Passage 13

Love and Loving Relationship

Love--as both an emotion and a behavior—is essential for human survival. The family is usually our earliest and most important source of love and emotional support. Babies and children deprived of love have been known to develop a wide variety of problems—for example, depression, headaches, physiological impairments, and neurotic and psychosomatic difficulties—that sometimes last a lifetime. In contrast, infants who are loved and cuddled typically gain more weight, cry less, and smile more. By five years of age, they have been found to have significantly higher IQs and to score higher on language tests.

Much research shows that the quality of care infants receive affects how they later get along with friends, how well they do in school, how they react to new and possibly stressful situations, and how they form and maintain loving relationships as adults. It is for these reasons that people’s early intimate relationships within their family of origin are so critical. Children who are raised in impersonal environments (orphanage, some foster homes, or unloving families) show emotional and social underdevelopment, language and motor skills retardation, and mental health problems.

Love for oneself, or self-love, is also essential for our social and emotional development. Actress Mae West once said, “I never loved another person the way I loved myself.” Although such a statement may seem self-centered, it’s actually quite insightful. Social scientists describe self-love as an important basis for self-esteem. Among other things, people who like themselves are more open to criticism and less demanding of others. Fromm (1965) saw self-love as a necessary prerequisite for loving others. People who don’t like themselves may not be able to return love but may constantly seek love relationships to bolster their own poor self-images. But what is love? What brings people together?

Love is an elusive concept. We have all experienced love and feel we know what it is; however, when asked what love is, people give a variety of answers. According to a nine-year-old boy, for example, “Love is like an avalanche where you have to run for your life.” What we mean by love depends on whether we are talking about love for family members, friends, or lovers. Love has been a source of inspiration, wry witticism, and even political action for many centuries.

Love has many dimensions. It can be romantic, exciting, obsessive, and irrational. It can also be platonic, calming, altruistic, and sensible. Many researchers feel that love defies a single definition because it varies in degree and intensity and across social contexts.

At the very least, three elements are necessary for a loving relationship: (1) a willingness to please and accommodate the other person, even if this involves compromise and sacrifice; (2) an acceptance of the other person’s faults and shortcomings; and (3) as much concern about the loved one’s welfare as one’s own. And people who say they are “in love” emphasize caring, intimacy, and commitment.

In any type of love, caring about the other person is essential. Although love may involve passionate yearning, respect is a more important quality. Respect is inherent in all love: “I want the loved person to grow and unfold for his own sake and in his own ways, and not for the purpose of serving me”. If respect and caring are missing, the relationship is not based on love. Instead, it is an unhealthy or possessive dependency that limits the lovers’ social, emotional, and intellectual growth.

Love, especially long-term love, has nothing in common with the images of love or frenzied sex that we get from Hollywood, television, and romance novels. Because of these images, many people believe a variety of myths about love. These misconceptions often lead to unrealistic expectations, stereotypes, and disillusionment. In fact, “real” love is closer to what one author called “stirring-the -oatmeal love” (Johnson, 1985). This type of love is neither exciting nor thrilling but is relatively mundane and unromantic. It means paying bills, putting out the garbage, scrubbing toilet bowls, being up all night with a sick baby, and performing myriad other “oatmeal” tasks that are not very sexy.

Some partners take turns stirring the oatmeal. Other people seek relationships that offer candlelit gourmet meals in a romantic setting. Whether we decide to enter a serious relationship or not, what type of love brings people together?

What attracts individuals to each other in the first place? Many people believe that “there’s one person out there that one is meant for” and that destiny will bring them together. We will never meet millions of potential lovers because they are “filtered out” by formal or informal rules on partner eligibility due to factors such as age, race, distance, social class, religion, sexual orientation, health, or physical appearance.

Beginning in childhood, parents encourage or limit future romantic liaisons by selecting certain neighborhoods and schools. In early adolescence, peer norms influence the adolescent’s decisions about acceptable romantic involvements (“You want to date who?!”). Even during the preteen years, romantic experiences are cultured in the sense that societal group practices and expectations shape romantic experience. Although romance may cross cultural or ethnic borders, criticism and approval teach us what is acceptable romantic behavior and with whom. One might “lust” for someone, but these yearnings will not lead most of us to “fall in love” if there are strong cultural or group bans.

 Regan and Berscheid (1999) differentiate between lust, desire, and romantic love. They describe lust as primarily physical rather than emotional, a condition that may be conscious or unconscious. Desire, in contrast, is a psychological state in which one wants a relationship that one does not now have, or to engage in an activity in which one is not presently engaged. Desire may or may not lead t romantic love (which the authors equate with passionate or erotic love). Regan and Berscheid suggest that desire is an essential ingredient for initiating and maintaining romantic love. If desire disappears, a person is no longer said to be in a state of romantic love. Once desire diminishes, disappointed lovers may wonder where the “spark” in their relationship has gone and may reminisce regretfully (longingly) about “the good old days”.

 One should not conclude, however, that desire always culminates in physical intimacy or that desire is the same as romantic love. Married partners may love each other even though they rarely, or never, engage in physical intimacy. In addition, there are some notable differences between love--especially long-term love--and romantic love. Healthy loving relationships, whether physical or not (such as love for family members), reflect a balance of caring, intimacy, and commitment. (1100 words)

Passage 14

Education Is the Priority

About a year ago, I quit my full-time job to return to college. Despite all of the obstacles in my way, I was lucky enough to find a job as a work-study assistant in the office of Dr. Bernadette Russell, Dean of Liberal Arts at my college. I say “lucky” for many reasons. The dean and her administrative assistant, Karen Cormish, are supportive of students and are willing to accommodate their needs. Because of their support and flexibility, I don’t have to worry about my job interfering with my studies. I am able to fit my work hours around my class schedule – not the other way around – and still manage to work enough hours to pay my bills.

Working in the Dean’s office has taught me a great deal about college students and their priorities. Almost every day, at least one of them comes into the office, eyes fraught with desperation. They plead to be taken off academic probation, restriction, or suspension. Some beg to have their dismissal lifted and to be allowed to re-enroll.

I am often the first person who greets them and, therefore, I see their appeals first. Most of these students have failed to make education their priority, and they are paying for it dearly. In fact, there is one claim that almost all have in common: their hours at work have taken precious time away from their college studies. Mind you, most of these kids (I say “kids” because that is what the majority of them are) are living at home and taking about 15 credits per semester. It is not as if they are seasoned adults who have worked at full-time jobs for fifteen years, have learned to manage their time, and are able to squeeze in a course or two in the evenings and weekends. On the contrary, most of them work at menial positions in fast-food restaurants or retail stores. They take orders from demanding, unreasonable supervisors, and they work asinine, exhausting hours that no human beings should have to work – certainly not someone who is attending college classes full-time and devoting hours of endless study toward earning an education and entering a rewarding career. From what I understand, most of these students work such hours under threat of being fired by their managers if they refuse.

I find the whole scenario appalling. Fifty years ago, it was unheard of that full-time college students should even work two hours a week, let alone forty, and that was for a good reason. According to the website of the Division of Students Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, being a successful college student requires “about two hours of preparation for each hour in the classroom. This means that a student carrying fifteen credits has at least forty-five hour work week, and is consequently involved in a full-time occupation”. At Newbury College, incoming freshmen are advised to attend class regularly (“This is a must!”), seek help at the Academic Resources Center, visit their professors regularly during office hours, enroll in “the Academic Enrichment Program,” and join a student study group. These activities take time – the bulk of your time – but in order to be successful in college you must commit to them. That also means that you will have little time for work outside your studies. For a full-time student, most college counselors recommend no more than 15 hours of work per week. Consider this: If you fail to nurture your education, you will find yourself on academic probation, restriction, or suspension. Even worse, you might get yourself dismissed, a blow from which it is hard to recover even if you manage to transfer to another college.

Why would anyone want to do that to herself for the sake of some no-brainer, dead-end job that pays $5.05 per hour? I understand that many students need money because they have bills to pay, not the least of which might be tuition. However, there comes a point when enough is enough. I too have bills to pay, and I manage to pay them by working 15 hours a week or less. I could not possibly devote sufficient time to my studies if I worked a minute more, and my supervisor understands this. Managers who don’t understand this aren’t worth working for, and they would do students in their employment a favor by firing them.

No words can overemphasize the importance of education. Without one, the “kids” I mentioned earlier might be condemned to work as an under-paid, under-appreciated, under-respected cashiers and stock clerks for the rest of their lives. It is time that college students put their education first and told their supervisors at McDonald’s or Burger King to find another serf if they don’t like it. This is a free country. There is nothing – least of all a dead-end job or a cranky fast-food manager – that can deprive you of your right to a quality education and to a successful future. (831 words)

Passage 15

A Man’s Perspective on Why Engagement Rings Are a Joke

Most of us are adult enough to know magic doesn't exist. And yet we're the same species that thinks fat rings are fairy-tale items which somehow "secure" another person's love, one step away from a "happily ever after".

They're expensive, useless and, worse, are insulting to notions of actual love. As anyone who's been in a serious long-term relationship knows, you don't need geology to proclaim (let alone justify) said love.

Before you take me for a cheapskate who just doesn't want to spend the money on a ring, let me explain a bit more. Many of us, especially men, have strapped our feet to the commercialized notions of what constitutes relationships. We've turned into zombies, hungry for all things red and supposedly lovey dovey. We buy into the baffling displays of romance like the nauseating crimson heart-shaped horror show we call Valentine's Day. Or the flowers and boxed chocolates we're supposed to deliver on anniversaries to celebrate monogamous tolerance and the disbelief you haven't murdered each other.

We speed through our finances and morals, enjoying the exhilaration of fitting in to societal expectation, as opposed to reflecting on whether our actions are warranted or justified. And our partners seem all too ready to go along with it.

Engagement rings – specifically expensive diamond ones – are often prime examples of this unthinking mindset. The problem isn't the rings themselves, but the justifications – or the lack of justifications – behind their acquisition.

We mustn't confuse engagement rings – given, usually to a woman, when a proposal is accepted – and wedding rings – given on wedding day. (Already, we should recognize how strange it is to need two different kinds of rings.)

Whatever the long history of engagement items – I've heard claims of it dating from ancient Egypt or Rome, for example – the focus on engagement rings should really start with De Beers, in the 20th century.

After large diamond mines were discovered here in South Africa around 1870, the mines' major investors amalgamated their interests to form De Beers Consolidates Mines. They recognized that due to diamonds having little intrinsic value, they would need to create demand via (the illusion of) scarcity and pretend worth. So began one of the most successful marketing and public manipulation campaigns of the 20th century, originating from four words: "A diamond is forever".

By convincing men their love for their future wife is directly proportional to the expense of the diamond ring, and convincing women to expect love in the form of shiny stone, De Beers and their marketers, NW Ayer, began a tradition so embedded we forget it's a marketing ploy. Genius marketing, to be sure, but marketing nonetheless.

And guess what? The prices keep going up, as if we are really loving more and deeper these days. According to the XO Group Inc 2011 Engagement & Jewelry survey, the average engagement ring cost $5,200. If you think that's bad, consider that nearly 12% of US couples spend more than $8,000 for an engagement ring. Of course, we should take such stats with some measure of skepticism, as Will Oremus highlights. Nonetheless, these are the prices at a time when the average American family earns less than it did in 1989.

The American bias of these stats shouldn't negate the overall point: diamonds – and therefore diamond rings – are expensive and the demand was created artificially for an item that's only property here is shininess (it decreases in value as soon as you walk out the store).

Any remotely logical person can see that spending several thousand on actually important items for a new couple like a place to live or putting money in an investment account will serve them far better in the future (and likely help with romantic and/or wedded bliss).

That engagement ring purchases tend to be for women – not by women – is also insulting to the cause of not viewing women as objects to be acquired. Consider that this is worthy of a headline in a respected US magazine at the beginning of this month: "Women Now Paying for Their Own Engagement Rings".

Many people will say that engagement rings are symbolic of love and devotion. Ignoring that this idea is itself manufactured by the profiting businesses, it also gives an arbitrary definition of "symbol": why can't a beautiful home be a symbol? Why can't long-term investments be a symbol? Indeed, would it not be more impressive to show off a house than a finger rock?

Tradition is another assertion when discussing almost anything to do with monogamy and marriage. But, like nature, tradition is a description not moral justification. Just because we've always done a particular action, doesn't mean it's always (or ever was) justified. Pointing to tradition means pointing to the mistreatment of different races and sexes, human sacrifices, and so on. Longevity, too, doesn't give moral immunity, or automatic goodness, to anything.

Engagement rings aren't even used to show one is married: they're used before the wedding even occurs. Indeed, even helping avoid awkward social encounters isn't aided, since there are other (and cheaper) ways of showing you're "in a relationship" (not to mention just telling people trying to hit on you).

If you need a ring to prove your love, it's not your lack of a ring that's the problem. (889 words)