She wants him. This general notion of wanting him is natural, and can apply to all princesses.
Certain specifics, however, are dependent on the individual. All princesses want him, but they will vary on what they want in him. Every princess has some standards. Unfortunately some of them fall into the trap of elevating mere whims into standards, and their longing becomes very self-absorbed. Rather than look to give of themselves their outlook is decidedly greedy.
Amongst my acquaintances we refer to it as "Anne Shirley syndrome." Those of you familiar with the series by L.M. Montgomery will have an idea of what this looks like. Anne was an extremely idealistic and romantic girl, which I have no objections to. The problem lies in the way in her faulty understanding of ideals and romance. As a young girl she paints a vivid picture of her ideal man: dark, melancholy, full of poetry and moonlight, and so forth.
Many girls have similar 'ideals.' Handsome, they say, and he must be wealthy (or he mustn't be), and he must play a musical instrument, and he must like such-and-such type music and read such-and-such books, and he must dress in this way, and speak in that way, and so on and so forth.
Frankly I don't think that this sort of obsession with non-essentials is laying a good foundation for a solid marriage. It's very self-centered. It's all about what she wants and requires. She has unrealistic demands and expects him to fulfill all her wishes to the minutest detail. There is no sense of giving in her attitude towards him.
I have a feeling that she wouldn't be so thrilled if she were to find out that she was excluded from the list of many men because she didn't possess certain qualities. Imagine that you meet a wonderful young man, and you're growing fond of one another, and… you don't quite fit his list, because your taste in music isn't similar enough to his, and out you go.
There would be enough pain in knowing that he disqualified you right from the start because you didn't dress the way he deemed ideal. You would probably feel a bit of anger and irritation. In fact, you would probably figure that you wouldn't want to attach yourself to such a man anyway.
So consider that a good man might not want to attach himself to such a girl who would reject him on the basis of his hair color or his favorite book.
Some standards are necessary; but mere details should never be required. The fundamental frame of mind behind that obsession with non-essentials strikes me as being the same as that which is behind lust. It's a reducing a human being into mere characteristics. In the case of lust, one reduces another into no more than a body; and in the case of foolish requirements one reduces another into no more than a collection of interests, tastes, and abilities.
A man is not a possession. He's not like the particular outfit that you have in mind to wear. For that outfit you plan out all the details: there will be a tuck here, a pocket there, and the fabric will be of such a colour and such a pattern. You can't do that to a man. It's degrading to his humanity. He is created in the image of God, and has a great dignity.
We women justly complain when a man considers as a collection of body parts. Young ladies – particularly us, the romantic princesses – have a great temptation to do something similar thing to men, and instead of looking at them as individuals possessed of a great dignity we consider them to be a collection of various traits.
It is a lust, of a different sort. It has little respect for human dignity, it looks only at what it can take and have, and it demands everything of others while being unwilling to sacrifice anything of its own.
And then there's the Surprise.
Certain specifics, however, are dependent on the individual. All princesses want him, but they will vary on what they want in him. Every princess has some standards. Unfortunately some of them fall into the trap of elevating mere whims into standards, and their longing becomes very self-absorbed. Rather than look to give of themselves their outlook is decidedly greedy.
Amongst my acquaintances we refer to it as "Anne Shirley syndrome." Those of you familiar with the series by L.M. Montgomery will have an idea of what this looks like. Anne was an extremely idealistic and romantic girl, which I have no objections to. The problem lies in the way in her faulty understanding of ideals and romance. As a young girl she paints a vivid picture of her ideal man: dark, melancholy, full of poetry and moonlight, and so forth.
Many girls have similar 'ideals.' Handsome, they say, and he must be wealthy (or he mustn't be), and he must play a musical instrument, and he must like such-and-such type music and read such-and-such books, and he must dress in this way, and speak in that way, and so on and so forth.
Frankly I don't think that this sort of obsession with non-essentials is laying a good foundation for a solid marriage. It's very self-centered. It's all about what she wants and requires. She has unrealistic demands and expects him to fulfill all her wishes to the minutest detail. There is no sense of giving in her attitude towards him.
I have a feeling that she wouldn't be so thrilled if she were to find out that she was excluded from the list of many men because she didn't possess certain qualities. Imagine that you meet a wonderful young man, and you're growing fond of one another, and… you don't quite fit his list, because your taste in music isn't similar enough to his, and out you go.
There would be enough pain in knowing that he disqualified you right from the start because you didn't dress the way he deemed ideal. You would probably feel a bit of anger and irritation. In fact, you would probably figure that you wouldn't want to attach yourself to such a man anyway.
So consider that a good man might not want to attach himself to such a girl who would reject him on the basis of his hair color or his favorite book.
Some standards are necessary; but mere details should never be required. The fundamental frame of mind behind that obsession with non-essentials strikes me as being the same as that which is behind lust. It's a reducing a human being into mere characteristics. In the case of lust, one reduces another into no more than a body; and in the case of foolish requirements one reduces another into no more than a collection of interests, tastes, and abilities.
A man is not a possession. He's not like the particular outfit that you have in mind to wear. For that outfit you plan out all the details: there will be a tuck here, a pocket there, and the fabric will be of such a colour and such a pattern. You can't do that to a man. It's degrading to his humanity. He is created in the image of God, and has a great dignity.
We women justly complain when a man considers as a collection of body parts. Young ladies – particularly us, the romantic princesses – have a great temptation to do something similar thing to men, and instead of looking at them as individuals possessed of a great dignity we consider them to be a collection of various traits.
It is a lust, of a different sort. It has little respect for human dignity, it looks only at what it can take and have, and it demands everything of others while being unwilling to sacrifice anything of its own.
And then there's the Surprise.
I've been peeking at this series and loving it! Where do you find the images for the posts?
ReplyDeleteOooh, this is a great post. You're right, as an imaginative romantic, this is hard to avoid. I will keep it in mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comment: Where DO you get the pictures? They're gorgeous!!!
I was just introduced to this wonderful blog this evening, and I have been so encouraged by it in just the few hours I've spent perusing its contents! Thank you ladies, very much!
ReplyDeleteIn this particular post, I have an objection to a particular sentence which may seem insignificant to most, but which I believe is most important. Namely: "Imagine that you meet a wonderful young man, and you're growing fond of one another, and… you don't quite fit his list, because your taste in music isn't similar enough to his, and out you go." I agree with the general message of the post; nothing could be truer. However, I think music is a bad subject to label as a non-essential.
Music is the language of the soul; hence, the kind of music a person listens to and prefers tells one something about the character of that person. When a man loves to listen to music that glorifies selfishness and infidelity and the culture of death, can one ignore the difference in "tastes?"
But perhaps I am taking the sentence too literally. It may be that all that was indicated as an example was the lack of similarity between 'harmless' kinds of music, say, Celtic music and Mozart.