What Does 'The Right' Relationship Look Like?

There's something sensible about the phases of courtship that exist in various cultures. Whether the marriage is arranged or progresses according to some understood societal norm, it is a good thing when both parties know where they stand and there are clear rules of progression and engagement in the relationship. This doesn't mean that the rules are always fair, but at least they are clear. Western society has done away with many rules turning relationships on their head and they often look something like this:

Sex-dating-friendship-love-marriage-kids-who the hell are you?!-divorce-alimony

Sometimes the order changes and some things are excluded. In general some things occur simultaneously. In other societies courtship looks like this:

Betrothal-marriage-sex-kids-dating-friendship-love (maybe)-divorce-bankruptcy (for the woman, a new wife for the man then bankruptcy)

Neither is a particularly attractive option and surely no one really plans things with bankruptcy in mind. But since we live in a 'Westernised' world we will proceed with the according understanding. A relationship that has no true beginning save for sex is built on insecurity. Are you 'dating', just sexual partners, a fling - what are you? This confusion is often what makes the 'dating' world the jungle that it is and is a good foundation for a shaky relationship.

The Biblical proposition that we order our relationships something like the following makes sense somehow:

Friendship-dating-love-marriage/commitment-sex-kids-death

Yes, idyllic, but it's something to shoot for isn't it? That's why we have ideals. Complications later in a relationship often arise because of mis-ordering earlier in a relationship - not that mis-ordering cannot be remedied or overcome. But one of the advantages of abstinence, for example, is the absence of the temptation to compare past sexual experiences with your present partner. That can be a real downer.

Now one can say experience is a wise teacher. But experience can also be a stubborn master, carving out habits and tendencies in an individual that make it that much more difficult to form subsequent relationships successfully. Mind you, very few ever 'get it right' the first time out. But deciding what form your 'first times' will take might have a real impact on the really big 'first times' that have even deeper impacts on life and love*.

Of course, everything is easier said than done, and there are a few variables that we often have no control over that potentially change our lives and selves in ways we perhaps wish they didn't. That said, we do the best we can with what we have, and one person's 'best' may differ greatly from another's.

Keep in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you get something from this...then clearly I'm a genius.

What Love Isn't

Falling in love is fun, scary, exhilarating and an event that rarely strikes twice.  It is often mistaken for physiological reactions and chemical processes. Most often it is mistaken for...

1. Sex. Love isn't sex, though love should result in sexual contact. Sex doesn't 'make love' though we call it 'making love' (it can make babies though!). Sex is definitely an intimacy that is often thought to be without its own impact and many try to have it without attachment - then somebody gets hurt. Love is not self-centred pleasure.

2. Romance. 'Tonight will last forever', you hear that line in a lot of songs and it sounds nice. But the night will  always last about 12 hours give or take a few, depending on season and latitude (things get dicey in the places where night is 6 months - that kinda romance could be a health hazard). People get easily carried away with sweet talk, roses, chocolate and a pretty face - anyone can buy those (they're called players). But they are a fairly convincing artifice if one is willing to be fooled.

3. Indulgence. No it's not 'anything he/she wants'...well it is as long as 'what he she/needs is already fulfilled, and even then. Two do become one, but they are still two and losing oneself in a relationship is not a good idea. Why? Cause then where's the person your partner fell in love with?

4. All the right things. Some folks surmise that since they 'tick the boxes': ambitious, attractive, petite, tall, knows 5 languages...whatever, then they should officially be in love with X. We all know that it just doesn't work that way. Now that doesn't mean, 'his little homicidal manic  problem' should be overlooked, but you get the idea. Some people are wrong for us cause we are wrong for them. They become what we hate because we're their partner. Ha! Put them with someone else and voila! Decent human being.  Still, sometimes what rubs us the wrong way can help us to help us react in the right way.

5. Needing each other. Falling in love? Involuntary. Loving, a totally elective surgery. Need implies dependency and dependency implies absence of choice and freedom. More like blackmail than love. Though the idea of needing does come in to play when one realizes that life wouldn't be as lifey without that certain person, the need comes into play after the free choice of mutual commitment.

'To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others'. That saying is why there are some things that just don't qualify as love. Because they can be shared with any stranger or weirdo. Love is the kinda thing that wants only one object and to be the only object. Now that only qualifies for the 'love relationship' love, but the universal phileo, brotherhood love - well that's another kind of kind.

How Do You Know When It's Love?

We all have asked this question. We ask because we want guarantees. We ask because we don't want heartbreak. But if it is love...

1. You won't be scared...eventually.Yes when it's serious it can be scary. The deeper you are the harder you land. The potential for pain and disappointment increase proportionately with how bad you got it. But, when you're in love you get over that because love is willing to take the risk. And once it's willing, it's no longer afraid.

2.There is no future...there is a future. When it's real you simply can't imagine life without that person. Now, wanting what's best for them means being willing to let go - but that doesn't mean you're gonna be happy about it. Don't get this mixed up with wanting to keep them tied up your basement - that's something else entirely. Still, if you're happy being bored with them - that's a good sign.

3.They are home. No they won't always be home, but you always.feel at home with them. No need to impress, no anxiety and silence is ok. It's the kind of comfort that doesn't need roses to feel romantic. You like who you are with them.

4.You don't need a reason. There's no need to check the list of 'things you want' off because intuitively they are there. While romance is all nice, real life without the fancy decor is good enough to enjoy them. At the same time you don't need a special occasion to splash on some bells & whistles.

5.The more you know them, the more you like. That's a good sign that you like what's beneath the skin, not just the skin.

I knew this guy who once said, 'you can fall in love with anybody' I now know that was a steaming pile of verbal manure. You can't fall in love with anybody. You hardly have a choice who you fall for, though you do have a choice about what happens after. But that's not what these thoughts are about, that's part II.

The Thing About Racism...Part 2: The UK Brand

Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called How Racist Are You? where a 40 year old exercise devised by former US school teacher Jane Elliot, subjects a group of volunteers to discrimination on the basis of eye colour. She first conducted the experiment in the 1960's with a her all white class of 9 year olds. She told her pupils that for a day, blue-eyed children were inferior to brown-eyed children. The impact was disturbing and led to verbal and physical abuse of the blue-eyed group and even lower academic performance in the 'inferior' group, amongst other things. She does the same with adults from diverse racial backgrounds, but obviously only whites are blue eyed. However, the brown eyed groups do include white and non-whites.

Elliot has conducted the exercise all over the world and Channel 4 documented her UK incursion. Taking my own experiences as well as what came out of the programme, I have noted some peculiarities of the British attitude to racial prejudice. Below I have noted these arguments and my rebuttals.

Racism is merely a subset of prejudice - Some subjects argued that racial prejudice against non-whites is like any other prejudice (i.e. weight, age, class) . Blacks are not unique and should not attempt to make their situation more severe than it really is. 

The problem with this argument is it completely ignores historical facts altogether. When one considers the 4 century slave trade, Apartheid and the Holocaust, it becomes difficult for weight discrimination to compare. At no time in history were the obese rounded up, systematically dehumanized (in their own eyes and in the eyes of their captors), routinely raped, killed and tortured, separated from family or forced to work without pay. The elderly have yet to be demonized through any country's education system then herded into concentration camps, poisoned then burned. The duration, savagery and the systemic state sponsored effort behind slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust are unprecedented to say the least, and one would have to take great pains to remain ignorant of history in order to maintain the view that racial prejudice is not unique. It naturally follows that centuries of indoctrination and conditioning on either side of racism, as well as the kind of social and economic divide that resulted still affects us today. To say the least the white dominance that resulted from Colonisation and slavery has given them a slight headstart. The fact that media, amongst other things, has been dominated primarily by white imagery undoubtedly has had a real impact on self-perception and accomplishment amongst non-whites. Further, the intentional withholding of resources and opportunities from non-whites was a reality in the West up until recently (though it was only weeks ago a white judge refused to marry an interracial couple).

I am not prejudiced so there is no problem with racism in the UK - Subjects determined that their 'colourblindness' meant that racism is not a problem. They were outraged at the thought that they should experience discrimination when they do not discriminate. 

Using oneself as the touchstone for race relations is not only naive and simplistic but arrogant as well. It presumes that the overarching status quo and systemic influence of policies and culture have no effect or significance. It also presumes that the individual's position can magically change history and social realities. Ironically, the blue-eyed participants refused to be subject to the discrimination meted out by the exercise but couldn't seem to make the connection to what other persons might feel or experience. There seemed to be a willful ignorance that refused to see the issue from another perspective purely on the basis that they themselves simply didn't believe they deserved to be treated with such disrespect. This view is exceptionally self-centred.

Racism doesn't exist - Some subjects flatly denied that there was any racial discrimination in the UK at all. It simply didn't exist and names like 'gollywog' are just names and carry no inherent offence. They asserted that there was nothing to be offended about - nothing to discuss.

This point betrayed the greatest deficit regarding UK race relations: knowledge. Ironically, it was universally agreed that ignorance was the primary cause of racism, but it was never determined what had to be known in order to alleviate this ignorance. Sadly, colonisation and slavery are not taught in British schools and this leaves much of the white population ill equipped to deal with this sensitive issue. Generations of under education on Britain's role in the world regarding the establishment of Apartheid, the slave trade and the developing world as we know it, has left some feeling exceptionally defensive about the nation's brutal history.

That said the preceding ideas have defined the kind of racism common in Britain. It does not seek to reconcile, because it does not seek to understand. Because it does not seek to understand it does not go away. However, this does not mean that there aren't a great many white Briton's who are colourblind and completely at ease with racial diversity. This does not mean that racial discrimination isn't multi-directional. But it certainly does emphasise that no matter the direction, racial discrimination is truly hurtful nonsense.