Comments on: Let’s Tell a Different Story

By: Mrs. Anna T

Mrs. Anna T — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:29:34 +0000

The first time my husband and I talked about “being in love” was when we were already looking for a place where to have our wedding reception. Whenever I tell this to people, I always get at least one “you’re crazy” response. But the fact is that now, with one baby and another soon on the way, I’m far more deeply in love with my husband than on our wedding day. And yes, there is also more “chemistry”. I suppose we have had very little of what you call “free chemistry”. I think it’s a shame people focus so much on chasing that fleeting thing called romance, often throwing away relationships that aren’t perfect but could eventually lead to a good life together, in favor of those which offer a short period of romantic anguish and later a long period of misery.

By: Linda

Linda — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:46:38 +0000

I think Hollywood culture is basically run by men so they make movies in general men want to watch and occasionally something we all want to watch like Titanic, (thankfully fellow kiwi Peter Jackson did put love interests in Lord of the Rings).Shakespeare wrote lots of love-interest plays. Most high school english teachers would agree that Romeo and Juliette was about Love but not love approved by their parents, hence doomed to fail in that day in age.Maybe in our age too?Yes there’s always been love, literature proves that but how love is seen has changed. Romeo and Juliette was a tragedy because they were unwise and immature- things just don’t change, do they?

By: Mrs. Parunak

Mrs. Parunak — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 20:18:21 +0000

Sorry for the slow responses, everyone. Our power’s been out, and I’ve had limited Internet access–mostly only with my phone, which makes it hard to say more than a few words (and I’m sure you can all imagine how hard it is for me to express myself with only a few words ).

I can’t speak for the author of the original article, but I certainly wasn’t advocating a “grit your teeth and just grind through kind of relationship!” (I didn’t get that impression from the article, myself, and so that certainly wasn’t what impressed me about it.)

I also wasn’t talking about “romance” in the sense of building love and closeness in your marriage, or even in your relationship before marriage. I think Jena’s thought about building “romance” into her marriage of nineteen years is a great idea.

What I WAS talking about was much more the idea of “falling in love,” in the same sense as falling into a hole, almost an accident, something beyond our control, that we are somehow entitled to, and that rescues us from the monotony of life (including the monotony of our hum drum marriages). This is the antithesis of intentionally building love, appreciation, and even chemistry in a committed relationship. If Jena were following the philosophy I was trying to advocate AGAINST, she would have said something like, “I’ve survived without romance in my marriage for nineteen years, and now I deserve to find someone new, someone who makes me feel the way I’m longing to.”

I guess the difference is between the chemistry you strive for and the chemistry that comes for free. I think our culture idolizes the chemistry that comes for free. I don’t think that chemistry is somehow intrinsically bad in any way. And, hey, “free is a very good price” as the commercials used to say. BUT the chemistry that comes for free tends to be fickle and fleeting. And wonderful as it is, it’s not something that everyone is going to have all the time.

Those of us who are in relationships should absolutely work to build and enjoy and revel in their chemistry, both the free chemistry and the chemistry they had to strive for. And none of us should idolize the chemistry that comes for free. If a person is single, we shouldn’t look down on them. If a person is married and experiencing a chemistry dry spell and having to work extra hard for chemistry, we shouldn’t think they deserve a divorce and someone new.