Security is Underrated

WARNING: long-winded!

Ok. So I am incredibly embarrassed that this post is inspired by "The Bachelorette." I've never really been into that whole series. This time around, I watched the first episode and I was HOOKED! And from the first 10 minutes, I knew who I wanted her to choose in the end. I watched this show religiously (DVR and everything) through the entire process, promising myself that when/if he (the guy I liked) was eliminated, I'd stop watching. To my total surprise, he made it to the finale as the final 2. BUT... she didn't pick him. I was shocked. I really was. And here's why:

Yeah, so he was divorced and he had a 3-year-old son. And while divorce isn't the greatest trait in a potential mate, it wasn't something he had chosen. His ex had decided to fall in love with someone else and leave her son behind. So this man was raising this little boy entirely on his own. Throughout the show, as all the other men drove me nuts with their testosterone-driven aggressiveness and jealous competitiveness, the one I liked, this divorcee', was always the gentleman, always kind - even to the other men - and always, ALWAYS smiling. I adored him for her. Heck, I adored him for anyone.

But I am not writing this to give a summary of the show or to be the founding president of his fan club. I want to discuss something that drives me NUTS about women and their ideals of what love is.

Before I met David, every guy I got seriously involved with I thought I was "in love" with. I have said, since then, that I was never truly in love. And I say that because of some very important elements: safety, security, & selflessness.

Not passion. Not drama. Not fireworks, walks on the beach, or candlelit dinners. On the show, she chose the guy that surprised her. She chose the "man" (I put quotes because he seemed a lot like a teenager to me) that changed the rules of everything she thought she'd ever wanted. The reason this bothers me is because when she turned down my choice, she told him she knew she'd have happiness, safety, & security with him, but that she was "in love" with someone else. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's important to be "in love." But anyone who watched that show canNOT deny she didn't have major feelings for both of them. She just wanted to be with the "exciting" one. Bah.

Let me tell you something, ladies... you with your fantasies of what love is about. Stop watching these stupid movies where these lame-oid guys win women over by constantly messing up and then making out, but keeping the girl because of their whimsical and fancy-free ways. We are looking for companions here; not sons to raise.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes in a chapter called, "Christian Marriage." (I recommend that chapter to anyone who ever has been, is currently, or intends to, ever be married, i.e., everyone!). And he talks about the unhealthy notion of planning on being "passionately in love" for all of your life. I have so much to say about it. But I can't word it as good as he can, so I'll just quote him and say "ditto." (Bolds and italics added 'cause I wanted to):

"What we call 'being in love' is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty... No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness. But, as I said before, 'the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs'. Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing... You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called 'being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean 'They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,' then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense... is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit... They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."

So, you MUST read the whole chapter because he goes on with such logic but spiritual insight all at the same time.

My point is this. I had my fair share of silly little romantic flings that were filled with such strong infatuation and drama that I was convinced, EACH TIME, that I was meant to be with that person - that we were soul mates. And then I met David. Kind, secure, priesthood-worthy David. And I never would have guessed, in those first few months, that I would marry him. And then I grew up. I realized that marriage was going to be more than "YAY! Every day with you is so fun and awesome!" (Imagine that last sentence in your best ignorant, naive', valley-girl voice). I knew he would cherish me and take care of me for all eternity... even when we were old and ugly.... and I'd say fat, but been there done that, and he's still here... so....

So, I say security is underrated. There was a time when people's marriages were arranged on the good intentions and insight of their parents. And although, I thank the heavens ABOVE that I live in a time where I am free to choose someone I love and cherish on my own will... I don't forget that the divorce rate was much lower in those ancient times. There was something to the concept that, "for better or for worse," you stick by someone... even when/if the passion dies.

That is why God intended for us to be married. He wanted us to learn to be better people for it. To learn to love, even in the ugly times. To choose wisely and not on a whim driven by lusts... but by real love. Charitable, unconditional, long-lasting love. The quiet kind.

The kind the stupid entertainment industry still needs to make a movie about...

P.S. After reading this to David, he said it makes us sound like we have no passion in our lives at all. That is not the case. I say, "That's none of ya'll's bid-ness..."