To see how I’ve changed over time, notice which women I’ve fallen for

By David McElroy · December 19, 2018

When I got married at 24, I assumed it would be my only marriage. Don’t most people believe that about themselves?

I came across this photo in an old album tonight and it felt as though it was from another lifetime. But that’s me up there next to the lovely woman in the white dress. That’s my best man, Larry, to my right. That’s her best friend, Monique, on her left. That’s Rev. Leroy Anthony officiating. That’s his wife, Martha, at the organ on the right. That’s my father and his second wife on the right side of the second pew.

And that’s the woman who I married back then. In the interest of her privacy, I’m not going to be much more specific or show her face. There’s nothing to hide, but I just see no reason to drag her face into my musings tonight.

I still think very highly of Melissa. As far as I know, she still thinks highly of me. (She once told me that she would be happy to be a character witness for me with a future romantic partner if I needed one.) But she is a stranger to me now. She remarried quickly after we divorced and she has a wonderful husband and a beautiful little boy. I’m happy for her.

But when I look back on her — and on all the women I’ve dated or fallen in love with along the way — it occurs to me tonight that they tell a story about where I’ve been and what I’m becoming.

The first time I fell in love, I was a freshman in college. She was someone I had had a crush on back in junior high school. I had gotten over her eventually, of course, but then we were thrown together as college freshmen. We fell in love, dated three years and almost got married.

I haven’t talked to Gail in many, many years, but nothing ever changed my opinion of her character or worth. I still think very highly of her, just as I do Melissa.

But as I sit here tonight and think about them — and other women along the way — I see a pattern. I realize that the person I am today never would have been attracted to them. And I don’t think they would have been attracted to the person I am today.

I can’t quite explain that, but I wish I could. It’s not a slight to them. Not in the least. I’ve just changed in radical ways. The person I was at the time thought they were perfect candidates for me. The person I am today is attracted to someone far, far different.

If I made a list of the women who have really mattered to me — who I’ve fallen in love with — there wouldn’t be that many of them. But if I arranged them in order and you knew everything about them, you would see some patterns.

The women I was attracted to back then were more conservative. Not politically, but maybe socially. Or maybe more “traditional” is a better choice of words. They were more the sort of woman who might be cast to play the role of an old-fashioned wife of the stereotypical sort from my childhood years. This is not a bad thing, but I find that the women I’ve been attracted to more recently are much, much stronger women, at least in outward ways.

This is tough to explain, because it might come across as though I’m saying Melissa was someone who was passive or unambitious, but that would be mistaken. She has a Ph.D. and is a researcher and professor at a university. She’s fantastic at what she does. But there’s some essential difference in stance and presentation between her and the woman I would want today.

I’ve always wanted a partner in marriage, but I think I saw that role in a more traditional way at one time. I don’t mean as someone to keep “barefoot and pregnant,” of course, but something essential has changed in how I see my wife’s role.

I suppose I’m trying to say that I once saw my wife’s role as secondary to my own, whereas I now see someone who is an equal partner in the eyes of the world.

I think I once wanted a wife whose intelligence and beauty and charm would reflect well on me. The difference now is that I want a woman whose intelligence and beauty and charm reflect perfectly on her. I don’t want someone who can be an adoring woman in the shadows. Yes, I want her adoration. (I need that.) But whereas I might have once seen me as the one getting the glory — as a wife watched and supported me from the shadows — I now want a wife who stands in the spotlight for the glory with me.

Here’s something I don’t like admitting. I think I would have been put off — all those years ago — by the kind of woman who seems like my kind of woman today. Maybe I’m wrong, but when I look at the most recent woman I fell in love with, it was someone whose accomplishments made me burst with pride for her. I wanted her to be a star in her own right — and I wanted her just as much for her star power and ability to achieve as I wanted her for her beauty and charm and personality.

If I met someone today who was just like the women who I fell in love with when I was young, I think I would like them, but I can’t see me falling in love with them.

If I met someone back then just like the sort of woman I fall for today, I don’t see me falling in love with her. I suspect I would find her fascinating and even somewhat dangerous, but I would have seen her as too different from me.

I have changed radically over the years — and I’m seeing tonight just how much what I want has changed.

When we get married, we promise to love someone forever. That’s the romantic goal. It’s been the standard that society has pushed us toward through both culture and religion. For some people, that works and I wouldn’t suggest they should change it. I’m just certain that many of us change rapidly — and we soon discover that we’re no longer anything like the person we married.

I’m not going to get sidetracked on whether this is a bad thing or not. At one point, I thought divorce was terrible, but my views are far more complicated and nuanced today. I’ll leave it at that.

I just know I’ve changed. When I see who I was at 24 and I married Melissa, I simply don’t know that man anymore. I don’t know her anymore. For her sake, I’m glad she isn’t married to me anymore. I’m simply not the man she thought I was — and I like the person I am today far better.

I still think very highly of Gail and Melissa. I still think highly of the other women I’ve dated and had serious relationships with. But it’s noteworthy that the only one I would choose to marry today is the most recent one — not any from the past.

Something about me changed in radical ways. I like those changes. And those changes in me changed who I wanted.

If you could see and meet the woman I want — this star prototype, so to speak — I assure you that you would fall in love with her. I can’t take my eyes off her face in my mind. I wish I could tell her 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