How Can I Tell If My Fiancé Loves Me or US Citizenship?

choi

Kwame Anthony Appiah, gow Can I Tell If My Fiancé Loves Me or Just Want US Citizenship?  New York Times Magazine, July 30, 2023, at page 12 (in the column 'The Ethicist' featuring Mr Appiah).
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/ ... zenship-ethics.html

Note:
(a) "But then I think of the most celebrated 'marriage plot' novel of English literature, Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice.' Why does Elizabeth Bennet love Mr. Darcy? His wealth doesn’t clinch the deal; she turns down his first proposal. Yet it’s far from irrelevant. There is a scene in which she visits his house and grounds (in his absence, as she imagines) and is bowled over by its grandeur and graciousness. Austen makes it plain that Eliza wouldn't marry him just for his wealth and that she wouldn't marry him without it."
(i)
(A) Eliza (given name)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_(given_name)
(table: pronunciation; "The name first developed as a diminutive of Elizabeth[1] in the 16th century and its use as an independent name started in the 18th century")
(B) My Fair Lady (film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Fair_Lady_(film)
(1964; "The film stars Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle—replacing Julie Andrews from the stage musical")
(ii) bowl over
(A) bowl someone over (phrasal verb):
"1: to knock someone to the ground by running into him or her  <She was almost bowled over by a huge dog>
2: to surprise and please someone a lot  <She was bowled over when she heard she'd won the competition>"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bowl-over

Pay attention to the pronunciation of bowl.
(B) Danielle McLeod, Bowl Over or Bowled Over – Idiom, Origin & Meaning. Grammarist.com, undated
https://grammarist.com/idiom/bowl-over/
("The transitive verb bowl over or bowled over has its roots in British lawn bowling and the game of cricket. It is now recognized as an idiomatic phrase to highlight a surprise or amazement that takes a person unawares.   It is usually used positively")


(b) "I wish I could offer you some simple heuristic. Gilbert Ryle, who was among the most probing philosophers of the past century, was impressed that Jane Austen's moral approach was, in his terms, Aristotelian rather than Calvinist — that her characters weren't divided into saints and sinners but instead mixed vices and virtues in various proportions. In the same way, Austen thought that relationships could be amalgams of all sorts of things; they could be transactional and transporting."
(i) heuristic (adj and n): "EDUCATION  (of a method of teaching) allowing students to learn by discovering things themselves and learning from their own experiences rather than by telling them things")
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/heuristic

The above Web page does not have etymology, for which Merriam-webster.com says, "German heuristisch, from New Latin heuristicus, from [Ancient] Greek heuriskein to discover; akin to Old Irish fo-fúair he found."
(ii) Gilbert Ryle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle
(1900-1976; British)
(iii) Aristotelian
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Aristotelian
(pronunciation)
, where the vowel e is pronounced the same as "ee" in "feet."
(iv) transactional (adj): "2: (psychology, sociology) based on value derived from transactions rather than on morals, ethics, or principles; pragmatic or amoral rather than moral"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transactional

I will say "business-like, treating it as business."
(v) transporting
(A) transport (vt): "2: to carry away with strong and often intensely pleasant emotion"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transporting
(B) transport (v): "3: (figuratively) to move (someone) to strong emotion; to carry away   <Music transports the soul>"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transport

(vi) "In the same way, Austen thought that relationships could be amalgams of all sorts of things; they could be transactional and transporting."

The Ethicist meant to say that that Egyptian man might love US citizenship (transactional), but that you may get a kick (transporting) out of the marriage because he might also love you. This is what Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice taught, rather than Calvinist's black OR white worldview (here, loving either you or US citizenship but not BOTH, including "in various proportions." (Whether John Calvin advanced such a view, I do not know and find nothing in this regard to support or contradict). I wish to call your attention to the "tr" or "tran," this kind of rhyme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
is alliteration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliteration
--------------------------------
I am an Egyptian American man in my 60s. On a trip home five years ago, I met an Egyptian man much younger than me. We fell in love and decided to marry so we could be together in an open and free society. I applied for him to come to the United States as my fiancé. Two months later, the pandemic hit. Everything was closed, and his visa processing at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was put on hold. We spent over two years just waiting, not knowing when this situation will be resolved. During that time, I traveled to Egypt every four to six months so we could be together.

Over the past year, our relationship has gradually deteriorated, culminating in his texting me, two months ago, that he is not sure if we are good for each other. Then, finally, the visa was approved. Now we have four months to decide if we should proceed with our marriage plans. He now says he wants to be together. I am hesitant. My level of trust in him has diminished, because when times were rough, he did not keep faith in our relationship.

I still love him. He also says he loves me. I don’t question that. But I am afraid that his love is situational and not solid. I never wanted to marry until I met him. I think of him as my life partner. Now this feeling has been challenged. Do you have any ethical insight that can help me decide? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

Many readers will immediately wonder whether this man truly loves you or whether he’s simply drawn to the better life you represent. The per capita gross national income in Egypt is a fraction of America’s, and the situation there for gay men, in particular, is pretty bad. (Human Rights Watch has reports of entrapment, arbitrary arrest and police maltreatment of L.G.B.T.Q. people, sometimes using private information found on computers or cellphones.) So he has plenty of reasons to want to get out of Egypt. Either he loves you for you or he wants a better life. Which is it?

That either-or captures our usual common sense and has the comfort of simplicity. But then I think of the most celebrated “marriage plot” novel of English literature, Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Why does Elizabeth Bennet love Mr. Darcy? His wealth doesn’t clinch the deal; she turns down his first proposal. Yet it’s far from irrelevant. There is a scene in which she visits his house and grounds (in his absence, as she imagines) and is bowled over by its grandeur and graciousness. Austen makes it plain that Eliza wouldn’t marry him just for his wealth and that she wouldn’t marry him without it. In Austen’s world, it’s part of what makes him lovable.

Your case presents various further complications. Ideally, you would spend real time together and try to figure out whether you’re ready to be life partners. The vagaries of U.S. immigration laws mean that you have to decide what to do over the next few months. So you’ve got to interpret some confusing signals. On the one hand, your fiancé’s earlier hesitations could indicate that his feelings are fickle; on the other, why would someone who was simply desperate to get out of Egypt undermine his chances in that way?

In the best scenario, you have indeed found a partner for life, with whom you share important cultural ties. In a bad scenario, the marriage won’t work out, as marriages frequently don’t, which will exact a serious emotional and financial toll. (A 2014 analysis found higher divorce rates among marriages with large age gaps.) In the worst scenario, you’ll have passed on what may turn out to be — given that this is the first time you have contemplated marriage in all your adult life — your best chance at lasting love.

I wish I could offer you some simple heuristic. Gilbert Ryle, who was among the most probing philosophers of the past century, was impressed that Jane Austen’s moral approach was, in his terms, Aristotelian rather than Calvinist — that her characters weren’t divided into saints and sinners but instead mixed vices and virtues in various proportions. In the same way, Austen thought that relationships could be amalgams of all sorts of things; they could be transactional and transporting. What’s in this man’s heart? Possibly a complicated mixture of emotions and motives. But that doesn’t settle the matter. In the end, it’s your own heart you’ll have to consult.