What’s the deal with this thing called romance?

I've been absent from blogging for nearly a year. I almost forgot I had a blog with all that has gone on in the past year. I'm not promising it may be another year before I post again, but I though it would be fun to resurrect some of the postings I wrote and never put up. So... here you go.

I liked my Sociology 101 class in college. When the weather got warm in the Spring, the girls started wearing their summer clothes and the campus suddenly became a less tiresome place to spend my time. There was a cute girl in class that kept me distracted, but despite my gazing, I always seemed to absorb most of what was taught in the lectures. One of my favorite chapters that semester was about the history of relationships between men and women. We learned about the progression of society from the hunter and gatherer culture to the modern day urbanites. The roles that men and women play in the family unit have changed over time. We were taught that men traditionally were the hunters of food and protectors of women and children who were more vulnerable to dangers posed by things like enemy tribes and other brutish men. In exchange, the women provided a service of assisting in food preparation and raising children. As society advanced, we know of course that people started farming and building cities, then trading with money, etc., etc. In the 1950’s, we reached the apex of what is termed the traditional marriage relationship described as the “breadwinner/ homemaker model”. Basically, the man worked outside the home and the woman stayed home to care for the children and maintain the domestic necessities. This seemed to work quite well, but it was very different from the beginnings of tribal life. People were now living in secure houses, in organized cities. Everyday life was safer. Women no longer had the same pressing need for protection from their men. Men also had less of a need for women to do things such as educate their children because they now had public schools to take some of the burden. In the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, women flooded into the workforce and attained higher levels of education. This made them more valuable to the economy, but in turn, it changed the role of the man as sole provider to the family. So…where am I going with all of this? Well, simply put… over time men and women have come to need each other less for basic survival. Most scholars agree that for the majority of human existence, relationships consisted of a very different type of agreement than we are familiar with today. The sexes joined in partnerships that fulfilled important necessities in a complimentary manner. Concepts such as arranged marriages worked to serve this purpose quite well. Being really physically attracted to your spouse was a bonus, but not the main goal. Once men and women had the ability to provide for their own necessities, marriage was no longer such a business-type deal. People then had to come up with some other reason to look for each other and stay together. “WHOA!” you say? Now, I’m not saying that love is a new concept. Yet, sociologists argue that what we understand as “romantic love”, or the degree to which romantic love is important in a relationship, is a new concept. Most agree that this focus on romance as the main impetus behind committed relationships has only been around for about 200 years. Of course you can always find journals and writings to prove that romance indeed existed through all ages of time, but it was never as important as it is today.

So back to springtime on my campus. I’m sitting there in class wondering why I wasn’t born in the day of the cavemen. I wouldn’t have to go through all of this strategizing, primping, chivalry, and small-talk about things I don’t care about just to prove that I’m cool enough to date. I could just sneak up behind the brunette girl with the long legs, hit her on the head with a stick, and carry her off in a sack. She would soon forgive me because she would be happy that she was chosen over her friends. She would be relieved that she had a man to protect her and I would be happy I had someone to cook my meals and bear me children. Oh, if only… But instead, I never gather the courage to ask her out and I invent reasons in my head why she wasn’t worth asking out in the first place. Isn’t there some sort of compromise between these two worlds; a middle ground between the good old days of the utility spouse and the present day romance novel lover?

It’s widely believed that divorce trends are closely associated to the relationship dynamics explained in our history lesson. Relationships that are hyper-romanced tend not to be based in reality. They tend to be more self-serving instead of serving. The goal used to be, “I can feel fulfilled by succeeding in my role within the symbiotic relationship with my partner; which is necessary for the success of my family and society.” Now the goal turns more to, “I can feel fulfilled when my physical, emotional, material, and intellectual desires are satisfied by what my partner has to offer.” I know it sounds extreme. I would hope every decent person would make an effort to satisfy those same desires in their partner, but for too many it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Why do we hear stories about the spouse who “fell out of love” and found a new lover because their partner had become physically unattractive to them, emotionally distant, or boring? Isn’t the thought scary that we can just be traded in for something better if we don’t fulfill all of our partner’s expectations? Maybe in the olden days there was never such a high expectation placed on the relationship in the first place; i.e. believing that its primary purpose was to fulfill all of our romantic desires. We talk about the spark disappearing in the relationship like that little “spark” was the only thing keeping us warm the whole time and that without it we would freeze in the cold night air. If you’re in a marriage that is free of abuse and infidelity and each partner if fulfilling their primary duties, I would argue that you have a very good thing going for you. There’s a whole bonfire of wood fueling your relationship! Maybe back in the day, more effort was made to keep a marriage intact because of what it meant to the success of the family and society. I apologize that now I feel Mother Teresa channeling through me, but maybe we have forgotten that what is given away is never lost. I’m asking for a paradigm shift. Let’s look at relationships and marriage like the service project that keeps giving back. Start asking yourself how you can BE the partner that will play their instrument the best they can in the grand orchestra that has potential of creating exquisite music. We can learn a good deal about being romantic and being so is usually a good thing, but let’s not let the good things of life rob us of the best things. Don’t hate on me. It’s just history.