Spot-On Relationship Advice from the Experts

Often, the true "experts" are those who have lived and experienced something, or those who had a significant role in others' experiences. Often, these "experts" are more qualified to impart knowledge and information than anyone else. It was not too far in the past that the majority saw marriage as the only legitimate and appropriate "relationship" in adult life; it was also considered to be the very foundation of adult life itself. As current statistics show that fewer people are opting to marry at all, and that the United States, with a fifty-percent divorce rate, has the highest divorce rate in the entire world, it is easy to wonder what happened. Clearly, the modern approaches to the subject are not working. Perhaps it would be better to look at what worked. What did the older generation live by, that resulted in lifelong, solid marriages?

Principle #1: "THINK WITH YOUR HEART- NOT WITH YOUR HEAD;"

Principle #2: " 'FAIL' IS NOT AN OPTION;"

Principle #3: "THE FOCUS IS ON 'US';"

Not only do fewer people these days approach marriage with the first principle as their priority, the trend is often to dismiss it altogether. "Love ain't gonna pay the electric bill!" "He's too immature, too irresponsible!" are common remarks. Upon commenting on a forum that marriage is not supposed to be a 'business arrangement,' poster after poster insisted it is! When the older generation made the decision to marry someone based on "thinking with their heart instead of their head," it was not disastrous, it did not result in financial ruin. On the other hand, putting off marriage because one is not financially secure, or, even worse, walking away from one's loved one altogether, nearly always results in regrets. The cold, calculated approach of "Love ain't enough to pay the bills!" may be a good business arrangement; but one will not find happiness in this approach in the longrun. Couples who might otherwise be destined for a golden anniversary throw it away, and often do not regret it until it is too late.

Many of the older generation had quite a wealth of sayings which showed they really did have a grasp on what mattered, and what was important. "Don't pick people apart" was a common saying. Although it is a good principle for all personal interactions, it is absolutely essential in solid, longterm relationships. Unconditional Love and Unconditional Acceptance do not mean tolerating something that is truly harmful; what it does mean is not attempting to "change" someone to suit yourself, or to expect it of them.

"I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, and you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you and I am I" was seen on high school and college students' posters throughout the United States during the 70's after being made public as a part of "the Gestalt Prayer" by Fritz Perls in 1969. Unfortunately, too many took it as a means to validate personal irresponsibility. In fact, it is intended to validate personal responsibility-- not only to oneself, but to the others in one's life. You are an individual-- and so is everyone else. The person standing in front of you is an individual human being-- he or she is not meant to be a replica of you, nor to "change" in order to become what you believe is preferable, or, heaven forbid, what you believe is 'right.' As each person is an individual, there will always be things-- even many things-- that annoy, bother, or upset you. The bottom line is if you do not accept him or her one-hundred-percent as he or she is right now, he or she is not the person for you. Even if the old saying "love is blind" sounds like a ridiculous cliche, it is accurate-- if you see someone as a potential work-in-progress, "Love" does not exist.

"'Fail' is not an option" eludes many today because it is the exact opposite of what nearly every part of modern culture teaches. Solid unions that last are those in which the participants never even considered 'fail' to be an option. It was not an option when they chose their mates, and did not become an option at any point in time thereafter. Those who held to "until death do us part" for fifty, sixty, or more years experienced wars-- their own and their children's-- serious and life-threatening illnesses, financial crises, numerous other crises and everyday difficulties without ever seeing divorce courts, affairs, or abandonment as "options." How was this possible? "There is much to learn from the old who once were young... How did they manage- when they had nothing to their names, only that which was presumably 'impractical' and 'immature,' when all they had was being Devoted to each other- and it worked, for years and decades it worked..." Before the cynical ones step in with snickers, snorts, and guffaws, remind yourselves of those last two words: "it worked." Those of us who were fortunate to witness countless numbers of solid unions which lasted fifty or more years, we know it worked.

On the other hand, everything from the media to divorce laws have been telling people for the last few decades that longterm relationships not only "cannot" work, but even that they "should not." In the 70's, it became popular to replace traditional marriage vows with the more modern approach "as long as we both shall Love." Around the same time, state after state began enacting "no-fault" divorce laws to reflect this approach. In recent years, one American politician went as far as to state "fewer people would get married if they believed it would be difficult to get a divorce." Where did all of this come from? When people get married for the wrong reasons in the first place, and compound the problem by giving themselves the option of failing, they will indeed fail. "We grew apart!" "We decided we want different things!" "We don't love each other anymore!" are amongst the common excuses. Even worse, you may hear "Children should not grow up in a home where their parents are not happy!" The fact is this is not true at all. While children of any age should not be subjected to a home environment or parents who are truly harmful to them or to each other-- such as physical abuse, alcohol abuse, drug use, or other extremes-- basing the breakup of a child's home on whether the parents are 'happy' or not is destructive. When a parent gives a child messages such as "I must always be happy" and "Relationships and the people in it are disposable," it does not give him the right foundation for his own life. In contrast, the child whose parents do not see 'fail' as an option benefits in two ways: first, he learns that something meaningful is worth preserving, even when it is difficult; and second, he learns security. Those who take a more modern approach may scoff, but the child who know his parents will never walk away from each other also knows they will never walk away from him. Unfortunately, this kind of commitment is becoming more and more rare as time goes by.

Again, when you give your relationship the option of failing, it will. Many go as far as to state a "set up to fail" outlook without even realizing it. Mutual, free-will commitments are also becoming rarer. Instead, couples approach their relationships with "if this works-," without realizing this approach almost guarantees that it will not. When that option to fail is there, it will fail-- even if it would have been successful otherwise. If a couple marries for the wrong reasons, it increases the chance of failing. With generations of history to back it up, these two factors are the strongest contributors to the skyrocketing divorce rate-- if you give yourselves the option of failing, you will; and if you marry for the wrong reasons, at some point you will be filled with regrets.

"The focus is on the 'Us'" is another principle which many consider an outdated, and even unfamiliar, approach. Modern culture is one of the main reasons for this. In the past, and with those who still adhere to this principle, people began their commitment to each other with the focus on themselves as a couple, rather than oneself as an individual. When modern influences began to take over, people were urged to begin thinking of themselves as individuals first, often to the point of thinking of themselves only. We need only look at the scores of so-called "self-help" books to see how this began-- not books designed to assist people in dealing with various problems, but those designed to "educate" people that they should put "Number One" first. Feminists got on the bandwagon with "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle;" and the accurately labeled Me Generation fell for it all, hook, line, and sinker. Suddenly marriage was "restrictive," children became little more than "accessories," and the normal adult life focus changed from "Us" to "Me." In more recent years, singles are urged to think in terms of "ISO"-- seeking someone on the basis of whatever one considers to be ideal qualifications, rather than allowing the natural course of events of falling in love with someone and deciding to build a life together. Psychobabble entered the picture, prodding people to "not give up your power," and to view solid unions as suspect at the very least. The bottom line has been to look at relationships in terms of what one can gain from it, what one can get from it, instead of what each person can bring to it as a couple and as a team. The concept of adjusting for the betterment of the relationship is now seen as very negative, rather than positive. People are told that becoming "attached" to someone, "needing" someone, or "loving too much" is a "character-defect," and if they are not "keeping their power" they are "being victimized." Unfortunately, those who push this kind of nonsense have been visible enough in modern culture to be listened to and believed by those who are impressionable or unsure.

The ISO approach virtually eliminates the concept of 'Us.' One might be tempted to believe much of this has to do with the trend of people marrying at later ages than in the past, but this is not as relevant as you may think. The ISO approach urges people to think in terms of what they want, and to expect someone to be a "package" rather than a real-live human being. You will hear plenty of singles in all age groups stating they will not "date" someone who does not own a home, a nice car, and other possessions. However, when these possessions are requirements for any type of interpersonal involvement, a dilemma arises: whomever bought it is who owns it. This line of thought often carries into marriages today. While separate may or may not be equal, the concept of acquiring together and owning together is not nearly as common as it used to be. Even married couples see nothing wrong or unusual about separate ownership of the most important and the most miniscule property, as well as bank accounts. In fact, as 'fail' is always on the horizon, many women today elect to work outside the home because they do not want to risk being flat-broke and with nothing when the marriage fails.

The aspect of personal privacy is also becoming a has-been under today's culture. Topics such as a couple's financial information, sex life, and minor grievances about each other are "shared" with friends and held up for public view. The concept of a "personal life" and "private life" has become a casualty of today's tell-all culture. It further reduces what couples-- and individuals-- have which belongs solely to themselves. It is just another negative aspect of modern life which contributes to failed marriages.

During the last few decades, there has been a lifestyle factor which dismisses both principle #2 and principle #3. Not surprisingly, the results have been negative. In the distant past, while it was not popular or acceptable in most regions, people sometimes lived together in what was often referred to as "common-law marriages." However, the 1970s brought about a new trend, considerably different from common-law marriages of the past. In fact, the trend became so popular so fast that the United States Census Bureau opted to come up with an all-inclusive term for these new arrangements: they became known as "POSSLQ"-- Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. These days, it is referred to as "domestic partnerships," or "being in a relationship."

Two different forms of POSSLQ arrangements are doomed for failure. While many today see this kind of arrangement as the goal in itself, considering it a "trial marriage" is equally disastrous. First, "fail" being an option is the driving force behind POSSLQ-- it is an arrangement of convenience, easy to walk away from when it is no longer convenient. Second, it completely eliminates the "Us" factor. Instead of looking at the betterment of a partnership, participants in these arrangements are urged to focus on what the person himself or herself wants. An example was put into words a couple decades ago by the then-popular actress, Carrie Snodgress. Attempting to validate living together before marriage, Miss Snodgress remarked "You would not buy a pair of shoes without first trying them on to see if they fit, would you?" Unfortunately, this self-centered concept of viewing a prospective marriage partner as something to "try on" and to "see if it fits" not only backfired for Miss Snodgress, but the generations who took on this outlook and practice. On the flip side of the coin, a popular magazine geared toward teenaged girls prodded girls and young women to seriously reconsider and avoid this type of arrangement: Do you really want a relationship where your partner is only partially committed to you? That is the gist of POSSLQ: taking the human factor of Love, and the stability factor of Commitment, out of the picture, and "trying on" a person to see if they "fit" you.

Today's culture continues to emphasize this negativity, despite its failures. One example is the widely-popular media star, Oprah Winfrey. A few years ago, a young man asked Miss Winfrey's viewpoint on his upcoming marriage plans. Her reply: "You should not even be thinking of getting married, at twenty-three years old!" One of her magazine covers listed a story included in that particular issue: "Your First Big Relationship." And the trend continues-- pushing young adults to put off marriage until later and later, basing it on deciding what one "wants," believing partners and relationships are meant to accommodate oneself, and never being fully satisfied with one's "choice." This is why more and more marriages fail-- and why more and more people never make that full commitment at all.

Perhaps, instead, it would be wise to listen to the many who succeeded at longterm, happy marriages. Perhaps the couples who went considerably beyond their golden wedding anniversaries have been the real "experts." Perhaps more people today should dismiss the nonsense of "modern" ideas and, instead, take a look at what actually worked.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/121536/the_best_generation_the_youth_of_the.html?cat=12

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/212026/why_the_posslq_experiment_failed.html?cat=41