Wedding Advice Blog For Brides

It is necessary to understand this evolution toward equality, in order to visualize the future relationship between men and women. A new human relationship, based on mutual understanding and assistance, demands a deep spirit of comradeship, which alone can bring peace between men and women, with respect for each others’ rights and dignity instead of fear and distrust. Progress toward mutual cooperation is blocked by disbelievers in evolution, who doubt the human capacity for complete friendliness and genuine interest. For them, love and sex will always be imbued with hostility and warfare. They not only doubt that equality between the sexes will ever be possible; they deny that man is capable of overcoming his “innate” hostility and aggression. Love without jealousy seems to them impossible; sexual interest without drive for possession unimaginable; sexual excitement without brutality unrealistic.

Are human beings psychologically and emotionally capable of genuine goodness and sincere social interest? When we regard our fellow men of today, we may be inclined to accept a pessimistic answer. But we must realize that man is today perhaps at his worst in regard to social harmony. We know that the social relationship between human beings is strained today more, perhaps, than ever before, because we are living between two stages of culture, and because we are approaching a new, never before experienced equilibrium. It is characterized by a new feeling of belonging together, based on a new conception of cooperation and equality. As social and economic demands have initiated it, so it is bound to produce new social and economic conditions, unprecedented in their implications and effects.  

Early experience of sex excitations, of infatuations, caresses, and passions are very important in our personal pattern of feeling and making love. Human love is very complex and intricate. Sex intercourse is only one part, and even this one portion is not simple and identical in all persons. We learn to love as we learn to walk and to talk, developing our own gait and our own dialect. The language of love-making is defined by early sexual excitations and molded by any new practice and experience. Our present behavior in love is trained and developed by all our previous experiences.

It is indeed unfortunate that the relationship between man and woman is obstructed by so many disturbing childhood experiences. The growing generation has little opportunity to develop an adequate impression of love. Rarely do they find it in their environment. Even ardently affectionate mothers very often have so many selfish, demanding, possessive qualities that it seems unwarranted to classify maternal love as an example of true love. The first impressions of sex and love are decisive, and too many of us grow up with the wrong expectations. “True Stories” and erotic movies are no compensation for unhappy marriages.

On the contrary, they distort reality and inflame the mind with pictures of sex attraction, beauty, and love-making which can never be attained in real life. How much disappointment and resentment is caused by these illusions of sex love! We seem to be caught in a terrible vicious circle. We ourselves are brought up with all kinds of mistaken notions and when we marry and rear our own children, we have little better to offer them.

Few parents are aware of how much their own attitude toward sex influences the ideas of their children. The child both accepts his parents’ point of view or rebels and moves in the opposite direction. Surprisingly early in life, he develops a concept of love as a source of suffering or as an opportunity for mere pleasure and superficial gratification, or he learns that love and marriage provide the basis for human companionship. He can discover how much mutual help and stimulation can result from the cooperation of the sexes and can learn that love involves not only receiving but also, and primarily, giving.

Adolescence

The personal attitude of the growing child toward the sexes and toward his own sexual physiology determines the manner in which he later will approach love and marriage. It influences his choice of a mate and creates the particular conflicts which endanger or enhance his marital happiness. Any faultiness and distortion in this attitude becomes apparent during adolescence. This period of growing up is probably more troublesome today than in previous times. Parents tend to overprotect their children. They want to keep them dependent, partly because their own growing feeling of inadequacy makes them distrust the child’s ability to take care of himself, and partly because their dire need for prestige does not permit them to loosen their cherished domination and become merely older but equal friends of their children. Consequently, they frown upon any expression of self-reliance or independence in the child.

The resulting friction between parents and adolescent children is particularly unfortunate for the child, because it coincides with a period of tension and apprehension caused by his physical development. Youngsters experience new feelings when their sexual glands mature. It is as if they were put into a new world. People long familiar suddenly provoke new and embarrassing feelings as the adolescent becomes aware of their sexual qualities. Boys and girls appear in a different light. Everything changes as the youngsters grow. They become awkward in their movements and feel insecure in the changing proportions of their limbs and bodies. No wonder they are extremely irritable and easily disturbed. The final conceptions of their own sex and their emotional and ideological attitude toward the other sex are established and stabilized in wavering and confused experimenting.

It is our duty to help these young people in their distress. They are entitled to our assistance during this most difficult period of their lives. At a time of perplexing changes in human relationships, friendship is a most important guide through all this confusion. Co-education helps to avert or at least mitigate the crisis. In acquiring a deeper understanding through mutual activity, the child may easily come to regard members of the other sex as human companions, and the sexual difference then becomes less important, and future compatibility is facilitated.

It is necessary to understand the psychology of a jealous person; otherwise we remain blind to the actual causes. Psychological information must be handled very carefully, however, if worse disaster is to be avoided. Let us stop for a moment to consider the value of the preceding paragraphs. For the jealous person himself they are of scarcely any use, because he cannot see himself clearly when he is succumbing to emotions. Anyone confronted with a jealous person will not find it difficult to recognize the psychological factors. But what use will he make of them? That is the decisive point for any psychological information. We must realize that psychology, like any other human device, can be used to good or bad purposes. It can be used as a most powerful weapon of destruction–or it can be the basis for sympathy and understanding. If the victim of a jealous person refers to scientific discovery in pointing out to his adversary that he uses his emotions only to get attention or to tyrannize, the result will be far from beneficial. It will only infuriate the more and aggravate the unhappy relationship. Psychological insight can be used properly only by avoiding carefully any verbal expression of what one knows, using instead the knowledge for adequate behavior and helpful action.

Can we help a mate who is jealous? What can a husband who has a jealous wife do? Most people who experience this predicament will deny that anything can be done. They may point out that the other person is not susceptible to “reason.” They do not know that they mean by reason an utterly futile attempt to persuade. Because they resort to wrong methods, they consider the condition incurable.

Let us imagine a rather common situation. The husband, coming home in the evening, finds his wife in sullen silence. She does not respond to his greeting. There is tension in the air. “What is the matter with you?” Still she does not speak. Obviously she is angry. He, too, becomes angry and demands some explanation. Finally she bursts out, “You can go back to your girl friend. Why trouble to come home at all?”

What does the husband in such a situation generally do?

If he is kind and considerate, he may attempt to talk her out of it, trying to convince her that she is wrong. Very soon he will make the typical mistake of apologizing for his tardiness. She will not believe him, no matter what he says. He himself will get more excited and angry. (People talk too much-in anger, in bitterness. Talk can bring people together when they are in a friendly mood; but when they fight and are angry, words are as bad as slashes and whips and hurt more than any physical assault.)

This is the usual procedure in a jealous love quarrel: The accused tries to exonerate himself. We all believe so much in logic and understand so little of psychology I Instead of acting psychologically, we try to talk logically.

Logic is far from being as effective as we are inclined to believe. We can be entirely right, but we are wrong when we try to explain that we are right. We forget to take into consideration whether or not the circumstances are conducive to logical reasoning. It is unimportant whether we are right or wrong, and it is definitely insufficient to be right. Even if we are wrong, we may succeed if we act right psychologically. But we will never succeed if we are logically right and act wrong psychologically. The attitude of our opponent, backed by strong emotions, will never be changed by arguments, logical or not. For every clever argument we may use, the other person has three better ones. The outcome can be only mutual indignation and anger-a quarrel to the bitter end until both have become exhausted and repentant, having punished each other to the utmost.

Another mistake is characteristic in dealing with a jealous person. Because we do not understand what is going on in his mind, we do not realize what causes his actual suffering; we recognize only the injustice done to us. We feel accused without reason, hurt without justification. Our own inadequacy in the precarious situation makes us angry. As we do not know what to do, we become hostile and fight too. Instead of one person being wrong, now there are two.

Often enough jealous feelings can be assuaged in a clever and subtle way-if we are sure of ourselves, if we refrain from regarding ourselves as being humiliated and abused. A little smile, a kind expression of patience, a kiss full of tenderness, a word of sincere affection may work wonders. We may find a pleasant distraction, soothing the excitement, if we can wait a little. Scolding and arguing never will promote essential relaxation. Only after the atmosphere has cleared and tension is gone is there opportunity for effective help.

And the jealous person needs our help. Telling him that he is wrong is superfluous. Everyone knows the wrongness of yielding to jealousy. Actually, he is far less wrong than it seems from a logical point of view. But since he does not understand himself he expresses himself wrongly. The accusations are wrong, logically. But the feeling of being inadequate or neglected is not false. It is a psychological fact. The sympathetic mate can do a great deal toward encouraging and providing a certain sense of security. The mother-in-law or the imaginary other man or woman is only incidental. Keeping up an argument about them is beside the point. But assurances of one’s love and affection reach the roots of the disturbance. Signs of appreciation and esteem may avert any inclination toward jealousy. Letting the other person know how much he is needed may help him to overcome his feeling of inadequacy.

Another frequent mistake must be avoided. While we reproach and quarrel, resent and scorn, we generally succumb to the demands of the jealous person. We try to appease by giving in. We promise not to see the other man or woman any more, or to visit mother less frequently. But this brings no solution. It stimulates the conviction that if we are scolded enough, we will yield. Besides that, it does not produce a good conscience in the accuser. Although jealousy triumphs, the triumphant partner realizes the discomfort he has caused, and each victory only increases the fear of unavoidable final defeat. These few points should be remembered whenever you are dealing with a jealous person: don’t excuse yourself, and don’t try to reason or to convince; but do not give in either. Be firm, and do what you think is right. Surrender will help as little as fighting. But give the partner what he actually needs-affection and devotion.

Human history, however, refutes their basic assumption.

It is true that mankind has never experienced real equality, wherein members of a given society all have the same social status. But “progress” has always meant equalization. “Equal” is a social term and means having the same social status.

The progress of human society has always been accompanied by the expansion of groups to include new groups of people who recognized their belonging together. Mankind was first divided into families, sibs, and tribes. Every human being outside the group was an alien and had no status in the group, no “equality.” Groups fused into larger units; and in the process of settling down, distinction between clans and families was finally broken down to give way to a new human organization: a regional unit based on geographical boundaries,” uniting within its framework members of various families and sibs as full-Hedged citizens, and therefore as more or less “equals.”

That was the beginning of our civilization. The groups increased from small units comprising one or a few villages to national units and finally empires, although mostly by force and conquest. The structure of all these groups remained full of inner contradictions. While human beings, bound together by common laws, were compelled to respect and accept each other, they were no longer integrated in a homogeneous and close unit, as had previously existed within a clan. Members of different families, becoming fellow citizens, could no longer kill each other as they did before, but their friendship and cooperation were still limited. Short of physical destruction, they could abuse, cheat, and exploit each other. Necessity for a very subtle method of warfare and self-protection may have been one of the forces which compelled man to use his brains more than his fists. One’s fellow man became a very peculiar mixture of friend and enemy. This type of human relationship, characteristic of the whole “civilized” society, invaded even the close relationship within the family.

As human culture, based on mutual exploitation, has made so little progress in respect to human interrelationships, many despair of any future progress of mankind. What, they ask, has been gained by all the development of science, by all the technical progress, if man suffers today as never before, if war ravages and threatens more violently and more destructively than in any previous time? If we compare our present civilization with that of the ancient Greeks, small indeed is the progress man has made. We must recognize, however, that even today we belong to the same cultural period as the ancient Greeks. One of the reasons why the ancient world could not develop a new social order, why mankind at this period could not progress, was its inability to eliminate the enemy within the group. Society at this time was a slave society and did not permit the acceptance of fundamental and equal human rights. The idea of human equality, however, had already been conceived and survived-as Christianity-the deep cultural relapse which mankind suffered during the Middle Ages. Not until the Renaissance could the cultural level of the ancient world is slowly resumed.

Since then, mankind has witnessed rapid progress. Especially was the fundamental tendency to unify accelerated when science and technology brought men closer together than they had been before. Distances shrank, and the whole’ civilized world became one unit, first of knowledge and act, more recently also economically, although not yet politically. Empires arose again, embracing the whole world. Today the view is widely accepted that the world is one family-the family of man. We all belong together, irrespective of color and race, of creed and culture; even irrespective of the degree of civilization. Whatever happens in one part of this earth affects all of mankind. This growing unity levels off the distinctions between human beings. The French and the Russian Revolutions ending feudalism, the Bill of Rights, and the American Civil War are milestones in the emancipation of all underprivileged groups. The idea of human rights brought recognition of the rights of laborers, children, women, and all races.

But the rise of the previously suppressed groups engendered the insidious drive of reaction. Equality, a promise to one group, is a threat to the other. As the growing equality of women intensifies and aggravates the struggle between the sexes, so, in general, emancipation provokes all those who consider their privileges endangered. Consequently, competition increases universally, and warfare in its most violent and heinous form results, threatening the whole culture and the very existence of mankind. But reaction never can win. The wheel of time never turns back, except in complete collapse. It is possible to destroy a whole culture-mankind has often experienced such destruction -but never has one stage of development been followed by a reestablishment of what had preceded. If mankind survives at all the terrific upheaval of our days, it can never be as it was before laborers, women, and all races gained social status and full citizenship. Either we shall perish, or we shall establish real equality, which is the basis of democracy. There must be a new order that will give meaning to this word so often used for a principle so little practiced.  

It is only human to become critical of others when we suffer from our own shortcomings. Then we become interested in the faults of others. Ordinarily our natural social interest enables us to see and enjoy the good qualities in our fellow men. Everyone has virtues, just as everyone has faults. Whether we emphasize his faults or his virtues indicates our attitude toward a person. That is true for human beings as for life in general; both are so rich and colorful that we can single out whatever we want-the good or the bad. It is not a question of whether disturbing or pleasing experiences are more frequent; the advantages and disadvantages we find in life and in persons reflect only our own attitudes.

How much it is up to us whether we resent or accept is demonstrated by the following case:

A patient lived in a very peculiar marriage. He had had no sex relations with his wife for many years, although both were rather young. She did not excite his fancy, he said, and he disliked her physically. He made no secret of having mistresses and bragged about their gifts and other signs of enchantment. How did this equilibrium develop? He had grown up in competition with an older sister, trying from childhood on to demonstrate his “masculine superiority.” Unfortunately, his desire to feel that he was a strong man was never satisfied. The dominant father he tried to imitate gave him too powerful evidence of his own inadequacy. Consequently, he developed a peculiar system of tyrannizing and charming others to give in to his whims, avoiding very carefully any situation where his dreaded inferiority might become apparent. He married rather young, when he found a girl deeply devoted to him and willing to live and die for him. She was a wonderful housekeeper, and provided for him a comfortable “temple” where he was enthroned as a god.

After a few years, however, he became apprehensive and rebelled. As high priestess of the sanctuary, she exerted certain pressure on him-for his comfort and benefit, to be sure, but creating in him a sense of being pushed. Her concern for his welfare repelled him. Her moral superiority threatened him and increased his fear of being dominated. Abruptly he decided to leave her. She became hysterical and literally fell on her knees, embracing his legs, and implored him to keep her as a slave. He could do whatever he wanted, as long as she could stay with him and serve him. His feeling of superiority was saved-and he stayed. To test his power, he ignored her domestic efforts by entering the house with dirty shoes and by similar offenses. It broke her heart, but she suffered in silence. He went out with other women, not without telling her of his experiences and successes. She was hungry for his love and affection so he denied her both.

During therapy he understood his mistaken conception of superiority and the fallacy of his effort to avoid any pressure from the outside world, expressed in various nervous symptoms which had induced him to seek medical attention. One day he came in and reported, obviously amazed an unexpected sexual relationship with his wife the night before. He did not understand himself. For many years he had considered her distasteful and sexually repulsive. How could he suddenly feel sexually attracted? Had she changed? Certainly not. It was he who had changed, not alone in his attitude toward her, but toward life in general, so that he looked at her differently and became willing to commit himself again, no longer afraid of losing status.

From this moment on, normal relations continued. He gave up his girl friends whose admiration-and even gifts-he no longer needed as proof of his masculine superiority.

Marriage is no Heaven

It is difficult for two people to be friends day and night, to agree, and to cooperate in all turns life may take. In view of the complex and almost unsolvable problems he faces, nobody can feel thoroughly adequate. Many carry the hostility and apprehension from the external world back into the home and return to the world unrested, with increased tension. The disappointment is the greater the more one expects to find a haven in marriage. It is a grave mistake to look upon marriage as a solution. It is a task. People, especially women, discouraged in life, hope to find security in marriage, only to experience frightful disillusionment. In former times, marriage was a solution for a woman’s problems. Without a husband, women did not count-and nothing mattered once she was married. Today it is different. Advising a discouraged girl to get married is harmful. Whoever feels inadequate in regard to work and social obligations faces failure in the even more exacting cooperation demanded from the close human relationship in marriage. Not that people should be discouraged from marrying. They cannot run away from sex and love without becoming more deeply disappointed. The point is that whatever one does in anxiety and cowardice, one has to pay for. Whether one tries to escape from marriage or to escape into marriage, the curse of cowardice follows him. Courage and social feeling, if not previously developed, must be deliberately fostered, in order to prepare for marrying or to make the best of an already contracted marriage.

The Spirit Counts

It seems futile to give specific recommendations for a happy life. Many books advise what to do and what not to do. The pity is that the suggestions, regardless of how good they are, generally do not help. A courageous person with sufficient social interest does not need advice, and a fearful, hostile person will fail to heed even the best advice. Therefore, we have stressed in this chapter fundamental attitudes more than specific techniques. No technique alone can preserve marital happiness-no rule in handling economic, social, or sexual problems can prevent failure. The spirit counts and not the technique. The willingness to cooperate can overcome every obstacle, and without this fundamental willingness, minor obstacles can become overwhelming. Whatever intensifies, between husband and wife, the feeling of belonging strengthens their resistance to perils threatening from within or without. Any outlook on life based on faith and confidence-religious or secular-increases aptitude and competence for harmonious cooperation and generates an atmosphere of genuine kindness and tolerance. The problems overtly blamed for the disruption of marital happiness provide only test situations through which erroneous attitudes can be brought to light.  

After the Best Man’s speech, some Maids of Honor give a speech. She may not, however, want to speak after you dazzle the crowd. If she does have the chutzpah, the least you can do is give her a nice introduction. This will cement the crowd’s understanding that you’re the MC, this is your little show, and she’s only a bit player.

Don’t make fun of the Maid of Honor before you give up the floor. This always looks petty, and all your good work will be for naught.

The Family “Open Mike” Phenomenon (Optional)

This concept is similar to the idea of letting other guests speak during the rehearsal dinner. It isn’t required of the Best Man, but when it works, it works great. It’s something you can just offer up to the crowd; if no one bites, you can finish with your final toast.  

Sometimes you’ll be asked to say a few words at the rehearsal dinner. It can be obvious when a Best Man isn’t prepared to speak twice, so be sure you know what you’d say if asked to avoid repeating yourself. Now, don’t go looking in your contract and claim that you never agreed to more than one public speaking event. This is something you can do easily, and it may turn out to be a nice refresher before your big speech during the wedding reception.

The Me Speech Idea

It’s a treat for the Groom to hear nice things about him and his Bride before they get married. Although friends and family always have nice things to say, they often don’t have an opportunity publicly to express themselves. Or they save them up for a funeral, and then what good is it?

To solve this problem, I’ve seen a few Best Men give a nice speech and then ask others at the rehearsal dinner to share a few thoughts, observations, or stories about the Bride and Groom. The Best Man should start with the parents of the Bride and Groom and then work his way around the room. Each time this has occurred at a rehearsal dinner, it’s been the most memorable part of the night. It’ll surprise you to see how people can, without preparation, come up with some very witty, thoughtful, and funny stories.

Once it starts, it can last some time, so get an idea from the Bride or Groom about the schedule for the evening. If the idea doesn’t go over well, you’ll know it soon enough. Just take back the floor and have a few last words to share with the group before ending your talk. A simple and nice toast wishing them well would be appropriate.

All right, you’re almost there. You’ve done a great job up to this point. Now you just need to bring it home with a solid Best Man speech and a few graceful dances. But all your good work has only been a warm-up for the wedding reception, so don’t lose focus now. In this chapter, we’ll spend a good amount of time getting your speech in order and discussing the day’s other events. Who knows? There may even be a spot for you in the Best Man and Groomsmen wax museum, which I hope to build with the proceeds from this book.

The Best Man Speech

The Best Man’s speech is one of the few moments during the wedding when the Bride and Groom will not be the center of attention. It’s a high-profile job, and it unnerves many Best Men, but the Best Man speech is actually a great opportunity. It allows the Best Man to bring the room together in a toast to the future happiness of the newlyweds. It can also be a time for stories, jokes, and prayers.

Again, you may be saying to yourself, “That’s great-but what about me? I’m the one responsible for getting up in front of all these people and making magic.” At this point you may be questioning yourself, your manhood, and even the Groom’s decision to pick you as his Best Man. Don’t let doubts like these distract you. There’s no better time to begin a dance with your demons. And you may actually enjoy it all if you’ve done your homework.

Although I can help lessen the fear of public speaking by helping you prepare an organized, thoughtful, and sincere speech, I can’t make all your concerns magically disappear. Public speaking is one of the fears that all people seem to share, so take heart, grab a pad of paper, and start writing,

Cicero! It’ll all be over sooner than you think.

Practice

My number one rule is to be prepared. Take some time to think about what you want to say, write it do~n in draft form, and practice it out loud. The repetition will give you confidence, and it’ll lessen the common fear of blanking out on everything you wanted to say. The practice will also give you time to make any changes-something that can’t be done once you push back your chair and stand up from the head table.

Videotape Your Practice

I’d also suggest that those of you who haven’t taken a public speaking course or given many speeches make a video of yourself giving your speech. This may seem a bit much for some, but anyone who has completed this exercise will agree that it’s a great learning tool. When you tape yourself you’ll be amazed at the number of times you say “um” during a mental pause or the variety of previously unknown facial or body ticks you can develop while speaking in public. When watching the video, don’t worry about your voice. It’ll sound funny to you, but to everyone else it’s actually how you sound. (Reassuring, isn’t it?) Another reason to practice is the fact that your speech will probably be recorded at the wedding, so why not take the time to know what it looks and sounds like in advance?  

Anyone doing marital therapy is in a position to make a bad situation worse. The following observations may be useful both to those who plan to seek marital counseling and to the counselors themselves.

Even the best therapist, with the most adequate training, is bound to have bad days and is certain to do better with some couples than with others. However well intended, his intervention cannot always be correct, and the mark of the honest counselor is that if a mistake is made, he is willing to pick up the pieces and put them together again. To obtain assurance of this kind of professional responsibility is one reason for paying a professional instead of seeking out free advice.

The counselor must be on guard against foisting his own values upon his clients. One cannot help revealing some personal beliefs during therapy, but as long as they are clearly identified as personal biases and dealt with honestly, their presence can be an essential part of therapy. They help identify the therapist as an individual human being rather than a stone god. It is the imposition of personal values which are not so labeled which can be damaging.

The warnings in this section are not offered to provide justifications for couples who wish to avoid seeking marital therapy, or for those who want to quit therapy because the going is a little rough. It is our belief that good marital counseling can save a sick marriage. And in most cases, matters must be expected to get worse before they get better. For example, as each spouse learns to air his gripes the other is apt to respond with anger and defensiveness. It takes time for spouses to gain the ability to distinguish and differentiate from badness and to recognize a justified complaint without finding it necessary to produce a counter complaint.

Here we would like to list some of the most obvious therapeutic errors, so that the individual seeking help may be on the lookout for them in his own therapy.

Error 1

The therapist takes sides with one or the other spouse, unintentionally, and not as a temporary therapeutic maneuvers. Sometimes this error results when the therapist tries to overcome a natural tendency to identify with the spouse of the same sex by leaning over backward to understand the viewpoint of the spouse of the opposite sex. It usually reflects the therapist’s bias and problems with the opposite sex, and is common among inexperienced therapists who have not yet realized that in marriages there are no «good guys” and “bad guys.” Culpability is evenly divided.

This error may also occur when the counselor-even the experienced counselor-has a set of values in which he earnestly believes (for example, religious tenets), and the attitudes of one of the spouses therefore strike a responsive chord in him not reached by the other. For example, one young psychologist found it easy to understand the plight of a woman who complained of her husband’s handling of their finances. The psychologist was careful with his own income and was eager to save sensibly. After listening to this couple he concluded, from the wife’s story that the husband irresponsibly bought what he wanted when he wanted it. He attempted to get the couple to stay on a budget, overlooking the fact that the husband was proud of his large income and had carefully taken care of the future through sound investments and life insurance. The budget simply functioned as a club wielded by the young wife in her status struggle with her husband. The husband took her messages literally, and his responses added to the problem. This couple finally obtained a divorce.

Only three months after the final decree, the young woman married a merchant seaman whom she had to support during the rare occasions he was at home because he blew his pay the minute he hit port. The psychologist would not have known the outcome of this case except for the fact that the woman wrote him for a letter of reference to a prospective employer. He learned something valuable about himself from the experience.

The overall neutrality of the therapist is essential to successful conjoint marital therapy. Of course, at some point he may take sides with respect to certain particular issues or a specific piece of behavior by one of the spouses. However, in balance he recognizes that the two spouses chose each other in the first place for some reason, and that they both are hurting, even though superficially one or the other may appear to have the better deal, or to be more at fault. A young therapist may remark to his colleagues. “I don’t see how such a nice guy could marry a bitch like that.” His inexperience shows in such a statement.

Error 2

The therapist views his role as a judicial one in which he sifts the evidence presented to him and eventually makes pronouncements.

This approach tends to be extremely damaging because the spouses involved are likely to devote their energy and ingenuity to digging up “evidence” against each other. The result is an escalation of bad feelings and an increasing schism, until the therapy-and the marriage-break down altogether. Even when the judicial therapist attempts to make a pronouncement which does not favor one of the spouses-for example, “From what you both have told me I can see how each of you feels hurt and distressed in the marriage“-it is likely to fall on deaf ears, for warring spouses are in no mood to listen to each other’s side of the story, or be told that each is equally in the right.

To force a shift in the spouses’ behavior, the therapist has to set specific guidelines, some rules of procedure some ways of looking at the marriage that have not yet occurred to either spouse. He can only do this by interfering with their customary pattern of behavior whether it is constant bickering or constant silence.

Error 3

The therapist secretly thinks that the spouses are mismatched and that each would do better with another mate. Instead of referring them to another therapist, he strives to overcome his bias by convincing them that they should try harder to make their marriage work, but since his bias handicaps his being helpful and creative, the spouses are at the same time prodded by the moral cry of “try harder” and blocked by the therapist’s inability to function effectively.

The therapist’s attitude should be: My job is to help these people stay together more compatibly and productively, or to help them separate as amicably as possible. Since this is not my marriage, it is not my place to tell these people which of these two courses to take.

Error 4

The therapist takes the position that one spouse is sicker than the other and sets up a situation in which he and the “well” spouse are treating the one identified as the patient. The therapist may be aware of his value judgment or, as is usually the case, it may be unconscious. In any case, the result is an imbalance in the marital interaction which may never be overcome. One such situation developed when a therapist saw a married couple shortly after the wife had been released from a week’s stay in the mental ward of a private hospital for an impulsive, but not-too serious, suicide attempt. He was concerned about the possibility of her repeating the attempt, and shared this concern with her husband. He put her on drugs to calm her nerves, and it soon became obvious that though ostensibly he was dealing with the marriage problems by seeing the couple together, actually he and the husband were treating the wife as the patient. Further, the husband derived strength from the wife’s weakness. He became more overtly dissatisfied with her “faults,” and as she was threatened by his apparent superiority, her level of performance decreased. The husband began taking out a mutual friend, a recently divorced woman, and one day announced to his stricken wife that he was going to

Reno to get a quick divorce so that he could marry the other woman.

The wife continued to see the therapist alone, and they agreed that there was no point in fighting the husband’s divorce. Feeling guilty about what had happened, the therapist encouraged her to be very demanding in the negotiations for a financial settlement. He helped her find an aggressive lawyer, who soon had the husband in a fury, and the process of making the financial arrangements was long and drawn-out. In the meantime, the wife felt terribly inadequate and depressed. Through mutual friends she learned that her husband had remarried and that he and his new wife were busily turning themselves into alcoholics. The ex-husband made no attempt to keep in touch with his wife, nor did he see their two daughters. About a year later he was killed driving home from a party, when his car went off the road and crashed into a tree.

Until after the divorce, it was apparent not at all to the therapist (and only unconsciously to the wife) that the husband was actually quite insecure, and had relied on his wife’s “weakness” to make him look relatively strong. When he married an aggressive and demanding woman, he could not handle her and increasingly tried to reduce his anxiety by drinking.

This story has two morals. First, the identification of who is the strong one and who is the weak one in a marriage is a very tricky proposition. Sometimes a great deal of strength is required to make someone else look stronger, and being in charge at the overt level is not the same as covertly determining the nature of the marital rules.

Second, the therapist who identifies one spouse as “healthy and strong” and the other as “sick and weak” may-as he did in this example-help escalate the marital discord until a runaway develops and the marital system £lies apart.

Insight into the skills and the precautions required in counseling can best be learned from examples.

In the following example, Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh, who wish to improve their marriage, have just seated themselves in the office of an inexperienced and untrained marriage counselor. The counselor, Miss Valet, approaches therapy from a typical battle of-the-sexes point of view.

The example includes the dialogue of everyone present. As the session proceeds, the marital interactions become more and more destructive. This occurs because of the counselor’s incompetence. The detailed explanation of why this happens is given several times during the dialogue. However, later, when a well-trained and experienced marriage counselor takes the place of the well meaning but incompetent Miss Valet, the marital discussion begins to straighten out and indicate some progress.

Clarity refers to how free the diamond is of blemishes and inclusions when viewed with your own eyes and when viewed under lOX magnification. Blemishes are imperfections on the outside of the diamond, for example: pits, chips, nicks, scratches. Inclusions are inside the diamond: carbon, fractures, and breaks. The following scale is the GIA (Gemological Institute of

America-I will give you more details on GIA later in the book) grading scale. You will use this scale to compare one diamond to another.  

Flawless: Free from blemishes and inclusions when viewed under lOX magnification. Internally Flawless: Free from inclusions, but it might have some slight blemishes when viewed under lOX magnification.  

VVSl and VVS2 (Very, Very Slightly Included): Has minute inclusions or blemishes the size of the head of a pin when viewed under

lOX magnification. VSl and VS2 (Very Slightly Included): Has inclusions or blemishes smaller than a grain of salt when viewed under lOX magnification. There can be no carbon, fractures, or breaks in a VS stone.

SI1 (Slightly Included): Has inclusions or blemishes that are larger than a grain of salt when viewed under lOX magnification. These inclusions can be carbon or fractures; 95 percent of all SIl diamonds are eye-clean. *

SI2 (Slightly Included): Has inclusions or blemishes that are larger than a grain of salt when viewed under lOX magnification. Some of these inclusions or blemishes might be visible without magnification when viewed.

I1 (Imperfect): Has inclusions and blemishes visible to the naked eye.  

I2 (Imperfect): Has inclusions and blemishes visible to the naked eye that can make as much as 25 percent of the diamond appear cloudy or lifeless.

I3 (Imperfect): Has many, many inclusions and blemishes visible to the naked eye. A very unattractive diamond with very little luster or sparkle.

For recommendations of which clarity grade is for you, review “Step Four: Know What Kind of Customer You Are and What Quality You Should Buy.” The average clarity grade purchased in the

United States is, sadly, an 11 to 12. Most people purchase this quality unknowingly. Only lower quality diamonds are 11-12. Don’t make the same mistake. Careful shopping will allow you to purchase an SI1 stone for the same amount that most 12 stones are sold for. On the following pages are some typical stones when viewed under lOX magnification.

Blemishes

1. Chip: A little nick, a piece missing from the outside ofthe diamond. A chip can be caused through wear or during the cutting process.
2. Scratch: A line or abrasion on the outside of a diamond.
3.  Fracture: A crack on the outside of the diamond.
4. Polishing Lines: Lines on the outside of a diamond that were formed during the polishing stage of the diamond.
5. Natural: A part of the diamond that was never polished, usually on the girdle.
6. Extra Facets: Areas where additional polished surfaces are placed on a diamond that shouldn’t normally be placed there. Example: The typical diamond has 58 facets; a diamond with an extra facet would have 59.
7. Bearding: Very small little fractures on the edge of a diamond.

*Not possible to see inclusions or blemishes with your own eye when viewing the diamond without a jeweler’s loupe or microscope.

Inclusions

1. Carbon: A black spot or spots inside a diamond.
2. Feather: Slight to heavy crack inside the diamond.
3. Crystal: A white spot or spots inside a diamond.
4. Pinpoints: Small dotlike spots in a diamond. (A pinpoint is smaller than a crystal.)
5. Cloud: A group of pinpoints gathered together, giving the impression, in some cases, of one large inclusion. An untrained person will have a very difficult or impossible time trying to find the inclusions or blemishes in a VVSl, VVS2, internally flawless, or flawless diamond. Unless you’re a gemologist, don’t expect to. These top four grades will appear, to the average person, perfectly clean. You should only be purchasing one of these grades if you’re buying the diamond for investment purposes. In my opinion, these grades are too high a quality to be worn. That would be like circulating a proof coin: it would ruin your investment. Diamonds can get abrasions or even chipped through normal wear and tear. Some people find this hard to believe. They say that since a diamond is the hardest thing in the world, that must mean it’s very tough and cannot be damaged. The truth is that even though a diamond is hard (hardness being a stone’s resistance to being scratched, and the only thing that can scratch a diamond is another diamond), that doesn’t mean a diamond is tough (toughness being a stone’s resistance to breakage). You see, a diamond can cleave in four directions, meaning it can be damaged. A diamond is the hardest thing in the world but not the toughest. And it is possible for someone to buy a VVS or flawless diamond and through normal wear lower the clarity grade to a VS or even a SI grade. I don’t recommend wearing such a high grade diamond. But if you do decide to buy one of these grades, I highly recommend that the diamond purchase be accompanied by a GIA certificate. * Since I stated earlier that an untrained person can’t pick out inclusions and blemishes with his own eyes, the GIA certificate will be your only guarantee that you are truly getting one of these grades.