Frozen: Regarding the Mental Illness Theme and the Power of Unconditional Love

By now you've likely caught at least some of the hoopla surrounding the movie Frozen. Many of the opinions expressed throughout the Internet regarding this film have been quite positive. At the same time, a good number of bloggers have accused Frozen of having some sort of hidden agenda. Accusations of sexism, drug-friendly references, and even a "Gay Agenda" have graced our beloved blogosphere, met with countless rebuttals, re-rebuttals, and of course trolling.

Now I should mention that Jennifer Lee, who wrote and directed Frozen, has already tweeted that Elsa's character represents people who suffer from anxiety and depression. That should at least clarify the movie's primary motive. Even before reading Lee's statement, I had already found the movie's message to be quite uplifting and exponentially inspiring with respect to my own emotional struggles. But I am well aware that very few pieces of art are meant to be taken one way and one way only. So rather than construct a brilliant yet time-consuming rebuttal of the perspectives I disagree with, here is what I took from Frozen:

Elsa has an amazing gift, present since birth, which she uses to cultivate a strong bond between her and her younger sister, Anna. But because she hasn't learned to control it yet, Elsa eventually almost kills Anna. Consequently, their parents decide to isolate her from everyone until she can learn to control her power. And while Anna is spared the memory of such a traumatic event in her life, it tortures Elsa for many years. This is only exacerbated by her parents' strategy to keep her locked inside the castle until she learns to control her power--by herself.

Anyone who has experienced anxiety or depression at some level can easily see this as a classic recipe for both. Anxiety comes from a fear of failure--a fear of what might happen if you make the wrong decision. Such a fear doesn't come out of nowhere. Somewhere in your past, you made a mistake with such traumatic results that you shudder at the thought of ever putting yourself into that situation again. So you run away from it. You would rather work around your fear than face it, often because you're afraid of hurting not just yourself, but those around you. Imagine how Elsa must have felt when, after Anna had fallen unconscious, her father's first words as he rushed in were, "What have you done?" Hearing such a sentiment enough times can make you feel inclined to not do anything.

But that doesn't fly for too long in this world. People expect you to do stuff, and they expect you to do it well. The movie montages its way through the rest of Elsa and Anna's childhood, so we don't know how well Elsa has ruled the kingdom since their parents died. Perhaps they had a guardian acting as steward until she came of age. What we do know is that on Coronation Day, Elsa is consumed with fear of losing control again, the consequences of which will likely be even more drastic. After all, she never really learned to control her power in the first place. All she has learned is to be afraid of it. The problem is that nobody understands that, and everybody expects her to buckle down and rise to the occasion of ruling an entire kingdom. At her age, even someone without such a debilitating fear as hers would feel insurmountable pressure.

That's what makes the anxiety complete: Being compelled to face your inner-demons before you're ready. How can you be? You've spent most of your life trapped inside your head, hoping to magically wake up one morning with the cure for your problems. So instead of tackling them head on, you keep avoiding them as much as you can. But the world keeps pushing back. Your loved ones keep pestering you for an explanation as to why you are the way you are. What are you going to say? That you're too scared because of something that happened years ago? Tragically, mental illness has such a negative stigma already, without broadcasting to the world that it involves your inability to forgive the past and take charge of your future. You are afraid to let your fears be known.

Ironically, those fears often become self-fulfilling. When you finally give in to society's demands for the sake of anonymity, you inevitably make the same mistakes you made before. The more this happens, the closer you get to your emotional breaking point, which is what happens with Elsa. After losing control and exposing her power, she flees the kingdom for the woods. She decides to embrace her power and use it to her advantage without restraint, building a fortress to protect her from the rest of the world. She no longer has any reason to be afraid, and so she thrives. Of course, this also means that she doesn't make the best choices with her power. She is happy, though, and sees little reason to return to the lonely life she once knew. It doesn't take someone with a mental illness to understand how enticing a prison with high walls can be when the rest of the world represents nothing but heartache. Prison walls don't break so easily, and when they do, they don't seek retribution.

Now I just said that Elsa thrives more when she is alone. We see that immediately during the "Let it Go" scene. This is because, interestingly enough, the mistakes we make during heightened anxiety have very little to do with incompetence, and more to do with the fear itself. We are informed early in the movie that Elsa's lack of control is exacerbated by stress. However, it soon becomes apparent that the stress is the problem in its entirety. Think about it. When she is creating snowy mountains for Anna to play on, Elsa realizes Anna is going too fast and starts to worry that Anna will hurt herself. As Anna makes a dangerous leap, Elsa hastily sends a poorly-aimed beam of ice right at her sister's forehead. Until that happens, Elsa doesn't have any problems controlling her power. Once it does happen, the fear of it happening again is so debilitating that it affects the power itself. Moving on, the accident on Coronation Day is triggered by Anna's persistence in getting Elsa to open up, to which Elsa responds with an angry wave of the arm. This coincides perfectly with the anxiety theme. Many people with anxiety suffer from it precisely because they feel they can't open up.

And of course, the same thing happens when Anna finds Elsa and tries to persuade her to come back. Once again Elsa gets angry, and once again she hurts Anna. By this time, it is apparent to Elsa that she will never completely get away from the pain and inner turmoil that have plagued her life. And yet, she still doesn't know how to deal with the pain or resolve it. Cue the depression. This generally comes from a sense of hopelessness for ever rising above your mediocre state, then being forced to try anyway but without the necessary tools, thus creating a vicious cycle of failure.

So the movie continues, and when Anna saves Elsa's life, we come to find out the remedy for everything gone wrong in the movie: Unconditional love. I don't know why Olaf had to explicitly point that out to me, but it made perfect sense. Time and time again, she keeps trying to help her sister, never worrying about her own needs in the process. It is this emotion that enables Anna to save her sister, thus enabling Elsa to save her kingdom instead of hurting them. After watching Anna sacrifice herself for her, Elsa finally realizes how she can fix the problems her actions have caused. As I contemplate this outcome and relate it to my own experiences, I begin to realize the extensive role unconditional love has played in my increased happiness and success as a person. Somehow, when a person is willing to stand by us during our worst moments, forgive us repeatedly for our sins against them, and even lay down their life for us, it possesses a healing power that can and does cure what we once thought incurable.

I'm not sure why this is so. Perhaps it is because a person's willingness to stand by our side makes us want to be better people. It makes us want to be worthy of their love and patience, thus motivating us to search the very depths of our potential so that their faith in us isn't wasted. I suppose it is nothing new that we feel happier and try harder when we know someone cares. I just didn't realize how much it empowers us to thrive more as well. We make better decisions when we know someone has our back. We tend to succeed more when we know and believe that at least one person will still love us even if we fail.

That is the message I took from Frozen. It has helped me realize that I am not alone in my struggles, and I am not expected to deal with them alone. While I have been steadily progressing in this regard for quite some time now, I still find the message invaluable. I can see it creating a newfound sense of hope and self-worth for millions of people like me.

If You Can't Accept Me at My Worst, Good!

A few nights ago, I got upset with my roommate for something minor. While my basic concern was valid, I blew it out of proportion, and the incident culminated in me storming out of the living room.

I don't do that often, but it does happen once in a while. I'm generally a happy person. I have been described by my closest friends as generous, kind, sweet, and friendly. Sometimes, though, I let the stressors in life get in the way of the man I'm trying to become.

Now, consider the following quote:

I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.

These days, that quote has been pared down to, "If you can't accept me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best." While there is no evidence that Marilyn Monroe ever said that, as has been claimed, whoever did say it, I find the rhetoric behind it misguided. While many may see this quote as an assertive mantra promoting patience and acceptance of each other's imperfections, I feel it is most often used to excuse blatantly bad behavior.

Nobody is perfect, and we all want to surround ourselves with people who accept us for who we are. But there is a vast difference between being imperfect and being at your worst. Imperfections are part of the human condition, and many of them are beyond our capacity to fix in this life. If nothing else, many of them are flaws, but are just not important enough to dwell on. My imperfections probably annoy some people, especially the one where I can't walk in a straight line very well. However, I have never felt the need to demand that people accept that or any other minor flaws if they want to be part of my life.

Our worst is bad by definition. These aren't the things that add flavor to our personality and keep other people on their toes. They aren't quirks that only cynics and fault finders can't live with. They are certainly not attributes that we should proudly proclaim as being part of our identity and therefore deserving of acceptance. They are things that we really should change because they significantly disrupt our lives and often the lives of those around us. Granted, some of the attributes specified in the original quote don't sound that bad. I don't think being insecure is nearly as bad as being out of control. But when you cut the quote down to what it says these days, all you get is, "This is who I am; deal with it." In my experience, it isn't the apologetically insecure and impatient who most commonly express this sentiment, but the Justin Biebers and Charlie Sheens of the world, who refuse to apologize or change because, quite honestly, they don't want to change. For whatever reason, they feel like their behavior is perfectly acceptable. And it isn't.

This of course does not mean that others should not forgive us when we act out our worst attributes. We just need to understand that forgiveness of our worst attributes does not equal acceptance, and it doesn't relieve us from all responsibility to improve ourselves. It simply provides us with the opportunity to improve our behavior to a level that is worthy of acceptance. Anyway, part of what motivates us to change our behavior is when others show enough love and patience that we eventually start to realize they deserve better than what we're giving them.

I certainly hope my roommate doesn't accept what happened a few nights ago as being part of who I am--because it isn't. I am better than that. While he's not going to kick me out or hold any grudges for getting mad once in a while, his forgiveness is not something I am entitled to.

Besides, life is much more enjoyable when we overcome our worst.

When the Benefit of the Doubt Isn't Ours to Give

What does it mean to give someone the benefit of the doubt? I must admit that I coined my own definition long before ever looking it up. When I finally did, three different sources gave three slightly different definitions. Each definition, however, revolves around the theme of choosing to believe in someone's good intentions when there is doubt in a given situation. My own definition agrees with that theme, but it extends the theme even further, drawing upon the implications of being able to believe in someone's good intentions.

The way I see it, believing in someone's good intentions requires the knowledge or belief that those good intentions exist. Such knowledge or belief can only arise from experience with the person. In other words, if my first encounter with you is a negative one, I essentially have no basis for assuming you have good intentions.

Let's say, for example, you are talking to your friend on the phone, and this friend starts complaining to you about someone they recently met at school. According to your friend, this other person made some very insensitive comments and was quite cynical during their encounter. After listening to your friend describe this person, you start to realize that you actually know them! Not only do you know them, but you have a very high opinion of this person and are appalled that your friend would say these things about them.

So what do you do? Do you assure your friend that this person most likely did not mean those things the way your friend took it? Do you remain neutral? One thing you should not do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because in this case, the benefit of the doubt is not yours to give. Neither is it theirs to give, because they don't know the person beyond that negative experience.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt requires some element of setting our negative feelings aside--based on the assumption that the person wasn't trying to hurt us. But how can you assume that about someone you don't even know? That doesn't mean we should assume all strangers are out to get us, but it does mean that our feelings are still there and deserve to be addressed. That is how we set boundaries with people we've just met. (On a side note, when we choose not to give the benefit of the doubt to people we already know, it is because there is no doubt that they have crossed those boundaries.)

As such, while it is okay to share with your friend your own experiences with the person they just met, you shouldn't dismiss those feelings, assuming there was a misunderstanding. For all you know, there wasn't. I have plenty of friends who dislike each other, and in their minds, for good reason. It would be wrong for me to force my positive opinions on them. If they ever do become friends, it won't be because they gave each other the benefit of the doubt. It will be because their subsequent interactions are more positive than negative, thus enabling them to look past their first impression--without dismissing their own feelings.

So why do I bring this up? A friend of mine recently shared a link that had angered and disgusted her. It had made her feel dirty inside. While my reaction to the article wasn't quite as intense, I could very well understand hers. I won't go into detail because that may lead to tangents, but her reaction was informed by a recurring theme that this article seemed to perpetuate. For various reasons, the theme doesn't affect me as much as it does her, which is actually why it wouldn't have been right for me to suggest she was overreacting.

Someone else did, though. Apparently he was well-acquainted with the author, and was deeply offended by our mutual friend's reaction. He insisted that she had misunderstood the author's words, claiming that the author was a good man with good intentions. Fair enough. It's perfectly fine to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt when your friend vouches for them. It's not okay for the friend to insist that you do so, which is what this person did. Right after indignantly clarifying the author's words, this person condescendingly "requested" that our friend edit or remove her comments. He didn't care that she had found the article repugnant. He didn't care that reading it made her want to take a shower afterwards. All he cared about was his own experience with the author. That is wrong.

Too many of us are dismissive of other people's feelings, albeit unintentionally, when we have more knowledge than they do about a given situation. But it is precisely because of their lack of knowledge that we shouldn't be so dismissive. It is hard enough not to let our emotions overpower our intellect, but if the intellect isn't there, so to speak, our emotions are all we have. Sometimes we simply have different knowledge than the other person, based on different experiences. It is not okay to invalidate other people's experiences by suggesting that ours carry more weight. And yet, when we demand they take us at our word and give someone else the benefit of our doubt (not theirs), that is exactly what we are doing.

Truth be told, I wish a lot more people would give others the benefit of the doubt in general. All too often, when someone says or does something out of place, we rush to judgment and give them no chance to explain themselves. We might even have enough prior knowledge about the person to logically deduce that there has most likely been a misunderstanding. But that is our prerogative. The only way we can change another person's heart is to allow them the same experiences that have changed our hearts. Then and only then can the benefit of the doubt be applied. It cannot be demanded.

Phil Robertson: A Poor Case for Freedom of Speech

So after days of reading about protests for and against Phil Robertson's suspension for his recent rant against homosexuality, I finally relented and read some of the Duck Dynasty star's infamous remarks. I was initially going to stay out of it because I don't care for reality TV, neither does it interest me when celebrities get themselves into trouble with thoughtless statements such as Robertson's. But then people started bringing the First Amendment into the discussion.

Coming from a patriotic family, I am an ardent proponent of the First Amendment. And truth be told, I sometimes find it difficult to support someone's First Amendment rights when they say or do something I otherwise disagree with. But free speech is free speech, and it works both ways. The First Amendment is a true and moral principle that should not be trifled with.

At the same time, as a writer, I get quite irritated when people loosely throw around a word or phrase without quite understanding its actual meaning. Now I've come to accept that words like "literally," "irony," and "further" will always be misused by a good portion of the population. But when vital principles like the First Amendment appear to be misused, I feel inclined to speak up.

So what about Phil Robertson's case? Is the First Amendment being trivialized by one side, or is it being misused by the other? I certainly wasn't about to form my own opinion without reading his actual comments, so I finally googled it. When asked what Robertson considered sinful, this was the response that led to his suspension:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. (Paraphrasing Corinthians) Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

From my perspective, that quote does not target homosexual behavior. Neither does it compare homosexuality with bestiality, as many critics claim. They are just two of the many behaviors that Robertson lists as sinful. But I can see why people would take it that way. His use of the phrase "morph out from there" implies that homosexuality ultimately leads to those other behaviors. I have mixed feelings about such an inference. On one hand, I find the inference hypocritical because the phrase "morph out from there" is just a poor substitute for "go from there," and many of us misuse that phrase on a regular basis. We often use it not just to suggest a cause-effect relationship, but also to indicate our own thought process while expressing ourselves. We're basically thinking out loud.

But on the other hand, when we communicate with an audience, we are responsible for expressing our point effectively. If we choose our words poorly, we cannot blame our audience for misunderstanding us. This is why I value effective communication, as ineffective communication can have drastic consequences. When we think of the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," we tend to look at it only one way. But just like words can be more persuasive than violence, they can also be more deadly.

Now if A&E were a Government entity, my mixed feelings would be significant. If Robertson meant to identify homosexuality as a gateway sin, he was targeting a group in front of millions of people, and his words come dangerously close to inciting action against that group. Such behavior is not protected by the First Amendment. But if Robertson was simply expressing himself poorly--and I believe he was--then he was merely listing his religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment. While he has had a lot more to say about homosexuality in the past, those past comments aren't what got him suspended.

But because A&E is not a Government entity, all of that is irrelevant. As a former church leader of mine recently observed, freedom of speech "was put in place to protect us from being punished by the Government for speaking out against the Government...it doesn't protect us from the consequences of our publicly-stated opinions in regard to other private parties."

In other words, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, as this issue involves a private employer legally using its own discretion regarding the behavior of one of its employees. While there is such thing as wrongful termination, I don't think that applies here either. If an employer can show that an employee's conduct is hurting their business, that is justifiable grounds for termination. The employer does not have to tolerate such behavior just because it is guided by the employee's personal beliefs.

So no, no matter how you spin it, Robertson's suspension is not a violation of the First Amendment.

When we misuse and overuse a principle as vital as the First Amendment, we eventually weaken its integrity. That is why those who care about it as much as I do should insist upon its correct application even if its incorrect application works in their favor. When we allow the end to justify the means, we make ourselves no better than the tyranny the First Amendment was intended to prevent.

Are Stereotypes Necessarily Bad?

Recently on Twitter, I made a comment that stereotypes are based on true experiences. Someone asked me if I was justifying stereotypes.

My answer to that is yes and no. Stereotypes aren't inherently bad, and by definition have an element of truth. It's what we do with them that can be bad. The way I see it, there are positive and negative ways to respond to stereotypes, and they fall into two categories. The positive response generally involves awareness and preparedness. The negative response generally involves reactiveness and suspicion. Mind you, these thoughts are anecdotal, but they make sense to me. With that in mind, allow me to illustrate with some examples:

Stereotype: Most tall people are good at basketball.

Positive Response: If you're a college basketball scout and visit a high school basketball summer camp, you should probably factor in height when looking for a good rebounder. That doesn't mean you should ignore the shorter players, but it is common sense that being tall makes it easier to rebound the ball.

Negative Response: If you're a college basketball scout, you might ignore the shorter players. If you're anyone else, you might judge a tall person who isn't good at basketball, perhaps thinking he/she doesn't have any other talents. It is true that for some reason, we sometimes negatively judge someone who doesn't meet our expectations based on a given stereotype of their demographic - regardless of the nature of the stereotype.

Stereotype: Most men are problem solvers, while most women like to discuss their problems without necessarily seeking a solution.

Positive Response: Women, if a man tells you he has some issues he's trying to figure out, 1) Ask him if he wants to talk about it, and 2) If the answer to number 1 is yes, listen to him and ask if he would like some advice. Stereotypically, he will not tell you no when he really does want help. Otherwise he wouldn't have said yes to number 1.

Men, if a woman tells you her problems, ask whether she is seeking a solution or a listener.

Negative Response: All I can think of for this stereotype is that sometimes, if a man is seeking a listener instead of a solution, his friends will resent him for wasting their time. They assume that he will want a solution, so perhaps they will set a different standard for when and how long they are willing to listen to him. That's the only explanation I can think of for why they would respond to him differently than if he were a woman doing the same thing. Or perhaps it's just that he violates their expectations based on the stereotype, all other things being equal. And by friends I mean both male and female friends. I've had female friends respond to me less than favorably for getting more emotional than the average male.

In contrast, a negative response to a solution-oriented woman would be to assume that she's too pushy and demanding.

In other words, when it comes to offering a solution vs. just listening, ask either gender which they would prefer. Regarding expectations, prepare for and respect the possibility of either preference.

Stereotype: Most Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Positive Response: If you're at a restaurant and see two men who appear to be Middle Eastern, and they start using vague yet suspicious language such as "Don't fail the mission," "We want them to be afraid," and "Five minutes until the big kaboom," then you should call the police. Something similar actually happened shortly after 9/11, and the person who called it in was accused of racial profiling. But while the existence of a terrorist threat is debated these days, back then it was common sense to be careful. In fact, the Bush Administration was criticized for not detecting the signs leading to 9/11.

That being said, you should notify the authorities of any such suspicious behavior, regardless of the person's race or ethnicity.

Negative Response: With your friends, tackle the men to the ground in front of everybody, shouting, "Terrorist!"

Stereotype: All church-goers are good, honest people.

Positive Response: When you go to church, chances are you won't need to worry about being robbed or attacked as though you were in a dark alley. Don't automatically be on your guard without cause. Recognize, however, that people who go to church are still human, so don't lose your faith all at once if one or more people violate this stereotype.

Negative Response: Intentionally leave your wallet and your keys in the foyer. Again, everyone is human, especially in these hard times.

To summarize, stereotypes only hurt us when we rely on them to make our decisions for us. Otherwise they simply act as defense mechanisms and/or shortcuts. Remember that all defense mechanisms and shortcuts should be assessed for effectiveness before being used. And so it should be with stereotypes. Keep in mind that stereotypes and misconceptions are completely different. One is rooted in some element of truth, however unwisely generalized, while the other is often based on falsehoods that have been passed down due to hate (i.e. racism, homophobia, etc.). We often say stereotype when what we mean is misconception.

So yes, there is a place for stereotypes.

Real Love vs. Emotional Pornography: When Butterflies, Stuttering, and Just Knowing Don't Happen

I just read the article The Dangers of Emotional Pornography, which discusses how the media sets unrealistic emotional expectations for our romantic relationships. While countless articles have been written for decades on this subject, reminding us that true love is seldom how it is portrayed in our favorite Disney flicks, this article extends the discussion to include the negative implications of these expectations. Using movie examples such as The Notebook and Jerry Maguire, the article likens some of our favorite love stories on the silver screen to emotional pornography.

At first this may sound like a harsh assessment, but when you think about it, what is pornography? While an exact, consistent definition has never been agreed upon, a historical sentiment has been that pornography sets unrealistic expectations in the eyes of the viewer towards those people represented in the images. Simply put, a man who looks at pornographic images of women risks developing the expectation that all women look like those images. Emotional pornography is not much different, as it teaches us to expect certain feelings to arise as indicators of chemistry and attraction. And, like visual pornography, those who fall victim to emotional pornography tend to experience anger and frustration when those expectations aren't fulfilled.

I think back to one of my first girlfriends, who at the time had been severely victimized by this epidemic. In her mind, if while kissing someone you had your eyes open and/or were thinking of other things, that was a bad sign. She felt like talking on the phone all night every night was the norm, and that two people in love should never tire of each other. I have heard it said that when you meet the right person you just know, and that the love of your life should put butterflies in your stomach every time he/she walks by.

Now I'm not saying that those things aren't possible. I have known couples who seemed to know right away that they wanted to be together. I had a college buddy who never went on dates before meeting his wife. I couldn't even picture him with a woman. And yet right from the start, he made it clear that he felt like he would die if he never asked her out. The feelings were so mutual that dating was practically a mere formality for them. Obviously this happens for some people.

But what about when those types of feelings don't happen right away? What about those of us who are awkward the first time you meet us and have a more difficult time getting to know people? As much as we like to believe that love defies all reason and logic, I am not convinced that a woman is going to know she wants to spend forever with me before coming to terms with some of my less delightful eccentricities. I won't get into them, but I will tell you that some of them are such that I would be turned off if the woman I was dating didn't at least point them out sometime in the relationship. Whether she points them out respectfully and whether she can live with them is a different story. I hope she can. But at the very least, I expect to hear the question, "Why don't you walk in a straight line?" at least once. And let's be honest. That scar on my leg where my tumor used to be is bound to be a romance killer for anyone who's not expecting it.

The fact is that the true love portrayed in the media is unhealthy if taken in its most literal sense. We forget that many of these love stories often sandwich weeks and weeks of courtship into two hours of entertainment, glossing over the hardships experienced in these relationships and musically montaging the high points as if those are the essence of the relationship. I have admittedly fallen for that myself, and it's frustrating! While I'm sure many young members of this increasingly progressive society would deny it, I would venture to pinpoint this as a major reason people have been getting married later. It isn't just about finding fulfillment in your life before tying yourself to someone else for the rest of your life. In all actuality, I feel like most of us want to find that special someone sooner than later, but somehow it is ingrained in us that unless we're walking on air the first time we meet someone--or at the very latest, after the first date--it's probably not meant to be.

So what is real love? When I observe some of my married friends on Facebook and in real life, I notice that most of them are still falling in love with each other. They treat falling in love as a process that hasn't been completed yet, let alone completed before they decided to be together. They took a chance on each other, and because they were both committed, they are reaping the benefits. Very few of them experienced the silver screen version of true love. To debunk some of the assumptions I mentioned above, here are some examples:

1. The First Kiss - A friend and former college roommate of mine once told me that his first kiss with his wife was awkward and disgusting. This was partially because it was his first kiss, and he didn't realize that kissing is more of a feeling than an action. Long story short, he probably had his eyes open and was thinking about other stuff besides romance while kissing her, as was she. And yet, eight years and four boys later, theirs is one of the happiest, most well-rounded families I have ever known.

2. Spending Every Waking Moment Together - Just a couple of years ago, I had another roommate who was dating the woman he would soon marry. One night, as I was returning from a friend's house at around 11:00, my roommate and his girlfriend were coming out of his bedroom. She looked pretty tired and frazzled, like she hadn't slept in days. Apparently my roommate agreed, because he specifically instructed the rest of us not to start a conversation with her, that she needed to get home to bed. This was a far cry from my former girlfriend's attitude that true love and the desire to spend time together trumped all need for sleep. In reality, we tend to resent people who demand so much of our time and energy. The most successful relationships I've seen have been those where each person respected the other's space.

3. Just Knowing -I liked Jessica Alba in Valentines Day, but when she asks Ashton Kutcher whether he'd rather have the girl think about marrying him or just know, I cringe. I have many friends who spent quite a while deciding whether they wanted to marry their significant other. My brother-in-law's younger brother had to wait for an answer, while a church leader of mine had to wait while his wife eliminated other romantic possibilities. Marriage is a big step not to be trifled with! And there is so much more than chemistry to consider. I daresay that practicality should play a role as well, among other things.

As you can see, I didn't really answer what true love is. I'm still single, so what did you expect? Maybe there's something to be said for just knowing, but not in the sense that we're going to know right away whether we want to marry someone. I feel like we cheat ourselves when we set specific requirements based on our favorite chick flicks. The man most women marry is not likely to say "As you wish," whenever she orders him around (In fact, I hope he stands up for himself once in a while!), while the woman most men marry will not say yes to their proposal regardless of how unromantic the venue is (One of the many reasons I liked Walk the Line is because she lectures him about proposing at midnight on a tour bus.).

Like the other article says, this doesn't mean we should shun the movies that portray love in these ways. But rather, we should take note of the fact that much like fantasy and science fiction, they're not real. The sooner we recognize this, the fewer ulcers we'll experience during the courtship process, not to mention the fewer frogs we'll see get hitched based on the premise that one single kiss will turn them into a prince.

My Apologies for My Un-Christlike, Reactive Behavior

To the exmormon discussion forum that I spent part of last night trolling in defense of a friend of mine:

I apologize. I should not have reacted the way I did. My protective instinct towards my friends and loved ones is no excuse for the un-Christlike manner in which I behaved. I lost my head. Mind you, that doesn't take away from the basic perspective that I shared in that forum. I believe your comments about my friend's post are destructive and counterproductive to your attempts to heal from what you view as a destructive religion. But I sincerely hope that whatever methods you use, you will one day attain the peace and happiness everyone is searching for.

That is all. I excuse nothing else--least of all my testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.