Oh My Word!

Oh My Word!

Oh My Word

  1. 11/11/2025

    Because Could is Not Should, II (Essay)

    BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD, II Legally could is not morally should, and untangling the two dooms the latter. In the 1960s, Ralph Ginzburg’s conviction for promoting obscenity through his magazine of “literate eroticism” was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. He lost the case, but NPR isn’t the only one to have dubbed him a “free speech icon” in the historical record. Debatable if what he fought for is considered free speech, but he certainly shouldn’t be elevated as an icon for publishing obscene and erotic materials. The fight may seem silly to the generation of today, as there remain almost no limits on what can be published or filmed anymore. Worse, such materials no longer garner notice through delivery in the mail or ducking behind a curtain to a secluded section of a store, as all of it comes directly to a private handheld screen, or in an innocuous cardboard box, without anyone the wiser. A win for free speech, absolutists and liberally-minded say. In a strictly legal sense, perhaps, but standing upon the wreckage of society wrought by that supposed victory, debate is smithereened by the undeniable wrongness of the cost. That battle was a harbinger for the fate of the morality war, a war long since clouded by terms and rationalizations around unfettered freedoms and absolute legalities. Thus, the battles rage, but clarity, and thereby the war, can only be won with unyielding, unassailable adherence to the conviction that legally could is not morally should. Recent studies show that Gen Z wants to see less obscene material in books and entertainment, and though some may profess puzzlement at these results, they’re entirely logical. As they came to shelter under the aegis of free speech, travesties like obscenity, pornography, erotism began appearing everywhere, from big-budget Hollywood films to books for young readers. The current generation has been so inundated by the never-ending ticker tape parade celebrating the mainstreaming of immorality seeing it is no longer edgy but numbing and meaningless. Proliferation led to oversaturation, so much became too much. Then again, Gen Z’s preferences may not be anchored in morality, but rather in eventually rejecting something they saw everywhere, through easy, ready, and constant access. The mind may eventually forget, but the eyes cannot unsee. Thus, the role of the reliable moral guardrail, the knowing that could is not should. Consider the rebranding unrepentant individuals have welded upon the porn industry. Despite the absurdly high rate of suicides by women, and men, reports act surprised at such inevitabilities, describing several in a row as having shaken the industry to its core. They’ll speak about terrible treatment from an industry insensitive to costs of healthcare, mental health, abuse, harassment, exploitation, drug and alcohol use, and more, in addition to the self-destroying doubt that comes between signing one job and wondering when the next will knock. Never mind the unspoken truth that shame has a way of creeping in unrelenting when the day is quiet and the mind is unoccupied. As the average lifespan for a female so-called adult film entertainer is below forty, anyone with a functioning mind and intact moral compass knows that the fault is not in the treatment, but the industry’s very existence. And for those about to wail about free speech, expression, association, and the like, think very, very carefully about what it means that a woman might commit suicide after a career spanning about three years and two hundred films. Two hundred films. That’s, at minimum, two hundred partners in three years. You call this freedom, expression? You call this entertainment? You’re shaken by a rash of suicides? You think a soul dies just because the body no longer listens? No, you’ve fallen prey to thinking that legally could may as well be should. If absolutists and activists are so psychotic as to still support the allowance of this industry, if other nut jobs are adamant about rebranding so everyone can hide behind a false, brittle shield of self-worth, then society itself must make it unimaginable for the existence of such “entertainment” resulting in a multi-billion-dollar industry, let alone anyone willingly admitting to being part of it. Laws should make it impossible to profit, society should make it impossible to allow without honest, devastating shame. So brazen, so lost has the distinction become that the industry has award ceremonies. The industry has a hall of fame. The industry calls popular and “high performers” stars. Some are even married, which means their spouses allow them to participate in this so-called “work.” As if there never was a case in the history of man of a job negatively impacting a worker. Mainstream film isn’t much better, which could be why Gen Z is rejecting its excess entirely. Mainstream film also features nudity and eroticism and essentially pornography by another name, just with bigger budgets and more recognized studios. How did Hollywood get around laws of indecent exposure? What’s the difference between a stripper and an actress who takes her clothes off in a film? The camera? The salary? The mansion at the end of the day? Who are we kidding with slogans of speech and freedom in recognizing just how far things have been allowed to go? But I didn’t ask for it! I didn’t sign on! No, you probably didn’t, and you probably skip when the scenes come up, but it must go beyond that. Laugh at it for being ludicrous, but change won’t come until enough people walk out of a theater and demand a refund in middle of a film including nudity. It can start with one, but it must grow to many, so theaters are forced to tell Hollywood the movie is tanking because of this perverse inclusion. Cancel a streaming service and tell them why. Return a book and say it’s “did-not-finish” because of content. Hit them in the wallet while such purveyors unrelentingly, unashamedly go after yours. Do not rely on the excuse of “we’re all adults here” so “they could do whatever they want.” We remain broken until we fix it through returning to could is not should. Hollywood has been clever over the years when it comes to self-regulation, first in adhering to the Hays Code when they acknowledged the one-time power of the Catholic Church over culture, and then again with a self-designed rating system, which has gradually loosened its standards over the years. It isn’t difficult to trace the devolution of content and recognize what’s happened over the decades, the results on the national moral compass, especially without a society-wide rejection that doesn’t heavily rely upon laws and politicians. And that aside from those who don’t care about either side, whether in the name of libertarianism or simple apathy. Watch a film from every decade to see for yourself how the compass lost its bearing. In the early years of film, men and women were hardly ever shown in a romantic embrace. This quickly morphed into the slightly comedic “press faces against each other, pull away and sigh” which was the forerunner to an actual kiss. When the kiss came it was short, a press of the lips to the elongated who-knows-what of now. In between came longer kisses, then the grand-ending kiss, followed by applause for some reason. If you sat in a park, on a bus, in a library and watched a couple make out, let alone applauded at the end, no one would call that art. If you watched two people joined only by business contract do the same, and you reacted in like manner, no one would think that normal. If you sat and watched a man or women disrobe, you would rightly be marked a creep. If a man or woman disrobed in public, no one would think that a good indication of their mental state of being. Yet films include this all the time, when actors, with or without relation to each other, embrace, with or without clothes, for your supposed viewing pleasure. Because art and story and free speech and expression, or some such. Because someone somewhere convinced everyone that film and books and entertainment wouldn’t sell without. Because no one ever bought a clean book, especially of literary merit before the changes of the 1970s. Because no one ever watched a movie until nudity was allowed. It’s a wonder humanity endured for centuries without the books and films to show us the way! How did Shakespeare ever sell a play presented by only male actors and without a single real embrace? How did anyone manage to express themselves before such so-anointed rights were protected by law? What bafflements of history! Consider some of the films consistently ranked as the best of all time. Citizen Kane has no nudity. The Shawshank Redemption relied on no romance. The Godfather has endured as a top film for decades for the acting, the actors, the story, not because of a random topless woman in a dark bedroom. How many viewers recount that scene in discussions of the film, even without focusing on the greatest moments? You may brush the scene aside as irrelevant, and yet a woman was told, and agreed, to take her shirt off for the camera. The fact that it’s oft forgotten is further proof of the irrelevancy of such a scene, as basically every scene of nudity is. She didn’t have to! No one forced her to do anything! Freedom of something or other! All the more egregious when done under the banner of storytelling. Do you truly think this is what capital C Creator intended with the gifts He granted us, the very same we call “rights”? Disagree? If your wife or girlfriend or sister did the same with some random guy at a party, how do you know it wasn’t just an expression of art? Or exercise of freedom? Or whatever other weak excuse we use to justify, to numb ourselves to what we’re shown over and over in film and literature? Because, you know, we’re all adults here. When a mothe

    8 min
  2. 09/17/2025

    Because Could is Not Should, I (Essay)

    BECAUSE COULD IS NOT SHOULD A man knows the difference between when women could and when women should. Recently, I had a conversation with someone about women serving in the army. The contention was that if a female can, then why shouldn’t she? Say the fitness tests didn’t have lower standards for women, say all qualifications were the same, if a woman passes them all, if a woman proves her strength and ability and agility to be on par with men, then let her serve. After all, she could. Women could serve in the army, perhaps, but not in combat. In general, they don’t actually have the physical fitness to meet the same standards as men. They don’t actually have the same all-around military skillset as men. They don’t have the strength to drag a wounded man to safety. They don’t have the stamina to hike miles and miles and miles with dozens and dozens of pounds of equipment on their backs. They don’t have the same sort of tactical minds and strategic ways of thinking. Perhaps some of this could be taught, but the mindsets are fundamentally different at their core. But what if there was a woman who could? If a kid was hurt, a woman could carry him miles and miles on her back. Even pregnant, if needed. Women could, and if they want to, they should. No. No. Could is not should. While it’s true there are some very strong women, and while it’s true that women have accomplished great feats of strength, these are anomalies most often occurring in heightened or extreme circumstances, where there’s a danger to life or a focused determination arising from a very specific need to get something very vital done. It’s not proof of enduring, reliable strength. It’s not proof of consistency. It’s certainly not proof that women should serve in combat, and everything else that entails, no matter their physical fitness. Follow this argument long enough and someone will inevitably bring up the female sharpshooters who served in the Russian army during World War II. True, women can often shoot equal to, even better than, men, but that does not mean women should serve as snipers in war. A job which requires endless hours of stillness, ducking bullets, and relieving yourself in the woods or plastic bottles. Is this what we envision for women? Is this the greatest they can achieve? Becoming predatory, patient, precise, hardened killers? Considering how men struggle with PTSD, why would we willingly subject women to it? Oh, and as for those roughly two thousand female snipers that Russia sent to war, only about five hundred made it back. In body, at least. Men have one job, one primary job, and that is to ensure women are nowhere near where bullets are flying. Unfortunately, women get caught in warzones, women get caught in terrible situations, but to deliberately send them out to serve in combat, to feed the beast of war, the thought should be too abhorrent to contemplate past its formation. Because could is not should. Recently, I was helping to clean up after a social event. I was carrying a bag of garbage in a box out to the front of the house. It wasn’t heavy, and I carried it just fine. I passed from the kitchen through the living room, where a few young men sat on the couch. “Don’t worry,” I joked to the sitting men, “I got it.” They glanced up, saw that indeed the box was no issue, then went back to whatever they were doing. And why not? I was older, competent, a woman carrying out the garbage, but a woman who could carry it after all. Obviously, they were not needed. A couple passed by, herding their two young kids to the car. The wife walked past first, saw what I was carrying, then turned to her husband and told him to take the box. He did so willingly, not because I couldn’t, but because I shouldn’t. So even though it wasn’t heavy, and even though I could carry it, I didn’t argue. I let him take it from me because he should, and if I would fight it, I would mold another man for that line on the couch. A while ago, I was carrying bags into a local center. A man who knew me since birth was coming down the stairs. I wasn’t struggling, they weren’t that heavy. He was several decades older, but he took them out of my hands, because “a lady doesn’t carry bags.” Maybe it’s because he grew up in the Midwest. Maybe it’s because he grew up right. Maybe it’s because he grew up before the hammerings of women and society effectively obliterated the distinction between could and should. For we’ve lost the ability to discern the difference and with it we’ve lost something vital in how men treat women. Because men have incessantly been harangued for holding doors open because women are also strong, because men have been told not to be heroes because women do not need saving, because men have been yelled into accepting that women can do it themselves for we are just as competent as any man, if not more. Truth is, even where the data clearly states the facts to be otherwise, it doesn’t matter the details of what a woman could do but should. In not being gracious about held open doors and bags taken out of our hands and checks paid at restaurants and the shielding of protective instincts, we’ve created a culture in which women take out the garbage, not because it’s full and the man isn’t home, but because the man sits on the couch and stays out of the way. And there’s a generation now, and more to come, who don’t know this isn’t how it should be. They don’t know that they shouldn’t allow it, because they’ve been angrily castigated into submission by crusading women who want to prove their strength by beating down men, then step on them further in bemoaning the lack of good men. They’ve been led to believe that insisting on carrying the bags, acts of protection, cleaner language, and the like, is belittling, stifling, unmindful of the women who could do it themselves, and just another way to prove them weak. Don’t do unto women what women can do for themselves is the skewed doctrine of current social etiquette ingrained into men. Can’t you hear the raw emotion, the lyricism in their expertly wielded profanity? An incessant insistence that we are no delicate violets has smashed the vase that held the bouquet, and left the rest of us wondering where the flowers went. No wonder men are angry, jaded, lost, frustrated, and more, because when men are not allowed to know the difference between could and should, then it’s not just women affected, but also the men who can’t show their best selves in the way they treat women. Men are not challenged, demanded to become more when there’s no appreciative women to mandate it be so. Men carry the bags, hold open the doors, put of the fires, deal in politics, arrest criminals, and even go to war not because of what a woman can or can’t do, but because of what she should. It’s respect and reverence to the women they hold on a pedestal, because that is how men should regard women. There’s no contention that women should be worthy of that treatment through raising men on a pedestal of respect and admiration too. Because women are not either allowed to be their best selves, also stifle their best selves when it is not in encouraging men to be the best they could. So now that women have insisted that we can do it all ourselves, now that women raised in this world wonder where the men have gone, now that men aren’t allowed the simple fulfillment of being a hero, protector, provider, strongman, did we win? Did feminism fulfill its promise of freedom, as each successive wave eroded the pedestal we women stood upon, so our faux-exalted perch upon its present rubble is a pyrrhic victory at best? Have we won in remaking society by turning men into males because women were turned into men? The answer lies beyond physical makeup to a fundamental truth, a truth that brings fulfillment, joy, meaning, and a balance of good and holy. It all comes down to a man knowing how vital is his role in discerning the difference between when a woman could and when a woman should.

    8 min
  3. 08/13/2025

    Make G-d Mainstream Again (Essay)

    https://eltenenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Make-G-d-Mainstream-Again.mp3 MAKE G-D MAINSTREAM AGAIN The surgical removal of G-d from society must be undone with deliberate, persistent reintegration. As the academic year shifted to summer, focus on books in libraries and curriculums likewise shifted to summer reading lists. As an author, I’ve taken up some summer reading of my own, mainly used, bargain-priced books published over a decade ago. From the markings, many are former library books, since replaced with some of the books many parents are concerned about today. Without rehashing what’s been spoken of many times before—though also not quite thoroughly enough—in regard to current books for young readers, I’ve noticed something about some of these summer reads beyond the more obvious choices of subject matter and protagonists. While many of the changes in children, teen, even adult, literature is quite clear from covers and blurbs, subtler changes were also implemented in the same time frame, ones less easily charted than bestselling genres, fads, and the like. I’ve written before about the prevailing lack of historical fiction for young readers, and perusals of the options on hand for my summer reading has only further confirmed its current, glaring absence. There’s something else, however, something connected yet even more important that should not be overlooked. It’s something that probably doesn’t appear in studies or graphs or sales numbers, but detected only by those who look for it. Namely, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the removal of G-d from books for young readers, and adults too. If you’re an avid reader, you may have noticed this, but only now realize how prevalent the practice truly is. Alternatively, this assertion may seem baseless, as numerous books among the highly popular fantasy genre, for example, mention religion plenty. Except, look again. More often than not these books speak of gods not G-d. Where there is monotheistic religion, it’s often portrayed as corrupt or at odds with the celebrated science or magic of the day. It’s backward, antithetical to progress and change, too politically powerful, home to a secret society of assassins, and many other things which don’t include honest, faithful service. So, while there may be religion in books, how is it really portrayed? While that aspect of world building isn’t difficult to notice, what it used to be only recently struck so potently because the mention of prayer to a single G-d appeared in a book that wasn’t purely historical, where such reference could be relegated to accuracy as compared to modern cultural norms. The book for teens was fantasy, had dragons, yet the jailed, despondent protagonist kneeled in the dirt and prayed to G-d. Significantly, the book was from a major publisher, not a specifically religious one. To say, there was a time when mention of G-d in a mainstream narrative was commonplace, because it reflected a time when readers lived in a society where adherence to Him was commonplace too. An editor once asked after my adamance to include a clear monotheistic belief in one of my fantasy series. The books didn’t focus on any particular religion, but were particular to mention Heaven as a Divine reference. Bear in mind, the question was from one practicing Jew to another, so there was no anti-religious sentiment at its base. I think the question was both warning and curiosity. Warning that perhaps the inclusion was moving from present to preachy, and curiosity about why monotheistic Divinity needed to be so specifically noted, particularly in a fantasy realm. The answer is a very simple and profound truth, because even in fantasy, there is no world without G-d. This adamant assertion was unintentionally tested when I sat down to write a book that was largely historical fiction, albeit with a touch of fantasy. The book is set in ancient Egypt, a land of many, many gods, so a protagonist with pagan belief’s wouldn’t just be expected but also historically accurate. Except, I couldn’t do it. No sooner had I begun to research the Egyptian pantheon, then I knew there was no way my fictional character living in a fictionalized historical setting would pay any sort of obeisance to this plethora of deities. Because, endeavoring to make belief in G-d real down to the bones means that even in fiction, there is no world without G-d. A number of religious authors write fiction for mainstream publishers. Some can be noticed for their cleaner books, and some are noticed for Who they choose to thank in their acknowledgements. Academically curious, I once asked one of the latter about the religion she’d crafted in her fantasy series, about the many gods in her made-up world in relation to the single One she believes is in the real one. Her answer was a bit disjointed, and it was undoubtedly because she’d never been asked that before. Characters, plot, vision for her series, but not religious portrayal. Who ever cared to notice the dichotomy between the two? And why should she not craft a world of many gods when that’s become dominant in mainstream books over the past decade, at least. On the other hand, another writer told me her memoir was rejected by a major publisher, specifically in part because she reasserted faith in G-d despite her incredibly tragic circumstances. That’s not to say there aren’t any books from major mainstream publishers that don’t include monotheistic religion. The difference, of course, is that many books which speak of G-d aren’t usually a seamless blend of belief woven through the narrative but most often a conflict with or rejection of such beliefs. A character who wrestles between faith and personal desire is not only realistic but highly relatable too. This sort of character can easily propel a narrative featuring intriguing internal religious struggles. But only when the character recognizes that G-d is truth and goodness, and life is a journey to such truth. Not when society has dictated that G-d must be nipped and tucked to validate current trends, wherein infinite G-d becomes a manmade god, even gods. The scalpular removal of G-d isn’t relegated to literature, only one pillar of culture, of course, but noticeable in all aspects of society. Beyond the fights over the Ten Commandments in schools and religious commencement addresses, the demonization of religion has been so effective that any modern, grounded, “logically-minded”, “rational” individual wouldn’t dare admit to religions adherence for fear of undermining the foundation he claims to stand upon. Rather, people who will admit to higher beliefs tend to be “spiritual” and aren’t pressed to explain what on earth such a euphemism means. The braver among them will admit to believing in G-d without follow up as to what such belief mandates. Are there no actions, morals, or values that must result from such belief? Is proclamation enough without behavior to match? The dirty truth about sole reliance on most exalted human rationale at the helm of society is that almost anything can be rationalized, the smarter the more adept at intellectual treatises for all sorts of deviances. Faith in omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent G-d is the only guide for superseding the risks and vagaries of human intellect, as only G-d is a consistently reliable guardrail for every level of society. For it’s not law and order which make societies safe, but law and order founded in fear of G-d which succeeds. It’s not kindness that unifies societies, but kindness founded in love of G-d directing human interaction. Communities of truly G-d fearing individuals are safer not for better policing, but for better adherence to Divine morality. Consider Apollo 8’s message beamed backed to earth when approaching the lunar sunrise, how the astronauts chose at such an awesome moment to quote from Genesis the verses of G-d’s creation of the world. Compared to all the hullabaloo of late regarding government and private space flights, can you imagine one of the recent astronauts or space tourists reciting scripture in breathless exhilaration of what incredible sights they’ve seen? Can you imagine any non-avowed religious individual invoking almighty G-d for just about anything? Now, truly religious individuals stand out in society not for their faith, but for their scarcity. There was a time when proclamations of faith was not just a political ploy, but a norm. When Moses stood before Pharaoh in Egypt, he didn’t only say, “Let My people go.” The famous line is accurate, but only part of the sentence. More correct is, “Let My people go, so they may serve Me.” We bring G-d back into society not with laws and public mandates, but in knowing how the sentence starts and how the sentence ends, for only then can we have a true foundation and direction for living. We bring G-d back into society when each individual decides to make it so in his own life and interactions. Include G-d in regular conversation with verbal appreciation and notice of His guiding hand. Invite G-d back to the table with blessings and grace. Return G-d to political discourse with unambiguous reminders that rights can never be discussed without mention of capital C, Creator. And even if you claim not to care about religion and almighty G-d, send your children for religious instruction anyway, so they’ll know there’s only one true foundation for a civilized society of accomplished, achieving men. Tremble as you will at the thought, but there are worse things your child could be called, by much better people at that, than “religious.” If you trust the intellect and logic you’ve inculcated within your child, then trust them to embrace G-d too, even if you are still working at it. We’ve seen in ways subtle and obvious how the world turns when people reject traveling the path set by Him. And if yo

    8 min
  4. 03/29/2024

    The Lie of "True Love" (Essay)

    https://eltenenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-Lie-of-True-Love.mp3 THE LIE OF TRUE LOVE In chasing the lie of “true love”, we’ve left actual values behind. Disney’s lost a lot of money. Critics, commentators, and consumers point to the woke-ification of content, including the recent fiasco of their race-swapped Snow White, who doesn’t seem to like the character, and her seven persons of non-dwarfism. The general reaction to their long string of remakes-no-one-asked-for has been a continual lowering of interest and approval. On Disney’s hundredth anniversary, Daily Wire launched Bentkey, a kid-friendly entertainment platform, which included a teaser for a live action Snow White remake. It’s plausible their version of the princess, however it’ll be told, will align with stories more familiar to Disney of old. While the old Disney was cleaner and less overtly political, was it truly better? What exactly were old Disney stories about? Focus on the fairy tales, the ones with charming princes and picturesque princesses, Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Belle, Little Mermaid, et al, shined and primed for happily ever after. Although there’s enough to philosophize over in terms of heroes and curses and saviors and good versus evil, consider these fairy tales’ origins. The princesses Disney built their magic kingdom upon aren’t only pulled from the Grimm brothers, as many are centuries old with variations across cultures. Unlike what Disney’s careful scrubbing would have you believe, most of these stories are not just about romance. Old Disney may have done a good job cleaning up stories and creating a magical brand with happy promises of ever after, but they also left out a lot along the way. Ironically, previous criticisms of Disney included accusations of “princessifying” young girls and luring them with unrealistic expectations of heroic princes and perfect endings. Consider The Little Mermaid, written by Hans Christian Andersen in 1837. Disney animated a story about a glimpse, a voice in a storm, and the transcendence of “true love” over ocean and land. Andersen, however, wrote a religious story about a glimpse, an obsession, and a mermaid desirous to be human and obtain an everlasting soul. That mermaid did not wed her prince. Early versions of Beauty and the Beast highlight love but not the panacea of “true love” powerful enough to break curses. Central themes include goodness, kindness, and looking beyond an ugly exterior. The German Snow White wasn’t either awakened by magical “true love’s kiss” but a stumbling servant who inadvertently dislodged the piece of apple choking her. Moreover, the happy ending is overshadowed by far more powerful warnings against vanity and envy. Sleeping Beauty has differing origins from her awakening while birthing twins she was impregnated with when her rescuer raped her in her sleep to an ogress mother-in-law who wanted to eat her kids. Hardly the material happily ever after is made of. There’s not much controversy over Disney deleting inappropriate scenes, removing the ugly and morbid to better serve a wholesome family setting. There’s no question that some parts are better left out in telling these stories to children. Yet, in doing so, what message was singled out for the foundation of the magic kingdom? True love is timeless. True love is all you need. True love conquers all…except the divorce rate. Remember the climactic battle at the end of Wonder Woman, when she finally, finally overcomes the villain, finding strength in the most eternal and positive belief in mankind…goodness…sacrifice? Nope, love! And Superman is mocked for his boy scout adherence to truth, justice, and the American Way. His credo may be idealistic, but it certainly provides a better compass for humanity. Over the last several decades, the bulk of stories across formats have incessantly hammered the supposedly unimpeachable message of “true love”. Countless songs are about the power of love. Most films and stage productions include some romantic subplot, whether or not the story needs it. Romance used to be its own genre, and remains a bestselling one, but it’s since become the pumpkin spice of storytelling. At the summit of the “true love” pile are stories about true love across generations, couples who find each other over and over again across continents and centuries. Romantic, isn’t it? Except, if we’re all just atoms floating around the universe, then which part exactly orchestrated this epic, transcendent love? Maybe it was Pluto before it was downgraded. Or an undiscovered black hole in a galaxy far, far away. Perhaps it was a glorious, unknown star, how else to star-cross lovers? Obsession with “true love” somehow makes sense of an unnamed, burnt out, gaseous fire bringing you and yours together over and over and over again. All to say that according to a secularized worldview the highest of human achievements is “true love”.  “True love” and its kiss have the power to break through any barrier, answer every question, solve every issue known to man. And not only that, but you deserve it, just because you were born. There’s no escaping that many social issues of the day are a result of the constant drilling of this false message into our thoughts and imaginations. The way so many feel jaded by the capitalist system that didn’t facilitate their instant success, so do many think true and eternal love is merited by mere existence. Think of the accusation, “You can’t tell me who to love.” True, a heart can’t usually be commanded by someone else, and no one’s arguing whether or not there’s a feeling of love toward someone else. If love is life’s highest achievement, then it would be right to protest that no one can hold anyone back from reaching such fulfillment. Except, this is where Disney and the songs and stories are wrong. Because love isn’t enough. Because love isn’t always good, and can even lead to harm. Because someone can truly love someone else and still disagree with their choices. Most importantly, there’s something greater and more eternal than love, many things rather, things like respect, things called values. Unfortunately, respect is much less fun to write about and certainly doesn’t sparkle like promises of love. It was never set into the foundation of a magical kingdom, though a value is more enduring than an emotion. Unlike love, respect is more the stuff lasting relationships are made of. Ask the question of someone married ten, twenty, fifty years, “What is love?” Will they answer, “Well, love is love.” Rather, their answer will probably center around an action requiring work, effort, and upkeep. Protest as you will, but no marriage lasts on love alone, especially if left untended. Love is an emotion, and like all emotions it waxes and wanes. Values not emotions are everlasting and used to guide us until they were hammered to death like Pinocchio’s original Talking Cricket. Values must resume center stage, even if that means tweaking how we tell stories. With so much emphasis on “true love” over real values is it any wonder respect for others, and ourselves, was lost? It is any wonder people feel lost and betrayed when they don’t have something bigger to believe in when love lets them down? Certainly, real and enduring love is relevant and definitely makes for a better life in its various healthy forms. Biblical teachings have plenty to say about love, but never in such deceitful terms as “true love”. There’s love for the Creator. Love between neighbors. Love as a directive which results in better treatment of others, a love hardest to achieve for the effort it demands. Love is considered worthy of focus and cultivation not because it feels good, but because an outpouring of emotion leads to an outpouring of positive, productive action plus the will to abstain from harmful, undesirable action. That’s to say, love isn’t automatic or everlasting without work. Most agree that deep, abiding love doesn’t just happen. It’s not just wokeism that’s made stories boring but the constant harping on “true love” and all its supposedly unassailable perversions, which promote the forced normalization of lust, adultery, and pedophilia. It’s created the mindset of if “I love then I must act upon it”, without taking into account whether this love is moral or worthy of action or will harm someone else. It also doesn’t account for the fact that love does not exist in a vacuum, and that relationships only endure when both sides care for it. Love might feel good in the moment, but it’s not a reliable north star, despite what the stories would have us believe. Values like respect mandate certain actions regardless of the feels and mood of the moment. There’s a reason fairy tales don’t usually have sequels six years and three kids into the marriage. People should not be reduced to their current love status, and stories are more interesting when they grapple with moral courage and strength of conviction. Jekyll & Hyde, The Count of Monte Cristo, To Kill a Mockingbird and the like endure for a reason. Even early iterations of the Romance genre focus on the destructive nature of lust and obsession or frame love as a path to marriage, thereby fulfilling societal and familial duty. Old Disney created a colorful, feel-good world of magic and “true love”, which overshadowed more important morals. It may have been cleaner, but was it really better?

    7 min
4.4
out of 5
7 Ratings

About

Oh My Word