I spent a good part of a recent weekend on the phone with a young woman I mentor. P is on the cusp on what could be her first serious relationship. The man in question is a good bit older than her, with more experience and more ready to settle down than she is. He also has a lot more money to spend than she does. Both factors skew the balance of power between them. Some gestures could come across as effusive without it really being so. On the other matters that appear problematic may have a logic path to resolution that a couple with such disparity cannot always solve together.
P wishes this man would be the one so she would not have to spend the next decade of her life looking for that person and many women her age end up doing. The man wishes the same because P is perfect for him and he does not see the point of staying in the dating game if she decides in his favor. But that is the question that neither can answer. P is too young to make a decision so big. The man has no way of knowing how this woman will morph in the time that it takes for her to make such decision. I was reading Teatime for the Firefly around the time P was talking to me about her concerns. Set in a different place and time, where the couple comes and stays together for reasons that are not grounded in reality of having tried to live the life that would follow after marriage.
Young people of P's ilk would not understand how one could possibly find a lifelong partner this way. The component of luck is as important as acceptance of the marriage as a final destination is key to things working out. Comparing the two made me think about how a capitalistic outlook towards life impacts attitude towards relationships too. An infinite number of partner choices is not unlike an endless online shopping aisle. People buy and return things all the time, there is no risk or obligation. Compare that to having only one store in town that sells two options of an item that you need with no possibility of return. You will live with your choice.
Comments