I have stated in at least one past post that doting on and caring for one’s husband will likely inspire him to do unexpected and caring things in return. I have also stated that while one is caring for one’s husband it is important to not expect anything in return. In doing some research, I came across this wonderful video with Father Robert Barron of Word On Fire (he makes these videos on a regular basis and they are all very good). I urge you to listen to the video in it’s entirety. It is wonderful.
Father Barron says,
What is Love? Love, as I’ve said very often, is not a feeling or a sentiment. Not a private subjective conviction. Love is willing the good of the other. As other, meaning, love gets you out of this, sort of, black hole of your own subjectivity, your own egocentrism. If I’m kind to you that you might be kind to me, that isn’t love. That’s just indirect egotism. Or if I say, I’ll be just to you that you’ll be just to me in return, that isn’t love. That’s just a clever way to be self interested.
What’s love? See, love is a very peculiar thing. . . It means I’ve broken free of that self reference. I want your good for you. Period. No strings attached. No reciprocation required. The Church has said traditionally that love, so described, is a theological virtue . . . The Church identifies love, as I’ve been describing it, as a participation in God’s way of being. See, God who has no need, (God is God. God is perfect. Absolute. God has no need.), therefore God alone can truly want the good of the other for the sake of the other. God can operate in a totally non-selfinterested way. And see, when we do that, when we are capable of that, it’s only because we’ve received an infusion of grace. We’ve received a participation in God’s own life.
Most today regard love as only that subjective feeling between two people. I remember as a young girl feeling very guilty that there were members of my extended family that I did not possess the feeling of love for. I used to try to force myself to feel love for them because I knew I should. I couldn’t ever force that. Because I couldn’t feel this love, I remember trying very hard to do for them what I couldn’t feel. I would do the things I knew should be done for one who is so loved. Then, a couple of years ago I read in a book (I wish I could remember the book, but I can’t. I believe it was a Catholic book about Angels) about the type of love that Father Barron is talking about here. It really struck a chord with me. I wasn’t an awful person for not being able to feel love for my family members. Rather, I did well. I loved them the way I knew how.
In a marriage, one is not going to be able to always feel the subjective love. It would be impossible to go about daily things if we felt this way at all times. There will be periods of time where that feeling will be fleeting. That does not mean that one still cannot love one’s husband as Father Barron is describing here. One should strive to provide “your good for you” at all times. One should grasp to provide the “want[ing] the good of the other for the sake of the other.” This needs to be done regardless of what is being felt at any given moment or for any given period of time. That feeling of love, if love is being worked at, it will return. Especially when both spouses are striving to love in this objective manner.
Recently Rollo had two pieces regarding men and love (Men In Love and Of Love and War). In the first he stated ”
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.
I believe that the love Father Barron spoke about is how a man wants to be loved. Of course a man wants his wife to be full of the feeling of love, but I think men realize that this is not possible at all times. It is, however, possible to strive to break away from self reference. To love a man expecting absolutely nothing in return and to want nothing but his good for him with no strings attached. This is something that, regardless of everything else, you marriage should revolve around. If you can do this and expect nothing in return, you will likely find that his love revolves around you as well.
***Father Barron goes on in this video to talk about what happens when this love begins to dissipate on a grand scale,
Here’s the problem, get rid of God, or language about God, or the doctrines that describe God, in time that love that I’ve been describing will also be attenuated. It will also evanesce. Love that we so admire, see, in the ethical order is a theological reality described by doctrinal truths . . . When you deny certain doctrines like . . . the doctrine of God’s existence, then love begins to disappear rather quickly. ‘Oh no that will never happen! ‘ You bet it will happen. It happened in the lifetime of our parents and grandparents. The point is, this is a dangerous business when we drive [a] wedge between doctrine and ethics . . . The kind of person you are depends radically upon certain key doctrines. And that ‘s why doctrine matters precisely because we want to be people of love.
Love disappearing quickly. Sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?
(Since I have never posted twice in one day before, and since I don’t want it to get lost by this post, make sure to check out another Father Barron video posted earlier on the home page. In it, he talks about hook up culture.)
On the Rock 
So encouraging, awesome post tonight!
This is a wonderful post. I’ll have to come back later to comment, but thank you for putting it out there.
Writing down thoughts as I go through the video, then I’ll respond to the post after.
First – he’s separating being a good person from being a believer. Curious as to what your views are on this because my own personal ones clash with that. I realize that, as of now, my religious views are best described as…. liberal, loose, still forming. I very much ascribe to the idea that, if there is a one God who is all that is good, then those good actions themselves are a form of worship and of following his ideals. I fully realize and accept that my views of this are less grounded/formed from the scripture directly, but from the writings of CS Lewis. Obviously a man who, as such, is subject to all the faults of men. Take that as you will, but I’m curious as to other’s thoughts upon the subject.
I’m struck that his ideas and versions of love run contrary to the Sphere’s in some ways, not in others. The first part is the agreement with what Rollo always harps on, that desire cannot be negotiated. His idea of love requires a freedom from expecting reciprocation. He references the relationship between God and Humans as being the ultimate form of this – that God has no needs for us to fulfill and thus offers unconditional love. He then states that using this form of love as the basis for love between each other is thus participating in God’s love and being Godly
A few thoughts on that kind of love. First is that I don’t think he’s right in that God’s love is unconditional. Clearly states that we must accept Jesus into our hearts, accept God as our savior, and walk their path. Follow the virtues they teach while also leading others to salvation through BOTH words and actions. God’s love will forgive us if we submit and recant, but it is in no way unconditional. To say so is a false idea assuming that we’re both following the path and also submitting – which I think few people do and more and more people forget to do/ignore/think is unnecessary for the reasons that it is an assumed practice by many (thus never emphasised to the amount it should be) or passed over in America’s rugged individualistic goals and way of teaching/raising men and women. Obviously much writing in the ‘Sphere has gone towards saying how this is women especially (some say exclusively), but I would say that men have issues with this as well, though less so than women and very rarely with our relationships between each other.
Thus I think that he’s wrong in saying we should ever give unconditional love in a relationship. I do agree that DESIRE AND SEDUCTION can’t be negotiated. But I think that relationships have facets of them that are completely unrelated to either desire or seduction that do, in fact, require some negotiation and consideration of the strengths of each, the imputes of each, and the needs of each. Or, to put it bluntly, they require a leader in the man that acquires, processes, negotiates, and acts upon this information in his own thoughts without it involving the woman explicitly but instead implicitly. Thus the negotiation does not involve her, does not thus kill the desire and seduction that needs to happen between the two individuals, but is able to avoid love becoming ‘unconditional’. The woman submits, repents, follows the leadership, and strives to bring others under her husband’s leadership (whether is simply be children, other family members, or supporting her husband behind the scenes in his goals). It avoids the problems of humans inserting exploitative and negative actions into the process BECAUSE this conditional love is mirroring the true nature of God’s love that is also conditional – where God takes our desires, needs, strengths, weaknesses, and impute into consideration but then is our leader in charting out a path to follow without any direct impute from ourselves.
This got to be a long response to the video. Now I need to read your post.
Wow. Your post didn’t go the way I thought it would from the video. So here’s my response to your post as well.
I think I need to respond to this section more than anything:
“To love a man expecting absolutely nothing in return and to want nothing but his good for him with no strings attached. This is something that, regardless of everything else, you marriage should revolve around. If you can do this and expect nothing in return, you will likely find that his love revolves around you as well.”
I think that this requires pre-requisites that are…. assumed and related to the kind of thoughts my previous comment had.
By this I mean that I think these words you have are assuming that those married have found someone that has demonstrated a worthiness of respect and faith. For a man this means that in a relationship, if the woman has lapses of being a good follower, you take actions to guide her back to the path of your leadership with respect towards the good she has added to your life and faith that she will resubmit if you demonstrate proper guidance, leadership, and masculinity.
For a woman I -think- that in those times of troubled relationships you have to respect your man for the values and leadership that he has given to your life. That if you don’t quiet understand the path he is leading you down now, to understand that everyone takes the actions they do for a reason (even if they couldn’t articulate it) and that you need to respect those reasons. The woman must then place her faith in her man that those reasons are good ones and will guide her back to a place of content, worthiness, Godliness.
I say this because your statement that a marriage should revolve around something with no strings attached… I think is false. It’s not that there aren’t strings attached at all, it’s that one should never overtly pull at those strings once they’re bonded together and in place from the experiences and life that you built prior to the marriage and relationship. That if you do pull or test those strings, you should recant and resubmit. AFTER those strings connect and bond each of you, the rest should be no strings attached with trust, love, respect, and faith between the two of you until or unless some major breach of un-Godly behavior warrants extreme action and the need to rebind those strings of bonding, commitment, etc.
This is the perspective, again, of a single man who is loosely religious. I say that only so that you can judge my words in the appropriate light as this is a very religious subject and that you, Stingray, operate on a baseline of a Marriage that has the elements I’ve mentioned. Where as I am operating on a baseline that those do not currently exist and I will have to put in significant amounts of time to create them if I can ever even find someone who is worth creating them with – by which I mean able to make them in the first place and able to appreciate them afterwards.
Damn. I really like the thoughts those created in me and where my own comments went. I’m wondering if I took out the references to the Manosphere if I’d be able to edit them and send them to my brother with a link to the video…..
“That feeling of love, if love is being worked at, it will return.”
Not necessarily. This is assuming that all people are capable of this kind of love (they are not) or that they all want this kind of love (they do not). I respectfully find the above view simplistic. In many cases, yes, altruistic love brings out wonderful things in people. I see examples of this all the time. But, we are the choir here.
When one truly knows how to love, one must be careful NOT to choose someone who has very little approach to it. In that case, love that is given is more like theft. Most people caught in bad relationships think they can love their partner into change. It doesn’t work like that. Thinking, oh if so and so really knew me, how could they not love me/treat me better. Its a real trap that many women I know, including myself, have become ensnared in, so I felt it was important for women reading to not get the mistaken impression that martyrdom in bad relationships was something to be proud of.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Leap and Geisha,
If I respond to your comments now it will be half hearted. Bear with me as it’s a busy day and it may take a while for me to reply as I would like.
Father Barron’s definition of love is what I call unconditional love.
It isn’t blind. It does not self-abnegate. It is not masochistic. But it does act in another’s best interest at all times.
But from where did you learn that those actions are good? What is the basis for your morality? Without a strong basis it is far too easy for people rationalize their behavior as good. How many women think the frivolous divorce they caused is good and that they are still a good person (as an extreme example)?
I disagree. If we do not follow God’s commands, he does still love us unconditionally. He does not withdraw his love from those who do not follow, rather they may be rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven. Not being rewarded is not a demonstration of a lack of love. It’s much like a parent loving his child. I have expectations of my children. If they do not meet these expectations it does not mean that I do not still love them. It does, however, mean there will be consequences.
But this is love. A negotiation does not need to always involve her for him to have her best interest (and the families nest interest) at heart. He is doing what he knows to be right, regardless of what her opinion is. Doing what is right for the family and her, whether she wants it or not, is an ultimate display of love because of the strength that is needed to do this.
I said love should have no strings attached. Marriage, necessarily does. The vows themselves demonstrate this. But within the marriage, one can love with no strings.
Guiding a woman back can be done in this spirit of love. He guides her back to where it is best for her and for the marriage without thought of what it means implicitly to him. It is what is ultimately best for her.
Same with the woman. She will respect her man and his values for him without expecting anything in return for this.
Yes, it does take a long time to create this and choosing a mate is critical. It can be done inside a current marriage but it will take a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice. But it can be done.
I realize this, but there are far more people out there who are entirely capable of it and either are never exposed to this kind of love or can’t fathom doing it without return. The number of cases where it will be reciprocated is far more than I think people realize and it shouldn’t be rejected for thoughts of failure.
This is key. However, some have already chosen and this active love might prove to turn a marriage around in a direction that neither expected.
I agree, but I’m talking about love. Not just giving oneself away. Love means making tough decisions. A decision can be made out of love that will be very painful for the other person, but still be the best thing for him/her. Martyrdom seems more to be about giving oneself away in the hopes of changing another.
A decision can be made out of love that will be very painful for the other person, but still be the best thing for him/her. Martyrdom seems more to be about giving oneself away in the hopes of changing another.
Yes.
“But from where did you learn that those actions are good? What is the basis for your morality?”
Agreed. I think we’re just getting nit picky over the details there. I fully agree that you can’t separate the behavior from the reasons behind the behavior, which is what I think that he’s saying when he’s making the references to Emmanuel Kant and the moralistic but irreligious man. Goes back to the idea that you can be good at being a man, and be a good man, and that those two are not the same. The good man can be deeply religious but very bad at being a leader. The leader doesn’t necessarily need to be religious or good to be good at being a man. The sweet spot that you’re searching for is the leader who is also religious.
“If we do not follow God’s commands, he does still love us unconditionally. He does not withdraw his love from those who do not follow, rather they may be rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Eh, I don’t view that as unconditional love. I think we see the same thing and actions, but have different opinions on it. My view is that if God loved unconditionally, everyone would go to Heaven. This is not the case. His conditions are simple, but they are conditions – accept him and follow him. Submit and ask forgiveness.
As a man, those are not easy things to do. The fact that I am expected to do those to follow God’s path, with its rewards, trials, and ultimate growth of self in mind, body, and soul…. To me, that makes it conditional. I see where you’re going that because he’ll forgive anything with TRUE repentance and submission, that’s unconditional, but the need to repent and submit are conditions to me.
“Guiding a woman back can be done in this spirit of love. He guides her back to where it is best for her and for the marriage without thought of what it means implicitly to him. It is what is ultimately best for her.”
I think that if you ever guide anyone without a spirit of love it leads to either manipulation, co-dependency, or other harmful affects. It will cause pain of some sort to at least one, and likely both, of the people involved.
“I agree, but I’m talking about love. Not just giving oneself away.”
Isn’t love giving yourself away? Your time, your energy, your support? The issue is who you are giving it to and why.
Very interesting topic. My favorite, actually.
While I do agree that one person’s actions can change a relationship dramatically in some cases, I personally find it very frustrating when people apply this idea too liberally and it then becomes, “the relationship failed because you didn’t try hard enough,” when in many cases, trying less is actually more condusive to change. Or putting the same amount of effort into a better way instead of treading the same old ground. So, trying differntly. But, eventually, you run out of options. In some cases, no matter what one tries there will be no change.
“Its a puzzlement.” 🙂
I am meeting with a deacon this weekend and look forward to hearing some of his views on these topics.
Totally OT: a fall fashion discussion is in order! The weather is changing, I want to stick to my no pants ban, and I’m running out of clothes!!!!!!
Geisha – heavier fabrics for your dresses, leggings, nice coats that fit your form but are still heavy enough to keep you warm. And gloves, shawls, and scarves for your extremities.
At least, as a man I’d imagine that is how you’d still be feminine in the winter. I wouldn’t say no to women sporting such.
Oh, and boots. Good boots can still be feminine and attractive while being weather appropriate.
Check to all of the above, Leap! 🙂 Invested in a serious pair of boots last year, have two beautiful winter coats I can’t wait to wear again, cashmere lined leather gloves, cashmere red beanie, but I have only one good winter sweater dress. Must shop! No more pants! No more pants! 🙂
Well, no. I don’t think so. Love is doing what is right by the other person, acting in their best interest while expecting nothing in return. It’s what you said here:
Giving away yourself is more what the people expect who would say ““the relationship failed because you didn’t try hard enough” They want you to just keeping giving, giving, giving, even when it’s completely counter productive. That’s not love. As you said, it’s being a Martyr.
There love Father Barron and I are talking about here is best described in this line,
One doesn’t will the good of the other by giving everything to him. Love knows when it’s time to put one’s foot down and say no, or when to not give because it’s best for the other person.
I would be very interested to hear how this goes.
As for winter clothes, I have a couple of heavy cotton full length skirts that are quite warm that I love. They are rather fitted so Maritus likes them very much as well. 😉
And scarves! Men seem to love scarves! Not winter scarves, but the thinner ones you would where inside. Those really pretty sweater dresses you mentioned are great as well.
Yes, I realize that love is willing the good of the other, but there are also times to be “selfish,” I believe. What happens, for instance, if you are always willing the good of the other and you end up empty? If you always push others down their path but it leads away from you? Does some karmic reward come into play eventually? In optimistic moments I’m inclined to believe it does. Other times, it seems as though there is nothing awaiting. Then, too, to be remembered, there are many more relationships and interactions of love than the one instance of an S.O. so it is probably good to think about the concept of love in very general terms.
What about legwarmers? Are legwarmers back in style yet? 😉
I will keep reporting live, Stingray, on the status of my legwarmers and otherwise.
Your best post yet.
GeishaKate wrote:
Wrong. You are not thinking radically enough. You still want to keep exceptions and codicils and conditions on your unconditional love.
Right. And you must learn to joyfully facilitate that theft.
Wrong. It works precisely like that.
Still not radical enough. Still a sneaky expression of the ego: “How could they not love me/treat me better?” You are willing the good of yourself, not another. That ends the virtuous relay, sending it down the black hole of selfishness.
Wrong. Martyrdom is the highest thing to be most proud of in this world. Martyrdom is love perfected: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
The problem with your interpretation of love is fundamental. If a man is beating you and cheating on you, you do not dumbly sacrifice on his behalf — your compliance would not will the good of another, it would will the sin of another. Being good does not mean being a pushover. It means fiercely combating sin. “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” The wages of sin is death. When your man sins against you, he is committing little acts of suicide. To prevent him from sinning is to save his life.
It has nothing to do with the pain of being sinned against. Christians welcome sin to be performed against them, they have been built to take it, they know how to transform it into love, they offer the other cheek, they return hatred with kindness, they love their enemies: because within them (and by God’s grace) they can absorb and annihilate the vicious cycle once and for all.
It is all about the other. As far as you are concerned, it is all about him. One-hundred percent to zero percent. If you still balk at that stark reality — as we are all naturally disposed to do! — you still are not thinking radically enough.
The miracle, which you will begin to experience immediately, is that radical sacrifice will bring the radical serenity we have sought our whole lives in the things that cannot give it. Because while sin mortifies — a necrosis that kills you slowly, piece by piece — virtue enlivens. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly”! We all know this. In the smallest gestures of charity to the grandest, anonymous sacrifices, we feel the good at its wellspring, we remember the source of life. We weep to see the face of God in people who inexplicably give “till it hurts,” then keep giving through the hurt. It thrills the giver, it reminds him of his purpose, it stirs the most ancient vestiges in his primordial soul. It strengthens, it emboldens, it energizes, it makes him superhuman. It resurrects his dying body and soul.
No one promised the Way of the Cross would be easy. Your closest loved-ones will abandon you, mock you, and openly betray you, precisely because you try to love. Under the assault, you will be tempted to keep 0.01% for yourself, and that is all evil needs to triumph. Your fate is to be subjected to unimaginable, horrific pain and isolation — a consciously designed plan to prompt you to say no más or non serviam. The closer to God you get, the greater the attack. Ready yourself for the test.
For what is promised is unconditional love from the One Who will never leave you, who, like Mary, will be with you at every step of your trial. What is promised is “the peace of God, which passes all understanding.”
Eye has not seen,
nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared
for those who love him.
Suffice it to believe.
Matt
The idea that there is a right or wrong way to love interests me. As a natural instinct, it is a wonder it needs to be trained (in my case, reigned in).
King: If you have future personal critiques, send them via email. Otherwise please remain objective. This crosses my boundaries.
Well, no not really. I understand why you say this. One needs to recharge to be able to love. But, loving this way is to recharge. Does that mean people are capable of this 100% of the time? No. We all fail. It’s in our nature. But we strive for it. When it is reciprocated, when our love returns in kind, those times of recharge are freely given back to us and their love gives us what we need.
Because in the end, you won’t end up empty. We can’t control what another does and we can’t do anything more than love them. It may hurt like hell, but in the end, yes, there is an eternal reward. And as you said, it does go beyond a significant other. Ultimately, we can only control ourselves. Sometimes it will give back and others times it won’t.
But in the case of this love, willing the good of another, it’s not a natural instinct. It is a natural instinct to know what it is that we need ourselves and try to provide that. It’s not a natural instinct to freely love in this manner. That is why we have to will ourselves to do it. It is a very conscious state.
I know this hits close to home for you, but what Matt had to say is far more accurate than what I did. His vocabulary was accurate and mine not. Don’t take it as a personal critique, as best you can. Only you know about your past love and we are not critiquing that. We are talking about the here and now and what might be in the future.
dorsey,
The day got away from me yesterday. I meant to tell you how much I like that poem. Thank you for it.
Of course those lines were found in Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”. That was written a long time ago, at the end of the Romantic era. In fact, the dark symbolism in that poem could be seen as the close of Romanticism.
Here is a more modern take on that poem: http://plagiarist.com/poetry/2409
(hint, hypergamy doesn’t care about romance)
Kate,
Legwarmers!
Maritus travels to Zurich a couple of times a year for work. He said to tell you, give it time. Every third or fourth woman is now wearing parachute pants right now, so leg warmers must be right around the corner. I think the US is usually a year or two behind Zurich in fashion, so they will be here soon! 😉
dorsey,
I had to Google it and haven’t had time to read the poem in it’s entirety yet (the original or the modern) but am looking forward to it!
Hmm, I don’t think this love is really possible in a romantic relationship. If possible, it must be extremely rare. A romantic love is what I call a love of “lesser purity” than friendship. A friend doesn’t care if you have another friend, they won’t get jealous, And you can be apart for a very long time without losing the friendship. In a romantic relationship, there ARE strings attached, and you will feel them acutely if they are pulled carelessly. Like in case of your partner loving someone else, not loving you anymore or being apart for too long. Romantic love is much more selfish.
I loved the way Father Barron describes only once, and it was a friend, not a lover. I wanted nothing more than their happiness, and didn’t want any love back, or specal treatment. But in a romantic relationship, not caring whether the person cares about you/has sex only with you sounds as unnatural as staying perfectly calm inside when your loved one is dying.
Emma,
That’s why it has to be willed. It is unnatural, and I don’t think it is 100% attainable due to our fallible natures. But it is something we can absolutely strive for as much as possible.
Hmm, seems everyone in the manosphere is falling into the “unconditional love” trap lately. No offence to anyone commenting here. But Geisha Kate is right. Unconditional love is when you love even when they beat you and others. It’s morally wrong to enable someone like that. If you keep on giving to a bad person, they aren’t gonna suddenly feel guilty and stop. There’s a chance they’re antisocial and think their actions are working. They abuse – you give. They abuse again – you give again! There is a lesson in there somewhere.
Staying with a bad man and taking the abuse is not martyrdom, it’s what tons of women do every day. And the word is getting around – be a bad guy and you’ll be swimming in pussy and female love. The only use for women like this is to fuck all the violent convicts so they don’t rape their weaker inmates. But we really don’t need dozens of them for every convict.
Me and my boyfriend talked about love, and I already mentioned it on Rollo’s site, but here it goes. He explained to me that once you choose the right person, love for them can be almost unconditional. So I suspect men don’t really want or can do totally unconditional love, they just choose you and stick with the choice. From that moment, love is mostly unconditional, although the choosing period had conditions. I think this makes a lot more sense than all the attempts to fit the idea of 100% unconditional love with reality and what we want out of relationships.
Yes, but we are not talking about enabling here. We are not talking about simply picking up socks, making dinners, bringing comfort. Love is not about always bringing comfort and good feelings. We are talking about willing the good for another. You don’t will the good of an abuser by constantly giving him what what he says he wants. You will good for him by giving him what he needs. There is a very big difference here. If what he needs for him to stop abusing is for the woman to leave, if that is what will bring him the best good, than that is what she must do. Love is not easy. It is about making very tough decisions and maybe causing some deep short term pain that will later cause some deeper long term good. I think you and Kate and confusing the word give to mean give whatever he wants. What he wants and what a man like you are speaking about here needs, are very different.
Hmm, I guess it can be willed if you wanted this, but why would you? What exactly is the use of it? I guess it would help a person tolerate their spouses infidelity and get back together, or if they do something particularly heinous. For lesser things (like smaller transgressions or displays of nasty traits once in a while) you don’t need this type of love.
Ah, i think i got it 😉 That makes a lot more sense, but then it also contradicts the idea that you should stick with him no matter what. I guess that is what I thought you meant, but I see now you didn’t.
Yes, staying no matter what seems like the theme in the manosphere, so I got confused. Because you know, men complain so much (for a reason) that women leave them for minor flaws like loss of job.
I don’t understand. Want what? To do that for a person who has grossly mistreated you? Because it is not our place to punish. Read Matt Kings comments again because he explains it so much better than I can. It’s not about getting back together or tolerating anything. It is very simply about doing what is right for another with no concern for reciprocation.
Remember too, that while abuse and infidelity are incredibly unfortunate, those types of relationships are not even close to being the majority. Think about a normal relationship or marriage and apply it to that as well.
I agree that is seems like this but I don’t think the majority of men think a woman should stay with a man who is clearly abusing or the like. They are tired of women using this excuse when it is a lie and with women leaving for inane reasons. It comes across as ALWAYS staying because the number of inane reasons has gotten so very high.
“I don’t understand. Want what?”
What to be able to love like Father Barron describes. But I asked that before your explanation came, so I think there is no need for the question anymore. As i see it, staying with an abusive person would be a more selfish action, because leaving would probably serve them better. And staying is just a way to feed your sick addiction to them.
And of course I didn’t mean to imply that abuse and cheating is the norm for a man. But when discussing unconditional love, all extremes need to be taken into account, or else what you’re discussing isn’t truly unconditional love.
Btw, I read Matt King’s comments. I can see his point, I think. There is something in loving a person even if they do bad things, and leaving them if that means they’ll be better off that way. But another thing in your post confused me, and that is the fact that you couldn’t feel love for some relatives, but did things for them anyway. Are you saying this is the type of love Father Barron is describing? It isn’t a feeling, it’s what you do? But isn’t that called duty rather than love?
I think what Father Barron is describing is separate from the feeling of love, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. One can still feel love and also love in action as he describes. Or, if there is no feeling, one can simply love in action.
I googled the definition of duty just so I can be clear:
du·ty/ˈd(y)o͞otē/
Noun:
1. A moral or legal obligation; a responsibility: “it’s my duty to uphold the law”.
2. (of a visit or other undertaking) Done from a sense of moral obligation rather than for pleasure: “a fifteen-minute duty visit”.
Hmmmm, yes I think so. But obligation may make it seem like it could be grudgingly done. Love isn’t done like that, rather it’s given. There is something I am missing here that I can’t put my finger on and it may be the simple fact that duty has replaced the word love in modern times. Love today is only thought of as the feeling and Father Barron is trying to say that it is an action. Though duty feels more forced to me than what Father Barron is talking about. I am missing something here. Sorry, I can’t answer your question.
Hmm… Thanks for the responses 🙂
I don’t have a conclusion to this, but I think love has the element of duty (to do things you think you must do) and feeling. Even if the feelings taper off, you still have duty.
And I don’t think duty is supposed to feel bad. If you’re doing something out of duty, it means not doing it will have very bad consequenses, like your conscience eating you up, loss of respect of those you respect, or feeling of incongruence with your personality (loss of identity can be very painful). Those things are worth doing unpleasant stuff over.
I agree.
@ Emma: “But in a romantic relationship, not caring whether the person cares about you/has sex only with you sounds as unnatural as staying perfectly calm inside when your loved one is dying.”
Interesting. The first part sounds unnatural to me, but the second part doesn’t.
You mean you can think of situations when feeling calm when your loved one is dying would happen? I guess it could happen if they were ill for a long time and death was a relief. But in general, if someone you really care about is in deep trouble, being ok about it is not the usual reaction.
“Emma the Emo said:
September 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM
… But another thing in your post confused me, and that is the fact that you couldn’t feel love for some relatives, but did things for them anyway. Are you saying this is the type of love Father Barron is describing? It isn’t a feeling, it’s what you do? But isn’t that called duty rather than love?”
This is such a typical female response to these concepts. Even after reading the words you still have trouble getting your mind wrapped around the ideas.
Here’s the key for you. Words have meaning, meaning that exists outside of how you feel about them or how you feel about what they represent.
I don’t mean to sound harsh but I want to shake up your emotions so you’ll Pay Attention.
To rephrase the main message.
Love is an act of will. Period. Full stop. That’s it. There can be an emotion happening while you are acting but the emotion is not reality. Let me repeat that. Emotion is not reality.
Emotion only exists inside of you. It has no independent outward manifestation. It does not exist except within you. Since emotions only exist inside of you then they are completely under your control or whatever spirit you decide to allow yourself to be controlled by. If those emotions are not under responsible control then you are not by definition an adult, you literally need adult supervision.
Every time you convince yourself to do something only because of how you selfishly feel about it you are lying to yourself. Do it enough and you begin to live permanently in a fantasy land. If you want to know why many men think the majority of women are clinically insane this is the prime reason.
But now I’m going to mess with your head. Just about every time Jesus performed a miracle he did or said something before-hand that provided evidence that he did the miracle out of a love of deep feeling. Go looking for how many times he shed tears before he performed a miracle like raising someone from the dead or healing the previously unhealable. It was a love of deep feeling that preceded the release of power in many cases.
The kind of love fostered by the Holy Spirit is built on truth and therefore leads to right action. This is the difference between love as the world conceives of it and what a Christian is commanded to do.
You better be careful what spirit guides your actions.
Emma is far from a typical female. You know, I honestly think you guys are starting to get spoiled imagining that an average woman would last even a day around this environment. To even be here makes one atypical.
Yes, Emma, I can imagine those scenarios. For instance, once my ex-husband was undergoing a very painful test. What would be more helpful to him: my panic, or my calm presence. I even got him to laugh imagining he was James Bond and they were trying to get information out of him. In general, I think death should be a peaceful experience. One should be willing to let them go on and help make that transition as serenely as possible.
Kate, I think that’s why they push. It’s a compliment.
Athol,
Yes, things aren’t always possible to understand from the start. Sometimes one needs to chew on the topic to really get it. It doesn’t depend only on the person reading, but also the people one’s talking to. Because everyone seems to have a different understanding of love, and I have to discover which one.
But I disagree with you. Emotions aren’t under our full control. Our thoughts and actions are, and that includes expression of emotions. It’s not like that for children only, it’s the typical adult situation. I would go as far as to say you aren’t human if you can control what emotions you feel and what you don’t feel, at any given time. You have some influence on them, but for a normal person, there is never full control. I also don’t want to discuss Christian beliefs here, as it’s not the best place for it.
GeishaKate,
That makes sense. I know that if they are in trouble, your calm presence is what they might need, but what I was talking about is the feeling. It seems to me that if you love someone, their happiness is such an important thing that doing harm to them is doing harm to you. Perhaps it’s my own personal understanding of love, but it doesn’t seem far off the definition presented here. You don’t want anything back, but you want good to come to them. If harm comes to them constantly, the experience is like trying to be calm in a tub full of needles and syringes. You can do it with effort, but you won’t feel good in there. You can become numb after a while though.
I know it might sound like a bad trait, but it saved me and mine more than once.
Because unconditional love is not a natural instinct toward a spouse, it requires training. It’s a process. And duty is part of the training process.
There are ebbs and flows. Sometimes you might even fall out of love over the course of a lifetime. That’s where the commitment part takes over. You continue to practice love, even if you’re not feeling it. Eventually, a couple who has each others interest at heart will go back to feeling it.
This creates a strength and serenity. Your inner strength is worked like a muscle.. You don’t become numb, you are able feel and yet have strength with out shields and shells. You’re capable of validating yourself and your love.Which unfortunately can be put to the test when the other person does not have your best interests at heart. In my case, my marriage had episodes of drug addiction. I had issued ultimatums only twice in my marriage.. Both times were too get help or the marriage was over. The first worked, the second didn’t.
Didn’t mean that I came from a place of anger or ill will. Unconditional love wants to help the other person, not enable their destruction. Perhaps I’m wrong, but the way I see it, and live it, love can be unconditional, but that doesn’t mean being a doormat. If you truly love someone and have their best interests at heart, sometimes it takes tough love. Sometimes not. It depends on the situation. But unconditional love has the strength to walk away and not stay because of ones own yearnings, needs, validations or whatever. That’s not love, let alone unconditional love. That’s dependance and it comes from a selfish place.
YMMV, but that’s how it played out for me.
I mean Athor. Sorry, stupid mistake, thought you were someone else.
Stingray you’ve got this material down pat. You a luv doctor. Athor Pel, your bluntness is welcome. Here I thought Stingray and Fr. Barron had expressed a fairly straightforward concept, and I’m a little baffled by the tangents and misunderstandings. Now I see that this is controversial, a sensitive subject that people take personally based on the incongruity between the debased, romantic takeover of the word “love” from its eternal definition in caritas or agape. Not least because, as Pel says, of female sentimentality.
Love is a straightforward concept, an unnatural (or supernatural) concept, as Stingray says above (“We all fail. It’s in our nature”), and yet a exceedingly familiar concept. It is the divine atom in our profane soul. Love is taken for granted because it is fairly automatic in our first relationship — a mother’s love for her child. Mothers without hesitation offer their lives for their children, whether it is a direct sacrifice or the sacrifice of years and resources. To imagine otherwise is to be distinctly non-maternal.
We all have a frame of reference for it, and at the same time, selfishness is “in our nature.” We all know what the right mode is, and yet our viscera, known theologically as original sin, tug us toward the ego and self-satisfaction.
Matt
Stingray wrote:
The “modern” definition of love is all sentimentality, which is an expression of the ego. To purify the word and return it to its original understanding would be to emphasize the active, volitional component above the sentiment, as both you and the good Father do in this post.
Love is more than and distinct from simple duty, because duty is rational and somewhat transactional: you do what you’re told because that’s what you were made to do, in exchange for duty you receive the status of good-standing. Love is irrational, above reason, even nonsensical; you get nothing in return for it, and to receive quid pro quo is to defeat its purpose. The dutiful inspire admiration and even veneration, but love inspires ecstasy, the ineffable sense of completion. Why else do you think that all tearjerkers end with some monumental sacrifice?
What romanticism has done is taken the ultimate awe that accompanies an act of true love, isolated the emotional content, and separated it from the willful deed that originated and sustains the sentiment. So we moderns, and especially women, believe we can have all the sensation without the act indemnifying it. Youthful love is ego staring into ego, mutually stroking the other, pornographically imitating the sacrifice that inspires the feeling, to generate the emotion without the sacrifice. “I would so die for you, I would do anything for our love.” Note the future tense. These heated teenage pledges are made in passion, stoking up the vicarious thrill of Romeo and Juliet, with none of the suicide.
To those who want to understand the true meaning of love, watch the best film of all time on the subject: Casablanca. Any ounce of ego from any of the three would have destroyed the ending. We don’t just admire Rick’s sacrifice, we stand in awe of it. Precisely because it is a gift that can never be returned. The most he can derive from his sacrifice is the private satisfaction that he had done the right thing, but what use is that to his and Ilsa’s relationship, now that she is gone forever and he quite probably will die?
The awe of love, which is indeed a sentiment, alerts us to the qualitative difference between love and duty. “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” Fidelity (duty) and hope are necessary in our fallen condition, but both will one day become irrelevant in the light of the beatific vision. But love endures, through all and in all. Creation itself was an act of gratuitous love: God in his perfection didn’t need us, he simply willed the good of the other (us) into existence. Love sustains the universe and keeps the heavens. As Dante wrote,
But already my desire and my will
were being turned like a wheel, all at one speed,
by the Love which moves the sun and the other stars.
The radicality, the strange but somehow undeniably true message of the bible can be summed up in a single sentence: Deus caritas est. God is love. He doesn’t give love, he is the love itself. How else is it possible to see ourselves being diminished and not howl at injustice but rather feel the ultimate serenity — this is what I was created to do! — and even ineffable joy through a paradox of tears? This is the same perceived paradox that causes us to hesitate at giving of ourselves: “Surely we should give, but not everything. A little selfishness isn’t bad. You can’t expect us to sacrifice all that we have! Not on someone who is so obviously unworthy! Not on evil men, not on my mortal enemies!”
Yes, everything. Yes, for your enemies. Zero self. Ultimate sacrifice. No judgment of the recipient’s worthiness. As much to the wicked as to the just. Randomly, effusively, generously, universally, automatically, and totally. The simplest of concepts, the hardest of actions. “So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”
Matt
P.S. “Dover Beach” is the poem.
@justvisiting: “Because unconditional love is not a natural instinct toward a spouse, it requires training.”
I maintain that it is a natural instinct. If it isn’t, I don’t know what people are doing together. I identify with the story you shared and I’m glad you told it. I try not to punish the good in my ex for the bad.
@King: It is a straighforward concept. What I object to is your tone. I often find you very inspirational, but I will not be admonished like a child. I did not submit my perspective to be labelled “right” and “wrong” by you. I was joining in a conversation. I too find things baffling, such as what gives you the presumption to set yourself up in judgement of me. I don’t think you mean me any harm, but be aware of how you are coming across.
Then I would maintain that unconditional love was not a natural instinct for me. Towards my children, yes.
But not my husband. He could store up a lot of emotional currency, in the emotional bank account, but once that was gone….without unconditional love, the marriage would have been emotionally bankrupt. But unconditional love was a learned skill over years. A conscious choice of will before it became an effortless part of my expression.
I would add that unconditional love has the ability to inspire a person, or not. I would argue that most normal men would respond to it rather well. And in times of personal crisis, accept the life line. Others can be too locked into their own personal hell.
@ Stingray
“I agree that is seems like this but I don’t think the majority of men think a woman should stay with a man who is clearly abusing or the like. They are tired of women using this excuse when it is a lie and with women leaving for inane reasons. It comes across as ALWAYS staying because the number of inane reasons has gotten so very high.”
The problem that the Manosphere sees right now is that with no-fault divorce, women are claiming emotional abuse. Obviously there’s no way to prove this because she can claim her personal needs simply weren’t being met. As for the physical side of things, its very easy for a woman to constantly provoke a man to the point where a normally peaceful man strike a woman once, goes to jail for assault, and gets screwed because she goaded him into an action she wanted to obtain a desired result.
This has been allowed to happen by allowing fear of constant emotional or physical abuse to control our law making decisions beyond a level the statistics would deem necessary.
@ Emma
“Emotions aren’t under our full control. Our thoughts and actions are, and that includes expression of emotions. It’s not like that for children only, it’s the typical adult situation. I would go as far as to say you aren’t human if you can control what emotions you feel and what you don’t feel, at any given time.”
No, but there are studies that show that after the initial response you can quickly bring them under control. It involves focusing on one physical response your body has to the emotions and bringing it under control. To lower anxiety you can relax your muscles or lower your breathing rate. To raise your energy you can start breathing quicker. By focusing on your body, you can affect your attitude.
For prolonged emotions over time, studies also have shown that the human mind anchors emotions to actions, images, smells, feelings, tastes. That’s why in relationships it’s GOOD to push through rough patches by doing the things you normally do anyways. Your body and mind remember the old times that you’ve done it through love, respect, appreciation. It taps into those layers and foundations of emotions you’ve built on them.
So you may not control initial emotions, no. But to say you can’t escape them, that they control you, is defeatist and avoiding dealing with your emotions, thoughts, or needs to specific events.
@ Matt
“Here I thought Stingray and Fr. Barron had expressed a fairly straightforward concept, and I’m a little baffled by the tangents and misunderstandings.”
Meh. A lot of it is based on different interpretations of things.
For instance, I’m still unconvinced that God’s love is unconditional. Or maybe I should say, I’ve changed slightly from that stance I had to the stance that he does not demonstrate it or reward us with it until we meet certain conditions. We do not feel the true rewards of his love until we meet those conditions. Which is close to the same idea, but not quiet.
To clarify, I’m perfectly ok with that concept. I certainly don’t think that I should receive God’s blessing and rewards if I don’t ask for forgiveness for things I do that go against his leadership and plans. To submit myself for my own greater good and to add my strengths to his plan by building a greater following and glory to him.
And yes, I think this transfers over to my ideas of love between a man and a woman. I don’t know if I could love a woman that wasn’t able to do lesser versions of those to me. Maybe I could, maybe not. I honestly don’t know, but I know that after the time I’ve spent in the Manosphere, those are my goals for a relationship if I chose to be in one.
As far as conditions go, I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to ask that a woman I love be able to submit and follow my leadership; to do what she can to add to my strength knowing that I will bestow as much greatness and rewards upon her as I am able to – I will attempt to be a lesser version of the love I receive from God just as her gift to me is a lesser version of the gift she gives to God.
And all those drastic differences between love the way I see it and the way described by the others so far are in the small difference in interpretation that I see the need to accept Christ as my savior, ask forgiveness for my sins, and submit to God’s plan in my life as conditions for his love, rather than that love being unconditional.
“So you may not control initial emotions, no. But to say you can’t escape them, that they control you, is defeatist and avoiding dealing with your emotions, thoughts, or needs to specific events.”
Nah, I wasn’ saying they control you all the time, you can do the stuff you suggested, but you don’t have full control over them. Frankly, if I go that far, everything we do is because we feel. Our incentives and motivations, even exhalted things like love and duty (that’s where things go when you dig deep). But it’s not a popular thing to say.
“Nah, I wasn’ saying they control you all the time, you can do the stuff you suggested, but you don’t have full control over them. Frankly, if I go that far, everything we do is because we feel. Our incentives and motivations, even exhalted things like love and duty (that’s where things go when you dig deep). But it’s not a popular thing to say.”
Eh. I dunno if I’d go that far at all.
One of the major things about working on the core of your being (inner game) is in dealing with your past issues and not letting them control you. This grants a much greater control over your emotions, or at least it has for me. While I might have those initial reactions still, they’re much less severe, and I quickly analyze whether I want to continue feeling them, to respond to the situation with emotion, to settle myself and then respond, or to ignore the situation because it honestly doesn’t affect my life and is an attempt of someone else to get me emotionally attached to a situation for their own benefit.
Most often, its one of the latter two.
This honestly is what I consider a core concept of being a gentleman. Of knowing, accepting, and being able to control your emotions. You still feel them, but you have the reigns on them at all times. You can use that passionate anger to accomplish your goals or you can stay calm and carry on. Either is acceptable in different situations. One is more gentle, one is more man. Both are a part of me.
The most important part of that is resetting your base expectations and reactions, upon which all interactions with the world build upon from that foundation. The Christian base is, “How can I love this person in order to better them?”
Right now, my base is, “How can I love and improve myself in ways that will better the world?”
It’s a selfish base, yes. But it’s one that I need right now in order to achieve the improvement I need in my mental, physical, and spiritual areas in order to develop my skills as a leader and accomplish my goals. When I feel like I have that down, then I’ll change my base reactions.
Leap of a Beta,
I agree with everything you said here. I think I haven’t explained myself too well. Because what I’m saying and what you’re saying don’t contradict each other. Choosing which emotions you’re going to display and feel more/less of is a good skill, and I assume you’re good at it since you’re an actor. It can work.
However, it’s not what I understand by “controlling one’s emotions”. It’s a degree of control, but if we had full control, we could probably have the option of not having emotions at all, which isn’t what happens (although I heard Buddhism or new age philosophies can have that effect, but then you become free of your wants and motivations, for the most part). We would also be able to make ourselves feel attracted to fat people or our own sex.
But we do everything because of feelings. Why is someone interested in improving themselves and controlling their emotions better? depends on the person, but it could be because they don’t want to FEEL the unpleasant ones, or because they don’t want to induce negative reactions in other people, which will FEEL unpleasant. They don’t want to disappoint God, which would FEEL guilty, and perhaps they doesn’t want to burn in hell because that is PAINFUL. Isn’t it how it is? Sure, our thoughts influence what we do, but they aren’t THE motivator. They help us make the right decisions.
Perhaps the reason why this suggestion gets bashed a lot is because feelings and emotions have low status in the manosphere, even though it’s pretty much based on them (feelings of righteous anger about false rape accusations, feelings of longing for sex with multiple partners or just one quality girl, trying to build a good life, etc.). Emotions is “something women have”. They get an undeservedly bad reputation.
(I’m gonna get bashed for this, I’m sure of it)
Hey, GeishaKate, I won’t be taking your GeishaBait. I will point out that a typical female response is to personalize disagreement, objecting to demeanor and personality, rather than content. Is that you? I won’t speculate: I don’t take these things personally.
On a deliberate personal note, however, I will suggest you accept public disagreement with more than a few grains of salt, particularly on a medium that famously communicates “tone” without much efficiency.
Matt
Leap of a Beta wrote:
God’s love is a cataract, a massive river flowing in one direction, from him to us. You can choose to jump into it and let it carry you where you need to go. You can dip a foot into it. Or you can run away from it altogether. Your disposition toward it, your acceptance or rejection of it, has nothing to do with the strength and direction of the current. God’s love is unconditional.
But then why would he give us volition to reject our own happiness? That is a question that rewards serious theological study, and you should look into it. Suffice it to say, our volition too is an act of love, because “willing the good of the other as other” requires volition, and without that capacity of the will, we would not be able to truly love him or our fellow man back.
No way. Your very existence, and the second-to-second sustaining of that existence, is a demonstration of his love and an incalculable reward that is performed prior to the possibility of “meet[ing] certain conditions.” To not love is to die, just as to not eat is to starve and eventually perish. It is our function in life. Ceasing to love is zombifying, an ill-purposed “life” that begins death early. You are animated and function minimally, but in the pain of an instrument attempting to do something it is not designed to do. Like nailing a screw in with a hammer, rather than using drill or screwdriver. It’s not pretty. It is a glimpse of hell on earth.
God does not “reward” you for acting in concert with your design. He does not punish you for attempting to perform acts beyond your design. These outcomes are the natural consequence of deliberately choosing — where volition comes in — to act against your purpose. There must be pain associated with choosing dysfunction.
The devil is (literally) in the details. First of all, though we are enjoined to love as God loves us, you should tremble to compare yourself to God, even indirectly. Fear of the Lord is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Our weakness and sin makes it impossible to imitate his strength perfectly, and so loving a woman the way God loves us all is fraught with temptation and danger. And the danger, second of all, is manifest precisely in the way you approach loving a woman with conditions, presuming this is God’s way as well. It is not.
“I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to ask that a woman … submit and follow.” The error is in the asking and the expectation, and later, in the consequence of her not living up to your condition. So, unlike the father of the prodigal son, you will withhold your fatted calf in vengeance for being disobeyed, rather than leaping with joy at her return and throwing your cloak around her shoulders. God does not love in this petty transactional fashion. He gives his son his inheritance, even knowing it will be squandered. He accepts him as the good son’s equal, even after it was squandered.
To imitate God is hard! You ask for nothing in return, and you expect nothing in return except insofar as the expectation encourages their desire. You do not grimly require her to follow — that makes her little better than a slave. “No longer do I call you servants … but I have called you friends.” No, you inspire her to follow you of her own volition. That is the divine caritas. When she doesn’t follow, you look at her in the pity Christ looked at Peter after his betrayals, knowing the betrayal would hurt the apostle far more than it could disrupt Christ’s love, which would go on to forgive the very men who drove nails into his hands as they were murdering him.
This is high level stuff. Our culture and our consciousness is a million miles from this understanding of love. But it is the true understanding, the only understanding that does not ultimately degenerate into indirect expressions of ego and selfishness.
Matt
Matt,
Thank you for your responses. They help solidify what I have been thinking and also they very much help me with the proper use of vocabulary that I tend to get wrong.
I find myself hitting the dictionary far more these days to look up words I thought I knew the definition to, only to discover I have been going with the popular feeling behind the word rather than what the word itself actually means. I appreciate the proper use of terms far more these days.
@ Emma
Ok, I think I see what’s going on here.
I think you’re not differentiating controlling your emotions from feeling them. I’m basing that guess specifically from your writing.
The manosphere, I believe, is a controlled effort of men to get in touch with their emotions, control them, and use them to empower change in their lives.
What the manosphere detests is the emotions that control someone. They have the specific target of women who have a higher tendency to have this happen. Weak men also have a higher tendency towards this. Women do it because they are given free reign and told its empowering. Beta men are taught to do it to get in touch with their strengths and communication. I’d say that both of them are simply undisciplined for very, VERY different reasons with just as differing solutions.
@ Matt
I like and have a new understanding with your river analogy.
I…. think I need to take some time to consider the rest, if not all of, your post. I do have a couple questions though.
My comparison of my goals in love are based on the love I experience from God. As such, shouldn’t I have a comparison for that? Don’t I need to honestly look at my methods, compare them to God’s, and adjust as best as I can? Always reaching towards the higher goal, despite knowing I’ll fail for my faults as a human and sinner?
I ask this because part of your post seems to be about warning me away from such things, and then part of it seems to be that I SHOULD be imitating God, just that my interpretation is wrong of what that imitation is. As such, I’m confused on what you’re trying to drive across as the point.
Anyways, I need to have a glass of wine, relax, and ponder.
“I think you’re not differentiating controlling your emotions from feeling them. I’m basing that guess specifically from your writing.”
Well, almost 😉 I’m just using the bird’s eye view of feelings, and everyone else takes the pratcical view. A good analogy for it is to say “The human body is remarkably resilient” (in all practical situations, I would say yes). But I say, it can only tolerate a very small window of temperature, pressure, types of atmosphere and microbes (bird’s eye view).
Because of this, I see our potential to control our feelings and change for the better as more than we think is possible for us. Yet I also think feelings are such a big part of us that controling more than a little of ALL that there is to be controlled is probably impossible. But that little makes a big difference.
GeishaBait would have a pretty bow attached. How would I not personalize disagreement on a response to my own comment and where the pronoun “you” is used. lol Of course its me. I am still a woman and have no plans of turning into a man. Anyway, water under the bridge of sighs 🙂
In defining love inside marriage you wrote:
“Stingraysaid:September 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM
If what he needs for him to stop abusing is for the woman to leave, if that is what will bring him the best good, than that is what she must do.”
First, lets exchange abuse for something less sinful, to keep the emotions level. I suggest:
“If what he needs for him to stop over-eating is for the woman to tease him, if that is what will bring him the best good, than that is what she must do.”
But why stop there? Love is not just a tool for discipline, it can be used to spur growth. There is plenty of good in love, what a nurturing woman can do for the positive good of her man if he allows it:
“If what he needs for him to get a better job is for the woman to nag, if that is what will bring him the best good, than that is what she must do.”
As you can see, the ‘agape love’ from wife toward husband can turn into nagging very quickly. The wife doesn’t have the frame to love that way. What I am suggesting is that the defined love is a masculine love, and it requires dominance to pull off.
Furthermore, women are not commanded to agape their husbands. Husbands are commanded to agape their wives. God has agape for men. Men find all the agape they need from God. While women are not commanded to agape, they are specifically commanded to submit to their husbands. The above idea of love is tempting rebellion of the submission command. Be careful with this idea of ‘love’ as it could lead to un-submission.
C.S. Lewis on the worst kind of tyranny:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
It is interesting that the feminized government of America seeks to ban alcohol, tobacco, calories, etc… to protect the citizens from themselves. Is this love or tyranny?
“Emma the Emo said:
September 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM
…
Because of this, I see our potential to control our feelings and change for the better as more than we think is possible for us. Yet I also think feelings are such a big part of us that controling more than a little of ALL that there is to be controlled is probably impossible. But that little makes a big difference.”
Here’s the thing, you might be forced by circumstance to experience certain emotions but there are two things to keep in mind. You don’t have to act in line with the negative emotions, you can choose to act opposite from the negative emotions or ignore them entirely, and finally, the emotions always end. Always.
Men and women experience emotions differently. There is evidence that our brains function in fundamentally different ways. PET scans of human brains while the person being scanned is experiencing a range of emotions show that men’s and women’s brains process the signals in different ways.
Stated simply, there is region of the brain that deals with emotions primarily. In men this part of the brain is used less and has fewer connections to all of the other processing centers than a female brain. When other parts of the female brain light up with activity the emotional processing center lights up as well. It’s connected to everything and is therefore always processing.
For most women, every event, thing or idea has an emotional component. A woman loves or hates something because of how it makes her feel. This is why women have the hardest time discriminating objective reality from their emotions. It is also why it is so pitifully easy to game them once you know how.
One last analogy, think of the emotional processing part of the brain as a tool box. Men literally don’t open the tool box very often, they can go a whole day and merely glance at the tool box now and them. Women on the other hand live in the toolbox and see everything from the point of view of the tool box.
I used a tool box analogy for a reason, from a problem solving point of view there is only one tool in the tool box and it’s a hammer and every problem looks like a nail to the woman that holds it.
I really didn’t mean to embed a whole image into that comment. I merely pasted a URL to the book on Amazon. I guess the blog software did the rest.
dorsey,
I agree. A woman must love in this manner 99.5% of the time from a place of submission. She must always look for ways to support him in love first. There will be circumstances where she may not do it from a place of submission as in those moments the husband may not be in a place of leadership, but these times are few and far between.
For those who still struggle with the idea of submission, it is very different than being subordinate. One cannot love in this manner from subordination, but from submission it can be done and done very well.
Athor,
I like the tool box analogy. It works very well for the solipsism debate that was gong on last week, as well. Only for women, she can close the toolbox when she learns how. The more one works to close it, the easier it gets. Only, in this day and age we are encouraged to wallow in it. It makes very little sense.
If it is true that that love is needed .5% of the time (my estimation is 0%) then it is grossly over-represented. Even a thread like this one, which seeks the true nature of love between spouses can not go long without slouching toward the .5%.
What is the urge toward the .5% ‘love’? Why can we not escape it as a constant check on the 95.5%? I suggest it is that same lie from Eden. If Eve sees Adam receiving agape from God, she is tempted toward an attempt at her own agape toward Adam. This being ‘you can be like God’. However, it is not in her created frame to love this way, and it is quickly exposed as it degrades to nagging.
You’re misunderstanding what I am saying. A woman must attempt to love like this all the time, only she must do it from a place of submission. One can will the good of another from a place of submission. Only there will be times where the man is incapable of leading for various reasons. I tend to think of a close family members death or something of the like. When she, temporarily, takes over the role of leader, why do you assume she must do this in a manner that will degrade into nagging? Nagging is not willing the good of another and neither is tyranny.
A woman can lead without nagging in these necessary times. “Husband, you are tired and things are rough. Please go upstairs now and rest. I will bring you some lunch and I will deal with things here. If you need anything, please just let me know. I love you, go rest.”
I think we are tangled over the idea of will. Submission and willfulness are opposing terms. I am having trouble fitting a willful love into the Christian doctrine of submission. If she is willing for his good, then (perhaps) she is submitted to him in love. Obedience, not will, is the measure of submission. But what if she is willing for what she believes to be his good? That is nagging. The line is too fine for me.
I suppose how this love degrades into nagging is in rationalization. That is to say the real needs of the real man vs. the perceived needs of the perceived man. As much as my former Beta self dreamed it to be, I don’t think agape is possible from a wife toward her husband. I am coming to terms with this, and finding it from its true source, instead.
Ahh, I see. It takes a measure of will to submit for his good. It takes will to not nag. It takes will to bend to his leadership and realize this is where it is best to be for them both and then that will is then used to his good. A wife will will he man’s good by providing support and respect. It may not be constant, but both of those take will. Not always, but often times, it takes will to provide all those little things and big things for his good, making breakfast, cleaning the house to provide sanctuary, taking the children so he can relax, etc. It will also take will to not snap or be rude during those times of exhaustion and crankiness. There are thousands of other examples, but I hope you see the point I am trying to make.
Yes! Absolutely. The wife will rationalize that the nagging is for her husbands good, only it’s done to satisfy her own frustrations.
I disagree with this, obviously. Though I concede that it may be far more difficult for a woman, especially given the way women are raised today.
I caution the focus on agape and not phileo. Phileo is well within the reach of all women toward their husbands. That is the tender, affectionate, passionate kind of love that emphasizes enjoyment and respect between close friends.
It is my opinion that attempted wifely agape could be the spiritual hallmark of Christian feminism. This the result of 60 years of confusing gender roles.
Is it possible that love originates as unconditional and events can erode it to conditional at which point we have to will it back to unconditional?
(If not, it at least sounds like a good compromise 🙂 )
If we’re sharing books, I found this one very helpful years ago.
dorsey,
I have not heard of phileo and would need to do some reading to compare it to agape. I am not even sure that Father Barron is talking about agape as I do not have a full understanding of the word. Given that, I cannot comment. I have learned over the past couple of years to do my best to not confuse vocabulary, though I still make the mistake often.
Phileo is the word that Paul uses when he commands wives to love their husbands. Agape is the term he uses for husbands to love their wives. Agape is sacrificial and unconditional. Phileo is friendly and respectful. Hope that helps.
http://godswordtowomen.blogspot.com/2012/03/gods-word-to-men-love-agape-your-wives.html
http://providencelodge.blogspot.com/2011/01/to-love-your-husband.html
FrankenKate,
As described here I believe that this kind of love must be learned. That we are starting out from a place of conditional and then strive for the unconditional.
Though at the beginning of a relationship or marriage, while one is still putting one’s best foot forward, it would be closer to the unconditional love and then a sliding back toward the selfish tends to occur in many if not all marriages. Then willing it back takes more effort and will, so yes. It’s difficult to get past that complacency that occurs in a marriage and that does take an effort of will to get past.
dorsey,
Thank you. I will be reading those links.
On nagging:
I don’t think this should become a conflict point between submitting and doing everything for his good. Because nagging doesn’t work. You aren’t gonna make him lose weight by teasing or nagging, you’ll just annoy him. People are resistant to doing things they are nagged into doing. You can encourage and support, and remind him of things in subtle ways that don’t look like nagging. If it’s a huge issue, maybe telling him about it rationally might help (not 3 times a day…).
this is why i read your blog. you’re one of the good ones.
Thanks, Danny.
GeishaKate, you continue to provide an example of female personalization, and I’m glad for it. I use the second person when I speak directly to people, and I speak directly to people when they are in error. When I criticize message, I don’t necessarily criticize the messenger, except when she insists on shifting the emphasis to herself.
Women, as you might imagine, are far more prone to this tendency. As state’s evidence A, B, and C, I will direct your attention to the reaction of M3, deti, and Leap of a Beta after I took issue with their professed positions. None of them confused my bluntness for personal opprobrium.
Though, I do also appreciate your feminine ability to relinquish a grudge when you’re told. “Water under the bridge of sighs” => you are the unrecognized poet laureata of the phallosphere. Brava.
Matt
I will direct your attention to the reaction of M3, deti, and Leap of a Beta after I took issue with their professed positions.
I would pay good money for the ability to do this automatically. But then, that would make me a man. Bummer.
Pingback: Feminine Wiles « On the Rock
Pingback: Being a Wife « On the Rock
” Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.”
And neither can men love women the way they idealize it.
Want to know why? Because only WE OURSELVES are capable of seeing us in that way. In other words, everyone is looking for their own self in the other.
Only your mother will ever love you like that.
This is uncanny, I literally just finished a conversation with a dear friend who said the same. I am not sure it can be fully done for a spouse, but it can be aspired to. If it reaches even only 90%, it is more than most spouses can say they are receiving or giving these days.
The agape the ultimate love.
Pingback: The %*$?# Wall « On the Rock
Pingback: One Year Ago | On the Rock
Pingback: To Love | Girls Being Girls
Pingback: It Comes Down to Trust | On the Rock
Pingback: It Comes Down to Trust | Girls Being Girls
Pingback: Decide to be Happy | On the Rock