Report 2: “Honey, Let’s
Conjoin!”
Nicole Salviejo,
Rebecca Alexander, Caitlin Botelho
& Josie Garcia
Psy 409b, Spring
2008, Generation 27
Dr. Leon James, Instructor,
SECTION
1: Lecture Notes (Nicole Salviejo)
Click here for link to Class Lecture
Notes
This week’s lecture
focused on the differences between masculine and feminine intelligence,
according to Dr. Emanuel Swedenborg, as well as how these differences affect a
couple’s ability (or inability) to attain the highest level of marriage as
described in the Unity Model of Marriage.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Masculine vs. Feminine Intelligence
According
to Dr. Swedenborg, each gender contributes a unique type of thinking and
understanding. One way to understand the
mental differences between men and women is that women act (S) from
intelligence (C) by means of love, while men act (S) from love (A) by means of
intelligence (C).
From this
understanding, Dr. Swedenborg concluded that a woman’s intelligence comes from
a more spiritual mindset (a higher intelligence) where she uses her
intelligence to lovingly urge her unwilling and dominating partner to transcend
his materialistic way of thinking and to adopt a higher more enlightened
mindset.
According
to Dr. James, “man is crated to achieve unity with a woman, and a woman is
created to achieve unity with a man.
Women are more aware of this regardless of their education, which they
put around themselves like a cape but do not enter into their spiritual
self. Men are more vulnerable to
education, shaping their inner thinking according to its dictates and
doctrines. They ingest the negative bias
in science more deeply into their reasoning process”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Destructive Behaviors of Men &
Self-Witnessing Acts
From a very
young age, boys are socialized to be strong, intimidating and dominating in
their relationships and as these boys age into grown men,
these same characteristics appear in their romantic relationships with the
female sex. For example, when couples
experience oppositional or negative feelings towards their partners, it is more
likely that the male in the relationship is more likely to act upon these
feelings by retaliating, exploiting, abusing, or injuring their female
partner. According to Dr. Swedenborg, it
is only until the man becomes spiritually enlightened and realizes with shame
and guilt that engaging in such destructive behavior against women is contrary
to the unity model of marriage, can he then discontinue their natural abusive
mentality towards all females, thus transcending into a higher intelligence
that values and appreciates women.
By choosing
to continue with his destructive behavior, men weaken themselves from within,
robbing themselves from reaching their ultimate potential and true self.
In order
for men to reach the next level of intelligence, thus ending their destructive
behaviors towards women, they must practice self-witnessing actions. In other words, men must monitor their mental
organs and how they express their feelings (affective), thoughts (cognitive),
and sensations and actions (sensorimotor). For example, men must retrain their
socialized materialistic brains so that their private thoughts about
women—about their motives, intelligence, their abilities, and physical
appearances, are more positive and more respectful of women.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conjoint
self: Three Levels of Unity
First Level
of Conjunction:
Involves the sensorimotor portion of the
couple’s three-fold self. In this stage the
couple enjoys partaking in activities together such as eating, driving,
dancing, etc. These external activities
involve sensory, verbal, and motor interactions. The couple’s focus at this level is on the
external activity of the other and self.
There is less focus or concern for what the other is thinking or
feeling, as long as it is favorable.
At this
level, women tend to feel unfulfilled or hurt by their partners’ external
behaviors, while men hold no concern for whatever unsatisfactory or hurt
feelings their partner has for them. For example, a woman asks her husband why
he didn’t wash the dishes, and the husband replies by
yelling back at her for nagging him about chores in which he feels that she
should be doing in the first place. The
man’s refusal to comply with his wife is an example of sensorimotor
disjunction in which his destructive behavior hinders him from bringing
happiness and intimacy to the relationship.
Second
Level of Conjunction:
The second
level is much deeper and more intimate in that it involves the couple’s
cognitive self. The couple’s cognitive
self includes the way they think, how they reason, how they justify things,
what they consider acceptable or not, what information or knowledge they have,
and what values and religious beliefs they stand by. These cognitive behaviors and habits may not
be totally shared by both partners, and may hinder their ability to have a
reciprocal relationship.
For men,
giving into their partner’s reasoning or beliefs is a means towards giving up
their own selfhood, while women see it as the exact opposite. According to Dr. Swedenborg, achieving
cognitive conjunction (the opposite of cognitive disjunction) is easier for
women because they are spiritually oriented towards conjunction as a felt inner
compulsion, while men experience great challenge because of their materialistic
intelligence and negative-bias towards marriage and unity.
Cognitive
intimacy is what creates cognitive conjunction.
Men make it a challenge for the couple to achieve cognitive intimacy by
withholding information from their partners as a means of staying independent
and in control of the relationship. It
is also a way of showing his partner that he does not want to work for
cognitive intimacy with her—so the mostly likely solution for the woman is to
wait for her husband to change.
Third Level
of Conjunction:
This level
involves the partner’s affective self, which includes their feelings,
motivations, and goals of happiness and togetherness. According to Dr. Swedenborg, affective
conjunction is the basis of the inmost level of intimacy between husband and
wife when they are thinking of themselves as a permanent couple. The goal of this level involves both partners
to give up any former feelings, loyalties, goals, or involvements that are not
conjoint and exclude the other partner in some way. For example, if a husband continues to
exclude his wife from activities he shares with his friends, this will weaken
their affective conjunction, thus make it harder for the couple to reach a more
intimate level in their relationship. A
solution to this problem is for the man to seek out his partner’s perspective
on the people he hangs around with—or at least include his partner in any
aspect of his choices.
Unity Through
Reciprocity & Differentiation
According
to Dr. Swedenborg, there are three principles in the unity model of “conjugial love”, which include:
1. 1. Differentiation:
no spiritual or mental part of a woman is like any part of a man and vice
versa. Men and women are biologically
and spiritually different.
2. 2. Reciprocity:
the perfection of unity in marriage increases with the diversity of its
composing elements when integrated into a conjoint self. In order to achieve a reciprocal
relationship, a woman’s traits must “harmonize” or fit together with the traits
of her partner and vice versa.
3. 3. Eternity:
the unity marriage relationship is eternal, continuing in the afterlife of
heaven. Marriage is a spiritual union of
mind and spirit and does not end “till death do us part”. It is eternal, since a person’s spirit or
mental self is immortal.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Personal Reflection
For me, I
am torn between having a positive-bias for the class material, and realizing
that material such as this is historically a way for men to control women, as
well as a way to describe them as social deviants in comparison to men. Dr. Swedenborg blankets all women as
self-sacrificing beings whose ultimate goal in life is to get their men to want
more intimacy in their heterosexual relationships. He describes women as having no sense of
agency and who are subject to men’s abuse until the man chooses to stop. In other
words, women must wait lovingly for their partners to change their destructive
behavior.
I realize
that there are some women who are able to gain some sense of empowerment from
the unity model of marriage in that Dr. Swedenborg describes them as having a
higher more spiritual intelligence in comparison to men, but I can’t help but
feel that this material denies any variety that society has among its
people. It doesn’t empower men in a
positive way, especially in his description of the equity or male dominant
phases of the unity model of marriage.
Not all men want to be dominating figures in a relationship and not all
women are willing to just wait for their husbands to love them. There are women who do not want to achieve conjugial love and whose partners are the ones who push
them to become more intimate. I also
find this material very exclusive towards heterosexual couples only. It doesn’t seem applicable to the lesbian/gay
community as well as people from different religious backgrounds such as
Buddhism.
For me personally,
while I acknowledge people’s rights and freedom to follow Dr. Swedenborg’s
teachings, in the end I would like to walk away from this class each week with
my own values still intact without being told that I am being “materialistic”
or closed-minded.
______________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Team Presentation on
Deborah Tannen
Gender & Discourse
Chapter 3 “Gender Differences in Conversational Coherence – Physical
Alignment and Topical Cohesion”
Pages 85-135
(By: Caitlin Botelho)
During lecture five, there was no
presentation for chapter three of Gender and Discourse, so I will cover what I
read in the chapter.
Deborah Tannen
conducted a study about gender differences in conversational coherence of best
friends in four different age groups; second graders, sixth graders, tenth
graders, and twenty-five year old adults.
Tannen coined two terms in this chapter to
express differences in male and female between different age groups: physical alignment (the ways that
speakers position their heads and bodies in relation to each other) and topical cohesion (how speakers
introduce and develop topics in relation to their own and others previous
talk). This chapter focuses on 20-minute
video tapes of eight groups: one male pair and one male pair for each age
group.
The videotapes were made by Bruce
Dorval. He invited students to talk to
their best friends for 20 minutes in his office. The pairs were left alone for five minutes,
and then
Physical Alignment
At each age
level, girls sit closer to each other than boys and align themselves to face
one another. Girl’s gazes are fixed on
each other with occasional glances away.
Every once in a while, the girls will touch one another, but for the
most part sit still. Boys on the other
hand, at every age level, compose themselves very differently. Their chairs are at angles to each other and
their gaze is everywhere in the room, with occasional glances at one
another. The two younger pairs of boys,
second grade and sixth grade, give the impression that the chairs cannot
contain them. The tenth grade boys
sprawl out in their chairs rather than sit nicely in them, and the oldest pair
of boys sit rather still but parallel to each
other. Below are some illustrations from
Gender and Discourse that show the way both genders (second and sixth graders)
align themselves.
Are males disengaged because they
aligned themselves away from each other?
No, this is not necessarily the case.
Different cultures have different ways of expressing engagement with one
another. For example, many cultures show
respect by avoiding eye contact and never looking their superior in the
face. Tannen
says that if you were to watch the videotapes of the tenth-grade boys with the
sound turned off you would think these boys were disengaged. However, with the volume turned up, these
boys had the most “intimate” conversations of any group.
Topical Cohesion
Among all age groups of females,
there has been no problem finding something to talk about. Among all ages except the tenth-grade boys,
however, there is very much difficulty finding something to talk about. I will discuss in short, each pair and the
things they experienced in this situation.
Second-grade boys vs.
Second-grade girls
With second-grade boys, no topic is
elaborated. Instead, there are small
amounts of talk about many different topics.
Boys in this pair do not stick with one topic for more than a few turns
of talk. Because the boys in this pair
have a hard time sitting still, and a hard time talking about serious/intimate
things, it shows that sitting and talking with a friend is not something
natural for these boys. On the other
hand, girls have no problem deciding on a topic to talk about, and even seem
comfortable engaging in this talk.
Sixth-grade boys vs.
Sixth-grade girls
The sixth-grade boys, like the
second-grade boys, touched on many topics, but only for short periods of
time. Of the 55 topics they touched on,
no topic extended more than a few turns of talk, and only two of those topics
were more than a few utterances. Most of
the sixth-grade girls talk about intimacy and fights. There are two recognizable aspects of talk
with sixth-grade girls: (1) their talk is highly stylized in a sing-song way
and (2) their talk is made up of “constructed dialogue.” Constructed dialogue is when someone uses
reported speech or direct quotations in conversation. For example, Julia says (Tannen
1994, 110):
I hate for my parents to be divorced.
That’s what happens when they get in
fights.
I think that they’re just gonna say,
“Well,
I’m gonna get a divorce.”
Tenth-grade boys vs.
Tenth-grade girls
With tenth-grade girls, the most
frequent verb introduction is “go” (“I go ‘What?’”). Another frequent introduction in conversation
is “be + like” followed by what someone was feeling, more than what someone
said (‘I’d be like ‘no way’”).
Tenth-grade boys do not look around the room aimlessly, nor do they look
at each other. Unlike the younger boys,
his pair is able to talk at length on each topic. The boys of this age group talk a lot about
other people, but spend quite a bit of time putting people down.
Twenty-five year old
men vs. Twenty-five year old women
Men in this group find it very
difficult to find things to talk about, seen by cerebral effort and
strain. When they talk, they made broad
and abstract statements rather than personal ones, which they stress, are only
personal opinions. Women in this group
on the other hand, seem to talk to each other in terms of “getting the lower
hand” as described by William Beeman. Each girl competes for the distinction of
having little self confidence, low grades, lack of ability, and poor
communication skills.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Laura Schessinger
Proper Care and Feeding of Marriage
Chapter 3 “The Good the Bad and the Ugly”
Pages 85-104
(By: Josie Garcia)
The first presenter on the readings
was Angela. She spoke about Chapter 3, titled The Good the Bad and the Ugly, of Dr. Laura’s book The
Proper Care and Feeding of Marriage. She
first gave a quick overview of the book, and touched on some main topics. In
this chapter Dr. Laura writes about unrealistic expectations of marriage, and
the problems caused by those expectations.
“Advanced dating” replaces courtship and traditional dating where
couples used to get to know each other. More people are “shacking up” and
acting married when they are not. She also calls this “playing house.” The couples have fun together, party
together, and believe this to be the reality of marriage when it isn’t. Often
times when the couple begin to have bills, children, and other responsibilities
they begin to have trouble in the relationship.
Angela found Dr. Laura offensive. She believes
husband and wife should have equal power in a relationship, while Dr. Laura
seems to have a Male Dominance perspective on marriage. Angela wants equal satisfaction in a
relationship; this is known as affective conjunction in the Unity Model
of Marriage. She does believe marriage has more to offer, and shared a personal
perspective with us. She was in a
“playing house” situation without the commitment of marriage. She found that without spiritual intimacy
there is less satisfaction in love sex and intimacy. In a disjunctive relationship there is one
person who is more controlling, selfish and dominant. There is also a lack of
respect for each other’s emotions which can cause more fighting and arguing.
This led to a discussion on hellish vs. heavenly thoughts on marriage and
relationships.
In preparation for this chapter of her
book, Dr. Laura asked three questions to married men and women then shared some
of the typical answers. Angela gave her thoughts on these answers regarding
them being hellish or heavenly. Here are the questions and a couple of the
answers discussed in the oral presentation:
Question 1: What was your biggest surprise to learn about marriage?
Answers:
Male hellish thought: “Your free time
is cut by 80%”
Male heavenly thought: “That two can live as cheaply as one.”
Female hellish thought: “Marriage didn’t solve all my
problems and it didn’t make me feel complete”
Female heavenly thought: “How amazing it is to belong to somebody.”
Question 2: “In what way(s) has marriage made you a better person?”
Answers:
Male heavenly thought: “I have greater patience,
reliability, stability, and happiness.”
Male heavenly thought: “She opened
me up to sharing and caring about others”
Female heavenly thought: “Being with
him makes me want to be a better person.”
Female heavenly thought: “I like
myself more because I know that my husband loves me.”
Question 3: “What
are the benefits of being married vs. single?”
Answers:
Male hellish thought: “I eat better”
Male heavenly thought: “You have someone to build a history
with.”
Female hellish thought: “safe happy
and fulfilling sex life.”
Female heavenly thought: “I have
someone who respects, supports, a loves me every day.”
The class and Dr. James agreed with
Angela as far as whether the answers for questions one and two being ‘heavenly’
or hellish.’ However, there was some discussion on the answers to question three
that Angela saw as hellish. Dr. James believed the responses could actually be
a heavenly thought, depending on the context in which the man or woman meant
it. I can see both sides of this argument.
I do believe they were means as heavenly thoughts, because the speaker
sees them as benefits of marriage.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion to Oral
Presentation on Dr. Laura
In conclusion to this reading presentation
Angela shared some of the answers she was given when she asked her friends the
same questions Dr. Laura asked for her book.
While her friends are not married, they answered the questions based on
being in a relationship.
Question 1
The male was surprised by “how crazy
females are.”
The female was surprised to “learn
about herself and the way she treats people.”
Question 2
The male answered that he was “a
good person before and after the relationship.”
Question 3
The male answered that one benefit
is “sex is better in a relationship.”
The female answered that she would
“never know” the benefits of marriage.
Personal Reaction
As always with Dr. Laura, I struggle
with her uncompromising belief in the male dominance stage of marriage. However, I do agree with some of the things
she discusses in this chapter. I believe it is very important in order to make
a relationship work to communicate expectations before marriage. I do think it is okay to live together before
marriage, but you should approach it like a marriage and have the same
discussions. It is important to really
know the person you plan on sharing your life with! If you can’t ask each other
the hard questions, and talk openly about your expectations of marriage, then
you probably shouldn’t be getting married.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unity Model of
Marriage Generation 26, Report 1
In
preparation for the oral report on readings Chloe read the following reports
from The Unity Model of Marriage Generation 26:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2007/akaveka/akaveka-409b-g26-report1.htm
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2007/aquinomichaels/aquino-409b-g26-report1.htm
Based on
the following chart, Chloe gave us examples of each level in the chart from the
movie Prime (used in both reports
from the prior generation) as well as her own examples from the movie 50 First Dates.
|
Phases |
Three |
Fold |
Self |
|
That Govern Interactions |
Sensory Motor (external) |
Cognitive (internal) |
Affective (feelings) |
|
Unity |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
Equity |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Dominance |
1 |
2 |
3 |
With so
many reports and each one having a different author, I think oral reports based
on the prior generation reading assignments are a little harder. However, if you have watched both of these
movies, they serve as good examples. I
will explain each of the nine levels, and try to give clear examples from
Chloe’s presentation and my own knowledge of the movies. First, here is a basic
synopsis of each movie:
Prime: The main characters are Raffi and Dave. Raffi is an older
woman dating a younger man. Their relationship is largely based on the physical
aspect, and they are at very different places in life. To complicate matters, Raffi’s therapist is Dave’s mother.
50 First Dates: The main characters in this movie
are Henry and Lucy. Lucy suffered severe head trauma in an auto accident and
lost the ability to convert short-term memory to long-term memory. Henry falls
in love with her, but has to make her fall in love with him every day, because
she doesn’t remember him in the morning.
Level
One: Sensory Motor
Dominance- pleasure due to control over partner
Example: Raffi is in the mood for sex, so she puts on a sexy outfit
and asks Dave if he is coming to bed. Dave continues playing his video game.
Level
Two: Cognitive
Dominance- thoughts on how to pressure partner to cooperate
Example:
Henry uses Lucy’s condition to control her. He uses what he learns about her to
win her over the next time they meet, but she doesn’t remember any prior
meetings.
Level
Three: Affective
Dominance-compel partner to be submissive
Example: Raffi holds and shows a child to Dave, to try to entice him
want to have a child with her.
Level
Four: Sensory Motor
Equity-action as part of a give and take system
Example:
Dave gets his own apartment, and Raffi gives him a
second chance as her boyfriend.
Level
Five: Cognitive
Equity-thoughts and evaluations of each other
Example:
Lucy wishes she met Henry the day before the accident, so she would remember
him, but Henry says it’s okay, he’ll make her fall in
love with him every day.
Level
Six: Affective
Equity-gain more from partner
Example:
Lucy feels she is holding Henry back from living his dream, because he spends
his time making her fall for him every day, so she erases him from her journals
and lets him go. She just wants him to be happy.
Level
Seven: Sensory
Motor Unity- unity as a whole
Example:
Henry and Lucy have sex for the first time, even though it’s still like a first
date for Lucy.
Level
Eight: Cognitive
Unity- thoughts about being spiritually connected.
Example:
Lucy wants to help Henry win him over the next day, so she tells him she’s “a
sucker for Lilies.”
Level
Nine: Affective
Unity- conjunction on feelings
Example:
Lucy doesn’t remember Henry, but she dreams about him, and paints pictures of
him.
The
ultimate goal for a Unity Model of Marriage is to reach level nine, to have
affective conjunction in complete unity.
This is easier for the female, and something the male usually has to
work hard to achieve.
______________________________________________________________________
SECTION 3: Team
Presentation on Exercises (Rebecca Alexander)
(a)
Summarize the
main ideas presented by the team.
The team for
exercises presented Lecture 3 which discussed the Unity Model of Marriage;
reciprocity, self-witnessing and conjugial love.
Reciprocity: Traits of a
couple are interconnected with one another; woman’s traits must complete man’s
traits and vice versa.
Self-Witnessing: To reach the goal of unity in
marriage, you must practice self-witnessing. You must monitor what your mental
organs are doing: your feelings
(A-Affective), Thoughts (C-Cognitive) and sensations and actions (S-Sensorimotor). By practicing this you will not feel angry (Affective)
(your feelings), you will not think biased thoughts of men (Cognitive) (your
thinking) you will never do these actions again (Sensorimotor)
(your actions).
Conjugial Love: This is
Spiritual Marriage, “until eternity.” Couples reach this spiritual intimacy
through steps and phases which include male dominance, equity and finally
unity. Couples must master reciprocity and self witnessing together to reach
the ultimate in marital bliss, which is working together to be married on earth
as well as in heaven.
(b)
Describe what
they did and how they interpreted it.
Each member of the
team had their own section of Lecture 3, allowing them to
develop and discuss the
lecture material in greater detail. Each did well in examining the 3 stages of
unity, introducing self-witnessing, and how men in the male dominance phase put
down woman and how they have learned to do so in society since birth. Our
underlying theme in this lecture is still ultimately how to work through these
demises in life and to proceed to climb up the ladder to reach the unity phase
with our soul mates.
(c)
Describe some
of the ideas that needed a better justification or greater amplification.
The group that presented
exercises did well in their discussion and delivery of the lecture material.
They were concise and to the point, addressing the issues that Professor James
was interested in having us understand in greater
detail. An idea in the lecture presentation that I felt needed to be addressed
more clearly was the idea of self-witnessing. I understand the fact that you
must think heavenly thoughts of others and yourself and not act upon them, and
in turn you will feel differently and more heavenly. I am unaware of how you
are able to change your thoughts, how to not allow oneself to ponder ideas of
hellishness. Is it okay to think of them for a moment, but try to push them
aside and not act upon them? That is a question in which I feel should be
clarified more in future lectures.
(d) What was the success of the approach they used?
The success of
the approach that this team used for their presentation was,
they incorporated their own life experiences into their presentation by
relating them to the lecture material. By doing so they were able to connect
with audience by sharing how they felt about certain issues, setting up a
rapport to gain common ground so that the audience was able to relate to them.
Such an example was relating woman’s affective self to arguing with her
boyfriend; that she should not worry about getting mad or speaking her mind,
because women are allowed to voice their opinions.
(e) What improvements are needed in the procedures or in the instructions?
I feel as though
the instructions are very clear and do not need much improvement. If a person
who was not in this class stumbled upon our website, I believe that they would
have no trouble accessing and understanding our information. My only criticism
might be that the text often is redundant; I feel that the explanations could
be summarized in shorter, concise phrases so that students are able to clearly
focus on what the tasks calls for.
(f)
What are the
limitations of these types of exercises?
There are few
limitations that these exercises display. These exercise questions are
open-ended allowing students not be restrained by certain boundaries. Students
are able to relate their own experiences of their relationships with others,
tying them into the represented models of the lecture. This allows students to
be able to converse theories that they agree with, being able to talk freely
and develop their ideas to establish a rapport with the audience. “Yes” or “No”
questions simply do not apply to this type of exercise, because it does not
allow the speaker to ponder their life in ways in which they would if they were
given the freedom of open-ended questions. We are able to ask our friends,
partners, neighbors, family what they feel in these issues, allowing us to
connect to others, not only other students in our class in discussions of
spiritual unity.
(g) Describe what happened when you did some of the steps of the exercises
(don't forget this step!).
I approached
these exercises with a positive bias, I tried to
observe the lecture material from a position where I was not to make judgments
of the material until I completed the text. When I asked my roommate what she
thought and how she felt about the Unity Model of Marriage she thought that it
was interesting, however it seemed a bit unreachable for her. She and her
boyfriend have been together for five years, and they seem to be struggling in
both the equity and male dominance phase. When they fight, he makes her feel
that she has to do what he asks, or else he will leave her which leaves them in
the male dominance phase. But when their relationship is good, it seems like
they are equals in the equity phase of allowing one another to seek their
opinions of how they feel in situations,
and relate to one another as best friends. She said she would love it if her
boyfriend and she could reach the Unity level in which he would comply with her
wishes that were reasonable in the sense that they looked after both their best
interests.
I agree with my
roommate, I feel that this model is very appealing for couples to reach in
their relationships, but when you have a job, schooling, family; it seems
unfathomable to be able to reach common unity with your partner in today’s
world. It is possible, however, to reach this phase if you strive to work it
out with your partner, improve yourselves to honor one another, and edit and
modify your behaviors so that your partner will appreciate you more. “Men see the conjoint self as giving up
selfhood, while women see it as gaining togetherness.” I can not
help but think that men will feel that they will be “told what to do” by their
woman, but through consideration and thought, in this process men will learn to
be caring, and act in ways in which will be helpful and appealing to his woman,
which can only bring happiness to them both.
______________________________________________________________________
SECTION 4: Annotated
Web Links
This
is an overview of the movie “50 First Dates” mentioned in Section 2, regarding
the relationship between Lucy and Henry.
2. Benefits of
Healthy Marriage
Researchers have found that having a happy, healthy, and fulfilling marriage
benefits all members of the family. Statistics show the positive effects
of marriage on children, women, men and communities.
3. Chris Rock:
View on Love & Relationships
Comedian,
Chris Rock, shares a comical perspective on love and relationships that relate
towards Dr. Swedenborg’s description of men and their refusal to have conjoined
intimacy with their female partners. In
order to transcend to the next level of unity, a man must be more open and more
flexible towards his partner.
This
website is the book “Conjugial Love” by Emmanuel
Swedenborg. If you ever wanted to read this book, but did not know where
to find it or did not want to buy it, it is at your hands online.
5. Dr. Laura
The following link is Dr. Laura’s
official site. A chapter from her book ‘The Proper Care and Feeding of
Marriage’ was covered in section 2.
6. Guy ditches
Girlfriend in labor to play World of Warcraft
Talk Show host, Tyra
Banks, interviews a woman whose fiancée is addicted to playing video
games. The wife, like many women
described by Dr. Swedenborg,
wishes to
achieve all level of intimacy with her fiancée, but cannot because he is
unwilling to let go of his independence and his own self-interests in order to
please
his partner.
7. Love and
Marriage Survey: Advice Before You Get Married
Do you want to know if marriage is right for
you? This website informs its readers about the perfect marriage, the purpose
of marriage, the importance of love, etc.
8. Marriage Stress
Busters: Don't Let Stress Tear You Apart
This website relates to the article
in the lecture notes about marriage and stress. Here you can find some
tips to combat stress and bring you and your partner closer
together.
9. Nagging Wife
The “Nagging Wife” is a commercial that
serves as an example of the first two levels of conjunction as described by Dr.
Emanuel Swedenborg, in which the husband
displays
cognitive disjunction by ignoring his wife and her needs. The husband in the commercial doesn’t wish to
be bothered by his wife while he is working on his
laptop, so he
presses a button on his computer to get “rid” of her.
10. Prime
These are scenes from the movie
‘Prime’, mentioned in Section 2, which show aspects of the relationship between
Raffi and Dave.