Just because a woman loves a man unconditionally does not automatically make her the right woman for that man, even as a man who loves a woman unconditionally is not necessarily the right man for that woman. To assume that any man can marry any woman based on unconditional love alone is to assume that all men are interchangeable with all other men, and that all women are interchangeable with all other women. Such assumptions are entirely erroneous. Even with arranged marriages, parents have to select which young adult should marry their own young adult. If all men and women were truly interchangeable, then even that selection process would have been completely unnecessary: just slap any two kids together and call it a deal! No, unconditional love is not the only factor that should motivate one's selection of a spouse, even though it is the noblest factor for any such selection process. All men and women have the ability to love unconditionally, but there is much more to a person's character than whether or not he or she regularly exercises (or claims to regularly exercise) the ability to love unconditionally. And indeed, some of those character traits will actually determine the true probability of such a person really exercising that ability.
To begin with, there are several elements in a person's character that absolutely run contrary to unconditional love (or to any love, for that matter). First, if a person's "love" for you is based on neediness or desperation (or both), then that is not love at all. That is neediness or desperation (or both), plain and simple. Second, if you have to debate whether or not the person who "loves" you really belongs in your life, then that person does NOT belong in your life. Love and uncertainty do not mix. Both parties have to be certain that their marriage is worth working for, otherwise they are only fooling themselves. Third, if the person who "loves" you is trying to rush you through the relationship and up to the wedding altar for any reason, whether it be money, sexual compatibility, family coercion, outright desperation, or anything else, then that person is hardly serious about love. Love is always patient. Fourth, if the person's "love" for you is entirely based on how much money you gave to that person, or how much clothing or jewelry you gave to that person, or how many fancy cars you gave to that person, or how many orgasms you gave to that person, or how sexy you look, or how well you dress, or how popular you are, then that person is both a materialistic parasite and a complete fool. Love has absolutely nothing to do with materialism, and such miscreants simply do not belong in your life. Fifth, if the person who "loves" you expects you to continue pampering him or her and caring about his or her feelings, while he or she continues to criticize you for everything and reduce your feelings to so many pounds of chopped liver, then that person is selfish. Such a selfish person is so introverted, he or she is utterly incapable of any kind of love, least of all unconditional love. Sixth, if the person who "loves" you is smothering, manipulative, domineering, or abusive in any way towards you, then that person actually hates you. Unconditional love requires mutual respect between two equals. Any love without respect is no better than hate. Seventh, if the person "loves" you more than you "love" him or her, or you "love" him or her more than he or she "loves" you, then that is not love at all. The individual who "loves" too much is too desperate and needy to see love for what it really is, while the individual who "loves" too little (but keeps the relationship going) is actually an emotional parasite who thrives on "the desperation and neediness of inferiors." The person who "loves" too much is better off giving up on the relationship altogether, ceasing to love the other person once and for all. And the person who "loves" too little needs to stop leading the other person on, be mature, and let the other person go. Any imbalanced relationship or marriage is utterly unhealthy. Eighth, if the person who "loves" you constantly expects you to fulfill a set of requirements that only God can fulfill, then both the relationship and the marriage are doomed to absolute failure. No human being on this Earth is perfect. Anyone who is in dire need of deep Healing and absolute Nurture can only receive such Healing and Nurture from God, and not from any human being. No flesh-and-blood person should ever be used to try and fill one's Spiritual Core, the Seat of God. Ninth, if the person who "loves" you repeatedly and blatantly assumes that he or she knows everything there is to know about you and your needs, without ever actually communicating with you, then that person is both fearful and vain. He or she is afraid of dealing with the truth, namely, that there is much more to you than his or her shallow assumptions would permit. And at the same time, he or she is both vain and condescending, thinking that he or she doesn't have to really give you the time of day in order to know you better. Such ridiculous qualities are as far away from unconditional love as the east is from the west. And tenth, if the person who "loves" you is on a purpose-driven life-path that merely crossed yours, then that person was never meant to remain in your life. Life-paths driven by purpose are straight, and as such, paths that once converged towards the crossing will inevitably diverge after the crossing. In order for a marriage to be successful, the life-paths of both the man and the woman must have the same Ultimate Destination within God, in which case the life-paths of both husband and wife will always be converging. Nevertheless, each and every Ultimate Destination is as unique as the person headed towards that Destination. That is why no two men are interchangeable, and no two women are interchangeable, when it comes to marriage.
Aside from the social, emotional, mental, and spiritual criteria necessary for selecting a spouse, one should not in any way ignore the physical criteria that are also necessary for the same selection process. Although the inner spirit always carries more weight than the physical body when it comes to unconditional love, the fact is that men are men and women are women because of their physical bodies, and not because of their inner spirits. Eliminate the physical body, and the marriage is null and void, hence the term "'Til death do us part" in the average wedding vow. In any marriage, there are elements that absolutely require the physical body in order to be fulfilled. The inner spirit alone is simply inadequate. For example, physical affection, sensuality, and copulation cannot take place without the physical bodies of both the man and the woman. Only the physical body can give and receive sexual fulfillment while copulating. Only a man's physical body can get a woman's physical body pregnant. And only a woman's physical body can give birth to children and breast-feed them. All of the above-mentioned elements are primary and central to all marriages, and all of those elements require physical bodies. As such, anyone searching for a spouse must now factor in the following physical criterion. First, do you plan on having children when you get married? If the answer is "yes," then you do not want to marry a person who is infertile or sterile. If the answer is "no," then you do not want to marry a person who has not had any children yet, and might possibly want children in the future. Second, what kind of sexual expectations do you have with regards to the other person? And do your expectations mesh with those of the person you desire? If there are any sexual incompatibilities, how hard are the two of you willing to work at resolving them? And what amount of sexual incompatibility would you consider unreasonable? One of the greatest enemies of any marriage is adultery. (The other greatest enemies are abject poverty and communication breakdown.) Nevertheless, the need for sexual fulfillment is a valid need that must be dealt with, no matter how unyielding the situation. Better still is the avoidance of any marital commitment fraught with sexual dysfunction. In other words, if the person's ability to sexually fulfill you is utterly doubtful, then do not marry that person. Third, what is your outlook on domestic roles? And what is your partner's outlook on domestic roles? With regards to these outlooks, who makes the money and who decides how it's spent? Do you expect the man to be the head of the house and the sole breadwinner, while the woman is the faithful housewife who bears the children and guides the home? Or do you expect the woman to be career-oriented while the man stays at home and takes up the role of "Mr. Mom?" Or do you expect both the man and the woman to have careers? Or do you expect them both to work from home while maintaining the family? It is absolutely essential that both you and your partner share the same outlook on domestic roles. There can be no gray areas on either side. Not only does this outlook determine how the married couple manages its financial affairs, but it also determines who does what in the home. If you harbor any kind of disagreement with your partner when it comes to this outlook, then you should not marry the person at all. Such disagreement is a potent recipe for marital failure.
Ultimately, when it comes to choosing a spouse, unconditional love was never meant to supersede compatibility. If anything, unconditional love is a manifestation of compatibility, and is enhanced by compatibility. Now at this point one may argue that what was mentioned above is no longer unconditional love, but rather, conditional love, because it is now based on compatibility. Nevertheless, anyone who loves indiscriminately is no better than a fool who casts pearls before swine, which then proceed to trample said pearls underfoot and then turn to lacerate and eviscerate the fool. This is not to say that unconditional love is wrong. It is perfectly right to love your partner without reserve, so long as that partner is the right partner. Otherwise, you are only wasting both your time and your heart.
Copyright (c) 2007, All Rights Reserved
To begin with, there are several elements in a person's character that absolutely run contrary to unconditional love (or to any love, for that matter). First, if a person's "love" for you is based on neediness or desperation (or both), then that is not love at all. That is neediness or desperation (or both), plain and simple. Second, if you have to debate whether or not the person who "loves" you really belongs in your life, then that person does NOT belong in your life. Love and uncertainty do not mix. Both parties have to be certain that their marriage is worth working for, otherwise they are only fooling themselves. Third, if the person who "loves" you is trying to rush you through the relationship and up to the wedding altar for any reason, whether it be money, sexual compatibility, family coercion, outright desperation, or anything else, then that person is hardly serious about love. Love is always patient. Fourth, if the person's "love" for you is entirely based on how much money you gave to that person, or how much clothing or jewelry you gave to that person, or how many fancy cars you gave to that person, or how many orgasms you gave to that person, or how sexy you look, or how well you dress, or how popular you are, then that person is both a materialistic parasite and a complete fool. Love has absolutely nothing to do with materialism, and such miscreants simply do not belong in your life. Fifth, if the person who "loves" you expects you to continue pampering him or her and caring about his or her feelings, while he or she continues to criticize you for everything and reduce your feelings to so many pounds of chopped liver, then that person is selfish. Such a selfish person is so introverted, he or she is utterly incapable of any kind of love, least of all unconditional love. Sixth, if the person who "loves" you is smothering, manipulative, domineering, or abusive in any way towards you, then that person actually hates you. Unconditional love requires mutual respect between two equals. Any love without respect is no better than hate. Seventh, if the person "loves" you more than you "love" him or her, or you "love" him or her more than he or she "loves" you, then that is not love at all. The individual who "loves" too much is too desperate and needy to see love for what it really is, while the individual who "loves" too little (but keeps the relationship going) is actually an emotional parasite who thrives on "the desperation and neediness of inferiors." The person who "loves" too much is better off giving up on the relationship altogether, ceasing to love the other person once and for all. And the person who "loves" too little needs to stop leading the other person on, be mature, and let the other person go. Any imbalanced relationship or marriage is utterly unhealthy. Eighth, if the person who "loves" you constantly expects you to fulfill a set of requirements that only God can fulfill, then both the relationship and the marriage are doomed to absolute failure. No human being on this Earth is perfect. Anyone who is in dire need of deep Healing and absolute Nurture can only receive such Healing and Nurture from God, and not from any human being. No flesh-and-blood person should ever be used to try and fill one's Spiritual Core, the Seat of God. Ninth, if the person who "loves" you repeatedly and blatantly assumes that he or she knows everything there is to know about you and your needs, without ever actually communicating with you, then that person is both fearful and vain. He or she is afraid of dealing with the truth, namely, that there is much more to you than his or her shallow assumptions would permit. And at the same time, he or she is both vain and condescending, thinking that he or she doesn't have to really give you the time of day in order to know you better. Such ridiculous qualities are as far away from unconditional love as the east is from the west. And tenth, if the person who "loves" you is on a purpose-driven life-path that merely crossed yours, then that person was never meant to remain in your life. Life-paths driven by purpose are straight, and as such, paths that once converged towards the crossing will inevitably diverge after the crossing. In order for a marriage to be successful, the life-paths of both the man and the woman must have the same Ultimate Destination within God, in which case the life-paths of both husband and wife will always be converging. Nevertheless, each and every Ultimate Destination is as unique as the person headed towards that Destination. That is why no two men are interchangeable, and no two women are interchangeable, when it comes to marriage.
Aside from the social, emotional, mental, and spiritual criteria necessary for selecting a spouse, one should not in any way ignore the physical criteria that are also necessary for the same selection process. Although the inner spirit always carries more weight than the physical body when it comes to unconditional love, the fact is that men are men and women are women because of their physical bodies, and not because of their inner spirits. Eliminate the physical body, and the marriage is null and void, hence the term "'Til death do us part" in the average wedding vow. In any marriage, there are elements that absolutely require the physical body in order to be fulfilled. The inner spirit alone is simply inadequate. For example, physical affection, sensuality, and copulation cannot take place without the physical bodies of both the man and the woman. Only the physical body can give and receive sexual fulfillment while copulating. Only a man's physical body can get a woman's physical body pregnant. And only a woman's physical body can give birth to children and breast-feed them. All of the above-mentioned elements are primary and central to all marriages, and all of those elements require physical bodies. As such, anyone searching for a spouse must now factor in the following physical criterion. First, do you plan on having children when you get married? If the answer is "yes," then you do not want to marry a person who is infertile or sterile. If the answer is "no," then you do not want to marry a person who has not had any children yet, and might possibly want children in the future. Second, what kind of sexual expectations do you have with regards to the other person? And do your expectations mesh with those of the person you desire? If there are any sexual incompatibilities, how hard are the two of you willing to work at resolving them? And what amount of sexual incompatibility would you consider unreasonable? One of the greatest enemies of any marriage is adultery. (The other greatest enemies are abject poverty and communication breakdown.) Nevertheless, the need for sexual fulfillment is a valid need that must be dealt with, no matter how unyielding the situation. Better still is the avoidance of any marital commitment fraught with sexual dysfunction. In other words, if the person's ability to sexually fulfill you is utterly doubtful, then do not marry that person. Third, what is your outlook on domestic roles? And what is your partner's outlook on domestic roles? With regards to these outlooks, who makes the money and who decides how it's spent? Do you expect the man to be the head of the house and the sole breadwinner, while the woman is the faithful housewife who bears the children and guides the home? Or do you expect the woman to be career-oriented while the man stays at home and takes up the role of "Mr. Mom?" Or do you expect both the man and the woman to have careers? Or do you expect them both to work from home while maintaining the family? It is absolutely essential that both you and your partner share the same outlook on domestic roles. There can be no gray areas on either side. Not only does this outlook determine how the married couple manages its financial affairs, but it also determines who does what in the home. If you harbor any kind of disagreement with your partner when it comes to this outlook, then you should not marry the person at all. Such disagreement is a potent recipe for marital failure.
Ultimately, when it comes to choosing a spouse, unconditional love was never meant to supersede compatibility. If anything, unconditional love is a manifestation of compatibility, and is enhanced by compatibility. Now at this point one may argue that what was mentioned above is no longer unconditional love, but rather, conditional love, because it is now based on compatibility. Nevertheless, anyone who loves indiscriminately is no better than a fool who casts pearls before swine, which then proceed to trample said pearls underfoot and then turn to lacerate and eviscerate the fool. This is not to say that unconditional love is wrong. It is perfectly right to love your partner without reserve, so long as that partner is the right partner. Otherwise, you are only wasting both your time and your heart.
Copyright (c) 2007, All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment