Couplethink Rant

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

This might be the most foolish thing I do this week because I probably
misunderstood her whole intent of her post, but I cannot help but take
on "The Elkins" (as my HP friends like to call her) here.

I am not sure if this springs from my need to desperately believe my
romantic heart or my realistic mind.  I just cannot accept a world
covered in unhappy, wasted, manipulated married people who want
nothing more than to be free, and that is the way I felt after I read
your post Elkins.


> In the end, it turns people who were once charming, intelligent,
> interesting individuals into scary, inexplicable, boring,
> brainwashed, Hollow Man *POD PEOPLE* with eyes as dead and
> as empty as those of the Dementor Kiss'd.  And who then want
> nothing more than for *you* to become a pod person too.  Just
> like them.  Because oh, don't you see?  You'll be ever so much
> *happier* that way!

For reasons unbeknownst to me beyond I like the book, I think of
"Pride and Prejudice" and Elizabeth and Darcy.  I really liked that
couple.  A lot.  I like how they played together.  I liked how their
plot shifted.  I like how they are not perfect.  But in Jane Austin
novels, the fun of the story ends with marriage.  The whole build up
arches until that event, and frankly, if we look at the married people
in her works, seems she has the same notions you do.  It is a bother
and damn shame how people shift from these blushing, fascinating
youths to sarcastic, vexing married people.

I know, many on this site are better at examining Jane Austin than I,
but that was the first work that popped in my head.  But also because,
at the end of her novels, there seems to be a hope, or at least *I*
had a hope, that these two will be different.  They will survive
because their romance was not typical or expected.  Maybe that *is* my
romantic notions poking out, but I just can't believe everyone is
doomed Elkins.  I just can't.

And yet, I see my friends in RL.  The ones "happily" married with 2.5
children.  They seem so...so...sedated.  Like they are doing what they
are supposed to be doing and following the guideposts of it all.
Well, good for them.  Someone has too I guess.

Hmmm, it is a bit sickening.  The way they are trying to be what they
are told they should be.  Trying to live "ideally."  Yeah, as if
*that* will happen.

Wait - you will not persuade me.  Not *every* couple is doomed.

And yet the fun *is* in the chase, but once you get them, what do you
do with them?  Seems books lack in that area.  All that is told is get
a house, have babies, get cable, and new shoes every September, and
life is *grand*.

Oh great, now you've brought out my sarcasm.

And yet - Elkins - I know you are talking about the paradigm.  What is
shown to all as the "right" way to have a relationship/marriage.  Why
is it that so many reduce themselves to be so easily slotted into that
paradigm in the first place?  Seems many go kicking and screaming
socially into it but accept it and learn to abide by it.  Is it a stem
from apathy?

Yes - that maybe it.  What you hate Elkins is apathy.  When one
accepts a role and stops kicking, they become sedate and apathetic to
even what others perceive them to be.  All they really care is what is
in that little circle of their life.  That is where all the acceptance
they need is.  Odd notion there I guess.  But it is, after all, very
secure, and security is a big deal to most people.

Why is that?  Why would be trade our freedom for a bit of security?
True love aside, why would we enter a marriage?  Because we want that
person around us as much as we can.  My brother is getting married
real soon, and him and his fiancee are terrible annoying in a way but
kind of cute.  They are young.  Ideal.  Trying to do everything right.
 I want to scream most of the time at their mundaneness, but it fits
them.  The main reason he wants to marry her though is out of a deep
desire to preserve the way he feels and she feels in themselves.

He wants to protect it and nurture it.  I sure they have other
reasons, but that *is* the main reason in my mind.  They truly enjoy
being around each other whether they are bickering or being all cutesy.

Now, Elkins, does that mean my brother and his girl shouldn't marry
because they are trying to achieve ideals?  I think their wedding
might be a bit boring, but I am not them.  They are fine with all
that.  She picked out the typical pastel bridesmaid dresses, he chose
the ever so important vest color.  Oh dear, I am getting cynical
again.  I will enjoy their wedding.  I promise.  I dearly love my brother.

It is just...just...I guess you are right in a since Elkins.  The idea
of being that boring scares me.  I hate the idea of having to go to a
"advice" book on how to run my life let alone a wedding.  I mean, who
cares what they think.

Maybe that is my outcry here.  Not that you have correctly deduced 99%
of the population's relationships, but because you discredit the
chance that even 1% would be in fact a good, balanced,
well-proportioned couple.  I will admit they are rare, but I do think
they carry the torch of romance beyond the alter.  And why do they
carry it?  Because they never read the "rules" nor were introduced to
them.  They are as they are.  Sometimes even weirder, and sometimes
even more sedate, but they are at least not out to fit into an
impossible, terribly annoying, cruel mold.

I must - I MUST believe that can happen.  All are not subject to the
same apathies.  Same need for security and sameness.  People can be
individual and still manage to hold someone so dear.  All without
fear.  It is hard and requires much faith, but...but...it can be done.
 Takes much willpower and strength of character though.  Few people
culture that in their life.  Nor do they culture their own ideas.
Most are happy to be within realms of normalcy.

It was once told to me that 'a truly free man can turn down a dinner
invitation without an excuse'.

I always remembered that because I find it quite true.  Not that the
man lived a life beyond accountability, but because he lived in enough
grace to be asked and enough respect not be asked the next question of
'why?'.  In there lies the key to me.  The age-old trust and respect
of each other.

I think that *is* lacking sorely in most romantic paradigms.  Oh, they
*say* they trust them, but deep down they are afraid.  Afraid one day
all will change and their precious world will be crumbled.  Fear is a
nasty manipulator of relationships.


Now did I accomplish what I set out here today?  Frankly I don't think
I did.  I think I went off in venues that Elkins might not of intended
originally.  Sorry.  I may not hold as much venom on the paradigm, but
I do see why it can be a little frustrating.  One wants adventure, but
often must learn, and unfortunately this happens *after* the vows, the
road to adventure is beyond the realm of reasonable safety, so one
must decide which is more important.

Most people in the world can deal with disappointment but not with
solitude.  They need that person to say that they are in fact needed.
 Their existence is important.  And for that, people will stop being
interesting and start being dependable.

Neediness can be a nastier than fear for it is born out of it.


Melody
who also hates the word "soulmate."  *Way* over used.