compatibility ratings and high expectations, my mother and father have made it through almost 41 years of marital success. (I say success instead of bliss, b/c bliss is an unrealistic expectation we have put on the institution of marriage.) They love their life together. They have learned to appreciate each other's interests, even though many may not have been compatible in the beginning. They travel together, sing together, cook dinners together, and are most certainly happier and more comfortable now, after 41 years of getting to know each other, than they were when they met.
Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly believe in finding someone who inspires you to be a better person, who accepts you with all your flaws, who enjoys your company as much as you do theirs, and who shares a good number of interests with you...
But isn't it harder than simple harmony for most? Don't most people have to experience some level of discomfort in either the process of finding a mate or in the process of keeping one? Surely every story can't be a Cinderella story. As the saying goes, relationships are work. Period. (And I believe this to be especially true for a woman such as myself, at the age of 33, with 10+ years of relationship baggage to bring to the table...)
And no, I don't believe that people should just put up with their mate, or that anyone should just take what they can get. But I do believe that for each individual, the situation, the love, the journey...is different. And just because it's different for me than it was for you, or her, or them, doesn't mean it will be any less wonderful or breathtaking or 'meant to be' in the end. It just means it's different, because I'M different from you, and her, and them.
Sometimes it takes more work for one man to build a bridge than it did for the man before him, simply because the second man had to teach himself. Sometimes it takes more work for one woman to raise a child than it did for the woman before her because the second woman's child came with unexpected challenges that surpassed those of the first woman's. But that doesn't mean that the second man shouldn't have built a bridge or the second woman shouldn't have raised a child. It simply means that one had to work a little harder to get what they wanted. But in the process, make no mistake. The second man and woman undoubtedly experienced an equal if not greater amount of joy, satisfaction and success along their journey than their predecessors, and are likely not sorry they made the decision to follow it through to the end.
Who knows?
