Walls built to protect heart keep others from giving what we need

By David McElroy · November 18, 2017

I hadn’t seen Amy for months and she seemed excited to see me.

“I finally figured it out,” she called to me as soon as I approached her table. “There was nothing wrong with him. I was just scared because he loved me so much. I was afraid he might abandon me if I didn’t run away first.”

Anyone who heard us in the restaurant tonight would have assumed we knew each other well to be sharing such a discussion, but we’re just “pizza buddies.” We both like the same place and we sometimes talk since we both tend to come alone.

Amy is in her mid 20s. She’s in graduate school. She’s smart, funny and quirky. She’s also quite attractive. One of the things we’ve talked about most, though, is our mutual need to find love that will stay. The last couple of times I had seen her, we had talked almost exclusively about her confusing relationship with a man from England.

Andrew works for an international bank and his company sent him here for about a year. Amy met him at a local film festival last year and they hit it off enough to start dating. At first she was crazy about him and was really disappointed to find he would be going back to England — because she wanted to finish grad school here and she also wasn’t sure she would ever be willing to move so far away from her family.

They got very close very quickly. She said it was like a fairy tale, but she always knew the clock was going to strike midnight and the fantasy would end. He was moving back to England. She was staying in Birmingham. That was that. Her heart said she wanted more, but she knew what was realistic.

Then Andrew proposed marriage.

It was out of the blue. Even though she had been telling herself she wanted him more than anything, Amy suddenly froze up. Something was wrong.

Andrew said he loved her enough to stay here. He would get another job. He would change his entire life — give up the entire world he had known in the past — to marry her.

This is where things had been when Amy first started talking with me about Andrew. After he proposed and made it clear he would do anything necessary to overcome the issues which had made their future together so impossible, Amy started finding things wrong with him.

She started coming up with new reasons to say, “No,” to Andrew. The last time we talked about it, she was very confused. How could she have overlooked all these flaws before, she wondered.

She turned Andrew down shortly after we last talked. She broke his heart. He went ahead with his job transfer back home. He’s gone now. Amy took my suggestion to talk with a therapist — and that’s how she figured out what had happened. This is what she meant when she first saw me tonight and told me she had figured it out.

Amy loved Andrew. That was genuine.

As long as she could see him as a fantasy that she couldn’t really have, she was able to give her heart to him, because it didn’t require her to bring down all the barriers around her heart. She didn’t have to get emotionally naked with him. She could just pretend she was willing to be fully vulnerable — but there was never any real risk, because she knew it would end.

After Andrew broke down those pragmatic barriers — after he blew up all the excuses that would have kept them apart — Amy got scared. She realizes now that when there were no more excuses, she had to invent reasons to blame him. Otherwise, she would have had to see the truth about herself sooner.

Both of Amy’s parents died when she was a little girl. She was raised by a grandmother. (Even her grandfather was already dead.) Once she started seeing a therapist, she realized that the only relationships she has allowed herself to have had been with men who were distant and emotionally unavailable. She had a wall built around her heart — because that allowed her to move from one stormy relationship to another. She was able to blame the men for not giving her what she needed.

And then there was Andrew.

For once, a man offered her exactly what she needed and wanted. He said he loved her. He even said he would change his entire life for her and stay here. Just for her. Just because he loved her unconditionally.

And that terrified her.

Accepting that would have required her to tear down her wall. It would have required her to take a chance on someone. It would have required her to put her trust and faith in someone — a man who could abandon her. Just as her parents had abandoned her in her childhood.

Amy had never realized that she felt abandoned by her parents. She had never known the degree to which fear of emotional intimacy was ruling her. But it all made sense now. Andrew had scared her because he was everything she had ever wanted — and it was terrifying to trust that something that wonderful might stay for good.

Andrew is gone now. They ended their relationship when he left. He was heartbroken and confused by her refusal to marry him, so the connection was broken entirely.

“I wrote him a long letter last week and tried to explain everything I’ve learned about myself and why I did what I did,” Amy told me tonight. “I had to swallow my pride, because I really hurt him and I didn’t want to admit what I’d done. It sounded so childish. But I asked him if there was any way we could try again.”

Andrew still loves Amy. That’s what he told her in his reply anyway. He doesn’t quite trust her right now. He’s scared of getting hurt again. But he loves her, so he’s willing to at least talk about it.

Amy doesn’t know what’s going to happen now. She’s scared. She’s having to fight the urge to find excuses to run away again — to find reasons why Andrew is flawed. But now that she understands what she’s done, she knows she has to tear down this wall around her heart. Even if things with Andrew don’t work out, she has to learn to be emotionally vulnerable — and right now this is a foreign concept.

As we talked tonight, I told her about one of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis on this subject, so I had to look it up to share it with her. In his book, “The Four Loves,” Lewis describes why it’s so dangerous to remain closed inside.

“To love at all is to be vulnerable,” Lewis wrote. “Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”

This is a lesson that I struggled with in the past, because I had a fear of not being good enough and I had a fear of being abandoned.

On multiple occasions, I ran away from someone I thought I wanted — after she wanted me enough to be committed. I always had excuses. It was always something wrong with her. Or so I thought. It took me a long time to realize I was trying to avoid being abandoned. I was terrified of what I wanted most — because I thought I might lose it.

The walls we build keep other people from hurting us, but they lock us in a lonely and miserable place.

Maybe it’s too late for Amy and Andrew, but maybe it can still work. I encouraged her to be willing to do anything it took to heal the relationship. If you find someone who loves you unconditionally — and you know you love that person — the most foolish thing in the world is to find excuses to run away.

Emotional vulnerability can be scary — but being trapped without the love you need is far worse. Real love is worth the risk. Anything less than real love isn’t worth having. I’m glad Amy is learning that.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts