Love And Marriage

It shouldn't be taken as cause and effect. It's just coincidence. My last essay dealt with the death sentence and this one with marriage. But there's no relationship between the two. At least not in this case. (The Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks? Nah. The essay is all true. And I consider being called a “Gentleman” an insult.)

Sex, love, and marriage. They're three very different states and acts, but there are also times when they're connected. The order of the three, however, – if, in fact, all apply in a particular instance – is quite variable. What used to be conventional, and is still often the case, is love, marriage, and sex (l/m/s).

The original pattern, which pre-existed any emotional or legal attachments, was sex. Period. It was practiced throughout the animal kingdom – usually, but not invariably – without any hint of monogamy. It was instinctual and enjoyable, and contributed to the survival of the species. And, prior to the institution of religion and secular law, unaccompanied sex was also the pattern among members of our species. (Unaccompanied by love or marriage. Wash your mind out with soap if you put another construction than that on my words.)

But homo sapiens became “civilized,” and adopted the trappings of a civilized society. And that society demanded formalization of the pattern and the creation of the family. (The pattern was formalized at least on paper – or pottery or parchment – however less “civilized” practices persisted off the books.) But that pattern (l/m/s) has withered as the polite rules of society have broken down. (It may have worked in my time – and it's still practiced by many – however it no longer seems to be the standard.) People are less “hung up” on the strictures that previous generations mouthed. The taboos of the past are gone. What used to be called “free love” – now simply termed “benefits” – is considered the norm. The incidence of “out-of-wedlock” babies and single parent families has risen rapidly in recent decades, and the rate of abortions has also grown in order to clean up the mess that our new morality encourages. Sexual mores (read: “more sex”) have changed, times have changed, and so have societal expectations.

A rabbi I heard (I can't remember who it was) pointed out the current pattern in American society (and, presumably, others as well), was l/s or s/l, and sometimes m. Pleasure and emotions take precedence over order and the future. In Orthodox Judaism, however, the pattern is the opposite – m/s/l – with marital stability most important and the raising of children a priority over the physical aspects of sex (at least in theory). It results from the disposition to arrange marriages – the province of the parents rather than the participants. Interestingly, divorce rates are lower than the norm and, by definition, so are single parent households. (The same, of course, is true in other cultures that favor arranged marriages.) Not all of the unions are happy or survive, but most do because the expectations of the participants are different from those of other wedded couples. Their commitment is to the marriage and the family, not as much to themselves. Of course the same can be said of many marriages based on love.

The idea of an arranged marriage, however, is anathema to the romantic notions which our society promotes. There's a lot to be said for love, but outside of movies, magazines, and fairy tales, it is, itself, a novelty. Actually movies, magazines, and romantic novels today are more reflective of the new concept of morality than the old. And television seems to be leading the way. Sex seems to be the focus of relationships, with love and marriage only secondary features. Freud would approve. The pleasure principle has triumphed over commitment.

I found the following on the web site of the American Psychological Association. It's adapted from the “Encyclopedia of Psychology.”

Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.

(The point is often made that in a home where there is discord, it is better if the parents divorce rather than try to make a go of it for the sake of the children, who will be scarred by the environment in which they are raised. While there's much that can be said for that perspective, a union based on passion rather than pragmatism is more likely to fail and necessitate divorce.)

Robert Epstein, a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology reports:

“... feelings of love in arranged marriages tend to gradually increase as time goes on in the relationship, whereas in so called “love marriages,” where attraction is based on passionate emotions, a couple’s feelings for each other typically diminish by as much as fifty percent after only eighteen to twenty-four months of marriage.”

That's not so unexpected since in arranged marriages love was not a consideration prior to the union, whereas in marriages based on love – love often misrepresented in the media and in romanticized mythology and fairy tales – there's a lot of room for unmet expectations and dashed hopes. So if a marriage is based on unrealistic dreams rather than a commitment of a family, it's less likely to survive.

The primary component of a successful marriage is commitment. (My wife and I have been married over 55 years.) Love changes over time and, under the right circumstances, deepens. Finding the right mate based on passion and “love at first sight” is all too often a myth. Mr. Right is in her mind, and Ms. Right in his. Their commitment and cooperation are necessary, along with a reasonable of shared likes and dislikes.

Sex can be a nice bonus, but when it comes to marrying, sex is no substitute for real love – or for the wisdom of one's parents.

Next episode: “The Earth Moved” – At least the sidewalk.

One Day More

                                                                                                        

Victor Hugo published Les Misérables in 1862, and it earned repute as one of the great novels of the nineteenth century. Eventually,ⁱ like other public domain stories,ⁱⁱ it became a Broadway musical, and one of the featured songs was entitled “One Day More.” It's a song which shows the determination of a number of French citizens faced by the uncertainty of revolution in eighteenth century France, and equally uncertain of their own fates, which might be changed significantly by the next day – a day to which they looked forward.

But the concept of anticipation of another day is far older than that. There is a midrash ⁱⁱⁱ that deals with the fact that Sukkot has one day more than, strictly speaking, belongs to it. Only after prescribing seven days for the holiday does the Bible specify the observance of Shmini Atzeret, the “eighth day of the assembly.” According to the Rabbis, that day results from HaShem's wish that Israel remain with Him for one more day.

I relate this story because it was the focus of a sermon which I heard a few days ago on the holiday. It was not new for me but it caused me to think about the premise, and I was troubled by it. After all, doesn't HaShem want us to remain with Him every day – not just the day after Sukkot? Of course He does. That's a basic precept of our religion.

The obvious explanation is that “one good deed leads to another,” or, in terms of Torah, mitzvah goreret mitzvah.^iv If we observe Shmini Atzeret correctly, we'll also properly observe the next day, and then the one after that. One day at a time, and each day that we remain with HaShem ensures that we will do the same on the next. We're on a roll.

We know that, however, and it remains true with or without the statement. In addition, it is true every day, not just on Sukkot, so why is it mentioned here? Probably because there is fear that we may be fatigued by the long sequence of holidays during the month of Tishray – a sequence that includes the two days of Rosh Hashanah (the new year), Yom Kippur (the day of atonement), and the seven day holiday of Sukkot. At other times of the year we're likely to look forward to holidays, while during this run we're awaiting their conclusion.

The last question, though, is the one that brings the most hope. Since we all know that HaShem wants us with Him at all times, why is it necessary to say so? Every day with Him is sacred and even more so if we observe His mitzvot. Why is it necessary for Him to ask us to stay with Him? Well, there's the reality that some of us stray, but more important is a reason that can be learned from Avot 3:18. There we learned, “Blessed is man, for he was created in HaShem's image. But it was by a special love that it was made known to man that he was created in HaShem's image.” Similarly Israel, who were HaShem's children and were given the Torah, learned that these blessings were theirs because of that love.

HaShem asked us to stay with Him on Shmini Atzeret specifically to indicate His love for us, and it is up to us to reciprocate by remaining true to Him through our observance of his holy days. All of them. Day by day. There is no need for uncertainty.

 

 

 

i        In 1985.

ii      As well as many that are still copyright protected.

iii     In Jewish teachings, a midrash is a story that explains some biblical text that may raise questions in the minds of readers. The explanations are often fanciful, but they contain spiritual messages that aid in the understanding of that text in the light of our traditions.

iv      The term “mitzvah” (plural: mitzvot) refers to a commandment given by G-d (HaShem) and the entire quotation means that the performance of one mitzvah will lead someone to the performance of another. That is the reward for the mitzvah. (The opposite is true as well.) It can be found in Avot (4.2), in the Talmud, and originated about two millennia ago.

Do I What?

 

                                                                           
I love my wife. I do. I really do. And I've been in love with her for about 55 years now. In fact our 53^rd anniversary was just a few weeks ago. But that love has changed over the years. Let me explain.

love, like, affect, fancy, care for, take an interest in, be partial to, sympathize with; be in love with; have a love for, entertain a love for, harbor cherish a love for; regard, revere; take to, bear love to, be wedded to; set one's affections on; make much of, feast one's eyes on; hold dear, prize; hug, cling to, cherish, pet., burn; adore, idolize, love to distraction, aimer eperdument, dote on, dote upon., take a fancy to, look sweet upon; become enamored; fall in love with, lose one's heart;

desire, excite love; win the heart, gain the heart, win the affections, gain the affections, secure the love, engage the affections; take the fancy of, have a place in the heart, wind round the heart; attract, attach, endear, charm, fascinate, captivate, bewitch, seduce, enamor, enrapture, turn the head., get into favor; ingratiate oneself, insinuate oneself, worm oneself; propitiate, curry favor with, pay one's court to, faire l'aimable, set one's cap at, flirt.ⁱ

While it hasn't been found in anything he wrote, George Bernard Shaw is usually credited with observing that the US and Great Britain are “separated by a common language.” However true it may be, even if we limit the population being assessed to natives of the United States, the plethora of a word's synonyms may make word use hazardous. The large number of words doesn't mean that they can be used to clarify a meaning. The case in point for today's discussion, as you can see above, is the word “love.”

Love.

“Do You Love Me?”

That's what Tevye asked Golde in “Fiddler On The Roof.”

It seems a straightforward enough question, but it's met with confusion and consternation. It had never occurred to either of them to ask. The issue had never come up. Their marriage was arranged and there was no courtship.

Tevye: “The first time I met you

Was on our wedding day

I was scared'

Golde: “I was shy”

Tevye: “I was nervous”

Golde: “So was I”

Tevye: “But my father and my mother

Said we'd learn to love each other

And now I'm asking, Golde

Do you love me?”

The question was direct. What had never been on the table was there now. Did she love him? In context, there can be little doubt about what he meant. And Golde understood as she answered, “I suppose I do.” That understanding is even more clear when Tevye declares, somewhat hesitantly, “And I suppose I love you too.” The love they felt was one of comfort, familiarity, and, perhaps, resignation. It lacked passion, but they could not envision being without each other.

Yet here as elsewhere the word “love” is more defined by the context than by anything else. And without that word it is hard to express the feeling we may have for our children, for chocolate, for a parade, for our country, a platonic friend, a cool breeze on a summer day, a crush, and certainly not the passion a teen-ager experiences when seeing his (or her) heartthrob, nor the passionate, hot, urgent love so commonly depicted in the movies or on television.ⁱⁱ There are numerous synonyms offered, but when we want to use an “extreme” word, we always wind up with “love.” There's no common substitute that expresses the same degree of affection while suggesting a particular kind of object or activity.ⁱⁱⁱ

I'm more likely to deplore a person, shrink from an ugly monster, recoil at the proposed policies of the other political party, loathe an enemy, or scorn a walk in the woods with a serial killer. And, when appropriate, I can abominate, execrate, detest, or abhor. There's a wide choice of extreme words for “hate.”^iv I can even despise chocolate, but that's unlikely.

English is a huge language,^v and among the many major advantages it has over many others are the facts that words can be used in so many different and seemingly unrelated ways (for example, “kick” the habit, “kick” and scream, “kick” the can, “kick” the bucket), and also that there is a plethora of nuanced expressions – especially adjectives – for almost anything. That doesn't mean, however, that no changes are necessary. As is true of the word “love,” and many other common nouns and verbs, additional words may be needed. New terms are being introduced daily and the expansion of the vocabulary is both inevitable and healthy. That's your assignment. Help us define “love” better than we've done.

Combining meanings and deleting words, on the other hand, may be harmful.^vi As Big Brother demonstrated, the limitation of a word's meaning can limit the thoughts of the word's user.

“Do you love me?”

There may be two minds with but a single thought – but what is it?

Next episode: “For Better Or For Worse” – Hard to tell.

i      Synonyms for the verb “love.” There are equally long catalogs for nouns and adjectives, but I won't use any more space. This list is from some on-line thesaurus (with a few minor changes) – I don't remember which. I hope I'm not violating any copyright laws. This isn't meant to make any money for me or to be used as a thesaurus. It just seemed to be the best way to illustrate a point I want to make.

ii     At least I don't know of any single word usable in polite conversation that can convey this kind of love, and no words that can express the extreme pleasure of the others.

iii    That's not true of all languages. In some there are different words which can be used to designate the different types of love. (In some there are other differentiations that English lacks – perhaps specific words for the donning of shoes, a shirt, or another garment.) We lack a word that says “Let's not get into any discussions about love, I just want to jump into bed with you.” (Who wants to talk then anyway?) And it would be nice if there were extreme and specific words that connoted patriotic or other non-personal love as well as parental and non-sexual love of other people.

iv     Unfortunately, even though there is a wide variety of words that can be used to denote extreme hatred, they, too, require context and can't express the object of the hatred unless it is spelled out.

v      The large number of words in English – possibly larger than that in any other tongue – is not a substitute for words that are more expressive of particular ideas. In fact, the requirement that some words have an extensive delineation of the context may be the basis of the need for so many words.

vi     Consider a participant's loss of immediate understanding when, during a conversation, and for primarily political reasons, words like “marriage” and “partner” are used to describe same sex unions as well as those between members of opposite sexes. However appropriate the different unions, not that it's anyone's business, the language suffers because the old term is being made to cover very different situations, rather than would be the case with the creation of a new word to characterize a newly legitimated circumstance. Such merging of different ideas in a single word my cause confusion in the hearer. The blurring of distinctions leads to the blurring of thought.

Make War, Not Love

                                                                                  

It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”ⁱ Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ⁱⁱ

War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.

War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,ⁱⁱⁱ sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.

An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,^iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.

People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”^v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.^vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?

People didn't invent war but they did invent

1. Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
2. Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.

Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.

There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.

On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.

And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?

Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.^vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.

It's better to win than to lose.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.

Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.

i      Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.

ii     Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”

iii    Nowadays that's oil.

iv     Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.

v     As noble as that sounds.

vi    However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.

vii  Actually, that's redundant. All “Utopias” are non-existent. That's the definition.