Compatible Partners

Recently there was an episode of a popular medical drama that involved the upcoming marriage of one of the characters, a woman.  It comes out that this woman is about to get married, but has never slept with her fiance.  Another character spends the rest of the episode railing against this woman for her stupidity, and telling her how she needs to find out if they are sexually compatible before they get married.  The show had no characters arguing the other way, and the woman in question had no decent reasons for sticking to her course of no sex until marriage.

This isn't a new idea, obviously.  The reasoning is that a couple needs to be sexually compatible in order to have a happy, healthy, long lasting marriage.  If either partner is unsatisfied by the sex, the union is doomed to failure, and should never happen. 

I have three arguments that I would like you to consider in support of my opinion that the above way of thinking is, in my opinion, incredibly stupid.

1.) Compatibility is not the issue - immediate sexual gratification is.
Pretend that you are a woman, and you happen to have a lot of money, and you have just started dating a man that does not have as much money as you do.  He is really wonderful, and the two of you are falling in love, but before anything can progress too far, he says:

"Honey, I think you are wonderful.  I'm sure that as I continue to get to know you better, my love for you will continue to grow.  But before we invest too much time in this relationship, and before we grow so fond of each other that we would consider a lasting partnership, I need to know if we are financially compatible.  After all, finances are an important part of marriage, and we need to know if we can merge our finances and financial habits smoothly.  So what we need to do is combine all of our assets and accounts into one joint account, equally owned by both of us.  I will add you to my lease agreements and car title, and you will add me to the title of your home and three cars, as well.  Then we'll put all of our money into a joint checking account for which we will both have access.  Also, you need to add me to all of your lines of credit, and I will put you on my credit card.  Add me to your health insurance, as well.  Oh, and we should name each other beneficiaries of our life insurance policies."

Would that raise any red flags for you?  Would you be thinking, "He must really love me to want to know if we are financially compatible."  Or might you think that he is after your money?  It may be true that he loves you, but do you really feel like his love for you is the top priority? 

How many of us, if we had a friend in a similar situation, would tell her it was a good idea to go ahead and make all of her property joint property with this guy she's dating?I think most of us see it for the stupid idea that it is.  Obviously the guy wants the benefits of her financial situation before he is ready for the commitment that is normally and prudently required first.  My assertion is that the "sexual compatibility argument" is really just an "I'm horny now" argument.  It's a reason that one or both parties uses to get something that would be wiser for their relationship if they waited, but for which they don't have the self discipline to defer fulfilling their desires.

2.) A person's priorities are revealed in their 'deal breakers'
If a person won't marry you because you don't want to have kids, then it means that children are a very high priority.  If a person won't marry you because of religious differences, then it means that religion is a very high priority.  Couples can have differences and still make long term commitments to each other as long as the difference isn't supremely important to them.  I have known couples in which one loved red meat, and the other was a vegan, and they were happily married.  Diet was important, but not that important.  The same thing goes with music, sports, travel, politics, etc.  Sometimes those are deal breakers, sometimes they are differences that deepen a marriage.  It depends on how high of a priority each item is to the individuals involved.

Imagine that you are about to get engaged, and your significant other says, I can't marry you if you aren't into music - you need to sing with me, learn an instrument, go to the opera with me, etc.  Music is my life, and you need to share music with me if you are going to share my life with me. 

Imagine also that music isn't that important to you.  You listen to the radio and you enjoy a good song when you hear one, but you don't have a drive to learn an instrument, and you don't know a thing about musical theory.  You have a major decision to make.  You can agree to go along with it - after all, you think it would be cool to play the guitar, and an opera isn't that big a deal, as long as you are sharing it with the person you love.  Such a compromise could get you the love of the person that you long to be with.  But would it?  What if something happened, and you couldn't share the music?  What if you just couldn't learn an instrument, or if your lack of true enthusiasm lessened the value of your effort?  Isn't this person telling you that they love you, but they love music more?  And if you ever came between them and music, they would dump you? 

I'm not saying it is wrong to love music - or anything else - that much.  It is important to have passions, and it is important to fully disclose them up front in a relationship.  It is equally important that those passions are shared.  If one person is more passionate about something than they are passionate about their spouse, the spouse should share that passion.  If not, the relationship is in for some rocky times.  My religious faith is more important to me than my wife.  My wife's religious faith is more important to her than I am.  We share a common faith, and our marriage is not hurt by our passion for God.  My wife really loves basketball.  I dislike basketball.  My wife loves me more than basketball, and I love her more than I dislike basketball, so compromises are made, and our marriage is great.  If loving basketball was a deal breaker for my wife, we would not be married, because we would not share that passion.

This all sounds like an argument in favor of sexual compatibility, doesn't it?  If sex is that important to one of the people, it better be that important to both of the people, right?  They need to be sexually compatible, right?  Here's the catch.  If your significant other suggests that your future relationship depends upon finding out if you are sexually compatible, and you don't feel that way, then you have already discovered that you are not compatible.  You didn't have to have sex.  If your partner feels that way, and you don't, then you know that sex is a higher on their passion list than you are.  If sex is not that high on your priority list, then the two of you are probably not a good match - even if it turns out that the sex would have been awesome.

3.) 100% Compatibility is a Myth
To think that you need to be, or even could be, completely compatible is the myth of fairy tales and overly mushy romantic fiction.  Marriage is defined as a union of two different people, not the same person to himself or herself.  Different people are just that - different.  Not only that, but the world changes, life changes, and people change.  Things that you agree on now might become an issue later, and things that are issues now might go away later.  And life is probably going to hit you with something you never saw coming.  As long as you are compatible in your top priorities - those priorities that are bigger than you are to each other - then the rest is details.  Sure they require some working out, but they can be worked out together.

The questions is not 'Are you compatible enough?'  The question is, 'Do you love each other enough to make a commitment and stand firm, no matter what?'  I observed a lot of happy couples growing up, and they all had challenges that they had to overcome to stay together.  They told stories of how it was hard, of how they struggled, but their love and commitment won out, and now they had their happy ending.  These were not small struggles.  I'm talking about medical conditions that incapacitated a wife early in their marriage, and the husband cared for her as an invalid for many years to come.  I'm talking about a couple that had three children with down syndrome.  I'm talking about a husband that went to prison for 15 years on false charges, and his loving wife waited for him.  I'm talking about soldiers that were deployed, people that suffered depression, couples that went bankrupt.  These are things that destroy many marriages, but it didn't destroy these ones because they loved each other and they were committed to each other.

There is no way to know what challenges lay ahead in a relationship.  You can only know which ones you have overcome already, and whether or not your commitment is enough to overcome all of them.  Having seen these trials in other's lives, I asked myself before I got married, "If she was hit by a car and was paralyzed from the neck down three months after we were married, do I love her enough to stay with her and care for her for the rest of our lives?  Does she love me enough to do the same for me?"  I think that any couple that can honestly answer yes to that question doesn't need to worry about how they hang the toilet paper, or any other detail that is lower on their priority list than their significant other.

As a personal example, I love being active - hiking, camping, canoeing, soccer, softball, paintball, etc.  My wife is also very active, and we loved that about each other.  There was no way of knowing that pregnancies were going to be difficult for her, and that from the first bout of morning sickness, to the day of delivery nine months later, she would be incapacitated.  Not only would she not be active, but I would spend so much time caring for her that I would not have time to do what I wanted to do, either.  But it never even crossed my mind to leave her.  I see women that stay active through their whole pregnancy.  I wish that my wife were like that.  Heck, my wife wishes she was like that.  But that doesn't change our love for each other, nor does it lesson my commitment to her.

According to the logic of needing to be totally compatible, I should have gotten her pregnant before we made a long term commitment to each other.  That way I could see how she fared, and when it turned out she was sick for nine months, then I would have said, "Sorry, you just don't meet my needs.  Have fun with the kid."

That's ludicrous.  There is no way of anticipating and testing every possible situation that might come up.  So just suck it up, make the commitment to the one you love (if you truly love them that much), and hang on tight to each other so that you never come apart.  The trepidation of wanting to try everything out is just a sign that your relationship is already doomed to failure.  That's why couples who live together before marriage have significantly higher divorce rates than those who take the plunge before moving in with each other.

Is sex that important?
Having said all that, the question is where does sex fall on your priority list?  Do you love it more than you can love another person?  If so, sexual compatibility could be an issue.  But if you feel that that way about sex, I would make the assertion that your life is shallow, and you need to get some priorities straight.  But that sounds like a whole separate blog entry to me.

Really?

The purpose of this blog is not to argue with anonymous naysayers possessing no depth of reasoning, so unless someone has a real question or valid argument, I will not be responding to your comments in the future. However, since the (self-proclaimed) "Anonymous Coward" (I use that title to differentiate him/her from the bazillion other anonymous commentators on the internet) specifically asked for me to post their comment and respond, I will oblige them this one last time.

Anonymous said (and I quote exactly as they typed):

I see that you failed to post my last comment. Kindof validates what I wrote, you are a little too interested in the socio-sexual development of adolescent girls, hmmmm?

For anyone else who suffers similar confusion, a comment automatically posts when you post it. That's why it is called "posting a comment." When you post it, it is there for the world to see. The reason there were a bunch of responses to Anon.'s comment on "A Quick Rebuttal" is because the comment was posted.  I didn't have to do anything, other than not delete it, in order for it to be posted. If anyone is really anxious to see their comments posted in an actual blog entry, they may start their own blog. The only reason I post the comments when I talk about them is to save the reader the time of navigating to a different part of the blog. I don't have to do that in order for a comment to be "posted", though.  If you doubt, click on the "comments" link under my last post, and...whoa, look at that! A bunch of comments!

Second, the reason that I didn't blog about the second comment is because it was basically the same as the first. But since Anonymous insists, let me break it down for you all, one line at a time:

Dear Saint Pervious,

In their attempt to be clever, Anon. failed to realize, or is just ignorant (surprise, surprise) that pervious is not a play on the word pervert, but is actually a real word, which means that an object can be permeated or affected by something. For example, if something is pervious to water, water can get through it, or it can be ruined by water. The more common usage of the word is impervious, which means the opposite, as in, "My waterproof watch is impervious to the rain." But maybe Anon. knew that, and I just failed to grasp the incredibly clever meaning of the salutation.

My apologies if my rancid breath doth tarnish thy halo or spook thy snowy steed, but I had a few more comments.

Well, that's interesting, since I usually take the phrase 'a few more comments' to mean new comments addressing some aspect of a situation that hasn't been addressed.

Someone who, with no apparent credentials or qualifications, has taken it upon themselves to write a book about the sexual relationships of young women, set themselves up as the savior of soiled doves whose judgement is not up his standard and then use those experiences to promote his scarlet letter crusade.  Add to that the fact that these young women are high school students under your position of authority.

I admit, my credentials are not apparent, but least I've shown that my qualifications include the ability to write in complete sentences. I'm also at a loss of how Anon.'s credentials are any more apparent. I didn't know one had to have credentials to write a blog.  If I were selling advice - such as charging for therapy sessions - then I could see why credentials were important.  But for a blog?  As I stated in my first post, I'm just writing what I think, and people can take it or leave it.  If they like what I say, fine.  If they don't, fine.  I don't think there is a law requiring credentials to voice one's opinion.

Also, can we assume from the above statement that Anon. has read my book? I really doubt it. But Anon. can prove me wrong by telling me what my adage is for evaluating the wisdom of a decision. Anyone who has read my book knows that it is not about the sexual relationships of young women. Anon.'s critical reading skills, however, are below par, as we will see in a second, so maybe they have read my book, and just didn't understand what they were reading.

Anyway, the general gist of the paragraph is that I'm not qualified to give girls advice about relationships, so I am bad for trying to do so.

So the fact that you "care" is not in question, you have shown that you care maybe more than is appropriate. What is at issue is why you care. Now only you can know your motives, but from an outside observer, the red flags are starting to fly.

The second-to-last paragraph of "A Quick Rebuttal" explained in detail why I care. That's what I meant by Anon.'s lack of critical reading skills. Other than that, this paragraph is just more of the same - I am creepy and bad for trying to help my students.

I mean really, publish a book, create a website, start a blog(that details professional behavior that is questionable)? That is not an insignificant allocation of resources and taken together it is not unreasonable for one to question the motivation behind all this work.

I get it. Anon. thinks that I care more than is appropriate. The entire comment consists of (1) saying I have no apparent credentials, while failing to provide any of their own, and (2) saying that I show an inappropriate interest in my students. Since I don't care if people approve of my credentials, then this whole thing boils down to the idea that my level of caring is questionable. That happens to be the exact same idea of the first comment by Anon. Since I already gave a lengthy response to that accusation, I don't think I need to respond to it again.

On the other hand, Anon. didn't answer any of my questions. When I asked, "Why is that inappropriate?", Anon. just repeated the fact that they found it inappropriate. What a stellar argument. I could have saved a lot of writing if I were capable of such clever come-backs.

If, however, Anon. would like to write an actual response to the questions and accusations I posed in either of these rebuttals, they may feel free to do so, though their comment will probably remain in the comment section.

The anonymous coward

I think we can all agree with that.

Before I finish, I have one more question, and this is for anyone reading my blog: When did I talk about the sexual relationships of my female students? I twice mention that I have students that are pregnant, but if stating that someone is pregnant is an inappropriate reference to their sex life, then my wife would have been very offended every time someone asked when she was due. So I'm curious, what is the exact statement about my student's sexual activity that crosses the line? Again, I think Anon. is reading too much into stuff, probably because of their own perverted mind. But I leave it open for Anon. (or anyone else) to prove me wrong.

A Quick Rebuttal

I would like to comment on a comment that was left by the illustrious 'Anonymous', who is always the most courageous of commentators on the internet.

Anonymous said...

"Let me get this straight, you are a male high school teacher opining on the dating life of one of your female students? commenting on her personality and her appearance? asking her to defend her choices?

There are all sorts of creeps, some are over-sexed teen boys looking to score and some are self-righteous yet vaguely pervy teachers who get involved the love lives of other father's daughters to a degree that is probably inappropriate."

There are a couple of problems with the above way of thinking.  First of all, it is assumed that the student has a father, when in fact she does not.  At least not one that has been in her life at any point in the last ten years.  In fact, she doesn't have any sort of positive male role models other than teachers, so is it any wonder that she would go to a teacher for help?  Not surprisingly, I very rarely see students with strong families and supportive parents outside of normal classroom hours.  The students that I most often assist, both academically and otherwise, are those who who come from single-parent or no-parent homes; those who are being raised by relatives or foster parents because their parents are in prison, in rehab, or are just plain absent.  I have students that stay after school sometimes because when they get home, their lives are miserable, and they just want an extra 15 minutes of peace sitting in a classroom where they are safe. 

Anonymous, despite his or her superior knowledge and wisdom,  obviously knows nothing of such things.  Perhaps they are too good to keep company with people from such backgrounds.  Or perhaps they are just stupidly ignorant of the world around them, and spend their time in frivolous attacks, incapable of doing anything positive while burdened by such naivete.

Even more telling is the assumption that a male and female can not have a relationship that does not in any way involve sex or desire.  If I compliment my sister on how nice she looks, am I incestuous?  If I tell my neighbors that they have beautiful children, am I a pedophile?  Does thinking that another guy is handsome make me gay? Or could it be that I can appreciate beauty and intelligence in another person because I appreciate that person, not because I lust after them.  Has Anonymous never truly loved a friend of the opposite sex without wanting to have sex?  The depravity they assume in others is really more of an admission of their own.

Finally, why is it inappropriate to care about the welfare of my students?  I became a teacher to help those who needed help.  Why shouldn't I care?  In a society and community rife with teenage pregnancy, STD's, and sexual abuse, is it any more inappropriate for me to care about these problems than for me to care about drug abuse, drunk driving, gang affiliation, fighting, or larceny?  I lose students to jail almost as frequently as I lose students to pregnancy.  And it is depressing.  But as I sit in parent-teacher conferences where the mother of my 15 year old student is younger than me (I am 31), I see that the only way to fix my community is to fix the families.  Kids giving birth to kids does not constitute a family.  Girls having babies in high school perpetuates poverty, ignorance, and abuse.

And so I care.  I care deeply.  If Anonymous finds it inappropriate, so be it.  One truth that I have found in life is that when arrogantly ignorant people approve of your decisions, it is probably time to rethink them.  Disapproval of such people, on the other hand, is an affirmation that you are on the right course.