My last two articles focus on ways to join The Great Conversation. The Great Conversation is when someone enters a topic and response to an author (dead or alive), addresses an issue, adds to a topic, etc. The idea is that anything written or said can be responded too. In doing this, we create one big conversation. Hopefully, what we talk about matters.
This week, I want to weigh in on an ongoing thread. Since March, people have been weighing in on the first “You May Have ___, But I Have ____” article. If you’re not familiar with them, no worries! I’ll be providing a synopsis of each article, followed by an analysis and my response.
Threads
March 28, 2018—Victoria Higgins Starts a Conversation.
Victoria Higgins’ article, “You May Have Worn The Prom Dress with Him, But I Get to Wear the Wedding Dress,” is brief in how she expresses an envy towards the high school sweetheart being one of the girls to be loved by her soon-to-be groom, before having met her.
Higgins expressed her jealousy by calling the high school sweetheart, “just not right for him” and not being able to love him as “wholeheartedly” as she [Higgins] would. She idealistically proclaims in a victorious tone, “I get to love him forever.”
She ends with acknowledging her jealousy and then leaves her article on a note of smugness: “I try not to get jealous of all the things you [the high school sweetheart] got with him because it is all in the past. You had your time, and I get the wedding. You got to dress up in high school [for prom and other dances], but I get to dress up for my wedding with him.”
But Higgins doesn’t stop there. She goes from smudge to petty, when she adds: “He may have put a corsage on your wrist, but he will be putting the wedding ring on my finger.”
It appears Higgins’ article was likely meant to be a confessional letter addressing her internal struggling to address an envy she has toward this person –– this high school sweetheart –– someone she has never met and (likely) only knows through second-hand accounts and highly filtered/polished Facebook posts.
However, by using the second person, anyone who identifies as a high school sweetheart, can respond to this letter.
That’s just what happened.
April 17, 2018—Kelsey Jackson’s Response to Higgins.
Kelsey Jackson’s article, “You May Wear The Wedding Dress With Him, But I’ll Always Have His Virginity,” is written as a letter to the fiancée of a former love she had in high school.
The article expresses Jackson’s envy towards the bride-to-be when she expresses how she is “hoping for the day when something happens and you guys [the bride and groom] break up[,] and I can swoop in with the same comfort I gave him all those years ago . . . .”
Her only show of not being entirely jealous is her claim to her ex-lover’s virginity: “Just remember, you may have this brand new life with him, but I will always have his virginity.” She comically signs off with “Love, That One Girl From High School.”
When Jackson enters the conversation, she offers a counter-argument to Higgins. She expresses a validity in her experience with her ex-lover that’s about to be married off. She also has to argue the validity of how meaningful and sincere her affection was because it's attacked in Higgins’ article.
Jackson cleverly mimics Higgin’s form by also mirroring her article title, as well as writing a confessional letter in the second person. Jackson is not the only response to Higgins through these artistic choices, but she allows anyone to enter the conversation as well.
April 30, 2018—Breana Pierosanti’s Response to Jackson
Breana Pierosanti’s article, “You May ‘Have His Virginity,’ But You’re Petty If It’s That Important To You,” acknowledges the trending thread of articles (“You May X, But I Y”) as examples of “girl-hate and cattiness.”
However, this does not stop Piero Santi from weighing in on both articles. To Higgins, Pierosanti obviously agrees with Higgins because she doesn’t comment on her pettiness and jealousy.
She does, however, shame Jackson, when she says: “Your [Jackson] rubbing “taking” his virginity in his fiancée’s face [Higgins] is more of a reflection of your character than it is on his or hers. Your low-stooping pettiness proves why you won’t be the one walking down the aisle to meet him . . . I hope you [Jackson] grow up one day . . . his wife [Higgins] gets to look forward to a whole life with him. Let it go.”
When Pierosanti enters this conversation, she is an outsider looking in. She acknowledges the ongoing dialogue between Higgins and Jackson as girl-hate. She condemns girl hate, then says she “want[s] no business in girl-hate and cattiness” because she’s “frickin’ twenty” years old.
Yet, she proceeds to shame Jackson for girl-on-girl-hate.
Pierosanti sides with Higgins by telling Jackson to “let it go.” But, Pierosanti fails to acknowledge how Higgins shows pettiness and hate towards high school sweethearts.
Peirosanti weighs in by saying that “having sex for the first time can be as little a deal as you want it to be.” For Jackson, it was a big deal. For others, it might not be. Peirosanti then suggests that a bride wouldn’t be threatened by a former lover—despite how Higgins entire letter is expressing an insecurity manifest as an envy for not being her fiancé’s prom date.
Granted, the bride reminds herself of her future, but nevertheless, there is insecurity and doubt in Higgin’s original post suggesting a feeling of being threatened. Peirosanti also fails to see how like sex, marriage isn’t special to everyone. All in all, Pierosanti merely shames Jackson, agrees with Higgins, and perpetuates the girl-on-girl-hate.
Takeaways
I think this thread has resonated with so many because of the drama and personal stories, but also in what is being discussed, such as expressing ideals, how insecurities are expressed, dealing with those who challenge the validity of our experiences, and general egomania.
One, there seems to be an issue among (some) women’s idealistic conceptions of relationships.
First, the message of Higgins is that a bride is better than all the others that came before, yet she fails to remember that she is not married yet. She only has a ring that suggests a promising relationship for a long time. Even when her vows are shared, she needs to keep in mind that the divorce rate is still roughly at 50% in America, and most scientists would argue that humans are not monogamist (it’s a socially constructed practice).
Jackson's message claims she holds a special moment with her ex-lover. That’s fair. No one can take that experience away from her. She too is struggling with idealistic ideas. She is pining for her ex-lover to come back.
Pierosanti is realistic in how she acknowledges that the meaning of sex is relevant. One special moment doesn’t necessarily mean anything. She fails to see how this too applies to marriage these days. One doesn’t really know if a “fiancée gets to spend the rest of their life with him.” Such notions are leaning towards the 50% chance that the marriage will work out.
Two. (Some) women seem to manifest some of their insecurities through petty competitions.
This thread suggests that women experience this deep insecurity which manifests as aggressive behavior. For example, Higgins expresses an insecurity with her lover’s ex. She challenges the meaningfulness and sincerity of high school sweethearts. Another example is how Jackson competes with the “future” (current is more appropriate) that she’s likely never met.
Three. This Need to Be His Everything.
There seems to be an echo in Higgin’s original post that Jackson expresses as well, and that is this need to be a man’s everything. Higgin’s wants to be the virgin who took his virginity and awkwardly dances at prom. Likewise, Jackson longs for her ex-lover who is about to be married off to come back. She wants to finish the story with him, as his “comforter” and likely as his bride.
Four. Validity of Experiences.
Unlike Higgins, Jackson, and Pierosanti, I want to acknowledge that everyone’s personal experiences are valid. They don’t need to feel insecure. Why can’t everyone just accept the moments they’re given as they come? No one can take the experience of being someone’s first away, nor can they take the experience of being someone’s first fiancée/first (hopefully their only) bride away.
A personal response
One. The Middle of the Story.
When I read these threads, my biggest criticism was that Higgins’ and Jackson’s articles only tell part of the story: the beginning and (hopefully) the end. In doing so, they express their role in an egomaniacal way; who is better and why they justify it. Meaning, they are having a pissing party and someone has to be better than the other. But . . . every story has a beginning, middle and end, and sometimes a misplaced epilogue.
What about the middle of the story? So many readers identity with being one of the girls that is an in-between.
The majority of people have a line of people who came before their spouse. For all the women that come before the bride—they are the "in-betweeners." They are the ones after the guy lost his virginity/fell in love for the last time.
These are the women who were loved, who were one-night stands, who were crushes, who were mistakes, those that got away, and etc., They are the ones that helped teach him how to and how not to love, as well as helped him find his standard in how he wants to be loved and not to be loved.
They were one of the many factors that made him into the man he is today and prepared him for his bride (maybe even second bride).
Two. Acknowledge the Outliers.
It should be acknowledge that, maybe, it's not a matter of theses lessons. Maybe, its merely a man's want to finally settle down. Maybe, they finally met someone who inspired them to be the man they want to be. Maybe, we don't know.
Three. Fragile Identity.
While a relationship is important, it is not the end-all-be-all to a woman’s identity, success and happiness. It’s merely one factor.
The same applies to men. People fill their time with their careers, family, friends, hobbies, etc.
You're not a failure if you aren't a man's everything, or aren't a virgins, aren't married yet, or don't have any hobbies.
Remember, while it might be romantic and idealistic, you don't have to live up to these expectations. You might have his time, but you're not his everything, (and he shouldn't be yours). You are you.
The Challenge
If you don't know where to start, here are some challenges:
I challenge you to write about how you were an “in-betweener,” a woman/man who likely played a role in shaping someone for their spouse.
I challenge you to write about how you challenge your spouse or fiancé(e) to be the person they want to be (or how your significant other makes you feel like you're the person you want to be). I challenge you to write how people make you feel the need to validate yourself or your experiences.
