Jealousy And Social Media
Anonymous Question Series:
Q: My husband gets jealous about Facebook likes, emojis, and comments I get from other men who are just friends. How do you recommend dealing with such situations?
A: The quick answer: Recognize your husband’s jealousy is rooted in fears and insecurities and avoid taking responsibility for his emotions.
Jealousy is a toxic form of control and is never a healthy or appropriate response. While it is important to respect and love your spouse, to hear out their concerns, you never should take responsibility for his emotional immaturity — his jealousy. What I mean by this last comment is that you should never feel you have to change because your spouse guilts you, scares you, or uses logic to convince you to change. Even in the case of emotional or physical infidelity, jealously is toxic and not healthy.
It is natural to experience hurt, pain, sadness, maybe even a little jealousy, but jealousy is a manifestation of other serious emotional issues. Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D., addressed these mental health issues well in her article "What's Really Behind Jealousy, and What to Do About It".
Research has linked several traits to jealousy:
Low self-esteem
Neuroticism: a general tendency to be moody, anxious and emotionally unstable
Feelings of insecurity and possessiveness
Dependence on your partner (Codependency)
Feelings of inadequacy in your relationship
An anxious attachment style
Take courage in your integrity. You get to be you! Some married individuals require or expect their spouses to "unfriend" old friends of the opposite sex and past boyfriends/girlfriends and share social media and emails. This is inappropriate. Some people agree to do this because it seems to make logical sense, and they see it as a form of "honoring" their spouse. So, they agree to go along with it. Sure, absolutely, if you personally decide it's best for you to avoid interacting with others of the opposite sex, you get to make that decision. But it is not loving nor healthy of your spouse to make you feel obligated to comply.
Elder Holland made it clear that this immature jealousy and tantrum is not appropriate (refer to my post: Marital Myth of Communication):
"The second segment of this scriptural sermon on love in Moroni 7:45 says that true charity — real love — 'is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity.' Think of how many arguments could be avoided, how many hurt feelings could be spared, how many cold shoulders and silent treatments could be ended, and, in a worst-case scenario, how many breakups and divorces could be avoided if we were not so easily provoked, if we thought no evil of one another, and if we not only did not rejoice in iniquity but didn’t rejoice even in little mistakes.
Temper tantrums are not cute even in children; they are despicable in adults, especially adults who are supposed to love each other. We are too easily provoked; we are too inclined to think that our partner meant to hurt us—meant to do us evil, so to speak; and in defensive or jealous response we too often rejoice when we see them make a mistake and find them in a fault. Let’s show some discipline on this one. Act a little more maturely. Bite your tongue if you have to. 'He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city' (Proverbs 16:32). At least one difference between a tolerable marriage and a great one may be that willingness in the latter to allow some things to pass without comment, without response." —Jeffery R. Holland, How Do I Love Thee?
Respond with love and boundaries, don't lose who you are, have fun and be you. It's not easy, but he needs to learn how to be an adult and a loving companion. You can't force him, but you can take comfort in knowing you get to be you.
One final thought. If he is making such an issue over "likes" that you feel it had to be addressed with me, I am going to assume this behavior is not limited to social media. I would encourage you to read and become familiar with emotional blackmail.
Additional Resources:
Here is a summary of the book: "Emotional Blackmail" patterns
Find the full book here: Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You
Emotional Blackmail website: Out of the F.O.G.
Self-Assessment of Emotional Abuse: Emotional Abuse
I Do Not Govern Them At All
"‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.'" —Brigham Young, “Leading in the Lord’s Way” (Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 7, 1870, p. 3)
Lately, I have noticed a popularity in various family contracts, specifically for regulating cell phone usage. As a principle, I caution families to avoid this approach to parenting. It communicates the wrong message, teaches the wrong principles and can lead to increasing the behavior you are trying to avoid. We'll see this same experience happen in missions: very well-intended, spiritual, insightful mission presidents pile rules on top of the standard missionary guidelines. The already obedient continue to be obedient and the less obedient tend to become less obedient. However, the obedient often become more focused on the "rule" and neglect the quiet whisperings of the Spirit.
With the advent of smartphones, youth have open access to the internet. I understand parents’ concerns and fears. A phone contract can be done if it is done well and with the right amount of seriousness and lightheartedness. But it’s interesting; in therapy we are discovering that “contracts” are not usually an effective method. In fact, it often enables problems.
For example, creating a contract has a tendency to remove one from living the principles and concepts to living by the letter of the law — making the parent have to spell everything out, as the child then becomes brilliantly (or desperately) clever in finding loopholes: “Well, that’s not what was said in the contract …” It can inadvertently make the contract into the parent, and both the child and parents subject to the document instead of to the spirit or intuition.
Take for example, a well-intended family who attempted to create a contract intended to help teach, remind and encourage gospel values, all with wit and humor. The son was excited and, of course, agreed to all the terms and signed the contract. It went well for the first few months. But as clever as the parents were at writing the document, it was of course impossible to consider all details and potential issues.
Like the contract in this post, it defined specifics about a curfew and never having the phone in his room. But it failed to mention that he couldn’t get up early before school and use it in the living room while everyone else was in bed. The parents were impressed that their son who never gets up on time, let alone early, was now fully ready for school most mornings. When inquiring what the new motivation was, they discovered what he was doing.
It was clear to the parents that what he was doing was not what they desired. But nowhere in the contract was it considered. Tension grew as the son continued to get up early and play his games, and because no one was up, every room became a private place. The parents told him that he was not to do that, and he argued back that that’s not what they agreed on. Do the parents revoke the contract and create a new one in greater detail or insert a provision that the contract can be edited or modified at any point per parents’ discretion? Both of those options defeat the purpose of the contract and discourage the very teachings they were intending.
While serving in the Phoenix Arizona Mission in 1995, Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen of the Quorum of the Seventies came and spoke to the leaders in the mission, which is where I served. He shared with us an interesting pattern of experiences he had while working with the mission presidents in his area. He was praising our mission president, Val Christensen, for the way he ran the mission, and that it was done on principles and concepts, not rules.
Elder Mickelsen said there are mission presidents who pride themselves on the binders of rules they institute in their missions. Upon Elder Mickelsen’s arrival, one such president laid a three ring binder of rules on his lap as he drove him from the airport. Elder Mickelsen said he removed it and discarded it. He warned that such things destroy missionaries.
We cannot foresee every issue, and the moment we attempt that in a contract, it becomes a burden. Natural parenting is interrupted, and you become bound to yesterday’s knowledge.
Such contracts are sometimes used to inappropriately control the behaviors of others. Another family intentionally established a contract they knew would be difficult for their daughter to follow. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, they were setting her up to fail. Instead of using the contract to govern and guide, it was used to get her to stop behaviors that annoyed the parents. Although the parents believed it was geared toward teaching her good habits, the message was one of shame and not a reminder of her being a child of God.
Creating a contract lends itself to a subtle communication that the behaviors are more important than the individual. It defines what one can’t do, but not what one should become or how they can use their behaviors for good. And good behaviors should never be contracted.
I have seen, even in the best of contracts, that it ends up binding the parents more and setting up an unhealthy power dynamic in the family — where kids will demand they have followed every rule in the contract and argue against a parent’s desire to remove them from their usage.
Using a contract can be good, but I would suggest it as more of an “articles of (faith) use” policy. As Joseph Smith taught, teach them principles and let them govern themselves. It is tempting to list rules and not principles, but I have seen this promote only rule following and not Spirit guiding. As a result, children develop the expectation “to be commanded in all things.”
Phone or no phone, my children know their electronics usage is NOT private. Their passwords are not private and at any time and length of time, we get to remove them from their usage. No questions asked.