Ain't nobody love like you do

This is, I think, the biggest load of rubbish ever to appear on the interwebs.  I still agree that 'I'm not happy' when spoken from the inside of a relationship, probably has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship, or the person you're supposedly not happy with.  (and I'm going to continue to agree with that til my dying day too because otherwise there's waaaay too many people out there that I have made unhappy :p). Its quite likely that it s a contributor though, but that's a story for another post. 

But I do believe it's rubbish because of this bit:  'Love yourself'. 

What the heck does that even mean? I can say I quite like myself, most of the time, and there are things about myself that I love some of the time, but LOVE myself. Yeah nah.  Respect myself? Yes. Love my body? Only in a 'thanks for getting me through the day/down to the shop kind of way but certainly not in a 'look in the mirror and kiss my muscles' way. Consider myself my own best friend and the person I most want to spend time with? (ie love). Errrr no. I rather prefer the company of others, an OTHER, MY other. 

And what about those days that I'm feeling particularly unloving towards myself (usually involving wine, cheese, late nights or a combination thereof)? Does that mean that because I don't love myself I can't love someone else?  That those days when I don't even like myself that I can't love anyone else? (and anyone who's suffered depression knows that this can be a long few days). That's the bit I find the most offensive. 

(Now, before there is a flurry of responses from my two regular readers, I'd like to point out that whilst I think this 'you can only love another if you love yourself' stuff is total BS, that DOESN'T mean that I think self esteem is not important, nor do I think it's ok to abuse or misuse your body. Self loathing is a whole other topic, and one I have no right nor appropriate qualification to preach about.     

But back to self love.  Love is a word that gets thrown about a bit to much I think.  I LOVE that movie. I love HER. I love FOOD.  Put in this context I just can't add I love ME to the list.  And so think we do ourselves a huge disservice by trotting out responses like this one, and others like

- everything happens for a reason

- put your own house in order before you organise someone else's

- this is for the best

- by letting go of (insert thing/person/experience here) you leave space for something better!

Even 'you dodged a bullet there' is all a bit....twee? And all of those expressions, especially the first and last, imply that the person is, well a bit inept when it comes to matters of the heart - which, following the logic of the love yourself statement, also means that the deliverer of this message means that actually, you don't have very good self esteem , or worse, you're actually a bit of a loser.

Yes, I think we all need to have a good dose of self esteem in order to maintain healthy relationships. I also think that LOVE should be unconditional - given freely and without judgement.  Just in the same way it should be received.  But the reality is that even the person who 'feels' the most unlovable can still love another. And in fact that person can still BE loved by another.

I do not doubt that I need to like myself. That I need to be comfortable in my own skin even when as gets wrinkly. That I need to be ok with my own company. That I can't be constantly reliant on others to make me feel good (although isn't that what community and family and relationship is kind of all about?). That I probably have to consider myself at least a bit lovable in order to attract a partner. (funny how those that don't think that so often end up with people who truly don't love them anyway - but ah again a post for another time)

To be loved, without reservation, is what makes me feel able to return that love. Its what makes me, I suppose, feel that I can love who I am as a person.. So is that the sign of crap self esteem? Maybe. I certainly know how depleting it is to love and not have that love returned. But loving oneself to fill the lovetank? How on earth can that even work? 

Love yourself first? No way. The problem with the 'self love' proponents is that they will ALWAYS put themselves first. And frankly that just doesn't sit well with me. And it is, I think, ultimately a lonely life.   I believe, that in giving, and receiving, love in equal measure, that the internal love tank gets filled.  And therein is the key. . Or at least (in my fluffy clouds and rainbows world)  it should be.  I think to feel lovable, and to be love-able, is a result of loving others. Love is, and should be, a two way thing

And, given the choice, investing my time and energy into loving others is a far better option for me than dedicating it to loving myself. 

the m word

A reader commented to me recently that for all the blog posts I have written - for all the topics I have covered - I was yet to talk about self service.

There's a reason for that. And it was not an oversight, but in fact a deliberate avoidance of the topic. This blog is more about my thoughts on life as seen through the lens of singledom, looking into coupledom, rather than specific bodily functions. However on reflection I have decided that there are some things that I can add to the discussion. (as always I reserve the right to poetic licence, and to using broad generalisations for the sake of a good story...).

I grew up in an era with ''those things'' were not talked about. I now do my best to be an enlightened parent, using words like ''if you want to do that go to your room''. Its a whole new world. And it has only been since becoming uncoupled after 20 years of relationship that I have even had the opportunity to discuss this with an adult perspective.

But there is one particular aspect that troubles me deeply. And that is the conservative Christian view of sex (in general) and how it is screwing up singles, particularly those who are struggling with what is probably a completely normal libido.

Unfortunately the populist view in most churches is that sex is something that should be neither seen, heard or talked about. And if it is to be talked about it is almost always in the context of ''the privilege and sanctity of marriage''. Anyone daring to suggest that this area of their life is an unresolved struggle is largely told to be patient, get busy and distracted, and simply ignore their latent feelings - IE deny their libido. Now I am happy to endorse the idea of monogamous committed relationships, and I think most of them work best if they involved a man and a woman. I DO NOT condone the concept of casual sex - mainly because I think that screws peoples (especially women's) heads up even more than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. But to expect a normal man or woman to withhold any form of sexual activity simply because they are ''unlucky'' enough to not be married - or have not yet been ''blessed with a partner'' strikes me as patently...ridiculous.

And so these poor people - mainly men that I know of, but that's probably because women tend not to share the details of their sex drives with other women - end up struggling with the guilt and frustrations of not having an outlet (figuratively speaking:)) for this. Then, piled on top of this rule that tells them sex is to be confined to a marriage, is the extra expectation that not only are they not to be having sex, but they actually need to ignore, deny or distract their sex drive as it is not appropriate until the ring is on. Suddenly the libido is a shameful thing. Which means there's NO WAY they are going to feel OK about a little self service - and yeah I get it's not ideal but better than nothing...Which means if that happens - and accordingly to my informal research it does (which surprised the heck out of me having not had that discussion before singlehood) they are then wracked with guilt about that too.

And then, by the time they are married, sex has become either

- something not to be discussed unless absolutely necessary

- something that still has some shame and secrecy attached to it

- something they are scared of (more common for women) or so...desperate for...it can end up a huge disappointment

- something that is supposed to cure all this pent up frustration - and that opens a whole other can of worms

So what is the solution? I'm not sure that there is one - as it is certainly a slippery slope if we are to start condone freer sexual expression amongst people who hold chastity as a core value (or at least think they should be...), and are not yet equipped to deal with the consequences of that.

But for me, there in lies the key. Encouraging a real, sustainable solution - which is NOT repression or denial. I have heard this story of (particularly) Christian men way to often: my wife was buttoned up about sex. I'm single and I know I should be ''staying pure''. I feel guilty about what I do, how I feel, what I'm thinking.

Getting men and women talking frankly about this stuff - to each other - is a start. Allowing them to feel OK about wanting and needing sex (and not just in the context of the spiritual ''this is an expression of my love for you'' element although obviously that is great too). Moving away from the shame that is attached to self love and accepting that people are going to do it regardless of whether it's considered ''suitable'' or ''moral'', thus normalising natural human thought and desires.

your thoughts?