Tag Archives: Relationships

Sudden Death. Life Perfectly Timed.

Mary Hamann

Sudden death.

The loss of a beloved friend, without warning, rips a gaping hole in the memory-rich fabric of life.

Mary Murphy Hamann, my college roommate, longtime friend, and one of the most cheerful people I’ve ever met, died on Good Friday in a remote village in Paraguay.

Her plan? To attend her daughter’s wedding there and meet the Paraguayan in-laws. But God planned otherwise.  Mary hemorrhaged unexpectedly from a hidden, life-threatening tumor, just one day before her daughter’s wedding.

Nothing could have saved her. Even if she’d been stateside, the end result would have been the same.  Her close-knit family–husband, four adult children, seven surviving siblings, in-laws, and dozens of nieces and nephews–reeled from the blow, in shock and grief.

But the days that followed found them steadied by the mercy of God’s grace and the hope born of faith.

It was her time.

I remember once, thirty years earlier, when Mary told me, “It’s time.”

Only then it was “time” to marry her high school sweetheart, Mike—a decision that seemed as ill-timed (to others) as her death now thirty years later.

Just 19 when Mike slipped the engagement ring on her finger, Mary married at 20. No shotguns involved, just a young couple in love and ready to team up for life. “He’s the one,” Mary told me, “It’s time.”

So she married and left school, taking a job that would support them both while Mike spent his last two years at Notre Dame.

The young feminists in our dorm sizzled with outrage. Clearly appalled, one driven engineer-to-be expressed her indignation—on Mary’s behalf–to me. “She’s got a 3.9! Why is she leaving school?  Why doesn’t he leave school so she can finish?”

Mary’s decision made no sense to the career-oriented, high-achievers of the 80’s. Forget the balancing act. Marriage and motherhood were obstacles to career success.

Some imagined a he-versus-she wrestling match over dominance and ambition, with Mary finally yielding.  Others carped that Mary’s conservative beliefs and traditional Catholicism must be at fault. “What a waste.” They lamented their friend’s all-but-certain future: talents undeveloped and opportunities lost, all sacrificed at the altar of marriage and motherhood.

Poor Mary.

“Poor Mary” never looked back.  Her sureness emerged from a prayerful heart intent on one question: ”What is the Lord’s will for me?”

The answer didn’t come instantly. She prayed for months, her rosary often slipping from her sleeping hand, down from her top bunk onto mine below. The Lourdes Grotto at Notre Dame held dozens of candle stubs lit by a young woman in search of God’s will. And her commitment to daily Mass—at noon or 5 pm—often meant the ultimate sacrifice for a college student: settling for the dregs of cafeteria food. Limp lettuce and rubbery burgers, at best. (One long-winded homily and she’d miss the meal entirely!)

God must have been tickled to see a young heart madly in love, but so willing to ask what He wanted. And Mary delighted in His answer—yes, marry Mike.

It was time.

More importantly, her question, “What’s your will for me, Lord?” wasn’t a one-timer.  It was the recurring theme of her life. (Mike’s life too, for that matter.)

And indeed, it’s interesting how life turned out.

Mary’s first job gave way to full-time motherhood, with one girl and three boys in quick succession. Unfazed by muddy feet and shoes gone AWOL, Mary’s contagious laughter bubbled over in daily life. As her peers got big jobs and even bigger signing bonuses, Mary changed diapers, hugged toddlers, and shrugged off thoughts of what-might-have-been.

Then, supplementing Mike’s teaching job, she resumed part-time work, often from home, with stints in copywriting, advertising, and political campaigns. In short order, resourcefulness paired with economic necessity and gave birth to a successful family business in marketing and communications.

Funny how God works.  As Mary followed the thread of God’s will, woven among family needs and life’s opportunities, her creative talents flourished, her professional skills sharpened, and her entrepreneurial spirit grew. She picked up the classes she needed, then came full circle, landing back at Notre Dame in a job she loved—Director of Communications in the Mendoza College of Business. For ten years, as her children moved into adulthood, she edited an award-winning magazine and played a central role in her husband’s successful entre into politics.

Even by feminist standards, it was a quality resume for a mom of four.

But her accomplishments aren’t the real story.

When Mary died, God didn’t read her obituary.  He read her heart.

That’s the story too easily missed. Her heart had grown more in love with Him over the years, not by adding up achievements but by asking that question, “What’s your will for me, Lord?”

It’s a question that I, for one, ought to ask more often.

Because that simple question—“What’s your will for me, Lord?”—purifies the heart. And our sincere (though surely imperfect) response to that question, over and over, defines a life well lived.

In hindsight, Mary’s life was not only well lived, but perfectly timed.

And so was her death. It was her time, because it was God’s time.  It’s the only way Mary would have wanted it.

© 2011  Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

16 Comments

Filed under Catholicism, Faith and Virtue, Family, Lessons Learned, Marriage, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Prayer and Spirituality, Women

New Year’s Resolutions, Hand-Delivered By a Four-Foot Elf

Noiselessly, the door opened a few inches and a young, freckle-faced nurse peeked in.

Speaking to my teenage son, who was propped up on pillows in bed, she asked cheerfully, “Are you up for a visit from one of Santa’s elves?”

He paused.  I could see the doubt on his face. After all, he’s long past the age when a visit from Santa’s elves would light up his eyes.

But it’s Christmas Eve, he’s sick, feeling glum, and still in the hospital. Besides, the nurse seems so eager to spread Christmas cheer.

He shrugged and half-smiled. “Sure, why not.”

A second later, the nurse opened the door widely and announced, “Santa’s elves!”

I expected a jolly man in a red suit or middle-aged hospital volunteers in Santa hats.

But with a soft shuffle, a little boy appeared in the doorway.  About five years old and four feet tall, he was dressed in Sunday best–a striped button-down shirt, nice pants and dress shoes.

Eyes wide and serious, he held a gift in outstretched arms, approached the bed, and earnestly lisped, “Merry Chrithmith!”

It was impossible not to smile.  The boy’s sincere gesture, so simple, toppled the walls pain had built around my son’s heart.

In one poignant moment, my son’s face visibly softened.  Touched, he spoke gently as he reached forward to receive the gift from the younger boy. “Thank you.  Thank you so much.”

The nurse spoke up. “Tyler was a patient here last Christmas.  He knows what it’s like to be in the hospital, instead of home, at Christmas. So he and his family brought popcorn and a movie for each of our pediatric patients to enjoy tonight. Merry Christmas!”

Only then did we notice the rest of the family crowding the doorway: two older brothers, about 10 and 12, a sweet-looking mom, and a dad carrying a Santa-sized black bag.  It was filled with Christmas gift bags of popcorn, DVDs, and assorted candies—enough for every patient on the floor, their families, and probably the nurses too.

Their kindness warmed the room. We chatted a moment. The mom and dad’s faces shared wordlessly their own gratitude–remembering their trials one year ago–and their tender concern for our ordeal. We thanked them again and, then, with a rustle of bags and murmurs of “Merry Christmas,” they disappeared through the doorway, on to the next room.

But the happy glow remained.

It’s New Year’s Day, and we’re home now. My son’s on the mend, but the unexpected kindness of this family replays over and over in my mind’s eye–a personal video, a new Christmas classic.  And it’s on in the background as I take stock of the year past and make resolutions for the year ahead.

On the threshold of the New Year, one Huffington Post writer scoffed at the idea that anybody ever keeps altruistic New Year’s resolutions—or does much good of any sort for selfless motives. Her advice: “[B]e selfish when you consider volunteer opportunities.” By selecting the ones that offer the most selfish benefits, she predicts, you’ll end up acting selfless.”

Acting” selfless is the goal? Only selfishness can motivate us to do good?

What a shame she’s never met people like Tyler’s family.  I’m willing to bet there weren’t any selfish inducements to come out in the bitter cold on Christmas Eve, as a family, to cheer up children they didn’t know—children who didn’t expect to see anyone that night. Tyler’s family could have stayed home, cozy and snug, and we’d never have known. They might have congratulated themselves for their good intentions, bemoaned the cold night, and continued their own Christmas festivities.

But they didn’t. Instead, they spent hours preparing gifts, then dressing the kids nicely, bundling them against the cold, and declining invitations for Christmas Eve parties or last-minute shopping. They had no audience to applaud them, not even a cheery group of fellow volunteers to turn it into a “service project” with delegated tasks of shopping or filling gift bags, topped off by refreshments for all when the good deed was done.

Nope, just a family, sincerely doing good. Their pain, anxiety, and prayers—remembered a year later—were transformed into the gift of kindness and compassion towards strangers.

And that’s a lesson to inspire my resolutions for this year.

How many small, meaningful gifts of time do I fail to give because selfish distractions drown out the Spirit’s quiet prompts? How many simple impulses towards kindness are overridden by practical objections? And how many daily opportunities to do good drown in the well of good intentions?

Next year, at least, I hope I can say, “Fewer than before.”

To you, Tyler, and your family, thanks!

And to everyone, have a very happy New Year…!

(c) 2011 Mary Rice Hasson

Read more of Mary’s columns at Catholic News Agency.

Share

3 Comments

Filed under Children, Faith and Virtue, Family, Kids and Character, Lessons Learned, Moms and Motherhood, Parenting, Prayer and Spirituality

The Good Marriage: One Simple Secret

I couldn’t help but notice their chemistry.

Paul and Lynn were our unexpected dinner companions, joining our small group for a delicious seafood dinner. The meal was fabulous, truly, but not nearly as memorable as this delightful couple.

Their enviable relationship was the fruit of fifty years of marriage, some very hard times, and one secret—the secret, I discovered, that can make nearly every marriage better.

It’s been a tough year for marriage, in my world.

Four couples I care about are divorcing this year after 13, 17, 24, and 28 years together. Their backgrounds, hometowns, and stories all differ.  Some are parting for just cause; others for the excitement offered elsewhere. But twenty children (the combined total from the four families) now share a common, painful experience: lives turned upside down, families fractured, and hearts broken.

Recently I stumbled across an interview with writer Nora Ephron, a frank and usually funny woman.  But she spoke seriously about divorce: “There are a lot of people who get divorced and several years later they think, ‘Hmm, was I really that bored?’ …Don’t kid yourself that your kids are OK. The kids are really not alright. It doesn’t mean they don’t survive; it’s just, don’t kid yourself that kids like leaving one house to go to another. It’s not what they’re built for…. It’s tough for kids; it just is.”

Even when divorce is the right solution for an untenable situation, like abuse, it wounds not just the couple but the families and friends who love them both.

So my heart smiled within minutes of meeting this pair, Paul and Lynn. They glowed with love for each other—twinkled together, really–as Lynn shared their plans to celebrate fifty years of marriage with a ten-day cruise to Alaska.

When she spoke, his eyes shone with tenderness and crinkled in smiling delight.  He listened, really listened, when she talked. No glazed eyes or dismissive looks; no wavering attention or a wandering eye. He really wanted to hear what she was saying over dinner. No matter that they’d already shared some 17,000 dinner discussions. He was as attentive that night as if it were their first conversation.

And her face sparkled, with both youthful affection and mature love, as she talked about him, the life they had shared, and the years ahead. She enjoyed him, leaning forward to catch his soft-spoken words, touching him affectionately, and anticipating his needs before he did. It was unself-conscious and real.

But I was sure that it hadn’t come easy.

Over the years, I’ve mentored many women in marriage and motherhood and gratefully learned much from those who’ve mentored me.  I approached Lynn in that spirit as we mingled after dinner. Thinking of the pain in my friends’ relationships, I wondered, how do Paul and Lynn repair marital rifts that tear other marriages apart? What keeps love flickering and then roaring back to life when human weakness, failings, and sin threaten to smother it? What’s the secret to a marriage like theirs?

So I asked Lynn.  She paused, but only for a few seconds, and said.

“It’s simple, but it’s not easy…

“It’s what’s in your heart. You’ve got to LOVE each other. We’re happy because I do things for him and he does things for me. That’s what love means… I do things for him and he does things for me.”

It was how they lived their life: I do things for him and he does things for me.

As she talked, it became clear that the “things” they’ve done for one another were way beyond the “pick-up-his-socks” and “surprise-her-by doing-the dishes” things suggested in typical marriage columns. Their mutual “doing” carried them across parched deserts and through tumultuous rapids—past the dangerous places where marriages die. It was no easy feat.

They were married at 18, had four kids, moved many times, and endured years of penny-pinching.  At times, Paul worked two jobs and Lynn did double duty at home.  And when he was unemployed, she worked and he scrimped. They survived teenage turmoil without turning on each other and avoided the blame game for their money troubles.

This attitude of heart–I do things for him and he does things for me—was woven into the fabric of their life, carrying them through new trials even at later stages. With children launched, finances eased.  But life challenged them anew. A once in a lifetime business venture to secure their retirement carried high costs: a move to a different continent, selling everything and leaving adult kids and grandkids behind.

It tested them mightily. Lynn was miserable. She missed her family, friends, church, and the familiarity of life stateside. She wanted to leave. And Paul listened. She had come there for him and he’d move now for her. While leaving the country was not possible yet, moving within the city was. Lynn would choose. They moved from the city apartment that was perfect for Paul, close to work, to a village near the sea, where Lynn could create a home, find friends and a place to worship.  And two years later, they would return to the U.S., back to family and friends.

As in times past, their common pledge–that simple secret–kept them going. I do things for him and he does things for me.

“It takes work,” Lynn said. “If you’re gonna love each other, you’ve got to ask what the other person needs. And then give it.  You’re in this together. That’s why I say, I do things for him and he does things for me.”

Fifty years had stoked their passion and fifty years had burnt away selfishness. Deep inside their hearts, an everlasting ember gave off sparks of joy, delight, warmth, and affection at regular intervals. Theirs is a mutual love that says, I do things for him and he does things for me.

For me, I’ve learned a new shorthand for the theological truths of “mutual self-gift,” “sacrificial love,” and “finding fulfillment by giving yourself to another in love.”

“I do things for him and he does things for me.”

Much more memorable, don’t you think? And that’s the secret of a good marriage.

© 2010 Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

2 Comments

Filed under Family, Lessons Learned, Marriage, Men, Relationships, Women

Fantasies in Marriage: Spice or Spoiler?

“You’ve got to see these photos of Lori!

Rob sidled over to a group of neighbors at the party, flipping open the pocket album even as he spoke.  Lori, his wife of ten years, trailed behind, smiling gamely. But her eyes looked unsure.

“Great. Let’s see.”

Rob must have captured some interesting shots on their recent dive trip to Bermuda, I thought. Maybe he snapped Lori riding a rickety tourist bike along the beautiful beach. Or got an underwater shot of her swimming near the reefs alongside brilliant, tropical fish.

Curious, I looked at the open pages.

For a moment, I was confused. Who was that? The woman staring back at me from photo after photo, as Rob turned the pages, had smoky eyes, tousled hair, and wore more feathers than clothes.

“Hey, hey, look at that one. She looks great, doesn’t she?”

Lori?

“Yeah, that’s Lori.” He raved.  “Stunning, isn’t she?” By “she,” he meant “glamour shot Lori.” The very real Lori standing next to him, fairly pretty but ignored, drew no compliments–at least not while the illusory, fantasized-about “Lori” was on proud display.

Actually, I thought Rob was stunning. Stunningly insensitive. Demeaning, too.

They divorced eighteen months later. No kids, just scuba gear to divvy up.

I wasn’t surprised, really. But I wondered if they’d gotten some bum advice along the way.

These days, the go-to resources on relationships and marriage sound a common theme: married couples should freely indulge in sexual fantasies about “someone else,” even while making love with their spouse.

Some therapists go further, saying it’s “unhealthy … to not have sexual fantasies.”  These  marriage “experts” argue that mental movies—of an airbrushed, made-over spouse (like Lori), an imagined, seductive stranger, or a memorable past lover–harm no one.  As long as the fantasy stays in the head, why not?

Besides, they say, fantasies spice up a couple’s love life: mental “action” with the fantasy partner stimulates creativity and physical energy with the real person between the sheets. It’s passion refueled by the imagined responses of a wished-for lover.

The problem with this “fantastic” advice is that it’s all wrong.

For starters, passion rekindled by a fantasy lover is passion for a substitute, real or imagined—it’s not passion for the spouse at all. The spouse in bed functions as a placeholder, an understudy to the real drama occurring in the other’s mind.

Sooner or later it becomes obvious.

Have you ever tried to have an important conversation with someone whose mind was elsewhere? It doesn’t work. Most people can tell if the other person’s not really “there.” The conversation is unsatisfying; the lack of engagement insulting.

But if it happens during one of the most naturally intimate moments a couple can share, the damage is sure to be even greater. Fantasizing about a desired lover—and disengaging from the real spouse–has the potential to inflict deep wounds on the spouse who is displaced. Even therapists who encourage fantasizing warn that fantasies should be revealed cautiously, if at all, to a spouse, because the non-fantasizing partner naturally feels offended, hurt, or cheated upon. It’s human nature.

Fantasies hurt more than feelings, however. They destroy love.

And that’s the real flaw in the sexperts’ advice: they worry more about maximizing individual pleasure than expressing mutual love. In their world, sex is merely a physical dance always in search of more imagination, better choreography, or even a new, inspirational partner. The dancer aims to please him or herself—dancing in sync with another is only a means to exquisite personal pleasure.

Love—and lovemaking between spouses—can’t be reduced to a solo performance or expanded to a mental audition, open to all.

Sexual love is an intimate, person-to-person encounter. It has deep meaning precisely because of who the two people are: a married couple who have given themselves to each other, with a promise of exclusive, committed love.

Pretending that a spouse is really someone else is just as contradictory as smuggling a third person in under the covers—even an imaginary person.

And as a practical matter, fantasizing quite literally makes the “unthinkable” thinkable.  The heart and mind are halfway out the door once permission’s granted to mentally pursue someone else.  So it was for Rob and Lori, anyway.

So forget the “experts.”

Put your energy into real love. You just might discover it’s way more satisfying than any fantasy trip ever could be.

 

(c) 2010 Mary Rice Hasson

More of Mary’s columns can be read at Catholic News Agency

Share

2 Comments

Filed under Lessons Learned, Men, Relationships, Sexuality, Women

The Duke Sex List: What She Didn’t Say “Tells All”

Two studies, of sorts, made headlines last week.

The first, by Australian researchers, says that personal choices, reflected in our priorities and goals, have the greatest impact on our long-term happiness. People who prioritize God, family and altruistic goals (e.g. helping the homeless, being generous, or volunteering) are more likely to find happiness than those who pursue self-centered or material goals. And personal choices that result in healthy living, strong friendships, stable marriages, and the right balance of work and leisure all have a significant effect on long-term happiness.

The second “study” that grabbed the headlines last week was the work of

Karen Owen, a 2010 graduate of Duke University. Karen created a tongue-in-cheek senior “thesis” on “Excelling in the Realm of Horizontal Academics,” a.k.a. random, frequent, mostly-drunken sex. In great detail (and no one disputes the truth of her account), she lists and evaluates her too-many-to-count sexual hookups with 13 “subjects,” mostly members of Duke’s lacrosse and baseball teams, during her four years at Duke.

Karen’s PowerPoint presentation, stuffed with details, images, analogies, and explicit dialogue, was a time-intensive effort. She included descriptions of her partners’ attractiveness, physical “hardware,” and performance (ranked on a ten-point scale—actual scores range from a humiliating “1” to an over-the-top “12”).  Her ratings also factored in athletic skills, creativity, and “entertainment” value, including “dirty talk.” She named names and included photos of each “contestant.” Finished, she emailed it to three lucky friends; it was a guidebook for future fun with these “top dogs”—the guys that “everyone wants to be or be with.”

Karen Owen names names

But one friend forwarded it on to another and, within hours, Karen’s PowerPoint went viral, reaching millions on the Internet.

In a hasty quasi-apology, Karen says she originally created the slides to amuse her friends—not to expose the guys to worldwide public humiliation. She claims that she “would never intentionally hurt the people that are mentioned.”  Still, she backpedals, arguing that it’s really nothing different from the standard frat house practice of ranking coeds on their sex appeal.  The notoriety prompted her to shut down all her social network profiles—the Gen Y method of disappearing—but book deals reportedly are in the offing.

Public reactions to Karen’s “study” have focused mostly on the privacy issue– her publication of explicit details, with names and photos, without the consent of the young men involved.  Several commentators also chastised her for making snide remarks about Asians and Canadians.

But Karen’s promiscuity—the source of her problem–elicits a ho-hum reaction in most quarters. Chalk it up to college-as-usual. (And if the comments ricocheting around the Internet are any indication, her hookups reflect a disturbing college norm for many young women.)

A few writers admit that her drunken bed-hopping is “sad” or “immature,” but the chattering media typically characterize her as sexually self-confident, empowered, and even admirable.  The Duke student newspaper calls her “a funny, actually intelligent lady who likes to show people a good time. And she has nothing to be ashamed about.” And one feminist blogger hailed her as “another reminder that women can be as flip, aggressive, or acquisitive about sex as men can. And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as all parties are consenting.”

That’s the Cosmo line, after all.  Strip sex of any meaning beyond selfish pleasure—and women are free to be equally as aggressive, detached, and utilitarian as the cads of yesteryear. No wrong, no shame. Be happy, right?

Wrong.

Remember that other study, the Australian one? It tells us, first, that the best way to be happy is to prioritize God, family, and others over our own selfish pursuits. Karen’s tell-all reads like a chronology of self-gratification, on her part as well as her fleeting partners. Any regard for others as persons, not just anatomical parts, is completely missing: 42 PowerPoint slides devoid of compassion, caring, affection, or even basic respect for others.

The Australian study also reminds us that the choices we make about important things–like friendships, a healthy lifestyle, and choosing a marriage partner–directly affect our long-term happiness.

How do Karen’s choices stack up? Again, it’s what she didn’t say that tells the story.

Karen’s tales contain no hint of genuine friendships with any of the guys involved. She duly notes any “enjoyable” conversations, pre- or post-sex. She seems to consider it a success if it’s not “awkward” when she sees the guy later on campus, fully clothed, She derides “clingy” behavior, whether on her part or theirs, and refuses to accept Facebook “friend” requests from the guys who sleep with her.

No, Karen’s sex buddies are not friends. Friends don’t exploit each other for momentary–or even hours of–pleasure. They certainly don’t tell tales, like Karen and the guys themselves did.

On that score, her girlfriends fail the true-friend test as well. One of the girls who received Karen’s PowerPoint pressed “forward,” hoping to raise her own social status, perhaps? And what kind of girlfriends let a friend repeatedly get drunk and leave with any guy—or multiple guys–sporting two legs and an athletic scholarship? Karen betrays no sense of her own dignity and value. It’s not surprising that the others don’t either.

Without friends who really care about her, Karen receives little encouragement to make good choices in terms of her health.  Healthy living doesn’t share space with random, drunken, hook-ups.

What does her thesis tell about her prospects for a stable, enduring marriage? It’s what’s missing that matters.

Her exploits describe a young woman practiced in sexual techniques but utterly clueless about the inevitable emotional connections that sex generates. Karen ridicules the tugs on her own heart that leave her “extremely depressed” after a final hookup with one particular man. She can’t afford to be vulnerable. Caught in the inevitable contradiction of the impersonal hookup, Karen wears the emotional armor of indifference to protect against the natural intimacy of sex.

Her sexual “fun,” disconnected from personal intimacy and commitment, is really a solo ride towards unhappiness.

What’s missing from Karen Owen’s thesis—and her life? Trust. Kindness. Friendship. Self-Giving. Love.

Everything that will make her happy.

Isn’t there anyone who cares enough about Karen Owen to tell her the truth?

© 2010 Mary Rice Hasson

 

Share

5 Comments

Filed under Lessons Learned, Relationships, Sexuality, Women

A Starbucks Conversation Overheard: A Woman and Her Adolescent Boyfriend

I didn’t mean to listen.  But it was a Starbucks conversation, easily overheard.  The young woman was cute, twenty-something, dressed with hip, young professional style.  Her companion was older, perhaps mid-thirties, sharply and expensively dressed.  A boss? Older co-worker? Too young to be her dad and, from the conversation, clearly not her boyfriend.

They were talking about plans for the weekend, that comfortable staple of Friday lunchtime conversations.  And it was in that conversation that her lament broke through, interrupting my concentration on an article in process.

“Well, I don’t think we’re going out this weekend.  I’d love to, actually. But my boyfriend, all he really likes to do when he gets home from work is play video games. His work is so stressful, you know?” (Something in the financial services industry, I gathered.  So he was no slouch.  Some brains, anyway.)

“It used to make me really mad,” she continued. “But he’s really into it. Even on Saturday mornings, it’s get out of bed and grab something to eat in front of the TV, so he can play a video game.” (She puts up with this?  I bet she takes the trash out, and walks the dog too, so he doesn’t have to interrupt his game.)

“I really don’t like it, but what can I do?  He says it’s what he likes to do to relax, so I guess I should support that.  In fact, his birthday’s coming up and I broke down and got him the latest version of one of his favorite games.”

I felt sorry for her.  She was such a cute, together-looking young girl.  Clearly living with her boyfriend, she shared sex, an address, and expenses (as her conversation went on to reveal). But it was just as clear that they shared not much else. Companionship?  Only if she counted time spent sitting on the same sofa while he exercised his thumbs.  Mutual friends?  Only other guys interested in the same things.

His video game obsession, while a problem in itself, was but a symptom of a much bigger relationship-killer: self-absorption, bordering on narcissism.  Self-absorption, as a temporary way-station on the adolescent’s journey, is nothing new. Self-absorption, as a character trait carried to the destination of adulthood, is disturbingly new.

In my own single years, we wouldn’t have hesitated to dub this perpetual adolescent a “loser.”  Not so, for this generation of women. Maybe some women are willing to put up with boys-who-refuse-to-grow-up because they have their own version of perpetual adolescence (see Skyla Freeman’s insightful commentary over at American Maggie.) And others, like the sweet young woman at Starbucks, have been snookered into believing that adolescent self-absorption is all that can be expected of young men.  From the metrosexual obsession with male muscles, clothes, and hair to the self-indulgent pursuit of video game victories, Internet porn, and sex without commitment, the common denominator is that these young men live for themselves. And the young women who live with them, usually in the blind hope that an engagement ring will appear “soon,” often waste years trying to make the child-man grow up.

But perhaps the tide is turning. An interesting website, The Art of Manliness, has quickly garnered over 65,000 subscribers by opining on and celebrating “manliness.” It highlights both the responsibilities and satisfactions of real manhood—a life lived  for others: “[I]t is boys that live only for themselves; men fully enjoy life’s pleasure but also live for a higher purpose. Boys try to find themselves in what they buy; men find themselves in what they do. Boys base their identity on what they consume; men base their identity on what they create.”

Young women need to expect—and demand—that the young men in their lives aspire to maturity.  They have to want to grow up, to be willing to assume responsibility for others, to build relationships based on depth, self-sacrifice, and self-giving.  For their own sakes, these young men need to find a love stronger than their own self-love—and I feel fairly certain they won’t find it by working their video game controllers.

My advice to the lovely young woman at Starbucks?  Dump him, fast.  (You might want to unplug the Play Station first, so you’ve got his attention.)

Find a man who “lives for a higher purpose”….Now that’s a guy to go home to.

7 Comments

Filed under Policy and Culture, Relationships, Sexuality, Women