This is one of those articles that you finish reading and realize your entire body is clenched. The topic: keys to ensuring you marry the right man. Its thesis statement: it is possible if you follow a simple list of should-be deal breakers. Also, though not on the list, don’t marry a celebrity.
The article summarizes the popular lecture of a 79-year-old catholic priest who’s spent his professional life counseling troubled marriages. The irony is obvious. So should be my skepticism. Still Fr. Connor lays out a set of logical deal breakers that have no doubt been mulled over (to death) by women and gay men from age 14 on (16 in major cities, 12 in Utah). His premise is one we all know but generally refuse to acknowledge: that you can be deeply in love with someone to whom you cannot be successfully married. It’s one of those hypothetical truths that make our brains twitch. It’s bad enough that we can’t understand why we love who we love. The fact that this mysterious love force cannot and should not be trusted is bull shit. Tried, tested, and often true, but a clear example of evolution/God fucking up. Why does love exist if it has no purpose?
Never Marry a Man Who Has No Friends Fine. Long-standing friendships are important to a person’s experience with emotional connection and commitment. But considering most people have at least some friends, this doesn’t really narrow the playing field. It’s like saying never marry a man who has no furniture. Shows he has no sense of basic leaving needs and is likely really cheap. No shit. What about a guy with bad friends? What’s the over under on that?
Never Marry a Man Who is Either Too Cheap, Or Spends Too Much $ Yes this too makes sense and is grounded in logic. People fight over money more than almost anything, so people’s money personalities should be compatible. But here’s where I start to freak out. If the absolutely perfect guy happens to fall a little on the cheap side, are you supposed to call it off? Radio silence from Preachy O’Connor
A Quick fire Few – Never Marry a Man Who:
is a Doormat No argument.
is Attached to His Mother Attached to, no. A fan of/close to/treats well, yes.
has no sense of humor He would hate me anyway.
is the non-emotive, strong and silent, can’t communicate type Agreed, but the opposite – aka the gayest straight man you can find – can turn out equally problematic (read: gay).
Never Marry a Problem Character Thinking You Can Change Him My gut reaction: define problem character. Fr. Logic’s likely retort: you’re better off defining change him. I believe that people can change but agree that old habits die hard. I guess it depends on how bad the “problem” is. Cocaine addition, rough. All Day Sunday Football Addiction, negotiable.
Steer Clear (he doesn’t say never…) Of a Guy With a Troubling Family What if he’s adopted and/or they live really far away? Right. It’s about how you grew up and no where is far enough. I acknowledge the likely truth here, but the guy cannot be blamed for his upbringing. Says priest: “Is there a history of divorce in the family? An atmosphere of racism, sexism or prejudice in his home? Are his goals and deepest beliefs worthy and similar to yours?” That’s too many X Factors to hypothesize. I pass until confronted with actual issues.
And finally – Never Marry a Man Who Does Not Possess the Qualities of a Good Human Being “Good Human Being” defined as: “the willingness to forgive, praise, be courteous? [Not] inclined to be a fibber, to fits of rage, to be a control freak, to be envious of you, to be secretive?” A. that’s not enough to qualify as a good human being and B. people lie about their bad human being qualities
I can’t argue with most of the above, but in the poignant words of that famous Heart ballad,”What About Love?” The word love makes three appearances, none of them positive. I want/need to believe that Connor considers it a given. Love someone, of course, but then make sure they also pass the above test.
My entire body is clenched.
6 comments
Comments are closed.
The first thing that popped into my mind after reading the article and then your post was the amazing Deal-breaker game that you BC ladies introduced to me! All the things that this priest listed seem like pretty good deal-breakers, but I totally agree with your point about love. At what point does love compensate for some of those things we think are “deal-breakers”? The priest seems to think it’s a mistake to let love blind you and cause you to be flexible with your deal-breakers. While I don’t think a person should completely change their principles just because they fell in love, it does seem to me that it’s possible for some “deal-breakers” to fall by the wayside and become “deal-sweeteners.” So maybe U = Uniforms (or rather, no uniforms, according to jessie, if i remember correctly) wouldn’t become so important if the love was there.
In case you missed it, the priest was on The Today Show this morning talking about the article. Seems like a very well-meaning grandfatherly type, and even admitted that he clearly has no real life experience here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I saw that he was on it and watched. I think I misjudged the poor priest. I have to take back the part of my comment where I said it seemed like he thought we should never be flexible. On the show he admitted that at some point you have to decide which traits are most important to you and let a few fall by the wayside.
There’s also clearly degrees of dealbreaker. R – Racist is a little different than U – Uniform. (Although I’m right there with you on the U, Jessie…) I’ve read the full text (thank you, former-roommate-email-chain), and Fr. Judgemental seems to focus on the biggies. Where I tend to focus on things like J – Jewlery-Wearer.
I have been visiting various blogs for my term papers writing research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information… Regards