I have always wrestled with the concept that I am not good enough, and I've wrestled with it in every arena of my life. Not good enough for God, not good enough for ministry, not good enough to be someone's best friend, and most commonly, not good enough to be with a great girl. There are all sorts of reasons why a person may feel this way, and I think this stems from a certain life experience repeated again and again in my junior high and high school years. I used to weigh 210 pounds (180 now), I was scarred with acne, and I was awkward (still have mild acne, and I'm still incredibly awkward). In junior high, the girls in the youth group would joke around about dating me and then pretend they were vomiting in their mouths. In high school, I liked a girl named Kristen, and I asked her out, and she said she would date me but only if it was in secret and only if I lost weight and cleared up my face (I didn't go for the idea). These are just two samples of a plethora of experiences that shaped me into a person encumbered by the belief that, for some reason or another--be it my physique, or my personality, etc.--I am not good enough for a girl. In college I dated several girls: Sonja, Julie, Jessica, Courtney, etc. None of the relationships worked out. I was cheated on by some, back-stabbed by others; I am still friends with Jessica, and that breakup was one of necessity. While things got better in college, the feeling of not being good enough still hung over me as a pallor, and when a relationship failed, or when a girlfriend cheated on me, I looked inwards: "What is it about me that makes me a horrible boyfriend?" Truth be told, all my girlfriends except for two have told me I am an amazing guy and an amazing boyfriend after we broke up; and though the breakups happened for other reasons, I still painted them out in my head to be due to some sort of deficiency in myself.
Last night Sarah and I were talking before bed, and she told me that I'm a good guy and that I'm attractive. She said that when people "click," it's not just about being physically attracted to one another or dating because you realize the other person is a good person and would be a good significant other, a good spouse, a good parent. It's about chemistry--"Some people have it, some people don't." Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think it's pretty simple: we're attracted to people because they have something we want. I almost feel as if "chemistry" is a cop-out idea; if someone likes you, and you don't like them back, then you blame it on the "chemistry" and not on the person. But I think that if the person had what you want--physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc.--then you would be attracted to that person. And you'll say, "No, that's not true--I've known lots of great people I haven't wanted to date." And I'll reply with, "Yes, they were great--but they were not adequate."
I don't think it's about being good enough or not good enough but, rather, whether you are adequate or inadequate. When we make the issue about being "good enough," it boils down to some sort of deficiency in who we are. We don't have what the other person wants. We don't have what it takes. There's something about us that makes the other person look at us and say, "I don't want to be with this person." I think that thinking is wrong, though, because, as I said, it implies a deficiency in the rejected person. It implies that something is missing, that there's something critical the person doesn't have, something that the person needs. Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether or not a person is adequate enough for you. We all have things we want in another person: a certain physique, a type of humor, a certain personality. When the other person meets all of the requirements but one, and when that missing requirement is held as critically important in the mind of the person being approached, then the person doing the approaching will be dismissed. It isn't because the person approaching isn't good enough; it's because, though they may be fantastic, they just don't have what the other person requires and is thus inadequate.
In fear of making this sound like some sort of semantics, replacing the common "good enough" "not good enough" lingo with "adequate" "inadequate," I want to try to do my best to make the difference clear. With the first one, it becomes a matter of the person doing the approaching. When rejection takes place, the fault lies with the person approaching: they're "not good enough." With the other way of looking at things, when rejection takes place, the fault lies with the person being approached: they have a stringent list of demands, and when the other person--who may be great and wonderful and fantastic--is rejected, it isn't because he or she isn't "good enough" but because he or she is "inadequate", unable to live up to the other person's demands.
Thus when I look at my own life, the failed relationships and the countless rejections, I ought not see that I am "not good enough" but that I didn't live up to the demands of the other people; they wanted things I couldn't offer, but my inability to offer them does not negate me being a good person. Sarah has the whole concept of it being about "chemistry", which is shady to me because she can't even explain it, it's something that she just expects and allows to guide her relationships, and it's shady because you can have this "chemistry" with a total asshole and think that it's okay, when really you're just shooting yourself in the foot. My scheme of looking at things, I think, is better. Let's say I told Sarah, "Hey, I like you, let's date," and if she didn't like me back, she'd say there's no chemistry. But if she held to my view of things, she'd say, "No, that's okay," and it would be because I failed in who I am to live up to what she wants--not because I'm not good enough, but because I'm inadequate for her.
I don't know if any of that made sense. Congratulations if you read all the way through.
Last night Sarah and I were talking before bed, and she told me that I'm a good guy and that I'm attractive. She said that when people "click," it's not just about being physically attracted to one another or dating because you realize the other person is a good person and would be a good significant other, a good spouse, a good parent. It's about chemistry--"Some people have it, some people don't." Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think it's pretty simple: we're attracted to people because they have something we want. I almost feel as if "chemistry" is a cop-out idea; if someone likes you, and you don't like them back, then you blame it on the "chemistry" and not on the person. But I think that if the person had what you want--physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc.--then you would be attracted to that person. And you'll say, "No, that's not true--I've known lots of great people I haven't wanted to date." And I'll reply with, "Yes, they were great--but they were not adequate."
I don't think it's about being good enough or not good enough but, rather, whether you are adequate or inadequate. When we make the issue about being "good enough," it boils down to some sort of deficiency in who we are. We don't have what the other person wants. We don't have what it takes. There's something about us that makes the other person look at us and say, "I don't want to be with this person." I think that thinking is wrong, though, because, as I said, it implies a deficiency in the rejected person. It implies that something is missing, that there's something critical the person doesn't have, something that the person needs. Ultimately, I think it comes down to whether or not a person is adequate enough for you. We all have things we want in another person: a certain physique, a type of humor, a certain personality. When the other person meets all of the requirements but one, and when that missing requirement is held as critically important in the mind of the person being approached, then the person doing the approaching will be dismissed. It isn't because the person approaching isn't good enough; it's because, though they may be fantastic, they just don't have what the other person requires and is thus inadequate.
In fear of making this sound like some sort of semantics, replacing the common "good enough" "not good enough" lingo with "adequate" "inadequate," I want to try to do my best to make the difference clear. With the first one, it becomes a matter of the person doing the approaching. When rejection takes place, the fault lies with the person approaching: they're "not good enough." With the other way of looking at things, when rejection takes place, the fault lies with the person being approached: they have a stringent list of demands, and when the other person--who may be great and wonderful and fantastic--is rejected, it isn't because he or she isn't "good enough" but because he or she is "inadequate", unable to live up to the other person's demands.
Thus when I look at my own life, the failed relationships and the countless rejections, I ought not see that I am "not good enough" but that I didn't live up to the demands of the other people; they wanted things I couldn't offer, but my inability to offer them does not negate me being a good person. Sarah has the whole concept of it being about "chemistry", which is shady to me because she can't even explain it, it's something that she just expects and allows to guide her relationships, and it's shady because you can have this "chemistry" with a total asshole and think that it's okay, when really you're just shooting yourself in the foot. My scheme of looking at things, I think, is better. Let's say I told Sarah, "Hey, I like you, let's date," and if she didn't like me back, she'd say there's no chemistry. But if she held to my view of things, she'd say, "No, that's okay," and it would be because I failed in who I am to live up to what she wants--not because I'm not good enough, but because I'm inadequate for her.
I don't know if any of that made sense. Congratulations if you read all the way through.
3 comments:
you're right. in terms of adequate and inadequate there is an end to accomplish. in terms of "good enough" and "not good enough" we place qualitative value on personhood, which is completely self-absorbed. it's as though someone said "they're not good enough for anyone of my status", meaning that only a lesser individual would stoop to dating such a person.
so, personal question: is it easier to think of yourself as inadequate for these girls you've dated? considered in the way you've differentiated the phrases (using proper definitions, rather than relying on cultural semantic similarities and procuring new definitions, which is what i normally do) i believe that hope becomes an easier thing to grasp. finding the piece of the puzzle to fight your own piece is not an easy task. many fish in the sea, many pieces on the floor (and maybe some under the bookcase).
i mean, "fit your own piece" not "fight"... that's just counterproductive.
I wouldn't say it is easier to think of myself that way, in the sense that it makes the general scheme of things, how things played out, easier to bear; yet at the same time, realizing that it's not, as you said, an assault on my person is something to keep in mind. So often I get trapped into that poisonous cycle of thinking I am deficient for some reason, that I don't have what it takes, that I don't fit the bill, because of something that's wrong with ME as a person.
I like the puzzle piece analogy. Some pieces fit together, other pieces don't. Some pieces, while being great puzzle pieces, just don't have the right parameters to fit into other great puzzle pieces, and thus they aren't compatible. It's not an assault on the quality or nature of the puzzle pieces themselves.
Post a Comment