Society has indoctrinated us to believe in a predetermined romantic ideal. These ideals often stifle rather than support relationships, the notions boiling in this cultural romantic ‘mixing pot’ don’t exactly cater to our own needs.
The “love” mixing bowl contains ingredients based in religion, society and gender. The man is supposed to be strong, the brave one who swoops in and rescues the damsel—handsome, wealthy and understands you completely. The woman is supposed to be vulnerable, sexually chaste (yet tempting), beautiful and meek, yet psychologically complex. Or so they say.
It’s been ingrained into us since kindergarten, but fairy tales become destructive when you shatter a relationship because a person doesn’t fit into the right story.
These expectations are partially why relationships these days don’t work out well. We spend our time trying to convert a real person into a media-fueled fantasy. It’s important to remember that the person you love is flesh and blood, just like you, not immortal and unfaltering.
I watched an interesting Youtube video about relationships and the effect the media has on our perceptions of what a relationship should be like.
The video describes what love is meant to be according to a Christian perspective, taken from Corinthians 13: “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
This is yet another source of media idealization of love (which supposedly is intended to be universal) on what love is and how it should be conducted.
I always had my own perceptions of relationships, and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who do because there are plenty of different sorts of relationships.
All relationships are not supposed to be confined to the traditional version of love. Not everyone wants to have babies, get married, be with a member of the opposite sex or, in fact, be with one partner at a time or at all.
These types of relationships are classified as outcast, barbaric, greedy or sinful because they don’t fit into the cog of media, society and religion.
We consent to society and the media deciding the way that we should feel when our partner cheats, the level of romance and affection required in a relationship, the time period after which the relationship must lead to marriage instead of letting our own hearts be our compass.
I applaud people who do not allow society to place its shadows over their relationships like those who live contentedly in their arranged marriages or those who choose to be in open relationships and polygamous marriages.
I applaud those who chose to have no babies, and don’t want to live in a house with a nice picket fence.
Conventional relationships are not wrong; nevertheless, it’s not often enough that someone applauds people for defining love for themselves. The version of love that is created for us by the media and society only works and exists in its own sphere, not necessarily in our individual spheres.
How many Romeos have remained frogs even after the kiss? How many princesses have been beyond rescuing?
It’s not wrong to want perfection and fairy tales (or to be on Team Edward, instead of Team Jacob).
Though eventually we have to learn to disengage when it counts. Perhaps have a shot writing your own love stories instead of trying to fit into other peoples.
Decide for yourself, what’s your version of love?
Philippa Hatendi can be reached at phatendi@ut.edu.