Marriage is a Contract

Rob is a WAY better person than I am.  We'll just start there.  :)  Today it was brought up by a friend that my love for Rob seems conditional.  And she's not the first person to call me on that.  I've told Rob that I would leave him if his weight was out of control, for instance.  But the way I see it, that doesn't make my love conditional.  ...  This got me thinking about an e-mail I wrote months ago to a different friend about the same subject seen in a slightly different light.  I thought I'd post it here.

It revolves around the idea that to me marriage is a contract.  ...  (And to my friend who brought this up, I love that you challenge me!  Honestly.  It's always thought-provoking and makes me think about who I am and what I'm all about.  We just never have quite enough time to talk all about it - I'd love to go through things and through things and through things with you.  It makes me a better person.  Plus, we rarely agree, and I LOVE that!)

I've been giving some thought to what we talked about, in terms of whether or not my love for Rob is unconditional.  Trying to figure out what it means to me, and then how to adequately explain it.

Do I love Rob unconditionally?  Yes.  But I'm not married to him unconditionally.

Marriage is a contract.  I don't mean like a paper contract.  It's an emotional contract, an unwritten contract.  The paper doesn't matter, it's just a formality.

The contract means lots of important things, but mostly, to me, the important ones are these two:  

1 - I believe that Rob and I are best served (or at least well enough served) by being married to each other.  

2 - I will do everything that I can to stay in love with the man I married.

The second part is the unconditional part.  I look past his faults, or better put, I try to figure out how to work with his faults.  I'm forgiving and loving.  I realize that he'll never be perfect, and I won't either.  I try to figure out how to work with my OWN faults in a way that keeps us together instead of driving us apart.  I wake up and CHOOSE to be married to him every single day.  This part also obligates me to say when I'm unhappy.  To tell him when I feel like things aren't going smoothly.  This allows us to work on it, and makes it easier for me to love him tomorrow.  It's easier to work on small problems instead of big ones.

The first part is the conditional agreement.  I agreed to marry Rob, I wrote that contract, because I thought we would make each other happy.  We would be good to each other.  But that could someday, any day, not be true.  It would be a breach of contract if he were to physically abuse me, for instance.  Or in any OTHER way abuse me.  But abuse isn't the only time when the contract could be breached.  If he were causing me daily pain on a long-term basis, or if I was doing the same to him, then neither of us would be obligated to stay.  If I were able to look at my relationship with Rob and clearly see that we would be happier and better off apart, then I would leave him.  

There could be mitigating factors.  How long has it been going on?  What was the attitude at the time - one of nonchalance?  (Ooh!  I just remembered something relevant about a recurring nightmare that I have.  Will share in a minute.)  And is it likely to resolve itself?  Is it something that I personally can overcome within myself?  

What about some other things:  If Rob neglected me and/or the children.  If he was a lousy, rotten father.  If I honestly felt that my children would be better off without him.  It's interesting to throw kids into it, because kids are a different sort of contract.  I agreed to love them NO MATTER WHAT.  There's no conditional aspect of parenthood.  I agreed to protect them, take care of them.  If they were best served by leaving their father, then I would not hesitate to do so, even if I still loved Rob.

And the contract that I made with Rob now includes our children.  We agreed to love, protect, and take care of them together.  I would hope that if I was a lousy mother, he would take the kids and leave me, even if he loved me.  ...  The time when I felt like he was going to make a decision that would potentially endanger our children, I was VERY upset by it.  After it was all over, I told him that if he hadn't backed down, then I would have left him, at least temporarily.  Not as a power play, mind you.  But because that part of the marriage contract had been breached.

Rob, I am POSITIVE, does not think that the conditional part of the marriage contract exists.  But he is aware that it exists for me.  And I wonder if it's not partly a male-female difference.  I have always been afraid of abuse.  And I need a way to protect myself from it.  Feeling that I can't leave a marriage because I love Rob unconditionally, well, that's not a good thing if he's abusing me.  And it forced me, as a thoughtful woman, to come up with my Marriage Contract.  When am I obligated to stay and work it out?  When am I not?  

In the temple we learn that the contract that Eve made with Adam was conditional.  She agrees to listen to what Adam says SO FAR AS Adam listens to the Lord.  So what if Adam stops listening?  Then she doesn't have to listen, that's what (Tamra's interpretation).  The rules change when one side isn't keeping his or her end of the bargain.

...  So, the recurring nightmare that I have.  It's relevant because it spotlights how I feel about marriage, and what I can and can't work with.  I've always wondered why this particular dream has always frightened me, made me so angry, and now I think I understand.  Okay, so the dream, in its many variations involves Rob doing something really, really stupid.  He's slept with another woman.  He has a kid he never told me about.  He makes some other BIG mistake.  And in the dream I usually start with, "Okay, I can work with this.  I can try to see if we can work this out."  And then the part that kills it is when Rob says, "I don't see what the big deal is."  

That nonchalance is a deal breaker.  It means he broke our marriage contract, and he doesn't care.  What Rob and I went through years back*, it was only recoverable, to me, because he cared.  He wanted to change and make things better.  What if he'd said, "Tamra, you should get over it.  It wasn't a big deal."  Well, I would have thought really hard about buying 4 plane tickets to my parents' house, with no return date.  The contract we've made, it's a BIG DEAL.  If he doesn't feel that way, too, then I wouldn't stick around.  

Alright.  Hopefully that made sense and wasn't one jumbly mess.  And even if you don't agree with it (I wasn't trying to convince you that I'm right or anything), then at least hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from.  I absolutely love Rob unconditionally.  But thankfully the Lord made marriage a conditional situation because he loves his children (he has a contract with us, too, does he not?).

* No, I will not tell you about this incident.  Don't ask.

(There may be a Part 2 post coming. ...)

Stolen Paragraph #38

From David McCullough's book, 1776:

"Once, during the Siege of Boston, when almost nothing was going right and General Schuyler had written from Albany to bemoan his troubles, Washington had replied that he understood but that "we must bear up against them, and make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish."  It was such resolve and an acceptance of mankind and circumstances as they were, not as he wished them to be, that continued to carry Washington through.  "I will not however despair," he now wrote to Governor William Livingston."


Washington was a great man, worthy of the hero worship we still give him.  The Revolutionary War was a shambles, and I'm not sure how we won it, but Washington was an amazing leader and a generous, humble man.  I have a feeling that if I would have met him in person, I'd have been just as awed by him as everyone else was.  Few people are made of such hardy stuff.

God Sees Us Naked

I went for a temple recommend interview wearing my typical outfit:  jeans and a sweatshirt.  Not just any sweatshirt, my beloved Yellowstone sweatshirt.  Best sweatshirt of all time.  And could you believe that the stake presidency member yelled at me for not dressing appropriately?!

Okay, fine, he gently reminded me that perhaps I should think a little harder about what I would wear if I were going to go meet with my Heavenly Father.  He was super, super nice about it.

But here's my angle.  You guys already know that I hate clothes.  Clothes serve a function: they keep us warm or comfortable and generally make it so we don't have to walk around showing our stuff to everyone.  But mostly, clothes are a reflection of culture.  What is appropriate is different to each culture.  This is part of what I hate so much about clothes:  I hate the "this is appropriate and this is not" stuff.  WHY can't my husband wear a blue shirt to church?  WHY can't I wear jeans to church?  WHY am I a slacker if I wear pajamas all day?  WHY is mostly-naked wrong (think native clothing)?  There's no real reason for these things.

What I wear influences how people see me.  I know that.  It's a game we all play, and it's a game I do my best to mock at every turn.  Church seems to me an appropriate place to point out The Game:  We humans are fooled by clothes, but God is not.  God sees right through it all - shouldn't we try to do the same?  See people for who they are, and not be influenced by what they're wearing?  That's the ideal, isn't it?

Do I wish to be disrespectful?  No.  Especially not to The Most Powerful Being in the Universe.  But when it comes down to it, I think that God sees past all the outer stuff, straight to the inner Me.  He sees me naked.

After the interview I told the stake presidency member, "By the way, I would totally wear this to church."  I have worn jeans.  Many times.  And I just recently upgraded from sweatshirts, though I occasionally go back to them for church attire.  He said, "Yes, but would you wear it to meet your Heavenly Father?"

I just barely stopped myself from saying, "I would go naked."  Instead I said, "Yes, I would.  I think He cares a lot less about it than we do."

Second part, though:  I wear garments.  They're a symbol of the commitments I've made to Him, to myself, to my husband and to the world.  Garments are the one item of clothing that I wear that I take seriously.  They have meaning, they have purpose.  They are sacred to me. They aren't part of The Game.

So I quickly added, "But you better believe I'd be wearing my garments!"

Which, honestly, is very much like being naked (mine are pretty much see-through).  And I probably wouldn't need my garments, because God knows what's written on my heart, without the aid of garments.  I would wear them more for my benefit than for His - I take my covenants seriously, and I need to know that for MY sake.

What do you guys think?  What would you wear if you were going to meet with God?

Today I would like to have something magnificent to say.  But I don't. 

So here's to all those great people out there who have only normal things to say.  Huzzah!

Star Wars Interpreting

For my Interpreting for the Deaf class, the Final Project was to find a picture, any picture, and build an interpreting situation around it.  Immediately I knew it had to be Star Wars!  So, just for fun, here's the picture and interpreting assignment that I made up for it, including potential problems (demands) and solutions (controls).

Scenario
Darth Vader, the hearing consumer, is talking to Princess Leia, the Deaf consumer.  Army guy is the interpreter.  Darth Vader is describing to Leia the reasons for her arrest, the seizure of her spaceship, and her lack of rights as a prisoner.  He is also going into some detail about the technical aspects of a new weapons system that he has helped create, the Death Star.  

Leia is defiant and uncooperative, but she keeps her cool.  Clearly she doesn’t like Vader, and tension is high.  

Army guy works for Vader as an interpreter, but he also ranks as an officer in Vader’s army.  Deep down he sympathizes with Leia and the Rebel Alliance, but he keeps that hidden because he knows that he will be killed if Vader ever found out.  Army guy is not quite up-to-speed on the technical lingo associated with the Death Star, though in all other ways he is prepared for the communication aspects of this assignment.  He is nervous about failing – Vader is not a kind boss and has been known to kill interpreters who have stumbled along the way.

There are several things that the interpreter is doing right in this situation.  He’s smartly dressed in a solid contrasting color and very professional.  He’s standing in a position that allows Leia to see both him and Vader at the same time.

Demands

1.     There is quite a bit of tension between Leia and Vader, and lies are being told on both sides.  Army guy is aware of that, but has no control over it.  Vader has been known to react violently to interpreters, who merely convey the message.

2.      It’s impossible to read Vader’s expression through the mask, which makes it harder for Leia to communicate effectively with him.  The last interpreter who brought this up with Vader was killed on the spot.

3.      The technical lingo on the Death Star is difficult not only to convey to Deaf consumers, but also to learn.   Most of the information is top secret.  Vader often starts feeling braggy, and inserts it into his speeches, leaving interpreters in a sticky situation.

4.      Army guy knows that Leia is being held illegally as a prisoner.  He sympathizes with her plight but doesn’t feel like he can fight for her rights.

Controls

1.      Army guy can have a short conversation with Vader, pre-assignment, reminding Vader of the role of an interpreter. 
Pros:  If Vader is in a good mood, he will listen and hopefully be a little softer towards Army guy during the meeting, remembering that Army guy isn’t responsible for the words being communicated – Leia is.
Cons:  If Vader isn’t in a good mood, Army guy could be fired, demoted, or killed.  It will still go poorly for the next interpreter called in to replace Army guy.

2.      Army guy could ask for a few moments before the meeting starts to speak to Leia about Vader’s mask and how hard it is to convince Vader to take it off. 
Pros:  Leia may be a little less frustrated about not being able to read Vader’s expressions.  Also, Army guy won’t be killed for bringing it up with Vader.

Cons:  This doesn’t solve any problems in terms of making sure there is adequate communication and full comprehension for the Deaf consumer.  However, Army guy can feel better, knowing he’s tried to help ease tensions a little.

3.      Army guy could attempt to find some information about the Death Star, learning some of the technical lingo.  However, he’d be killed if he were caught, and most Deaf consumers wouldn’t understand the lingo, even if he learned it.  The best thing to do would be to have a short conversation with Vader, pre-assignment, explaining that most Deaf consumers will be unfamiliar with the technical aspects of his speech.  Cater to his ego, explaining that the Deaf consumers will be more impressed with Vader’s accomplishments if the interpreter is given more time to convey the ideas.  Also, Army guy could suggest a media presentation to assist with Deaf consumers’ understanding of the topic.
Pros:  If Vader is in a good mood, he will listen and give the interpreter more time to explain the technical details of the Death Star.  The spaceship is also equipped with some awesome technology, and if Vader chooses to utilize the media equipment that the ship offers, then Leia will have an easier time understanding the concepts, the interpreter won’t carry such a heavy burden to make sure communication is clear, and Vader will be able to brag all he wants.
Cons:  If Vader isn’t in a good mood, Army guy could be fired, demoted, or killed.  It will still go poorly for the next interpreter called in to replace Army guy.

4.      If what is happening to Leia is illegal, the law overrules the Code of Professional Conduct’s call for confidentiality, so Army guy could choose to report it, post-assignment.  However, since Vader is the enforcer of the law, it wouldn’t do any good, and Army guy knows it.  There’s nothing to be done, then, except for Army guy to steel himself pre-assignment. 
Pros:  Army guy will be emotionally prepared to keep himself professional and do the job he is assigned.
Cons:  Leia’s rights are still being trampled on, Vader is still a jerk, and Army guy knows it.  Perhaps Army guy should refuse assignments of this type in the future.

Weighty Matters

I've run through this post a few times in my head, trying to figure out if I could make it clean enough to post.  And I think I can, so here we go.  (That said, this still may be on the TMI side for some / most of you.  Fair warning.)

Oh, and the pictures are just a progression:  From late 2000 and on through the years.

October 2000 - my parents' first visual of Rob

When I married Rob, he was a gorgeous muscly trim 205 lbs.  And I did not hesitate to say to anyone and everyone that I thought Rob was hot.  Not just good looking, but hot.  As in turns me on to look at him sitting across the room from me.

Our wedding day, December 21, 2000

Within 3 years he weighed 275.  Needless to say, he was no longer a gorgeous muscly trim man.  This wasn't awful, as the weight was increasing, but near the end, it was a problem for me psychologically.  Why would Rob do that to himself?  Why would I want to be married to a man who would do that to himself?  And, as a relevant side issue, he was no longer attractive to me.  Yes, I still liked his face.  His eyes.  And he was still a wonderful, nice, compassionate man.  But he wasn't hot.  It pained me to tell him that it had gone a step beyond not-hot .  He was now ugly and gross to me.  That's harsh to say.

July 2002

December 2002

Shortly after that he had a rock bottom moment and has since been losing or maintaining weight.  There are some months of maintaining / slowly gaining, but for the most part, it's been a positive, good experience for him and for me.

Here's the deal with his weight, and I think it's important to bring this up.  Rob at 275 was not Rob.  He was Overweight Rob.  He was obsessed with food, talked about food constantly, made fun of his weight, was ashamed of himself, and was completely underconfident.  I looked at him more than once and said, "I'm not going to give you the "You're an okay person" pep talk today!  Yes, you should lose weight.  If you want to do it, just do it.  I love you.  I'm done with this."

December 2003 - I made it big so you can actually see us.

Dealing with all this crap was time-consuming and draining.  So much of our marriage was spent on Rob's food addiction and subsequent weight problem.  I HATED it.  Rob hated it, too.  I blamed him.  I thought he was weak.  I hated him for the problem.  I thought he was selfish and robbing himself, me, and our children of a good, happy, and healthy life.

August 2004

He started losing weight and I was excited for him!  Around 240 lbs. he started looking AMAZINGLY better.  At 215 lbs. he again was looking that much better.  And then he hit 205 lbs. and, though he had a gut that he didn't when we were first married, he was once again hot.  I spent months saying things like, "I like seeing your face," "I like touching your back," "I like how you look in your jeans," and other things that I won't repeat since I'm trying to keep this on the clean side.

June 2005 - Rob at his lab

Well, after he got to 205 lbs. he lost motivation and slowly started gaining weight back.  I became disheartened.  Rob had convinced me this was a lifestyle change, but here he was telling me the same old lies.  "I'm not eating that much."  That was bull, and I knew it.  Deep down he knew it, too, but his psychology regarding food is messed up, so I don't know if he Knew it or not.

July 2006 - Tank's first day home from the hospital.

At that point I informed Rob that if he regained his weight, I would consider it a Breech of Trust, and I didn't know if our marriage would survive it.  I know that sounds terribly mean, but I wasn't going back there.  I don't LIKE Overweight Rob, and neither does he.  I gave him a specific weight that would be The Deal Breaker, and kept on being angry. 

May 2007 - Miami beach

Last year my anger got the best of me and I laid into my sweet, adorable husband.  He listened politely as I tore into him with gusto.  I told him he lied to me.  I told him that his losing weight had been a tease.  He showed me that hot, confident, amazing Rob was attainable.  He gave me that Rob for a short while and then took him away again.  And this Ticked Me Off.  Suddenly his 220 lbs. was awful to me, and I hated him for it.

Christmas Eve 2008

There is so much anger for me about this subject.  Rob has spent years trying to figure out why his food psychology is so messed up, and I've spent years shaking my head and going, "What is WRONG with you?"  We're past that now, for the most part, but that's probably only because Rob's weight is down and his eating is under control-ish.  If he were to stop paying attention and gain some weight back, we'd be back to angry Tamra who can barely even talk about the subject without shooting daggers out of her eyes.

October 16, 2009 - Miciah's 8th birthday

Now Rob is hot again and things are good.  I LOVE loving his body.  He loves it, too.  This element of marriage is fun and nice, and I've missed it.  It's not a manipulation thing, and I'm not trying to "reward" him for good behavior, but I touch his body more, in sexy and non-sexy ways.  I look at him while he's walking across a room.  I just like his body more, period. 

October 2010

We don't talk about that aspect of marriage much.  We don't talk about that aspect of weight gain much.  But it's there, and it's huge.

I guess my whole point about this is that Rob's weight struggles have been an interesting ride for the both of us.  We've learned a lot about ourselves and each other, about our habits and our families, and about our marriage.  Most of it has been a painful process for me, so I would love to drive the last nail into this coffin.  Food addiction would never have to be talked about again!  But I think it's with us for life.  And I'm okay with that.

November 2011

But PLEASE give me a hot Rob.

What Anti- Means to Me

I have been called Anti-Harry Potter, most recently by my lovely husband.  I was grumbling about something that I disliked about the series and he chuckled and said, "It's funny how anti-Harry Potter you are."

But I object.  I am not Anti-Harry Potter.

So I thought I'd take a moment to explain what I am and am not towards the Harry Potter series.

I do not personally enjoy the series for various reasons that I will list in short:
1 - I don't enjoy most fantasy books, and Harry Potter is no exception.  I have a hard time suspending reality in strange ways.  I can handle some fantasy elements, but Diagon Alley does me in every time.  Talking kettles?  Other people say "Why not?" and I say in despair, "But WHY?"

2 - I don't think it's particularly well-written.  I know most people disagree with me, but I can hold whichever opinion I like.  I wasn't particularly compelled by the story line or characters or method of story telling.  I have cared more about characters that were cats.

3 - It's not literature.  It's a children's book.  I don't object to children's books; in fact I quite like them.  I object when people insist that the Harry Potter series is literature.  In my opinion, it is not.

4 - I don't like the premise.  The perfect ending to the Harry Potter series is that it never began - Harry would have died, even IF his mother died for him.  I HATE this part of the series, and it's the part I feel strongest about.

5 - Regarding the movies:  Some of them were poorly done.  I object when people tell me this isn't true.  Sorry, but movie 2?  Watch it again, people.  It's horrible.  Movie 7.1?  Not a movie.  I would have preferred if someone had given me the whole movie in 10 sentences or less (which wouldn't have been hard to do), one of the sentences being, "And then they waited and waited."

But here's why I'm NOT Anti-Harry Potter:
1 - I don't care if you or your children read the books.  And I don't even care if MY children read the books.  We now own the entire book series, and Rob and Miciah have read and enjoyed them all.  I have even retrieved some of the "extra" Harry Potter books for Miciah from the library without her requesting them.  We also own the movie series and Rob and the kids are watching movie #4 as I write this post.

2 - It gets kids reading books.  Great!

3 - It's a fun story line.  I enjoy when people have read the books and then they tell me the details.  This is very much how I feel about Tolkien's Silmarillion.  I don't ever want to read it, but I like talking to people who have read it.

4 - Lastly, ANTI- is a strong feeling, and not one I have towards the Harry Potter series.  I am Anti-Dan Brown for instance, and threatened to throw away the book Rob was reading if he didn't stop reading it right that second.  He stopped reading a quarter of the way through the book, despite liking it, and hasn't finished reading it in the years since because I feel THAT strongly about it.  In contrast, I have never once been tempted to tear Harry Potter out of anyone's hands.  A similar series that I don't like but don't mind if you do:  The revered Mormon series The Work and the Glory.  You'll never catch me reading them (for similar reasons), but if you love them, then have at.

So there you go.  I hope you read and love the Harry Potter series.  However, I would also like it if you didn't expect me to know the spells.  We can like different things - or, in this case, the whole world can like something and I can be one of the few dissenters.

Hope that helps!