The General Rules #1 - Breaking Up

A strange thing. To begin with the end. But with this topic, as with many others, the process is cyclical. The beginning and the end are closer than we may think. Also, in light of recent events in my life, this is also a fitting place to start. And until we are taken out of this cycle (by getting married), one dare not speak of love without heartbreak.

Get ready. I’m about to flip your world on its head. Ready? Many think that the opposite of love is hate.

It isn’t.

This last semester in my Intro to the English Language course we discussed this concept at length. This is a semantic issue. When discussing opposites we learned how to make a binary grid to analyze the components of a word. It looked something like this:

                                              RELATION   Male   Senior   Directly Related
                                              Father              +         +                   +
                                              Mother             -          +                   +
                                              Niece               -           -                    -

A binary grid uses randomly assigned components to examine what the chosen words have in common. Based on the features chosen we can conclude that the opposite of a father is in fact a niece. Or, if one were to assign a new feature such as “Animate” after “Directly Related” the opposite of a father would probably end up being a rock or something of the sort. In this particular example we find that the words father and mother actually share many common traits. They are differentiated by one degree. So it often is with what we call “Opposites.”

                                              FEELINGS   Positive    Intense   Concern
                                              Love                +             +            +
                                              Hate                 -             +             +
                                              Apathy             -              -             -

From my cleverly devised Binary Grid, one may conclude that the opposite of “Love” is actually a state we call “Apathy,” which by its definition is a “state of indifference”. Apathy is by its nature a suppression of emotion. Love and hate are only separated by one degree: the positive nature of the feeling. Love and hate both involve a certain amount of intensity and concern (positive or negative) about a person. Apathy, on the other hand, involves nothing of the sort.

I tell you these things to tell you this: You can never “get over” someone without forgiving them. It does not matter in the least what that person has done to you. For if you presumptuously assume that you can banish your love by switching it to hate, in order to forget someone, you will never be able to fully let things go. The two are too closely related. Because of this bond, rousing one will also rouse the other. This would lead to years of pent-up emotion that is only softened by a very human forgetfulness. We can forget our feelings, but all it takes is one chance encounter or errant wedding invitation to stir up those old love/hate emotions.

I am not by any means suggesting that we must become apathetic towards someone we have formerly loved. (Because that would simply be a weapon of buried and harbored hate.) Only forgiveness solves this problem. Forgiveness erases hate and apathy and fills us with contented sincerity towards the other person. It cleanses us, not them. And allows us to move forward with hope rather than resentment.

But wait! you exclaim, what about those who have done the breaking up? I will tell you. Rest easy. A few thoughts can be comforting. First, always remember that no one starts dating someone else in order to hurt their feelings. (This is all assuming you have broken up with the person under amiable circumstances{as far as breaking up with someone allows}and not fickle or petty or evil reasons.) Second, take comfort in the things you felt. As my wise-beyond-his-years brother once said, “It is going to fail until it works.” It is as simple as that. The relationship was either right or it was not. Trust your feelings, though it may be the hardest thing you have ever done. And last, do not concern yourself with whether or not you can express what you feel. One shared attribute that could be placed on the end of the Feelings Binary Grid could be “Inexpressible.” This would be something that all emotions would score a plus on. Trying to describe what you feel would be like trying to describe a color to a blind person. Red is red, just as black is black, just as love is love, and knowing it’s right is knowing it’s right. It simply is. Or it isn’t.

This is one thing that is simple with regards to love. It is getting to this point during which all the confusion arises. But let’s save that for another time.

[Keep following. If it please you.]

/the Vulnerable man.

So the idea for this post came from an Alanis Morissette song. Don't judge me.

This Erastus Snow quote helped things along: “If good and evil is placed before us, does not the person who chooses the good and refuses the evil exhibit his agency and manhood as much as the man who chooses the evil and refuses the good? or is the independence of manhood all on the side of the evil-doer? I leave you to answer this question in your own mind. To me, I think the angels and saints and all good people have exercised their agency by choosing the good and refusing the evil; and in doing so they not only exhibit their independence and manhood as much, but show a much higher and greater nobility of character and disposition; and I leave the future to determine who are wise in the choice of their freedom and independence."

I'd like to relate what Erastus said to what makes a man manly when dealing with love. Mr. Snow points out the twisted lie that the devil uses to convince us that any command that God gives us is a limitation upon our agency and somehow restrictive. Satan would have us believe that only when we are rebelling are we truly using our agency. When in fact, the opposite is true. Wrong choices bind us and jail us to the consequences of addiction and pain. Good choices allow us to be continually happy and free from bad consequences. But what does this have to do with being a man?

I want to respond to a cultural current that suggests that all men have to be "tough" and insensitive to be considered "manly" in matters of the heart. Let us think of some of the standard attributes that all men need to have in order to seem like a typical strong man: he must be brave, he must be a leader, and he must be a protector and provider.

First, he must be brave. Like Erastus Snow, I'd like to pose some rhetorical questions: what does it mean to be brave? Is it not to act courageously in the face of opposition? What opposition is there in love? What do men fight against? To be brave in love is not to sit back and wait for love to find us. To be brave in love is to put ourselves out there, be vulnerable, to play the game where our hearts are the stakes. To be brave in love is to play for keeps. Our culture would have us believe that men must be brave in other things and save our courage for other fields. Our culture would have us believe that it is "manly" to not let ourselves be hurt. Our culture would have us take our hearts out of the equation. Our culture would have us stay back from the fight and only enter on terms of complete emotional armor; we are not to have any chance of being hurt. To me, that is cowardly. To me, that is not brave. To me, that is the opposite of masculinity.

Second, he must be a leader. Our cultural standards would have us believe that men must be the aggressors. We must lead the charge. We must escalate. This is all true. It is our job. The problem is that we don't do it. Our charges are feints, our forays distractions. We are so hung up on being strong that it makes us forget our responsibilities. We can't possibly be bold, for therein lies the possibility of being hurt, and to be hurt is to be weak. And we can't have weak leaders now can we? Really it is those that lay wounded and dying that have exhibited their manliness and done their job, not the cool and emotionally detached onlooker. To lead is to be in the mix, not watching from afar.

Third, he must be a protector and provider. What does the emotionally invulnerable male protect but himself? What does he provide but misery for those who would be with him? True masculinity means getting out there and finding someone to protect and provide for, no matter the cost. And make no mistake, the cost is emotional hurt. We need to change the roles of men. We need to be more like the romantics. We need to write poetry and pursue unrequited love and do whatever it takes, and women and men alike must come to see this for what it is. Not weakness. But strength. Determination. Leadership. Fulfilling our role as protector, as provider. Alanis said it like this:

You, with your eyes mix strength with abandon
You, with your new kind of heroism ...
This is a thank you for letting me in
Indeed in praise of the vulnerable man

Now, if men start doing these things and putting their hearts out there, and start becoming emotionally available it becomes the job of women to "...vow to be true / ...vow to not take advantage." Reward rather than punish men for this new found heroism. Don't be callous. Don't be cold. See his actions for what they are. Let them become admirable in your eyes. Praise the vulnerable man. He might be the manliest man you know.

[Keep following and I'll tell of the time my sister's ballet instructor hit on me.]