2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43
Talking about attractiveness for men, I came to a rather unexpected conclusion. Which will surely seem offensive and even cynical to some. The conclusion is that in marriage (for his strength, prosperity and happiness) it is more important that a man loves a woman more than she loves him. No, no, the ideal option, of course, is when it is the same, but … there are too few ideal options. I understand that the conclusion requires explanation, just in order to exclude cynicism
Among the examples of a happy marriage, I personally do not have a single one in which a woman would seek the favor of a man for a long time, took him “starved”, and he surrendered, fell in love with her, and everyone became happiness. Alas, alas, in such a scenario, a woman always loses. There may be happy times, but these are rather the exception. The general trend suggests that it is impossible to truly achieve a man (with access to a happy and equal marriage). No, marriage can be achieved, but what kind of relationship will it be? As a rule, the notorious codependency or even sick relationship, which develops, for example, with alcoholics or rude men. No love or mutual respect, even though a marriage can last a lifetime.
But in the opposite direction, for some reason, there are many successful examples. A resisting woman who thinks that she will never be able to love this man - and as a result, a long family happiness. What's the matter, what's the secret? Psychology or something even deeper? Why can a man graciously accept care and attention from a woman, but he is unlikely to love her in return and will be able to answer her in full, and a woman will sooner or later appreciate and realize the degree of care and love for herself, and, most likely, will fall in love with answer?
Before, I really didn’t like the old saying about “endure and fall in love”, it seemed to me terribly cruel. But if you look at her from the other side, if you take as a basis what "falls in love" refers to a good, kind husband, and not anyhow? Then, perhaps, even as fair. There are quite a few stories from ancient (and modern) life, when, marrying without special feelings for a caring and loving man, a woman eventually becomes a loving wife. Not immediately, not instantly, but she appreciates all the good and the present in this man and begins to love him in return.
Leaving aside extremes like physical incompatibility, of course, there are many nuances, and all of them must be taken into account. Because of his youth and maximalism, everyone thinks - ah-ah, how can you love him, he's not at all what I like. How many times have I heard the mantra "nothing like that, we are just friends, and he treats me well", so many times it ended in a happy marriage. Perhaps I am exaggerating a little, but living happy examples - here they are! And most importantly, in this version, in the end, it is really possible to come to an ideal model, when feelings are mutually deep, which means there is equality in the family in the very Christian sense.
The most interesting thing in this situation is to understand the reasons for such one-sidedness. Why is it good in one direction and not in the other? And now I will say an outrageous obscurantist and patriarchal thing - because it is supposed to be! Because the natural way is when a man achieves the love of a woman, and not vice versa. When a man cares about a woman (and children) more than she cares about him. Because the man is in charge. But the main thing is not in terms of command and suppression, but in the very Christian sense. "Who wants to be in charge, be everyone's servant." That is why, when the most loving and caring in the family is the husband, the relationship is built with the greatest naturalness and harmony.
By the way, when I say “seeking love,” I do not mean courtship at all. And that is why I do not want to give examples from the life of animals, when during the mating season, males prancing around a female. Many people know how to look after, but only a few are able to love and care. Rather, it would be more appropriate to say here - deserves love or encourages him to love.
How is a man commanded to treat his wife? As to the weakest vessel. Perhaps it is not in vain that the apostle says exactly this, and not otherwise: “Wives, obey your husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is the head of his wife, just like Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body. But as the Church obeys Christ, so also wives to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her in order to sanctify her, cleansing her with a bath of water by means of the word; to present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that, but so that she may be holy and blameless. So husbands should love their wives as their own bodies: he who loves his wife loves himself."
I think all the time what responsibility this imposes on my husband, but also what a great grace, what a gift it is to love and care! For some reason, the wonderful film "Declaration of Love" comes to mind all the time. There, however, a not very beautiful situation is depicted when a woman condescends and graciously accepts a man's love all her life. But this love and concern overcomes everything and bears fruit. And the ridiculous main character, so funny and awkward, appears as a real man, worthy of all respect and admiration.
Such a model is also more correct, more harmonious and more successful because a woman is much more responsive and softer than a man, these are her natural properties. Then my daughter stunned me (reading my article) - mom, do you know what they say? "A man falls in love with a woman, and a woman falls in love with her attitude." Of course, this is an exaggeration, but there is a lot of truth here. Roughly speaking, even without deep feelings, a woman is able to appreciate love and care, be grateful, and then, most likely, respond with feelings.
A man takes care for granted, he (in his eyes) is supposed to be honored just for being a man. Therefore, the hope of falling in love with a man by caring for him, by serving him, is not just illusory, but deeply failed from the very beginning. If he does not want to be the main, in the right sense, a servant and support, he will never appreciate the love and care of a woman. And he will always only use them and condescend, considering himself in his natural right.
Perhaps there are happy exceptions, as a result of some kind of completely selfless love. Although usually repentance and awareness comes to the heroes of such stories only on their deathbed. This has to do with salvation and eternal life (for those who love), but, alas, it does not in any way facilitate the temporary life here.
Here I remember another film, "Vacation at my own expense", where the situation is just like that. How sad and sad to look at a girl who unrequitedly loves, as you want to say - open your eyes, look who is really next to you! In youth, probably, you need to get sick with this, the main thing is not to drag it with you all your life.
I do not want to say that a relationship in which a woman loves more, and a man allows himself to be loved, has no right to exist. Moreover, some people may even be happy or think they are happy in such a situation. I recall the lines from the poem by the beautiful J. Moritz "For people who are not in love":
And even easier, maybe
With such an unquenchable smile
To be unloved, but to love, Than not to love, but to be loved.
Probably, to love is better than not to love, and, probably, it is more useful for eternal life and salvation … But why does it become so sad at the thought that unrequited love will pass with you throughout your life? And especially if you are a woman. Probably, this is because the concept of family happiness is nevertheless associated with love, and happiness is impossible without reciprocity. Without reciprocity, unity, sprouting into each other is impossible, that for which marriage exists. More precisely, not “for what”, but “for what”. The most important and valuable thing in marriage is impossible - let the two be one.
