I hear the giggles as I walk by her room. Bekah is chatting on Skype.
(She has no idea of the luxury of those limitless calls. Limitless long distance calls -- limitless because they're free. What will be the luxuries her children enjoy which bemuse her? What awaits my grandchildren? (My potential, as yet entirely theoretical grandchildren?))
She is chatting with her friend Philippe. Philippe is the very likeable young man who spent a summer with us as an exchange student two years ago when he was 17 and Bekah not quite 13. English-speaking 17-year-olds from Ontario went to Quebec and New Brunswick to improve their French; French-speaking youths came here in exchange. A lanky young fellow with an exuberant mop of red curls, Pilippe's soft-spoken easy-going ways and good humour endeared himself to the entire family.
Bekah, it seems, endeared herself particularly to him.
They've kept in touch through emails and IM, and most recently with the free phone calls. The conversation just flows between those two. Hours and hours of it. He's held her hand (virtually) through a boyfriend and a breakup; she gives him (very sensible) advice re: family relationships and the appalling lack of greenery in his diet. I don't know what all else they might talk about over the hours. I'm not told.
I am of two minds about this relationship. I am not entirely comfortable with the amount of time she "spends" with him. Obviously, sex isn't an issue, which is a relief to me, because she's only fourteen. A physically mature fourteen, a very sensible and emotionally stable fourteen, but still fourteen. She spends a lot of time on this one relationship. I worry some about balance in her life. I keep an eye on her, making sure that other activities and relationships are not suffering as a result. They don't seem to be, but I keep a cautious maternal eye on her.
On the other hand, and this hand weighs heavily, I am very pleased that one of the most significant relationships in her life revolves entirely around conversation. They have no shared activities. They have shared interests, but, separated by a thousand kilometres or so, they can't do them together. The can't watch movies together. They do occasionally play internet games together, but not often.
What they do is talk. And talk and talk and talk.
Yes, I do haul her out of her room. She eats meals with the family, chores get done, homework is accomplished, she spends time every day chatting with me and spending time with her in-town friends. But she and Philippe talk. Every day.
I recall an occasion when her father came to visit me over Christmas break while we were still dating. We were in our early twenties, maybe even in our late teens, and had each gone to our respective families for the holidays. But ten days was too long for our love-struck hearts to be separated, so he drove the hour between our family homes to visit one day.
After spending some time with my family, we were desperate for some time alone, so we went for a drive, chatting idly about this or that thing out the window, and ended up having a coffee in a roadside diner somewhere. We sat on opposite sides of the table ... and the conversation shrivelled. We had nothing to say to each other. Nothing.
He held my hand. We smiled at each other. But we had nothing to say.
Why did I go ahead and marry this man, when conversation is so desperately important to me? Well, at the time I didn't really know that of myself, nor did I understand it would be absent in the marriage. I didn't know a lot of things at 19 or 20.
It took twelve years of a conversation-free marriage to teach me how my soul craves conversation. Not just mindless words, words, words tossed out, cluttering the air -- though there's certainly a place for casual, idle, and functional chatter. But conversation: a steady flow of interest in the other, the exchange of ideas, the building-up of new ideas as a joint creative enterprise.
To me, that's the bedrock of a relationship. Fundamental, foundational, indispensible.
And for twelve years, I lived without it.
I married him because I was young and naive and "in love". We loved each other! Conversation would come, right? I didn't realize that "in love" would not create something that didn't exist. I didn't realize that "in love" would parch to dust and blow away in the desert of silence and strictly-functional communication.
Bekah, in her room, chatters away. There is no lack of conversation with those two. There are no arid silences, no unbridged gaps between two solitudes.
So, though the amount of time she spends with this one friend does cause me some concern, the quality of the relationship reassures. If he is going to become someone significant in her life -- someone even more significant -- they are going about it the right way.
But I'm still glad he lives in New Brunswick.
I've done rather a lot of the long distance relationships stuff since my divorce (whole other story!) but the ability to do nothing BUT talk was refreshing. The physical stuff just couldn't happen so we had to focus on getting to know each other. If we'd met in a bar or something it would have been very different.
Not to say that it worked out though - heh!
Posted by: Penelope | May 30, 2008 at 08:47 AM
I also learned early on that conversation, perhaps equally or even more than sex, is the "glue" in a relationship. If I cannot talk on the phone someone, there is not much hope of the friendship deepening.
Posted by: Nina | May 30, 2008 at 09:41 AM
My best friend for the past 15 years (my husband) and I could always talk. Until the last year or so. One of the big signs to me our marriage may be over. He no longer is interested in sharing or listening. So, what's the point? I'm glad your daughter has someone like that in her life. It is the best thing ever.
Posted by: justAcliche | May 30, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Lack of conversation - or perhaps I should just say "talking" - really hasn't been a problem in either of my two marriages. During the last several years of my first one, though, it felt increasingly one-sided, and more like what I described as "lecture mode" on his side. A hazard of marriage to a college professor, perhaps?
My second husband and I had our first "conversations" via e-mail, and our first in-person meeting was five hours of easy talk. It's important to both of us to keep that talk going, and to sprinkle it regularly with humor. I think that's our real glue.
I tend to agree with you about Bekah - both about the concern, and the relief that this is a long-distance, talk-based relationship (for now).
Posted by: Florinda | May 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I think young teen girls love long-distance relationships because they are so non-threatening. It's a boyfriend that you just talk to; he doesn't come between you and your girlfriends, get bossy, or do any of the annoying things that real-time boyfriends are wont to do at that age.
Posted by: Molly | May 30, 2008 at 04:45 PM
The distance puts an element of safety into the relationship, and lets them develop their conversational skills, too. Is she learning French from him? Or did I get the language relationship reversed?
Posted by: Daisy | May 30, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Penelope - Nothing's foolproof, is it? But if it were, relationships would be a whole lot less exciting. I guess... :-)
Nina - I think, over the long term, conversation is more important than sex. You can have a meaningful life-long relationship without sex (thought I'd rather not!), but you can't have a meaningful life-long relationship without conversation. I can't, at any rate, and I'm not convinced it's possible.
justAcliche - Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you get to the bottom of it, so that you can know what to do next. Knowing something's not right, but not knowing what it is, nor what to do in response, is probably one of the most stressful situations to be in. I feel for you!
Florinda - True conversation is balanced and reciprocal. If one party is merely lecturing, it's not a conversation, not as I define it, anyway. Balanced over the long-term, because of course there will be times when one or the other of you dominates, due to a particular need or crisis.
And yes, I'm glad it's long-distance.
Molly - I hadn't considered this, but I think you're absolutely right. This makes a whole lot of sense. Thank you for the insight!
Daisy - They've played online Scrabble in French - she won! Mostly they communicate in English, though they've been known to switch to French when I'm getting in earshot. Should I be worried?
Posted by: Ilona | June 02, 2008 at 03:08 PM