Break Ups

Discussion Question:
In your experience, why do people typically break up?

There are never ending amounts of reasons for why couples break up relationships. I believe that many a times a break up is usually done for selfish reasons. Not to say that this happens in all cases... but many do. Love is selfless and when two are in a relationship they are needing to give of themselves. When one or both persons refrains from giving, the potential for selfishness to seep in causing those involved to ask "what am I getting from this other person?"

If you think about it, many reasons why people get out of relationships are selfish. Jealousy - "he is spending too much time with others" or "she can't stop flirting with my friends". Jealousy can also tie in with Self-Esteem issues. Money - "he spends it all on what he wants and doesn't think about me or our future" or "she's too careless with my money and goes spending it on things that are unnecessary". Boredom - "this person is not interesting to me any more".

Other reasons for a break up that were raised in class:
Adultery/Cheating, Abuse, etc. These are litigate reasons for break up in my eyes. It is not selfish for someone to consider themselves worthy of a better partner who treats them with respect. Although, from a Christian's perspective, I do believe that when already married a couple should try to work on their relationship. I do believe that divorce can be considered an option when in these situations.

The Filter Model - My Parents

My parents... are a match made in heaven! They are very perfect for each other and their story of getting together romances me.

As Professor Nellis suggested using a couple that we know to relate to the discussion in class today, I chose my parents. The filter model that was uncovered as a series of macro societal influences shows who probable it is to 'hook up' with one's soul mate.

Working through the filter: Mom and Dad
1. Pool of Eligibles: The entire world (6 billion people)
2. Gender Preference: My parents both had the entire world's population divided into two as they were not attracted nor wanting to marry the same sex due to faith based principles. (3 billion people)
3. Propriniquity and Sex Ratio: My dad was born and raised in Holland until age 9. Then his family (8 children and his mom and dad) moved to the Canada and then moved to the United States. My dad moved to Alberta after finishing 7 years in the military over seas and in Canada. Mean while.... My mom was born and raised in Red Deer, Alberta. She eventually moved to Edmonton for school and work. Edmonton has a relatively equal ratio of men and women living in the city.
4. Endogamy: My mom and dad met in Edmonton at a church they were both attending at the time.
5. Homogamy: My mom tells me that she was attracted to my dad mostly because he can relate to her so easy. They both share the same faith, their morals are all attributed from the same origin, they are both from Dutch decadence or from Holland.
6. Value and Role Similarities: Very similar to their homogamy, they both share the same faith. This is what they base their foundation of marriage upon. They both have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This develops an even deeper relationship between them then the average couple cause they are able to have trust in the One who has authority over their lives while remaining committed to each other.
7. Cohabitation: My mom and dad got married before living together. They will be celebrating their 22nd wedding anniversary this June (2012). I truly believe that their marriage will last their entire life times.

Communication Styles - Miller & Miller

Miller and Miller designed a framework of four different types of communication. Creating this model in 1997, they illustrated the modern society's forms of communication. I will review each one and relate them to a person or situation that I am familiar with as they/it demonstrates that type of "talk".

The first is "Small or Shop Talk", this refers to a sociable discussion conducted as a routine. One or more persons involved in this conversation are task orientated in this situation and are looking to achieve a goal. Many people that I come into contact with at Red Deer College are extremely well familiarized with this type of talk. Young adults at a party, for example want to get to know others. They do this through the process of "small talk" which could potentially lead to a more in-depth conversation. My friend, Nancy just recently went on a blind date with a man names John. They had never met one another before they met for the date. This caused them to start their date off with "small talk". They both wanted to receive something from their date so the dialogue was more task oriented at the beginning. For example, the task of asking the other person what the other saw as appetizing on the restaurant's menu and so on.

The next level of talk is called "Control Talk". These talks are particularly not open to generating new ideas and are defined in two ways. Fight or Spiteful. Both considered as ways of wanting to take control of the conversation. When someone is expressing themselves in a 'fighting' way (in other words, attacking you or being rather argumentative) they can be seen as using "control talk". On the other hand, spiteful talk is rather passive aggressive and can be seen in sarcasm and non verbal communication. My friend’s family use spiteful communication when wanting to engage in control talk. When one wants another to do something making the other feel guilty is usually the resolution.  
“Search Talk” is my personal favorite out of all four of Miller and Miller’s framework. This is the conversation that is most valued in my eyes. This is a conversation between people when they focus on each other’s words carefully with intention and explore ideas and interests. It is very much so, not a routine and shows are a complex process where two or more persons participate generously. This can be an on-going conversation from day to day. Like a married couple for example, they are not restarting all new conversations every day and all the time. No they have many things that are explored and spoken about for more than just one day. . . Although many people favor this type of communication over others because of depth and complexity, it also has its weaknesses. Professor Nellis said in class that the authors of the text book we are studying at this time think that this “talk” suffers from a lack of closure. This, of course, depends on the circumstances.

The last conversation model that Miller and Miller include in their framework is called “Straight Talk”. This type of communication ‘cuts right to the heart’ of the situation or issue and is direct and to the point. Each person included is completely honest with their feelings, emotions, and opinion. This can also be seen in dating situations. When getting to know another person in a mature relationship, people are usually interested in the other’s honesty and genuinely. This type of conversation usually takes place when one person wants to find out the interests of another.

Re-caping the Big Theories

Earlier this semester our class studied nine theories. I would like to go over them again now just to refresh my memory.
1. Haberma's Paradigms:
 a) Empirical-Analytic: this perspective sees things as measurable and in an objective light. This usually involves the scientific method including observation, measuring, prediction, and control.
 b) Critical-Theoretic: this perspective deals with the observer searching for the underlying information that might influence behavior.
 c) Situational Interpretive: this perspective is seen as completely subjective as to how the behavior has come about. An example would be that of love and beauty... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

2. Legal: this is one of four definitions of family. It defines the rights and duties of the members within a family. (ie: father = bread winner, mother = nurturer, etc.)

3. Phenomenological: the second definition of family. Each individual within a family has their own perspective of who is kin.

4. Disciplinary: this definition of the family serves to enrich one's knowledge. It simply reflects a positive focus using different conceptual or growing tools.

5. Theoretical: this definition of family includes dynamics of the family. Some theories examine stability and coherence, but others concentrate on conflict and results.

6. Postmodernism: other well known as "pomo". This concept is an inevitable movement that culture is experiencing at this time in history. Ignorance will gain no benefit. Those who are postmodernists are very much against the grand narratives (Liberal Cortex, Marxian Narrative of History, and Judian Christian History), but rather prefer the 'Petite Histoire' or individual experiences as everyone experiences life differently.

 7. Conflict: One of three macro theories, this concept takes on the assumptions of Fredrick Engel’s book “Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State”. This book argues on the matter of primitive communism.

8. Feminist: second of the three macro theories, this reveals the notion of man as patriarchal leader and head figure. This society would favor men to be dominant.

9. Ecological: Finally, the last macro theory. This focuses on structural-functionalism when society acts as an organism or body and all parts serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

Changes in Dating, Courtship, and Love

Q: What changes in dating, courtship, and love would you project as this century unfolds based on current social, cultural, even technological trends?
A: Over the years, many trends have changed. Just since the time that my parents were young (my age, 20 haha) and dating, things have changed a lot. Things such as the way the majority of people communicate when looking for a partner. People seem to rely on technology now a days more than  anything. More and more relationships start through on-line dating, texting, or emailing, and many do not build their foundations on the communication which is most assertive and healthy - talking face to face.

Duvall and Miller's 8 Developmental Tasks in Marriage (1985)

Today Professor Nellis showed the class the eight most important tasks couples need to accomplish during marriage according to Duvall and Miller. I will relate this list to my friends who just recently got marriage. (For privacy purposes, I will not use their real names.) Lets call them Jack and Jill.

1. Finding, furnishing and settling into their first home. - Jack and Jill decided to rent a basement suite as their first home. They have furnished their place with things that have been given to them at their wedding and/or they have brought from their own individual homes from before they were married. They gradually brought all their belongings to the basement suite before they got married and the day they got back from their honey moon, they settled into their home.

2. Establishing mutually satisfying ways of supporting themselves. - For the most part they have established that Jill stays at home, doing most of the house work: dishes, cleaning, laundry, etc. as well as works part time as a health-care aid. Jack works full time and produces most of their income as a construction worker.

3. Allocating responsibilities each partner is willing and able to assume. - As each has different preferences of responsibilities around the home, Jill assumes most of the household skilled jobs and Jack aids as her help. Jill cooks, cleans, grocery shops, and more. Jack will often come home to 'just chill' after a long day of work, but he does not restrict Jill to doing all the house hold jobs. He is more than willing to help, however Jill must be honest in asking for help. Just as Jill does almost all of the house work, Jack takes care of almost all of the couples finically needs. Jill does work part time to contribute, but Jack works full times and pays the bills, and works out budgeting issues alongside his wife. All in all, Jack and Jill work as a well-rounded team with not too many responsibilities being strictly delegated on only one person.

4. Building foundations for satisfying marital relations. - Their communication is treated as a key component in their relationship and is not neglected. Jack and Jill both admit to being sensitive verbalizers and both find themselves very honest with their feelings and thoughts.

5. Controlling fertility and planning a family. - This topic seems to be the greatest of conversation when talking with Jill. As a couple they have communicated that they want a family in the future, but probably not for the next year or so.

6. Starting a family. - Jack and Jill feel they are not in the best spot financially (still paying off Jill's college loan) and would like to spend time strengthing the foundation of their relationship before bringing other little people into the big picture.  Also, Jack and Jill both grew up in families that, at most of the time, included only a single parent. They both agree that they respect the decisions that their parents made while they were younger, however they wish to maintain a solid relationship for their future children so that their children will have a solid model for their future. 

7. Interacting with relatives on both sides of their family. - Jack and Jill share a faith in God that most of their family members do not. This brings some division in the amount that they speak with their brothers and sisters, but there is a high level respect found in conversation about and when talking with them.

8. Maintaining couple motivation and morale. - Because of Jack and Jill’s relationship with God, they both have the very similar morals in life and have both voiced their values and opinions on issues openly. Their relationship is growing to be a strong bond filled with faith and love.  It is expected to weather all storms of life as long as they remain faithful in their commitments to God and each other.

Hot n' Cold and 3 Paradigms

Professor Nellis asked us today if we could see through the perspective of at least one theory while watching Katy Perry's "Hot n' Cold" music video. This video reveals what Katy's fiancé is thinking as he is about to say the two most critical words at that time.
http://youtu.be/kTHNpusq654

Looking from the empirical-analytical perspective, I see how Katy truly has the objective to see her future husband say "I do" at the alter. She observes his nervousness as he drifts off into thoughts on the subject of her thinking he is over analyzing the situation. She and others that are sitting, witnessing the wedding anticipate his words and are left on the edge of their seats. They all, in some way, control his answer by putting him under the pressure of saying yes to a life spent with Katy. Does he want this?? His thoughts prove differently...

From the situational interpretive point of view, many viewers are able to relate with Katy's fiancé. He, like many other people, on their wedding day can become anxious and assume things before they happen. So many people get 'cold feet' before their wedding. Nervousness can over come them with thoughts that they are making the biggest and possibly the worst decision of their entire life.

The perspective that I saw as most evidently related to this video was the critical-theoretic. The majority of the music video is of what the man is really thinking under his surface of patience and submission. As Katy is waiting on her fiancé's reply to the pastors question of "Will you take this woman?" the another question is posed.... If what the video portrays is true about Katy's character, then her fiancé is doomed for a life of submission under her forceful authority to tell him what he is like in her eyes.

Sex, A Taboo Subject

Children are becoming more and more "sext up" as the years go on. As time progresses, it seems like the exposed generation gets younger. It's sad that people might predict that soon five year olds will be addicted to porn, passing around pictures of themselves naked or even having sex with each other. It's so sad…

The documentary Professor Nellis showed in class yesterday revealed the world of "sext up kids".  The majority of the children that shared their stories were girls under the age of 16. Many explained that they had made mistakes in becoming victims of this degrading subject matter and say that they wished they had never done many other things they had done.

One young girl shared her story of how her boyfriend at the time asked if he could “see a picture”. She then sent him a photo in which she posed in a sexual way. He thought it would be a good joke to send it to a few friends. Years later, she is still being made fun of by family members, classmates, and strangers. Humiliation has brought her to see how this was a dangerous and degrading way for her to receive attention.

The documentary showed how workshops have been created for young girls to help them understand the world of sex and the dangers that come along with getting involved too early. Workshops seem like an excellent way to educate children about sex before they are told by their friend (potentially getting them into trouble). I do, however, think that these workshops should be taught by people the children taking them look up to and admire. I think these classes would be beneficial for boys and girls of younger and older ages during middle school and high school. I don’t think that biology class will cut it for a group of kids that are already sexually active at age 15. My friend once told me, “Biology class is only the plumbing of the matter. Children need to know how sex, whether oral, actual, or even jokes can negatively affect them.”

It's also quite sad that parents might be contributing to the problem. With the use of technology increasing, parents find it 'ok' for their children to handle adult devices such as smart phones with which their kids have free access to internet sites at any time. It is hard to say how tight a leash parents should have on their children's internet, phone, and media access. After all, if a child is told not to do something over and over, more than likely they are bound to become curious. But if a parent never talks about the taboo subject of sex, there is no open dialog or communication about things that need to be talked about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a Christian’s perspective, I think that I have a clear view of WHY I want to sustain from having sex, or going anywhere close to it before I am married.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html

This website poses the question: “What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? :

The answer (I thoroughly agree with):

There is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that precisely refers to sex before marriage. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, but is sex before marriage considered sexually immoral? According to 1 Corinthians 7:2, “yes” is the clear answer: “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” In this verse, Paul states that marriage is the “cure” for sexual immorality. 1 Corinthians 7:2 is essentially saying that, because people cannot control themselves and so many are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married. Then they can fulfill their passions in a moral way.

Since 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly includes sex before marriage in the definition of sexual immorality, all of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality as being sinful also condemn sex before marriage as sinful. Sex before marriage is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality. There are numerous Scriptures that declare sex before marriage to be a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves (Hebrews 13:4).

Far too often we focus on the “recreation” aspect of sex without recognizing that there is another aspect—procreation. Sex within marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage. Song of Solomon and several other Bible passages (such as Proverbs 5:19) clearly describe the pleasure of sex. However, the couple must understand that God’s intent for sex includes producing children. Thus, for a couple to engage in sex before marriage is doubly wrong—they are enjoying pleasures not intended for them, and they are taking a chance of creating a human life outside of the family structure God intended for every child.

While practicality does not determine right from wrong, if the Bible's message on sex before marriage were obeyed, there would be far fewer sexually transmitted diseases, far fewer abortions, far fewer unwed mothers and unwanted pregnancies, and far fewer children growing up without both parents in their lives. Abstinence is God’s only policy when it comes to sex before marriage. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and, most importantly, honors God.

Don't Settle for Mr. Wrong!

In class, Professor Nellis passed out a paper "Q&A: Is it Time to Stop Waiting for Mr. Right?" By Andrea Sachs (TIME's Senior Reporter). The answers to the questions she posed were very interesting. Women thought it was necessary to be extremely picky when choosing their ideal men. Men seemed more excepting of women when asked "what is your definition of settling?" and they openly explained how men receive certain things from different women in their lives. Interesting.....

I would like to answer one of her questions in my own words. (My answer is based on my own experience and bias.)

What's your definition of "settling"?

I think many men and women are setting for the person they can "handle" nowadays. People sometimes get tired of waiting for "Mr./Mrs. Right". From what I have seen, impatience can cause great heart ache in the end. I believe that every person on this earth desires to be loved by another person. This love is usually desired through a partner.

Balance is necessary when choosing criteria for your 'must have man/woman'. I have learned through personal experiences that when a woman has high expectations but does not receive results in a timely fashion this usually brings her to settling or to the point of not having expectations at all. .... Sometimes woman dwell on the more superficial qualities of men. Will he be a good provider? Is he good looking?... (This might potentially be the underlying issue of why people get divorced later on in life. Because, we all know what looks don’t last, true character does.) In today's society, character, beliefs, and morals seem to be undervalued.

Personally, I have decided to write down my "must man list", and by making pre-decisions before I meet a guy I might be attracted to. I can then refer to my list and ask myself "why am I attracted to this man?" This does not mean that I should not question my high expectations. They should be reasonably attainable. But, like the article was talking about: Should the guy that fits 80% of criteria be crossed of the list because he is a bit too short? – This brings the discussion back to superficial reasons. – The majority of one’s list (I think) should be based on character qualities and interests.

The list’s form of accountability can be extremely beneficial. It keeps me from "settling". After all, I believe marriage is for life. If I am settling for the man I want to spend forever with, I’m putting myself into an extremely dangerous position. I also need to recognize that in order for me to maintain high expectations that are still reasonable for my future husband to attain; I first must work on Me. What am I will to work on in my own life… and what do I need to change in order for this “almost” perfect man to be attracted to me?

World's Strictest Parent

After watching this episode of the reality TV show, “World’s Strictest Parent” on reforming dysfunctional children, I now have a better picture of how the world views contemporary versus traditional parenting.  Two children who had been brought up in typically contemporary parenting homes were brought into a strict household of large size and many rules. The two unruly teenagers were to be reformed in some way within a week’s time. They were to learn how to be more respectful towards authority figures, what it looks like to be in a 'normal' and well-functioning home, and more. The show gave the impression that contemporary parenting has more negative effects on a child’s upbringing then traditional parenting does.

My first thoughts before watching the episode were quite analytical. My predictions were not true. I thought I would be categorized as one who had grown up in a traditional home. I stood corrected. According to the movie a traditional home is very rigid with rules, chores, and discipline. The contemporary home was seen to be dysfunctional with few to no rules enforced, liberties of all sort and parental guidance lacked. The parents took on different roles in each of the different homes. The traditional parent was one with higher authority and leadership roles; whereas, the contemporary parent seemed to desire a friendship with their children making it very hard for them to attain higher author and leadership.

Looking back, I believe I grew up (and my parents continue with this method of parenting) with a healthy balance between the two approaches to parenting. My siblings and I built a friendship with our parents while we also held great respect for them.

I believe that a healthy balance of traditional and contemporary parenting skills need to be used during the upbringing of children.

Vulnerability – Brene Brown’s T.E.D. Talk

Brene Brown hit it on the nose!

“Connection brings purpose and meaning.” Brene makes a very well put statement here saying that without connection in one’s life there is no purpose. People are living examples of this. Starting at birth, children want and long for connection with other people. A baby cries for their mother when needing to be held, toddlers love to play with others, elementary students want to belong, fast forward and seniors love to visit with each other. Purpose is often found in what you can give and receive through others. From a personal point of view, I often find purpose, not in my schedule or accomplishments, but in who I interact with and how I interact with them.

This topic reminds me of Simon Sinek’s “Golden Circle.” He encourages a “bold goal to help build a world in which the vast majority of people go home every day feeling fulfilled by their work.” He says that when one is selling or promoting an item they should become passionate about if first. One should present WHY they want to sell, then HOW they want to sell it, and lastly present WHAT they are selling….

All this said to bring me to my point. When people naturally connect with each other, without realizing it, everyone one knows WHY they want to connect, HOW they want to connect, and WHO they want to connect with. This makes connections sound like a formula. That is not my intention. Rather it is to pose a question:  that when a person is connecting with others, do they know why, how and who they are thinking to connect with before they do? And if so, does one start with WHY and end with WHO?

My Reasons for Marriage

Professor Robert Nellis showed us a documentary on modern marriage today called "Thoroughly Modern Marriage." This documentary on marriage presents several ways couples choose to share their lives together. Some get married, cohabitate, live in a distant relationship, or have open relations with other couples. This different options cause me to reflect on the reasons why I would rather get married than "do" a long term relationship any other way.

I agree with Don and Sally Meredith (http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/gods-three-purposes-for-marriage-1195763.html)  when they say that God created marriage to unite man and woman in holy matrimony under Him to:

1.       reflect His Image,

2.       reproduce children in His likeness,

3.       and reign in spiritual warfare.

My exposure to the traditions of my family, friends, and how they view marriage has influenced my opinion to stand firm within my Christian beliefs that it is a holy union in which three persons are united: God, a man and a woman.

Three Family Assumptions

There are three major assumptions that have been placed upon the family. Society assumes that family is primarily responsible for reproduction and nutrient care for children. It is responsible for the establishment of an individual’s social identity and socialization; and is accountable for attaining an individual’s intimacy and fulfilling their needs. These three assumptions are very general and envelope mostly all that one expects from family.

I had many assumptions that my family was responsible for giving me certain things. I assumed that they were responsible for me. Growing up, all of me was my family’s. I belonged to them, they belonged to me. I guess this encompasses reproduction, nutrient care, identity, socialization, and intimate needs. I assumed that because we all belonged to each other, we were (and still are) joined financially, emotionally, psychological… we even share similar biology.

I correct myself as this perspective is only applicable to me and others that are in their biological, immediate family of origin. Many families are not made up of what I grew up thinking was a “family”. A family can be seen as any group of people who share in community and love each other. This might look extremely different from my family.