Real Men Initiate
by Motte Brown on 12/03/2007 at 12:42 PM
In 1852, the British troopship H.M.S. Birkenhead was traveling to South Africa when she hit a ledge and foundered. On board were more than seven hundred men, women, and children. With only twenty minutes left before she would sink, the decision was made to place all women and children aboard the few life boats. The men would remain behind and face the man-eating sharks circling the disaster. Hundreds of men drowned or were eaten alive in full view of their children, but not a single woman or child perished that day.
Dr. Ray Van Neste told this story (quoting from VisionForum.com) to a group of college men explaining why men take on all the risk in relationships. It was a poignant way of driving home a point he was making about manhood and sacrifice. Here's what followed:
Guys take the risk in relationships. You initiate and make the approach. That way she can be safe and does not have to take the risk of stepping out first. Also if she feels the need to break it off she is free to do so even without explanation. You take the brunt of it and let her go unscathed.
Not many men will be called to be eaten alive for the sake of women. But most are called to prepare for marriage by growing in the kind of maturity that means fearlessly facing their rejection. And this doesn't mean just once. You must do it over and over again until you find the one who says yes.
Dr. Van Neste's talk can be found here. It's well worth reading in its entirety. In addition to the topic of sacrifice, he covers what it means to take responsibility and embrace commitment, and generally how to avoid all manner of unmanly things. I just thought the comparison of initiating relationships with the men of the H.M.S. Birkenhead was cool.
And for more on why real men initiate, read Michael Lawrence's, "Real Men Risk Rejection." It just may cure you of all your passivity.
HT: Justin Taylor
1. Julie said the following at 1:15 PM on Dec 3:
Praise God for manly men who know what they want! I know I am very thankful to God that I waited for my fiance, a great godly man who sought me out and who has strove to lead our relationship.
This has been a hard thing for him, but one thing he has told me that helps is when you realize that God gives grace to the called. Guys, if you feel like pursuing a woman, and if you feel that God's blessing is on it, go for it! Even if you feel like you have no idea what you're doing, even if you're a little scared, God will give you what you need to give her what she needs.
That's part of the mystery between a man and a maiden, I think. :)
Speaking for all women here :) - Women really would rather you go for it and have to turn you down, than watch you circle around them "feeling it out." Women are rather perceptive, and know that you like them, but are cowardiced. You could through your hesitation, convince the young woman of your interest that you aren't man enough for her.
2. Tami said the following at 1:47 PM on Dec 3:
Wow, that article was really tough. I'm glad I'm not a man. ;)
God bless any man who takes those words to heart.
And I concur with Julie's point about women's perceptiveness. Though I might add that nervous hesitation can also come off as disinterest, and so you may unwittingly be telling her "I'm not interested," even if you are.
3. Shawni said the following at 1:54 PM on Dec 3:
So, what about when a man initiates too soon? The guy I dated over the summer (my first and only boyfriend so far) knew very little about me, but convinced me that he was seriously interested in me as a wife. He worked hard to win my heart for four or five months, and eventually succeeded... only to drop me with no explanation.
The only thing I can think of is that he was just infatuated with me, and once that wore off, he realized I wasn't really the one he wanted, even though he told me he would have married me already, if I was ready, a couple weeks earlier. He had been in several relationships before, and said he always felt convinced that "this is the one" at the beginning of each relationship. Apparantly he had no problem initiating; it was being discerning about who he initiated with that he needed to be more careful about.
4. Sue said the following at 2:05 PM on Dec 3:
I really appreciate what you do here at Boundless. I think that maybe somewhere that men and young men and boys are getting the leadership they need to be what God made them to be. I wish I had known one man like you are talking about for the relationship experience I have had. It seems all I've ever had the pleasure to do is to read about them in books or articles like yours. I have had 3 relationships with men who have consisitantly made the reverse of your story true. And I know I am not the only woman on the planet to have had this happen once or even more times as unfortunately in my case. I have cried so many times over this and often wonder because of it, does God expect me to be the "man"? I've been hurt 3 times and I was not the one who initiated. That's not who I am. I just wanted you to know that I praise God for manly men that you are talking about, but I guess its too late for me to get to be in a relationship with one. Thanks again for helping others though.
5. obewan said the following at 2:25 PM on Dec 3:
I think there is Biblical support for women initiating too. Read the book of Ruth.
I am all for men being men, but there are real limits of practicality.
I suffered through a Christian singles group for 12 years that was near a military base. The ratio of men to women was 13:1. It took an extreme amount of effort to just land one date. Of course, many of the women actually hated it. Even the simplest attempt at establishment of friendship or a brother-sister relationship was often taken by them as being "hit on".
It took a lot of patience, but yes after awhile, I got used to rejection. When it happens over and over, your heart gets numb to it.
6. Colin Pedicini said the following at 2:31 PM on Dec 3:
Maybe between Shawni and I we can get our questions answered as one? She spoke of her boyfriend initiating too soon. I have similar questions from a slightly different view:
As a man, I find that some women indicate they are interested when I initiate but are only willing to give out their email address or ask me to find them on Facebook. When I pursue these avenues, that's the end of the conversation.
FYI, I go to a very secular university known as a party school (lots of drinking) and I don't do that stuff for moral and health reasons. University is large enough (17K students) that there is almost no opportunity for a second interaction once the first one passed, so I've taken "I'll talk to you later" with a grain of salt.
Shawni also mentions that "Apparantly he had no problem initiating; it was being discerning about who he initiated with that he needed to be more careful about." I'm not one to go around asking every girl out, though.
Follow-up comments as to how the initial stages of a relationship should proceed might be useful, including ways of pursuing.
7. brx said the following at 2:39 PM on Dec 3:
A marriage & family therapist now turned pastor, spoke at a men's group and explained that genuinely apologizing and taking the blame even when it's not your fault -- the men who can and do it frequently for women, they are the ones who tend to have the best and most fulfilling relationships. I would add that the women who recognize this in those men, they are the 'keepers'; the women who don't and often think they are always right, those are the ones to let go of.
The more secure we are in Christ, the less defensive we will be in our relationships (of all kinds).
Grace, peace, and adventure!
8. Mark said the following at 2:56 PM on Dec 3:
Quick question: How can both a man and a woman be equally invested in a relationship if one is taking all the risk?
9. J.T. said the following at 3:24 PM on Dec 3:
There is a major theological problem in this line of reasoning. Almost everyone who reads this blog agrees that dating should be in preparation for marriage. Husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. When we as Christians sin agaist God and Jesus, we not only hurt God, but also hurt ourselves. We still have to face the consequences of our actions. When we as men let women get away with "sinning" against us unscathed, we are NOT modeling Christ's love for the Church.
10. shelley said the following at 3:27 PM on Dec 3:
I think this article was great. But in some aspects can apply for women too. Not to go around initiating relationships, I think that guys need to do that to establish authority in the relationship. It may sound old fashioned, but its true. Also to start preparing now for the future relationship. We have to become the people we want to be now, not wait until we have a ring on our finger. That doesn't change us. God changes us now, from within, when we seek Him. I think it's about seeking Him and His will. If we are meant for marriage, it's going to happen in His timing, no sooner.
11. Jethro said the following at 4:03 PM on Dec 3:
Hypothetical:
One of the guys on that boat is about to make a break-though that will cure cancer, should he still stay behind and drown?
12. Laura_mh said the following at 4:23 PM on Dec 3:
Mark, women are taking risks too. Let's say a relationship develops and the man and woman marry. The woman submits to her husband and puts her life into her husband's hands, so to speak. She no longer has the "final word" and depends on the man to make the best decisions for her safety, well-being, and financial security--for the rest of her life. That's serious stuff.
13. Sylvia said the following at 4:54 PM on Dec 3:
Mark, I don't really think of stepping up and initiating a relationship as "taking all the risk". Life sure would be easy if it were so.
14. Jacob MT said the following at 4:59 PM on Dec 3:
Thank you. I had not understood that rationale before.
15. Kellie said the following at 6:05 PM on Dec 3:
Mark, I think they means the risk comes from initating the relationship. By entering into a relationship, both a man and a woman are taking a risk (and anybody who tells you it is possible to have a relationship without risk had an arranged marriage. :-) )
16. k. said the following at 6:40 PM on Dec 3:
Two comments: First, it's not reasonable or fair to expect men to assume all of the burden, or to "take the brunt of it and let her go unscathed." Relationships involve the risk of rejection and emotional pain, for both sides.
Second, the people who died on the Birkenhead deserve MUCH better than to be used as an example of how men should be preparing for marriage.
17. RF said the following at 7:32 PM on Dec 3:
wow! what chivalry those men on the boat had. They became heroes to the women and children who were saved!
18. THM said the following at 8:10 PM on Dec 3:
Like Shawni, I have also had the experience in the past of men initiating way too soon, and in their eagerness to declare me as their 'future wife', they greatly damaged their chances. Any woman in such a situation would be wise to significantly slow down the courtship process in order to consult God for herself as to what His plans are for her life. Quite frankly, I do not think it is very wise for a man to proclaim to a woman that he believes God is bringing them together (no matter what he believes God is saying) too early in a friendship/relationship, as it does not give the woman a chance to make a decision based on what she believes God is saying to her.
Colin, I am in a friendship right now that has the great potential of progressing into a courtship. My friend and I had been associates (hi/bye type) in church for a while, and about three months ago he initiated a friendship by asking for my number. From the beginning he has been very clear about his purpose for our friendship, and I have felt very safe and stress free throughout the past three months while trusting God to direct us in the paths we should go. He continues to initiate and direct our friendship with godly leadership, yet he has never used comments such as 'God is leading us toward each other' or 'You are supposed to be my wife'. It is possible that he believes (and who knows it may be true) that God may be leading us toward each other, but I do not know that yet.
Lastly, Laura your comment is completely on point! Men may initially take all the risk: 'He who finds a wife, finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord' Prov. 18:22.
However, as women we seriously have to trust God as we 'place our lives' in the hands of the man whom God has chosen. Make sure he's God's choice ladies!!
19. R said the following at 8:17 PM on Dec 3:
I agree men should be leaders & do the asking, but having women be completely passive is a really bad idea, and Scripturally unfounded. As someone mentioned, Scripture tells us Ruth signaled her availability & interest to Boaz.
If the girl is not spending any effort to know me as a brother-in-Christ and as a friend then it is a good chance that she is either self-centered & lazy, or just not interested. :-)
If the ladies are having a hard time getting dates, then instead of guilt-tripping men with such silliness, I commend to boundless readers Hayley DiMarco's books. Sensible & honest. Women are not asking men out, but they are not being passive either.
By the way, comparing a sinking ship and a relationship is coming apples to oranges.
20. Candi said the following at 9:02 PM on Dec 3:
If my husband saved me and our children and then drowned in front of me, I would be angry and bitter at him for leaving me to raise our children all alone. Not to mention all of the psychiatrist bills for the children after their dads were "eaten alive in full view" them!
21. Ted Slater said the following at 9:26 PM on Dec 3:
obewan -- I think you're misunderstanding Ruth (which is easy to do). Take a look at "Ruth Revisited" for an explanation of how it was Boaz, and not Ruth, who did the initiating.
That said, I do agree with you that dating is very difficult and awkward, that most attempts at dating fail.
22. BDB said the following at 12:04 AM on Dec 4:
Ted, I have to disagree on the "Ruth Revisited" article.
Ruth 3:9-10 - And he said, "Who are you?" So she answered, "I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing. Then he said, "Blessed are you of the LORD, my daughter! For you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, in that you did not go after young men, whether poor or rich."
It's clear that Boaz took the initiative to show kindness, but he did NOT initiate a "relationship."
The text clearly shows that he assumed she wouldn't be interested in an older guy like him. Once he did realize she was interested, he did the rest. But he did not offer to "redeem" her until after she asked him to do so at the threshing floor.
This interpretation wouldn't apply to men in college, of course.
23. Scott said the following at 4:45 AM on Dec 4:
First, I think to use this illstration of the sinking ship, sharks, etc. to make a point of the importance of men initiating a relationship is really reaching. To draw a connection and application here is simply absurd; could he not find a relevant analogy?
Second, I've always thought the whole business of 'men must take the risk' is a bit simplistic. Sure, intiating means taking the initial risk, but women, like men, still have to take the risk of;
- accepting and having a bad date
- accepting, have a great few dates and making a real connection, only to find that the connection wasn't there for him and getting 'dumped'.
- having a long, meaningful relationship that ends in heartbreak (for whatever reason).
- etc., ect.
There is simply no 'protection' against such risks; men and women alike have to take them. The only risk that guys should take that women shouldn't have to is initiating. To simply state that 'Guys take the risk in relationships', is way too much of a simplification.
24. Scott said the following at 5:02 AM on Dec 4:
brx wrote:
A marriage & family therapist now turned pastor, spoke at a men's group and explained that genuinely apologizing and taking the blame even when it's not your fault -- the men who can and do it frequently for women, they are the ones who tend to have the best and most fulfilling relationships.
That's some of the worst advice I have ever heard; very poor leadership, imho. Part of being a leader is holding those you lead accountable for their own actions. If you fail to do so, you simply encourage bad behavior and retard the maturing process. In the case of marriage, you would be retarding the process of sanctification.
How is a husband to 'love his wife as Christ loves the church' if he doesn't help her become more mature in Christ?
Unwillingness to take the blame for your own actions is a sign of immaturity and should not be encouraged.
25. Mark said the following at 6:50 AM on Dec 4:
Laura_mh,
Thanks for your clarification. What you said makes perfect sense. After reading the article, the context implies that the man takes risk in initiating.
To address another comment, as far as men taking blame for everything that goes wrong in the relationship--that just doesn't seem right either. That can lead to diminished self-esteem and the guy eventually becoming a complete doormat. That's very unmanly as well. Taking responsibility for one's actions is admirable, as is standing up for one's wife when she's criticized. However, his saying that everything is his fault is a little absurd. Perhaps I need further explanations on that one as well.
26. Marcie Mayo said the following at 7:57 AM on Dec 4:
Love is equal joy and pain. Men and women both have a responsibility to one another to obey the Word of God...considering the other above themselves. Being an example to all men in action and speech. Being transparent/truthful only cultivates trust, which is the foundation of any real relationship that is growing in love. God help us to stop thinking so much (leaning on our own understanding) and instead just do what love would do. Not thinking of self. As our minds are renewed and we are transformed daily into the image of Redeeming Love Himself...we will each know our places, His words will be in our mouths, our response will be obedience, and His perfect love will cast out all fear. We will go on...and step right into the "good works He has prepared for us before the foundations of the world." Thank you every one for being who you are, doing your part as the Body of Christ. You have encouraged be grately. (Please read Hebrews 13:20,21 amplified)
27. Lauren said the following at 8:02 AM on Dec 4:
As a female, sometimes I feel unsure of how I should express gratitude when guys do simple things like holding a door open for me or offering to help out in something to make it easier for me. The other night I was heading to a party and had to carry a semi-heavy tray of food in my lap while my friend drove. The passenger-side door was already open, but this guy still offered to hold it and even asked if my feet were inside before he shut it. I appreciate a lot little things like that, but I feel unsure of how I should say thank you. I always worry that I'm not sounding sincere or that I sound annoyed by his efforts! Or that I'm just like, "Oh thanks..." and walk on through the door he's held open for me. I don't ever want to make a guy think, "Gosh women are so ungrateful. Why do I bother doing these things?"
28. Jon said the following at 8:20 AM on Dec 4:
Great post, Motte. I listened to the audio link too.
Candi, there is no pleasing some
women :-P
29. J.H. said the following at 8:27 AM on Dec 4:
As a single guy, I am often overwhelmed by all the standards I am supposed to meet before even considering dating/marriage.
I should initiate and take all the risk. I should know exactly where I am going in life (according to Dr. Van Neste's article). I should make a good income (to be a good provider) or work in ministry. I should be a leader in the church.
These are not necessarily bad standards, but who can live up to them?
Some of us men don't make a lot of money. Some of us are still struggling to find our calling.
When men initiate relationships with women, I can only hope that women will not be so focused on all these standards (career, income, 5 year plan, etc.) that they miss out on men who genuinely seek after the Lord but don't have it all figured out.
30. patricia said the following at 8:59 AM on Dec 4:
J.H.-I appreciate your comments. I don't think we (women) should every seek someone who is absolutely secure on these things. I don't think there should ever be hard and fast rules about dating or marriage (such as men being breadwinners) because life happens, plans change, God's direction for your life may change unexpectedly at 40, 50, etc. I think it is far more important to look for a man who is striving to be a servant leader and not just to his future wife but to other family members, friends, church members, etc. This reveals far more about his character and what I would want in a husband than any income threshold, ability to "initiate" (and I think that's a murky term anyway, as it means differently things to different people), etc.
31. kman said the following at 9:28 AM on Dec 4:
Also if she feels the need to break it off she is free to do so even without explanation. You take the brunt of it and let her go unscathed.
I don't remember reading in the Bible where women are allowed to be unresponsible for their actions. If this woman has led this guy on knowingly and then just dumps him with "no explanation" and she doesn't even need to give some sort of rationale or apology or whatever? Women are sin too folks and are equally in need of a Savior. I don't buy this attitude toward women, been around way too many and married for 10 years to believe that a woman should be allowed to do whatever she feels like in a relationship without batting an eyelash in regards how it affects anyone else.
32. Ted Slater said the following at 9:44 AM on Dec 4:
BDB -- I have to say that you're wrong in your interpretation. Boaz clearly initiated both the kindness *and* the relationship with Ruth. Ruth did not initiate, but merely responded to Boaz, acting according to the relational and cultural rules of the day.
Look *earlier* in the book of Ruth, to Ruth 2:8-9, for example. Boaz treats Ruth differently from all the other women, and invites her to stay at his place, rather than go somewhere else. He explicitly tells her that he's protecting her and providing for her -- clearly showing her that he cares for her differently from other women. He has boldly initiated the relationship, something he'd been considering since verse 5 when he first noticed her.
In verse 10, Ruth ... responds to Boaz's initiation, asking for clarification. She asks, in effect, for a DTR (define the relationship). And in the following verses, Boaz provides one, telling her of his admiration for her, and even going so far as to bless her.
In verse 14, Boaz invites Ruth to share a meal with him. "Come over here," he says to her.
So Boaz has invited Ruth to hang out with him, he's asked her out to dinner, he's told her of his affection for her, he's told the other guys to leave her alone.... What a man's man!
In the *next* chapter, the one you reference, Ruth says to Boaz, "Take your maidservant under your wing." The thing is, he's already done this. Ruth was merely acknowledging what Boaz has been doing all along. Ruth is going along with the relational dance that Boaz began.
Please take some time to re-read that portion of the book of Ruth, as well as Candice's article, Ruth Revisited, where she confesses her earlier misinterpretations. It's really some eye-opening stuff. And let me invite you to join Candice, the founding editor of Boundless, in acknowledging an earlier faulty understanding of the book of Ruth.
33. Louise said the following at 9:55 AM on Dec 4:
Did it every occur to anyone on this blog that it might be possible for a story/verse to have two different interpretations, without one being "right" and the other being "wrong"?
34. Laura_mh said the following at 9:55 AM on Dec 4:
J.H., you didn't mention your age so I can't provide too many comments on your particular situation.
As an unmarried female well into my 30s, I didn't take marriage seriously in my 20s and spent my time working, traveling, spending, and serial-dating guys who had no intention of marrying me.
Now, if I'm serious, I have to really step up and make improvements in my life if I want to attract a husband. I need to make myself the kind of godly woman that a godly man would want to marry.
And it's not always easy....living the secular life for so long....having everything I wanted....changing myself takes effort and sacrifice. Some days it's two steps forward, one step back. Some days it's several steps back but I manage to claw my way forward.
I do want to comment, however, on your final words:
"When men initiate relationships with women, I can only hope that women will not be so focused on all these standards (career, income, 5 year plan, etc.) that they miss out on men who genuinely seek after the Lord but don't have it all figured out."
You raise an excellent point about hoping women will take notice of men who genuinely seek after the Lord. I can't argue with that and it's a good reminder for all of us. If I was right out of college (for example) and a young man in the same age range had the same challenges you mentioned in your posting, I would not be overly worried about the "standards" you mentioned not being all in place. (Although I would hope that some meaningful goal-setting and actions to back it up are established).
In my 30s, however, I will not pursue a relationship with a man who does not have those standards in place. I'm not saying he has to be rich, either. None of us has "it all figured out," but to re-visit what I said in my earlier comment, if I am putting my life into my husband's hands and I am giving up my indepdendence, why would I want to marry someone who has not taken steps to ensure his future family's security and well-being? I'm better off serving the Lord as a single person, because I can trust that I have goals in place and a roadmap for getting there.
35. Ahnivah said the following at 10:13 AM on Dec 4:
I think the book of Ruth goes to show that both men AND women can exhibit some type of responsibility regarding the development of a new relationship. Yes, Boaz was kind to her, and he did show his "interest" by his actions. Yet, Ruth still took some initiative in "defining the relationship" when she came to Boaz on the rushing room floor. This story shows me that women might not want to be too passive when it comes to relationships. Would Boaz have said anything to her about marriage if she hadn't said anything to him first? Would he had even known that he was her kinsman-redeemer??
36. Ahnivah said the following at 10:14 AM on Dec 4:
Sorry... I mean thrushing room floor... I think
37. Christine said the following at 10:16 AM on Dec 4:
I have to say that, even though the relationships have failed, I appreciate the men in my life who have clearly communicated their intent and laid thing out on the line. On the other hand, I am sick and tired of the guys who have been my "buddy" - those friends who want to (or act as if they want to) be more than friends, pay lots of attention to you and then drop you like a hot potato when someone else comes along.
I haven't always returned the affections of those who have approached me, but I still respect them. One of the hardest things I've ever had to do was to tell someone that.
Thank you to the men who initiate. Thank you for risking your emotions and your pride in the beginning so that women don't have to try and figure out what you're up to and what your intentions are. I hope that one day your risk taking will pay off.
38. Ted Slater said the following at 11:50 AM on Dec 4:
Either Boaz initiated, or he did not initiate. He could not both initiate and not initiate. You can't have both interpretations of this section of Scripture.
Louise -- how do you interpret these passages?
39. Tami said the following at 11:52 AM on Dec 4:
I love the Book of Ruth. It seems like such a "simple" story, but there is layer upon layer of meaning. Even the time of year it took place -- during the Feast of Weeks -- has cultural and prophetic meaning!
There's a lot of cultural and “legal” context for the Book of Ruth -- things that would have been assumed by the original readers, but are far less familiar to us modern Gentile readers -- e.g. the law of kinsman-redeemership, levirate marriage... and so on. These had a bearing on how Boaz and Ruth's relationship developed, and why it developed the way it did. Ruth had a lot of Jewish law behind her actions. Being a Moabite, Ruth would've been less familiar with that law, and Naomi would have been an appropriate coach. We also note that Naomi advocates nudging rather than an outright proposal in the way we think of it today.
While we use Ruth as the Official Book of Single Christian Women (for many good reasons -– one of which being that it instills hope in God, that He works out His good purpose for His people in all events, even and especially when times are dark... and that *God*, not *I*, orchestrates the events that bring relationships into being) -- I don't honestly think God intended for Ruth to be an example showing that women should approach eligible men for marriage in lieu of the man's leadership in the relationship. As Candice wrote, this book records the events of an exceptional time in the lineage of an exceptional King who brought together Jew and Gentile... not really written as a guidebook for how to initiate Christian marriage in the 21st century.
Ruth *is* an excellent role model for a woman who wants to know how to be strong in the Lord despite all "evidence" to the contrary. (Esther too.)
And a wise reminder from the article:
"In order to 'pull a Ruth,' you have to be dealing with a Boaz."
Unfortunately, we women are often so hungry for a relationship that we will "pull a Ruth" with a Nabal.
40. Kellie said the following at 1:09 PM on Dec 4:
JH, sounds like you're buying into the lie that is often spread around. I've meant my share of girls who believe it too. But there are those of us out there who don't mind if we have to work alongside our husbands. I married my husband because I loved him, not because of his paycheck.
41. obewan said the following at 1:17 PM on Dec 4:
Ted:
I never intended to cause so much controversy with my comment. I suppose according to your interpretation of Ruth, I am in the clear and can be considered in an initiator now. I have probably introduced myself to or sought introduction to hundreds of Christian women, (by this stage in my life) and also invited them to lunch with the singles group.
Unfortunately, none of them have taken the reciprocal initiative to let me know they are also interested in me in terms of wanting a wedding proposal!
42. Ahnivah said the following at 1:40 PM on Dec 4:
Louise said:
Did it every occur to anyone on this blog that it might be possible for a story/verse to have two different interpretations, without one being "right" and the other being "wrong"?
I, myself, do believe that.... That is why I am not thorougly convinced that Candice was wrong in her first interpretation of Ruth's story. While I don't believe that women should openly and aggressively initiate relationships, I don't know if I totally agree that men should "take the brunt of it" at all times.
43. Tim said the following at 2:32 PM on Dec 4:
I've been very deliberate and intentional, and tried initiating a friendship/relationship with a few wonderful Christian ladies, and the two that progressed to dating, I made it clear that I really liked her. But both times, I was dumped after not long, for being a really great guy, but she just doesn't feel like the same way I do, in the way she thinks she should feel, so I'm just the wrong guy for her.
Anymore I'm callous, I've been heartbroken twice, but if I really care about the next Girl I meet, I'm going to open up to be hurt just the same all over again. The right lady, when I eventually find her, deserves the same opportunity that the ones before her had and rejected. She shouldn't have to suffer with me being guarded, hesitant or distant just because in the past I've been hurt. I found myself crying out in grief, how many more times must I suffer?
Maybe its because sin is a part of the dynamic, certainly my own causes me to suffer, but also in spite of what I pretend to believe, women will abuse suitors, misleading, dishonoring, reveling, and even humiliating. I have to wonder if there aren't quite a few guys who have taken all the hurt they can bear, and just can't try again. Even the toughest of the tough will drop dead from exhaustion after enough abuse. I think women have a role as encouragers and it is not always the same with every man. But especially to be respectful and kind and honest. Play games, and hurt others, like they say, what goes around comes around.
44. Louise said the following at 2:49 PM on Dec 4:
Mr. Slater, none of us was present to observe the interactions of Ruth and Boaz.
For all we know, the story might not even be accurate as reported, or the characters may be entirely fictional.
It is possible for two different people to read a third party account and to hold differing opinions about what occurred.
45. Tami said the following at 3:18 PM on Dec 4:
I noticed something very comforting in my Scripture reading this week: Jesus bore the full brunt of rejection, yet He stood firm in His Father's love, confidently pursued His goal, and went on to glory.
The words of our Lord Jesus Christ, given in the prophesy of Isaiah (50: 6-7):
I gave My back to those who strike Me,
And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard;
I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting.
For the Lord GOD helps Me,
Therefore, I am not disgraced;
Therefore, I have set My face like flint,
And I know that I will not be ashamed.
It comforted me to realize that Jesus faced tremendous rejection and persecution, yet He remained confident. He didn't hide Himself, or act back in spite, or give up on His mission. He kept on.
His Spirit lives in us. He can help us face these painful rejections without carrying on sinful patterns (that is, coloring other relationships with that pain).
Brothers and sisters, I believe the Lord would have us be tender hearted, rather than simply shutting ourselves off from future hurts (which doesn't work anyway). If someone sins against you in a relationship -- by leading you on, or by dumping you unceremoniously -- if you've acted in a Christlike manner towards them, I would say that you have done *well* and know that if you're facing pain you are in good company with our Savior. You don't have to *punish yourself*. God bless you. He will show you where to go from here.
46. Kelly said the following at 6:14 PM on Dec 4:
Marcie Mayo said: Love is equal joy and pain.
Those of you who are married - is this true?
It's certainly true for my dating experience and I have come to the conclusion that the amount of joy does NOT outweigh the amount of pain. I'm a far better person without the wild emotions - sure, the highs are wonderful, but the lows affect every part of my life in a negative way. I can do so much more for God when my emotions are neutral (on the side of happy) rather than pulled strongly in one direction.
If Marriage is this same rollercoaster: joy and pain, then surely it is better to stay single? Yes, pain grows us, but to willingly sign up for a lifetime of equal joy and pain? I can't comprehend why anyone would want to do that!
I guess what I want to hear is that the love is MORE joy than the pain.
47. xeres said the following at 7:17 PM on Dec 4:
kelly,
The benefits of being single doesn't making it superior to being married at all. Besides, love in all levels whether it is for a friend, parent or lover, is equally joyful and painful no matter what. To love is to be vunerable.
48. Jethro said the following at 8:06 PM on Dec 4:
Quote "A marriage & family therapist now turned pastor, spoke at a men's group and explained that genuinely apologizing and taking the blame even when it's not your fault -- the men who can and do it frequently for women, they are the ones who tend to have the best and most fulfilling relationships."
Well sure! This would be great in all areas of life. For one thing, jails would be full of innocent people who took responsibility for crimes that weren't theirs - how fulfilling for the criminal justice system. Who are these women that are so weak and insecure that they can't be blamed for things that are their fault. If that's what the 'Christian' approach is, then I want no part of it. I'm sure my wife doesn't either.
49. R said the following at 9:47 PM on Dec 4:
I re-read the article, and sorry, I respectfully have to say I still do not see how she (or Ted) can make that claim. As it has been stated by BDB, its obvious Boaz initiated kindness but not a relationship. At best one could say he initiated flirting (is that an allowable boundless thing to say?). Otherwise, if it was so clear he was initiating a relationship why the need for a DTR?
Lauren: Just say "thanks!" with a smile on your face & cheer in your voice. It will be greatly appreciated.
One of the first things I hear from guys about a girl that is liked, is how nice (i.e., kindness, gracious) she is.
50. BDB said the following at 11:14 PM on Dec 4:
Ted Slater wrote:
>>I have to say that you're wrong in your interpretation<<
Gosh, I never thought I'd wish I had taken Hebrew in seminary so I could build a better argument. Oh well, I'm stuck with English. Let's see here...
"Ruth...acting according to the relational and cultural rules of the day."
As I understand it, women definitely should not have been on the threshing room floor. (See 3:14) Ruth took a bold risk to do that. That verse alone contradicts the concept of women taking no risks.
>>He explicitly tells her that he's protecting her and providing for her -- clearly showing her that he cares for her differently from other women.<<
No, in 2:8 he tells her to stay close to his young women. He's showing kindness to more than one by what he says to her. The text does not state one way or another, so one can also presume that he's commanded his men to not touch ANY of the women. That's a good leader, and shows kindness, but this passage is not specific to her.
In fact, because Ruth and her mother-in-law were without a provider, it's easy to expect them to be poor. Leviticus 19:10 commands owners of land to leave extra grapes for the poor. This commandment is repeated in Deuteronomy 24:21, specifically directing that excess be left for the stranger (Ruth), the fatherless, and the widow (Naomi). Up to the threshing-room floor incident, all we have is Boaz showing concern for people of good character who are poor. He is following God's commandments, which does reflect positively on his character and willingness to obey, but it is not a one-on-one relationship.
As for the meal, the reapers were eating with Boaz, too. In verse 2:14 it appears that Boaz invited Ruth to lunch as one of his **COUGH** buddies...
In 2:22 Ruth's mother-in-law also took the initiative, specifically directing her to stay in Boaz's field so "...that people do not meet you in any other field." Ruth had to keep showing up every day on her own. I'm not sure how long harvest season is, but it seems likely that going through both the barley and wheat harvest would take a few weeks. Ruth was not shopping around.
Finally, Ruth's mother-in-law takes the initiative to "seek security" for Ruth. Mom was doing the "seeking." This does suggest an interesting role for parents to look out for their daughters and encourage them to show interest in the right men. (Though a parental endorsement is usually the kiss of death, but that's another topic.)
>>Either Boaz initiated, or he did not initiate. He could not both initiate and not initiate.<<
I'm saying that both Boaz and Ruth were initiating. With help from mom to push Ruth to take unilateral action.
>>And let me invite you to join Candice, the founding editor of Boundless, in acknowledging an earlier faulty understanding of the book of Ruth.<<
Sorry, no can do. Candice was correct the first time. Boaz was a good manager showing kindness to a bunch of people, until he got a little "nudge."
But I will agree with Tami here:
>>And a wise reminder from the article:
"In order to 'pull a Ruth,' you have to be dealing with a Boaz."
Unfortunately, we women are often so hungry for a relationship that we will "pull a Ruth" with a Nabal.<<
51. Scott said the following at 4:55 AM on Dec 5:
Louise wrote:
Mr. Slater, none of us was present to observe the interactions of Ruth and Boaz.
For all we know, the story might not even be accurate as reported, or the characters may be entirely fictional.
This is unlikely since Ruth is one of Christ's ancestors, according to Matthew 1:
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz,
whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,...
Needless to say, a real person cannot have a fictional ancestor.
52. kman said the following at 7:00 AM on Dec 5:
Kelly said:I guess what I want to hear is that the love is MORE joy than the pain.
I can only speak for my marriage but yes. It IS more joy than pain for us. Being married and being single each has it's own set of pros and cons. Problems don't disappear when you get married, they just change.
But in whatever state you find yourself at the moment, live to be pleasing to the Lord.
53. a sassy sister said the following at 11:36 AM on Dec 5:
kman,
thank you for your succinct and well stated answer to that response about marriage. The issue is learning contentment and joy in the Lord DESPITE the present circumstances one may be in.
54. Candice Watters said the following at 2:49 PM on Dec 5:
Ok, I'll take the bait. Monday's Q&A will be a response to the questions raised in all these comments. But in the meantime, please take a few minutes to read my article, "Ruth, Revisited." The first article (Pulling a Ruth) had some leaps of logic that I came back and corrected. If you don't agree with the second article (BDB), please take a little more time to read Ruth itself. It's all in there in plain English.
55. Nick said the following at 2:55 PM on Dec 5:
Thanks for posting this. I really needed to read that today.
The paragraph on men bearing the risks was timely.
I'm on the other end of a relationship, and I needed to be reminded to act like a man and shoulder the brunt of it with out complaint.
56. skp said the following at 3:03 PM on Dec 5:
My opinion. Sometimes it is more important to be gracious than to be right. Maybe thats why men who apologize and take the blame FREQUENTLY (NOTE THIS DOES NOT SAY ALWAYS) even when they are right tend to have the most fulfilling relationships. (AND BY THE WAY IN AN ARGUMENT WHO DOESN'T THINK THEY ARE RIGHT) It's two way street--women have to give up being right at times as well. Maybe this should be in the how to divorce proof your marriage blog.
57. skp said the following at 5:20 PM on Dec 5:
Maybe REAL MEN need to initiate by being the first to give up being right
58. brx said the following at 6:21 PM on Dec 5:
Candice, all;
Thing is, it's not _all_ there in plain English. What I understand from some Hebrew scholars I've read and heard, the Hebrew language used in the OT is full of etymological word-pictures and verbal sound connectivity that doesn't often come across in a translation. The translation gets the basic meaning and story, but still misses a lot in subtlety.
I think BDB painted a good understanding. Relationships don't work from only one side. Overall, Ruth is a wonderful testimony of God weaving together the relationships between three people to show his mercy, favor, and love.
Candice had it most correct when she started the first article "We won’t pretend any one article, including the following, can address all the aspects of this situation. We don’t present it as a “how to” manual, of the “if only you follow this model, everything will work out” stripe; it’s an account of two people’s experience, not a one-size-fits-all guidebook. We do believe, however, that it presents a valuable account of how a man and a woman struggled to navigate romance in the midst of a romantically befuddled culture. ..."
I hope you all keep up the good work, authenticity, and humility. Thanks.
PS: we also don't know how many, if any, wives Boaz already had - it might not have been such a life-altering issue for him to take another under the kinsman-redeemer arrangement. Further, Boaz response to Ruth's request to take her under the corner of his garmet could be interpreted as pleasant surprise -- since he may have just been showing her mercy and kindness in keeping with his Godly character rather than doing it in pursuit of marriage to this woman of such younger years. Maybe Boaz never seriously thought she would _like_ to marry him and thus he didn't pursue the redeeming matter earlier. - my .02$
59. brx said the following at 6:39 PM on Dec 5:
SKP,
Thanks; I was about to clarify, but you did it well. This same marriage & family therapist/pastor also spoke about healthy boundaries - not bats for rebuke and correction, but boundaries to prevent oneself from becoming a doormat.
Jesus stood, confident in His identity, knowing his righteousness, and in taking the blame due us, turned many by His mercy and grace. I want to be like Jesus... except, I kinda hope His mercy and grace minimizes the suffering.
60. R said the following at 7:20 PM on Dec 5:
I had a chance to go over Michael Lawrence's article again. An interesting quote:
"She took the initiative ..."
Hmmm.
And how about this set:
"My senior year in college, I met a girl that blew me away. She was beautiful. She shared my passion for ministry. She shared my theology and understanding of the local church. And I suspected we had a lot of other things in common as well."
Wow, it is no wonder Lawrence was attracted to his wife in college. His description of her makes her sound great!
I know myself and many of my Christian guy friends would love to find a theological gal like that. To be honest I do not even think I would even hesitate to ask her out like he did (well, okay, maybe I might the first time, but a girl that great not for a second time! :-) )
The complaints shared between my friends have been that women are only interested in television programs (Desperate Housewives vs. Heros vs. Grey's Anatomy), wealth (disguised as "financial security"), their careers, or whatever aspect of worldliness. Conversations tend to only be about the girl, and greatly lacking in spiritual substance.
If people really want to get guys going on the initiative thing, then first stop with the guilt-tripping the guys. Next, give us a reason to do so. I know Christian guys (myself included) honestly are seeking Christ-centered, Bible-reading/studying, ministry-minded, theologically like-minded, servant-hearted, nice gals. And maybe like Lawrence we will take the initiative that everyone seems to be seeking.
To parallel commenter Lauren_mh ("In my 30s, however, I will not pursue a relationship with a man who does not have those standards in place."), men feel the same way about women who do not have their standards in place as well.
61. Another R said the following at 11:25 PM on Dec 5:
"R" -
I'd bet that there are a lot of gals out there who are not of the shallow type you describe, and even if they are on the surface, they might have the other deep qualities you mention. They might find it hard to just up and start talking about those deeper topics you mention if the conversation all around them is about shallow topics. And I bet there are a lot of gals who read this who are also not meeting the guys with these admirable qualities you mention.
I also think that the "heartbeat" of a church (the people who go there) might SOMETIMES (NOT ALWAYS) tend to vary in this regard, so I wonder if you might find more people with similar perspectives (ie. theological/interest in outreach) at another church.
I also feel that the type of people (man or woman) you describe seem to be a bit rare. However, in the last couple of years, I've met a few people who seem to be more of the 'extract from Scripture' and have a passion for ministry types. They do seem to be a bit rare, but the good news is that they do exist! Exciting.
62. BDB said the following at 12:55 AM on Dec 6:
Candice Watters wrote:
>> If you don't agree with the second article (BDB), please take a little more time to read Ruth itself. It's all in there in plain English.<<
I've read that book a lot, actually. For some reason I thought I wrote a paper on it in seminary. But looking back on my class notes, I think we just had a 3-hour discussion in class, complete with a PowerPoint presentation.
The seminary I went to was probably a little different, since I was taking evening classes. Almost all the students were already pastoring small churches; they were going to seminary to bring their credentials up to their calling. As a result, several of them had actually done premarital counselling and married people, too. Made for a very interesting class discussion.
I can't think of any time where I took the position that men don't have any responsibility to take initiative. I just think that things are being read into the text that are not there.
For example, if you were to apply Debbie Maken's philosophy to Boaz, then he must be outside God's will for being older, wealthy and single. At least the text doesn't mention any other wives. One presumes he wasn't living in his parent's basement and playing video games. Maybe he was a workaholic. Why didn't he take more initiative earlier in life and get married? He certainly didn't seem to be worried about diluting the inheritance of any other children, which suggests to me that he had no other wives. He isn't mentioned as a widower. From a cultural perspective, it would seem like his parents should have taken responsibility for helping arrange something. And perhaps that's the situation: his parents died early, he took over the family business, and never got around to taking the initiative until someone showed up on the threshing-room floor.
I can tell you that if I woke up in the middle of the night and some woman was in my house who wasn't supposed to be there, it would definitely get my attention.
And here's another real-world example: In Colin Powell's autobiography, he points out the reason he proposed: he was getting deployed overseas again, and his then girlfriend stated simply that she wasn't willing to be his girlfriend and wait for him to return. So, he proposed, and they're still married decades later. That's pretty close to the first "pulling a Ruth" article. We might be surprised how common it is.
63. eddie ssemakula said the following at 1:35 PM on Dec 6:
Am enjoying the debate keep on.
its timely for me.
64. Justin said the following at 2:58 PM on Dec 6:
First, that story sounds apophrycal.
Second, most men do take initiative. It's genetic.
I find it interesting that it's mostly in "Christian" forums that men have to be encouraged to take initiative. I wonder if it has something to do with the passivity of Christian men. If you read secular blogs and forums, guys are a little too agreessive and should probably tone it down a bit.
65. R said the following at 8:33 PM on Dec 6:
Another R,
It is just an age old problem:
"An excellent wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels." Proverbs 31:10 ESV.
66. Amanda L said the following at 8:39 PM on Dec 6:
Hmm.
I don't think I would want a guy to always be agreeing with me, or to be the one who always takes the brunt of the pain.
Yes, I want a man to initiate the relationship with me, but I don't want him to pressure me into anything.
I want to marry a strong man who can be a leader, but I don't want to force him to make every decision and every sacrifice. That isn't fair.
Maybe it would seem easier to let him absorb all pain of failure, but in the end, you have to watch him suffer.
I hope I'm making some sense at least.
What I mean is...I don't ever want to put pressure on a man so that he feels that he has to protect me from absolutely everything.
That level of protection is in God's hands.
However, I do expect the men in my life to follow God's prompting and initiate, lead and sacrifice when needed.
67. Scott said the following at 10:10 AM on Dec 7:
Amanda L wrote:
Hmm.
I don't think I would want a guy...to be the one who always takes the brunt of the pain.
[...]
I want to marry a strong man who can be a leader, but I don't want to force him to make every decision and every sacrifice. That isn't fair.
[...]
What I mean is...I don't ever want to put pressure on a man so that he feels that he has to protect me from absolutely everything.
That level of protection is in God's hands.
I think you're right on here Amanda. Dr. Van Nest's notion that women should 'go unscathed' in the arena of relationships simply has no scriptural warrant. Where in scripture is anyone lead to expect to 'go unscathed' in any regard? (I also believe that both sexes have a responsiblity to reject or break-up with grace and mercy).
Though it kinda sounds nice and chivalrous, it's also more than a bit unrealistic. Women, as men, cannot be spared the pain of unrequited love or the pain of a breakup of a long-term relationship. Further, we don't expect that anyone can be spared such pain. What is the basis of the exception (scriptural or otherwise) carved out by Dr. Van Nest?
I do believe God wired guys to be the initiators and women the responders in relationships, but this forms no basis for an expectation that women should 'go unscathed'.
68. Christina said the following at 2:43 PM on Dec 7:
Scott,
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." (Ephesians 5:25-27)
Would actually imply that the man takes the blame for the woman's sin. Its the same way that Jesus did for us, only not as completely. She will still have to answer to Jesus (and to the man), but to the rest of the world, she is innocent.
When Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam, it wasn't Eve that God asked for - it was Adam. Adam was ultimately held responsible for Eve's sin, taking the blame for her wrongdoing on himself. This does not make him a bad leader, but instead (if the woman is wise as Brx(?) pointed out) she will recognize his sacrifice and respect him all the more.
Tell me, when you think about what Christ did for you, do you think of him as a bad leader for not letting you go to hell and face the consequences of your actions? Or instead are you overcome by love, gratitude, respect, and awe for what he has done for you? Does that love make you want to please him? Do what's right by him?
69. Adam said the following at 4:43 PM on Dec 7:
Christina,
That interpretation completely violates the context of the passage. The point is not about who takes the blame for what, but how we are to *treat* our wives. That can be seen from the context of the passage, as he goes through other familial relationships and tells us how we are to treat one another in those relationships. We are to love them with the same self-sacrificial love that Christ gave his church.
In fact, using your own interpretation, one would have to come to the conclusion that slaves must give perfect obedience to their masters [even if they ask them to violate God's law] simply because of the fact that the lordship between the God and the believing slave, is paralleled with the Lordship of the slavemaster and Christ [6:5-6].
The reason why man cannot take the blame for another's sin is that he himself has sin. According to 2 Corinthians 5:21, we become the righteousness of God in Christ. However, what is transferred to the woman when the woman sins? If the man is still a sinner, then the only thing that can be transferred back to the woman is guilt, and thus, the woman remains guilty before others as well as before God.
Also, Adam did NOT take the blame for Eve's sin. Notice that Eve too was punished:
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
It sounds to me like the woman got a very severe punishment. Adam did not get any of this. Given your interpretation of the story, one would expect Adam to ask God to have all of the punishments given to Eve. He did not.
The reason Adam was called out is not because he was taking the blame for Eve, but because he was the federal head of, not only himself, but the whole human race. Thus, he was called out because of the fact that he had plunged, not only himself, but also you and me into sin as well. Thus, God called him out on his actions, and made him accountable.
Sin is a very severe thing. In fact, the Bible calls for the execution of an adulteress by the civil magistrate even though she is married. One would expect, given your logic, that this could not be possible given that the husband should take the social sin of the woman upon his shoulders. Over and over again, the Bible states that the penalty for a crime must be done to the offender. The only reason that Christ could take away the sins of his elect is because he is the spotless lamb of God.
In fact, within the social setting, the Bible has a strong word to say to anyone who would socially condemn anyone who is right:
Isaiah 5:22-24 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, 23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man! 24 Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, And the flame consumes the chaff, So their root will be as rottenness, And their blossom will ascend like dust; Because they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Thus, if anyone says that a man is responsible for a woman's actions, they is violating the very law of God. While social justice is not something that needs to be read into every area of theology [contra liberation theologians], social justice is a major theme in the Pentatuch. The reason is that the Lord is a just God. Unless someone is sinless, they cannot take upon themselves the sins of another, because they have their own sins for which to atone. In this instance, if you do not punish the right person for the crime, you are bringing the wrath of God upon yourself.
70. Amanda L said the following at 9:59 AM on Dec 8:
I agree.
I am accountable for my own sins...the only One who can atone for them is Christ. He has already done that. No human sacrifice would even come close.
Now, there is mercy and grace and compassion and forgiveness.
A husband, in his love, could very well choose no to expose his wife to public shame for her actions.
That's not him taking the blame, though, that's him being merciful.
There are always consequences, we are human. To say that a husband is responsible for his wife's sins is wrong. Even if he in some way pushed her towards her actions, he is responsible for his own sins and she is responsible for the choices she made.
71. Scott said the following at 6:27 AM on Dec 10:
Christina,
You can't be serious; you really believe that a husbands is to serve as a scapegoat for his wife? This is mind-boggling. I refer you to Adam's response above; God punished Eve for her own transgression - he did not let her off the hook.
72. Scott said the following at 6:48 AM on Dec 10:
Christina,
I was wondering...who takes the blame for a single woman's sin?
73. Scott said the following at 7:08 AM on Dec 10:
Tami wrote:
And I concur with Julie's point about women's perceptiveness. Though I might add that nervous hesitation can also come off as disinterest, and so you may unwittingly be telling her "I'm not interested," even if you are.
I agree also, but this applies equally to women playing 'hard to get'. This can easily be read by guys as disinterest, though it's not the message the woman intends to send. If a woman is receptive to a guy's advances she needs to indicate this clearly. Speaking for myself, if it seems there is no interest on her part, I'll just move on; there are too many women out there to waste time on one who insn't interested.
74. Dolores said the following at 9:27 PM on Dec 10:
Tim said: women will abuse suitors, misleading, dishonoring, reveling, and even humiliating. I have to wonder if there aren't quite a few guys who have taken all the hurt they can bear, and just can't try again. Even the toughest of the tough will drop dead from exhaustion after enough abuse. I think women have a role as encouragers and it is not always the same with every man. But especially to be respectful and kind and honest. Play games, and hurt others, like they say, what goes around comes around.
Could you explain this a bit further? Are there specific actions or attitudes that you could reference? I know you're talking about numerous differing situations, but additionally, are there things we as women may be unaware of, yet come across as disrespectful/dishonest?
75. Tim said the following at 1:58 AM on Dec 11:
Dolores:
Yeah, II don't think most of it would be accidental from someone with good intentions.
But games are a huge cruelty. Someone else talked about a women who would never not say no to a pursuer the first 5 times. Thats just wrong, If a lady says "no" I actually listen and respect that. I move on. I know things are never straight forward, and when it is a confused, mixed up no, I might try asking again once, but I take the second one by her word.
If any step of your plan involves a guy reading your mind, it is a bad plan, sure to upset and frustrate guys.
I said reveling, as I'm sure you can imagine I try to be sweet and complementing and I think sometimes the attention is enjoyed, even though the guy is unwanted, and instead of being honest and telling him she is not interested, she will just let him go along trying to win her over, give a few motions to provide hope and string him along to enjoy having the ego boost.
And sometimes, (I know on this one guys are just as guilty) we will throw out being honest and just try to be nice. In stead of actually just right out telling the guy "You are too young/old/poor/shy/serious/etc" even though for her it it's an absolute deal breaker, she'll just say and do nothing and instead hope he gets bored and moves on. In order to not hurt his feelings. But it is just lying and wasting his time, and that hurts far more then the truth.
Intentionally humiliating a guy, making fun of him with your friends, that one is fairly obvious, and dangerous.
Playing dead is also frustrating. Just saying no is so very simple and just basic politeness, a one sentence explanation is not too much to ask. Don't leave a guy to forever wonder.
And unrealistic disillusioned expectations. Yes you should have high moral standards, and yeah, the women who expects perfection suffers the most, since she is doomed to stay single till she turns desperate and settles for a third rate bum. There are no shortage of women telling us how we are not going to ever find a girl who looks as good as a super model, yet women will turn seemingly reject anything that isn't the 35 year old millionaire minister author/poet, who sings and plays 5 instruments and athlete, with a mansion with a pool, and he will worship the ground she walks on. Absurdly unreasonable women defame the rest.
And finally, the guilters. If a guy has no interest in you, you will only make things worse if you try to make him guilty because of how he does not feel. Snaring a guy through using pity or guilt is not the way to go. If he just does not find you attractive, why subject him to being with someone he doesn't like, and yourself to someone who doesn't like you? Do not use guilt.
Thats all I really think, and it might be helpful to remember, I'm in my early 20's and single, and I haven't actually given up from too much abuse, far from it, I just could see it happening eventually.
76. Nat said the following at 6:42 AM on Dec 12:
Could I ask here a question about initiating? I’ve met a guy and we spend 2 days together. He traveled to our city and I was asked to take care of him, to guide him around the city. We clicked so quickly, only couple of hours, and we chatted like best friends. We clearly enjoyed each other’s company and expressed it to each other. The first day was great fun, but on the second we both got a bit defensive. He was flirting with me, while I was trying to hold off. One thing I did not like was that he was trying to present things as if I am after him. I was thinking, this isn’t going to work.
When we were saying goodbye, he told me that he’ll think about me whenever he thinks of my city (well, that’s nice, very personal way of being remembered), and that when I come to visit his city, I will have a personal bodyguard (what does that suppose to mean?), and thanked me for everything. I was leaving, showing no intention to exchange e-mails, while hoping that he will ask for it. He did not. That was it. I was intending to forget everything about him, but it’s just not yet working. We had such a great connection! It really affected me. Few days after he left I longed to hear from him. We have friends that are in contact with each other, and I am sure it would be easy enough to get my e-mail. If he wanted it… Apparently, he did not. I sent a note for him with someone I knew, who traveled to his city, but I am not sure if this person remembered about it. It was a simple friendly note with my e-mail, asking for some pictures that he took. No answer. I am praying and giving it all to God, but it’s still hard. I fight the desire to write a friend and ask, whether the note was passed by. Surely, I should not initiate. I’ve done enough already. If he is a man and is interested, he should find a way to contact me. Am I right?
77. Scott said the following at 9:53 AM on Dec 12:
In her new post on 'Real Men Initiate', Candice Watters writes:
Up until the wedding, the woman has the option of ending the relationship. After all, as the weaker vessel, the help mate, and bearer of children, she has a tremendous amount at stake. She is in need of protection and he is called to give it. If a man is not willing to recognize his role as protector and take a risk on her behalf before the wedding (when he's presumably on his best behavior), what will he be like after?
This should go without saying, but men are equally entitled to end the relationship up until the wedding - and for similar reasons. If a woman seems unwilling to accept her biblical role as a woman, that (as Candice points out) will likely not change after marriage and the man has very good reason to call it off.
In fact, there is explicit scriptural warrant for ending relationships (even engagements) even absent such compelling reasons:
1 Corinthians 7:36-38
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
In terms of risk, men have much at stake as well; just read Stephen Baskerville's new book Taken Into Custody. The woman might be the weaker vessel, but the State has given her a deadly weapon (the family courts) with which she can all but destroy him; a weapon against which he has little recourse.
Baskerville writes on p. 295:
If we truly believe our present divorce policy is appropriate, we should at least have the honesty to tell young people up front that marriage provides them no protection against government seizure of their children and everything else they have. Let us inform them that even if they remain faithful to their vows, they can lose their children, their home, their savings and future earnings, their freedom, and even their lives. Not only will government afford them no protection; it will prosecute them as criminals, though without the due process of law afforded to formally accuses criminals. And let us see how many young people - let us be honest, young men - are willing to start families.
Baskerville recently published an article at Intellectual Conservative titled Advice to Young Men: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children where he writes:
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.
This is a serious factor in the current marriage crisis that some (e.g. Maken) insist on denying or dismissing as 'excuse-making' on the part of men. To the contrary, Baskerville points out that the greatest threat to marriage today is legal as opposed to cultural.
I agree that men must be willing to risk life and limb for their wives. However, they should not have to wonder if those they are charged to protect with their very lives will be the agents of their demise.
78. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:43 AM on Dec 12:
Nat, I would say that even though it is tough keep doing what you're doing. I struggle with the same question with a guy that I met awhile ago. I go to a small church and he is probably the only person in the church that I never even did so much as exchanged a greeting with until a few months ago. We ended up eating at the same house one afternoon. It was fairly awkward (the hosting couple, him, and I) and he attempted to say "Hi" to me at evening worship and I acted like I didn't notice. Like I said it was awkward and eventhough it was my intention to be friendly afterward, it came across as totally unfriendly. Since then, we've crossed paths, but don't even make eye contact. I don't think it is my place to initiate a greeting or conversation at the risk of coming across as an "attention seeker". Like I said, we go to a small church so small things are noticed.
Some people may think girls like are being too over-analytical and should just "relax". I think by "relaxing" girls don't keep watch over the things they ought to keep watch over (speech and posture are two things that come to mind).
That's my two cents.
79. Melissa D. said the following at 12:44 PM on Dec 12:
Yes, Nat, you're right. You did everything right and it's up to him now. I think part of Candice's reasoning on women not doing the pursuing is to save us from embarrassment. If you're pursuing a guy who is not interested, you're either going to be met with silence when you leave him a message or endure a very awkward conversation. If you've shown your interest, the rest is up to him.
80. Katie (the other one) said the following at 1:47 PM on Dec 12:
Carrie,
I cannot imagine never feeling "relaxed" around guys, especially if you hope to date one. I think that so much of the stress girls deal with and the annoyance guys have comes from the fact that girls do stress, obsess, and pinpoint every detail. It gets old.
We're all better off in this so-called brother-sister relationship if we relax and let things just simmer for awhile. Do you really think that one chance meeting is going to change awkwardness? That can take months --even longer if you're still second-guessing everything you say, do, and how you sit/stand.
81. Christina said the following at 2:19 PM on Dec 12:
Scott...
What?
I thought the point of marriage was
1) Glorify God
2) Emmulate the relationship between Christ and the Church
3) Provide companionship - especially in the darkest of times...
Ok, I concede - not everyone is called to marriage. But this Baskerville guy gives reasons that I would choose TO marry - to face those things alone is more devastating than going through it with someone.
Seriously...if those are reasons why you wouldn't want to marry, then I don't know who would want to marry you...the entire debate concerning that wreaks of cowardice.
Seriously - if you live in Indonesia or another heavily arabic country that persecutes christians, would you look at the laws and decide "hey, its obviously LEGALLY punishable, so I just won't be a christian."
Also, after reading the full article that you so discretely only posted pieces of, this guy isn't AGAINST marriage. He is against how culturally irrelevant marriage is and how easy it is to legally get out of one. He is against the injustice perpetrated on men when they end up leaving a marriage-jail time due to accusations of physical abuse, failure to pay child support, refusal to stay away from own children. His stance is that before young people can have any faith in the institution of marriage, it first needs to be reformed...but to reform it requires a cultural change - a counter-cultural movement. And that, Scott, is actually OUR responsibility as the next generation of marriagable young people. If you center your life on God and there's woman who centers her life on God and you two are able to glorify God together, than there is NO reason not to marry. No, marriage isn't a walk in the park - it takes work to do it...and it requires a counter-cultural movement to say thus: Marriage is between a man and a woman - a covenant between us and God - and NOTHING (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) can put it asunder. Baskerville's advice is to not marry until something changes - he thinks it needs to be a legal change; I believe strongly in it needing to be a cultural change...and that requires young people continuing to marry.
If you are indeed called to celibacy, then please let it be because you can better serve God as a single, un-attached man...not because you are afraid of what persecution marriage could lead to. And hopefully you aren't dating if you feel so strongly about it, because dating is supposed to lead to marriage.
And on the flip side of the coin...If you feel like marrying someone, let it be because you can better glorify God with that person than without. Not because you are tired of being alone or you want a protector and what-not.
82. Adam D said the following at 2:27 PM on Dec 12:
To Nat.
I'm not an expert or consider myself wise or anything but my two cents on what you have provided in your circumstance is that the guy isn't going to contact you. Why would he say "think of you" whenever he thinks of your city and not anything that would resemble a hope for a future greeting. If he didn't say anything remotely insinuating a possible future reuniting then perhaps he didn't think it would work out either after the second day.
That's just my two cents, I don't really know anything other than what you posted and I'm just thinking of maybe one possible conclusion which would be he gave up and decided it wasn't worth it.
83. Carrie (the original) said the following at 2:38 PM on Dec 12:
Scott -- the article you are referring to extreme and in all cases of divorce that I am aware of (including my parents'), this is just not the case. For all the times that my dad fell behind in child support payments, my mom never had him arrested. She also didn't stop him from visiting me. He did that on his own.
There are lots of things my father did despite all encouragement towards love and good deeds. He was the one who chose to be a deadbeat eventhough he was afforded many chances to do otherwise.
The article also mentions:
"You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial."
This is extreme and can't happen without a string of bad choices. I don't like how this article paints men as the victim of cold, malicious women who just want to make their lives miserable.
This is why Boundless exists in the first place: to encourage young adults towards godly behavior in order to have a godly marriage. The marriages and divorces that are describes sound as if they come straight from Hades and would certainly not happen if people build their lives on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
84. Scott said the following at 5:48 PM on Dec 12:
Nat;
I think you're on the right track (provided you didn't give him the impression that you weren't receptive by 'holding off') - it's his move. As for the bit about him acting as though you were 'after him', it sounds like he just might have been teasing you.
85. R said the following at 7:33 PM on Dec 12:
"Nat" & "Carrie (the original)",
So let me double-check ... were you interested in your respective guys? From reading your entries, it sounded as though you disliked them!
At best your signals were vague, and at worst it was a signal of disinterest.
Nat, your friends attempt at humor was to probe for reciprocating interest from you.
Carrie the original, you must remember with him also being in a small church he is not trying to be an attention seeker as well. And with you avoiding eye contact you are telling him to stay away! You should also consider in this day age, a man does not want to be slapped with a harassment charge even when his intentions are pure.
The point is these two guys were looking for a positive response, and did not get it and are now thinking you both were not interested in them.
Sadly this happens to many of my female friends, but sometimes it can also be fixed if the guy has not completely moved on. Keep it in prayer!
86. k. said the following at 8:00 PM on Dec 12:
Nat - Sorry, sweetie...he's just not interested. :( If you genuinely want the photos, I'd email him and ask for them. But only if you're content to expect JUST the photos.
You don't mention your age or anything, but you sound young (in a good way!). So I'll chip in my $0.02 and say that I think the whole "who should initiate" discussion is stupid. If you're interested in someone, it's fine to show it. And then be confident enough to walk away -- if he's interested, he'll respond.
I am sorry -- I know this isn't a fun time for you. If you can keep yourself extra busy for a few days, that helps -- go to the gym, go Christmas shopping, tackle a new project, etc. Good luck!
87. BDB said the following at 9:22 PM on Dec 12:
Nat wrote:
>>No answer. I am praying and giving it all to God, but it’s still hard....If he is a man and is interested, he should find a way to contact me. Am I right?<<
Yes, you're right, it's difficult to give things up to God. Wait, maybe that wasn't your question.
If you sent him a note, you already took the initiative, and Elisabeth Elliot might scold you.
If you spent two days with him and he didn't ask for your contact information, at the very least, he's not motivated enough to lead in a relationship.
88. Louise said the following at 8:24 AM on Dec 13:
I agree with Carrie that the referenced article poses extreme scenarios.
However, it is true that if your spouse/ex-spouse is motivated to do so, he or she can use the legal system to make your life a living hell, definitely more so if the situation involves minor children.
Every indivudal must decide whether or not having a family is worth the risk of such trouble later on.
Most people do decide to take the risk.
89. Scott said the following at 9:37 AM on Dec 13:
Carrie wrote:
Scott -- the article you are referring to extreme and in all cases of divorce that I am aware of (including my parents'), this is just not the case.
I challenge you to say that after reading Baskerville's book. He demonstrates that this is far more common that many want to believe.
As for the 'deadbeat dad' issue, Baskerville also lays that myth (he calls it a hoax) to rest. Deadbeat dads do exist, but they are not nearly as common as some would have you believe. Most divorced dad's are prohibited from have any contact with thier children on pain of imprisonment. Such men have been thrown in prison, without trial, for saying 'I love you' to their children, sending them a birthday card or even running into them in public.
90. Nat said the following at 10:24 AM on Dec 13:
Thanks very much to each of you for answers, if I may just add some more info for your consideration. (I hope we are still not off the topic, discussing my situation and men, taking initiative, but it’s really helping me). I am especially grateful to guys for their perspective, because it’s hard to understand for us, girls. And thanks to girls for support too.
I don’t think I was hiding my interest in him, we were flirting, and at the end I told him that I had a good time, he said, he too. May be, it wasn’t enough for showing my interest? In fact, friends who brought us together were trying to set us up, and he told me about it, looking totally delighted. He said, they told him not to make a fool out of himself. He indeed was teasing me, asking questions like whether I dressed up for him, etc. I agree with R, that he was trying to probe for reciprocating interest, but wasn't it too much of probing? He didn't openly state his interest or intentions. I also know that he isn't experienced with girs, may be that explains something.
I took 2 days off work to be with him, and he kept asking me, how do I feel about it and whether it was worth doing. I found these questions annoying, because he seem to try to lead me on, rather than saying what he thought or felt. He wasn’t here just for fun, but for the ministry, and as far as I was concerned, I was serving God, so I told him. That’s why I did put some effort in showing that I am not interested to continue. My question is, wouldn’t it be right for him to keep trying if he is really interested?
One thing I did not expect to happen, that we really had such a great connection, and had plenty of serious conversations too, and that I’ll be so attracted to him. At the end he said, if you come to my city…no, when you come to my city, you’ll have a personal bodyguard. While he told my friends, that he invited me to visit him! It did not sound like that to me! That’s why I so don’t understand his silence. Adam said he isn’t going to contact me, that’s probably right, it’s been 2 weeks since he left. But why?
So I thought it would be o’k to send him a note, but I think it might have got lost on the way. I can’t see why he wouldn’t answer, if he got it. My other question is, would it be too much of the initiative to check with the friends, whether he got my note, because that will be revealed to him. I agree that my signals might have been for him to give up, but I reckon, he should have still try, if he wanted it to continue. I agree with BDB, that he probably isn’t motivated enough to lead in relationship so far. That’s why may be it would be best (and wise, and safe) to wait and pray. It's just been really tough to remain steadfast in this decision...
Or, may be I am reading too much into this, and it would be o’k to get his e-mail and write him a friendly teasing letter? It’s not that I am asking for relationships after 2 days, I imagine it would just be natural to keep the friendship and communication. Or is it the wrong initiative?
91. Trevor Dolby said the following at 10:54 AM on Dec 13:
Nat: You're quite right to say that if a man is interested, he will find a way to contact you. It sounds like you've done all you can, so leaving it to him is the right thing to do.
Of course, you may find him getting in touch with you in an unexpected and original way; I once wanted to get in touch with a girl I knew was acting in a play, and so I simply called the theatre during the day and co-opted a set designer there into delivering a message to the target girl! Of course, as I was halfway through describing this target girl (I didn't even know her last name), this set designer started giggling, and I realised how silly (and lovesick, possibly) I probably sounded, and how rumours might start spreading about me and this girl whose last name I didn't even know . . .
92. obewan said the following at 11:12 AM on Dec 13:
Nat:
Speaking from my experience as a guy, there could be a multitude of reasons he has not contacted you. I would say, don't push, but also don't give up.
I for one was never big on distance relationships. One woman lived about 2-1/2 hours away from me. She was cute and was a good spiritual match, and she pursued me aggressively. I did not respond because there were also women in my own community that attracted my interest as well. That might have been a mistake because she might have been wife material, but I prefer to think there are no mistakes. If it were meant to be, it would have been by now.
If you are both young, you have your whole life in front of you. Maybe with time and prayer, things will change. You did say you only spent 2 days together. Maybe he felt something at first, and got cold feet. It happens a lot.
93. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:29 AM on Dec 13:
"Most divorced dad's are prohibited from have any contact with thier children on pain of imprisonment."
Excuse me, Scott, but where on earth do you get "most divorced dad's" from??
My dad was never prohibited from having contact with me. The only dad that I am aware of that was "prohibited" (and I use this in the most vague sense of the term) is the dad of a friend of mine and it was because my friend could not stand her father. She cut off contact with him to the best of her ability.
Again, this is an extremist speaking. I don't know where he is getting his data and why you are blindly believing what he is saying. Yes, people can seek to use the legal system in their favor, but I am unaware of people that have. Mind you, I went to public schools and divorced parents were very common. If ever there was a town that would be filled with people wanting to use the legal system in their favor, the town I grew up in would have been it.
94. Adam D said the following at 12:36 PM on Dec 13:
Nat.
Just get in contact with him then from there you will know whether or not he will make a move or reciprocate friendship. If he is inexperienced as you say, maybe that's all the encouragement he needs to do something. Otherwise... I dunno, then you'll probably just be wondering what could have been. Just my $0.02
95. Scott said the following at 12:51 PM on Dec 13:
Carrie;
Where do I get it? Stephen Baskerville's extensively documented book. Calling Baskerville an extremist, particularly without having read his book, is not credible. I'm not 'blindly believing what he is saying' - he backs up what he has written with plenty of documentation.
Further, it's not just that many divorced dads (perhaps not most) are denied contact with their children, they are also deprived of much of what they earn:
In the chapter Deadbeat Dads or Plundered Pops, pp. 116-117, Baskerville writes:
Unemployment (itself, often caused directly by divorce court action, as we shall see) has consistently been found to be "the single most important factor relating to nonpayment [of child support]", and contrary to another public misconception, [Sanford] Braver details acute financial hardships many involuntarily divorced fathers endure 349. Contrary to highly publicized but inaccurate figures on the cost of divorce to women, peer-reviewed economic research concluded that "it is the non-custodial parent, usually the father, who suffers most [from divorce]. In every case and for every income, according to our analyses, the payer of child support is never able to cover household expenditures if paying child support at guideline levels. The study adds, realistically. "These simulations may actually under-represent the circumstances of non-custodial parents because they do not include expenditures for their children beyond child support."350
"The picture that emerges is one of fathers who, far from abandoning their children, make enormous sacrifices to support children who have been taken from them through no legal wrongdoing on their part and who make heroic efforts to remain in contact with them, often against overwhelming obstacles.
"Other social scientists have found that as much as 95 percent of fathers having no employment problems for the previous five years pay their ordered child support regularly, and that 81 percent paid in full and on time."351 Columnist Kathleen Parker concluded that "the 'deadbeat dad' is an egregious exaggeration, a caricature of a few desperate men who for various reasons - sometimes pretty good ones - fail to hand over their paycheck, assuming they have one." Deborah Simmons of the Washington Times observes that "there is scant evidence that crackdowns...serve any purpose other than to increase the back accounts of those special-interest groups pushing enforcement."352
349) Sanford L. Braver with Diane O'Connell, Divorced Dads, Shattering the Myths (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1998), p. 33
350) Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alverarez, "Long-Run Economic Consequences of Child Support Enforcement for the Middle Class," Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 31, no. 3 (2002), pp. 273, 285. The authors are refuting Lenore Weitzman's highly influential but wildly inaccurate book, The Divorce Revolution (New York: Free Press, 1987). Weitzman, who has acknowledged her report was wrong, is also refuted by Cynthia A. McNeely, "Lagging Behind The Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family Court," Florida State Law Review, vol. 25, no. 4 (Summer 1998).
351) Judi Bartfeld and Daniel Meyer, "Are There Really Deadbeat Dads?" Social Service Review, vol. 68 (1994), pp. 2196-235
352) Kathleen Parker, "The Deadbeat Dad Is Less a Scoundrel than an Object of Pity," Orlando Sentinel, 17 October 1999; Deborah Simmons, "Divorced Dads Taking It on the Chin, Then Some," Washington Times, 9 November 1999, p. E6.
His book has been endorsed by, among others, the following people:
-- Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
-- Allan Carlson, Ph.D., President, The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society
-- Paul Weyrich, President, Free Congress Foundation
-- Mike McManus, president, Marriage Savers
Perhaps more relevant for readers here - here is what Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has to say of Baskerville's work in general in an article
:
“In an insightful article published in the March 2005 edition of Crisis magazine, Stephen Baskerville argues that America's embrace of easy divorce is the most significant reason that marriage is now threatened and, by some measures, hanging by a thread. … Baskerville gets right to the heart of the matter, labeling no-fault divorce as a ‘misnomer.’ In reality, the ‘no-fault’ language was taken from the world of automobile insurance. These new divorce laws did not really remove fault from the context of divorce, but they ‘did create unilateral and involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may end a marriage without any agreement or fault by the other.’ As Baskerville explains, ‘Moreover, the spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the cost or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly.’ … Baskerville describes the legal divorce business as ‘a multibillion-dollar industry’ in which a vast number of persons hold a vested interest. … We need a recovery of courage and candor on the issue of divorce -- and in a hurry. Stephen Baskerville is right. Divorce is the greatest threat to the family in our times. We cannot expect this society to take us seriously as defenders of marriage if we are not the enemies of divorce.
Hardly people you would expect to endorse an 'extremist'.
If you don't want to read the book, you can always read the material available on his website.
96. Scott said the following at 1:37 PM on Dec 13:
Nat wrote:
I agree with R, that he was trying to probe for reciprocating interest, but wasn't it too much of probing?... I took 2 days off work to be with him, and he kept asking me, how do I feel about it and whether it was worth doing. I found these questions annoying, because he seem to try to lead me on, rather than saying what he thought or felt.
Yeah - it sounds like he might have overdone it.
Nat wrote:
He didn't openly state his interest or intentions. I also know that he isn't experienced with girs, may be that explains something.
What do you mean? Did you want him to just say 'I like you and am interested in pursuing something with you'? Wouldn't that fall into the 'too much, too soon' category? Just wondering what you're getting at here.
Nat wrote:
...That’s why I did put some effort in showing that I am not interested to continue. My question is, wouldn’t it be right for him to keep trying if he is really interested?
Wait...you were interested to continue, but you intentionally 'signalled' that you weren't? This kind of thing is incredibly frustrating to guys. If you are interested, do not pretend that you're not.
Nat wrote:
I agree that my signals might have been for him to give up, but I reckon, he should have still try, if he wanted it to continue.
If I meet a girl and we seem to 'hit it off', but she sends signals that she is not interested, I would simply move on to greener pastures. There are plenty of other women out there.
Again ladies, I cannot stress this enough - if you are interested, signal your interest clearly. In any case, do not go out of your way to send the opposite message.
97. Colin Pedicini said the following at 2:45 PM on Dec 13:
To Nat at Dec 13 10:24a:
Two days may not have been enough, although you were right to express interest. At this point, given all you've described, it's up to him to decide if he wants to take it further. I applaud you for continuing to show interest (he may have been flattered when you showed it the first time.)
This brings up another point that I thought was worthy of addressing in another follow-up: an article similar to Where to Meet People, but for the guys interested in meeting godly women.
From my experience, I've become a bit more gun-shy after experiencing my own forms of rejection (see my comment at Dec 3 2:31p), and I'm now getting far enough along in college that there may be some fear of any relationship being entirely-long distance (I have three semesters left at college.) I feel as though I have to get a number at the first meeting...
98. Dustin said the following at 3:32 PM on Dec 13:
Scott, seriously dude, stop ruining our misandristic talk here with you unimportant details, aka "facts". It's much better to pretend that all marriages end hunky-dory and never have any sin mixed in.
In all seriousness though, this is something I've been concerned about for a long time. The laws today royally screw the man in a divorce, and even though I hope and pray that I'm never subjected to one, as an engineer its hard for me not to look at the data and say it's probable that I will. I've got a question for the girls out there, how would you feel if a guy asked you to sign a prenuptial before the big day?
99. Louise said the following at 3:45 PM on Dec 13:
Dustin,
I am a "girl" and I am definitely not planning on another marriage, but I would never get remarried without a pre-nup!
And...it's not just men who can "get screwed" in the post-marriage legal process....women are certainly subject to it, too.
A lot depends on individual circumstances.
100. Scott said the following at 4:27 PM on Dec 13:
Dustin;
I haven't picked up any misandry here, I just don't think very many people are aware of how diablolical the divorce industry is. Guys are on the short end of the stick at the moment, but Baskerville points out that it isn't going to end there.
He writes of an intact family torn apart by social-services in MA. The wife was told to divorce her husband (against her wishes) or they would take the children away. Their children were siezed and the state had planned on putting them up for adoption. All of this sprang from a social workers false accusations of child abuse. A couple of reporters in MA relate that they see hundreds of such cases.