Second, great weekend. Two DQ Blizzards (my first) in one weekend, a ridiculous chili cheesedog, two great movies (The Blind Side and Finding Forrester, also a first and every MFA's fantasy), a marriage aptitude test, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Oh, wait--you noticed that bit? About the aptitude test? Hmm. Well, alright. See, I'm Catholic. J's about as notCatholic as you can get without being antiCatholic (read: he is at once completely skeptical of the Church and wholly supportive of my participation in it). Because I am religious and he is not, we are getting married in a Catholic church, because otherwise no living together. Awkward for a married couple.
One of the first things to do when getting married in the Catholic Church is to talk to your priest like, ten seconds after the proposal and acceptance. We, of course, spoke to the priest after reserving the church, reception hall, catering, and cleanup crew. In our defense, though, we tried to talk to the priest first. That's not the point, though. The point is you talk to the priest so he knows where you are in your relationship and a learns a little bit about you. If one of you isn't Catholic, he'll ask about your religion, how you want to work your traditions into the ceremony, and all that good stuff. Then he signs you up for the test.
Now first, let me tell you that the whole point is, as I've said in previous posts, to make sure that both parties understand that they're in this for a marriage, not just shooting for a wedding. The Church, because it doesn't really believe in divorce at all, wants to make sure that you're in it for the long haul (read: no prenups, no backup wives in other states, no 'trying it out to see how it works,' no just getting married so the baby has Dad's last name and then a quick divorce after). So each diocese has guidelines for marriage preparation. In some dioceses, it's a weekend of talking. In ours, it's about 6 months of conversation with a couple that's been married for a long time (1 convo a month), a couple of talks with the priest, and some recommendations for a retreat and a family planning class. Easy. Oh, and the test.
The test did not go over well. Goal of the test: to ask some general questions, scope out where each partner is on some big topics, and give the mentor couple a place to start the conversations. Example: If I want a dozen kids, and write that "we" want a dozen kids while Jeremiah marks "strongly disagree" on the "We plan to have children" question, that's problematic for starting a life together. If I, being way Catholic and planning to raise my kids Catholic, have not mentioned to Jeremiah that I'll be taking the kids to church, and we haven't even talked about religion--we just ignore it because talking about it would start a fight--we're probably not ready to get married just yet. That kind of thing. It's not a pass/fail, just a "where are you on the spectrum" thing.
That was all fine. No, the problem with the test was not that it was pass/fail, or it cost money (because if you can't afford it the Church will pay), or that it was none of their business. The problem was that the questions were yes/no questions and the answer options were spectral. E.g., "I wish my partner would participate in more faith activities with me." The answer is either yes, or it is no--I don't strongly wish, or strongly unwish--I either do, or I don't. Neutral is don't. So we're taking the test, not talking to each other because we're trying not to skew the results, and every now and then I see this little eruption at the computer desk--Jeremiah's logic rage. "THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! THE PHRASING IS STUPID!"
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the two of us fit. I am perfectly fine with the test because it doesn't have to be perfect if it has good intent and potential good outcome. Jeremiah can't stand it because its lack of attention to reason obscures its finer points. (Together, we should have children who appreciate both logic and intuition.) Completely opposite reactions, which spurred a conversation, which led to ice creams, which led to a movie and snuggle time. I think the test probably did exactly what it was supposed to do...it got us talking.
Stockholming: Week 3
So I think I'm going to pull a TJ and Stockholm once a week, for a couple of reasons. 1) Internet access. I don't want to be staying after work to borrow the internet three days a week. 2) Clothes. I'm running out of them. 3) Picture quality. It's kind of poo. and 4) I want to be able to spend time checking out other people's Stockholming progress, but can't commit that kind of time every day. SO here's Day 14, Week 3. The hair's a bit poufy, but you can see the reason I'm wearing an ivory wedding gown and not a white one, right? No. You can't see it, because the white tank under the jacket blends into my skin. I thought about tucking the shirt, but then I'd look naked, and we've already talked about naked Stockholming, haven't we? /Shudder.
Now: off to the gym. 13lbs down, and 15 more to go before I start trying on wedding gowns.
2 comments:
I understand that this test was written for the average person, but if you're going to charge $30 per couple to take the bloody thing, the least you could do is invest in some quality test writers. Is it really too much to ask? I'm sure that the folks who write the SATs and CAT tests have downtime they could put to good use. Hell, the ASVAB questions were better.
If the next person I know who takes this test suddenly finds "If you and your partner begin to leave a party at the same time, you heading for the car at 3 steps per second and your partner still talking to a friend, what time will the argument begin" as a question, I'll know who to blame.
Post a Comment