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
101. Sara said the following at 4:34 PM on Dec 13:
Dustin, what do you think alimony laws should be like? Not that I have an answer, just your angry comment about laws 'royally screwing' divorced dads got my back up and I'm wondering if you'd consider, to name a few things that make a case for, I guess, relatively lenient alimony laws, that:
- in marriage, it's mothers who typically take on most of the non-financial jobs of looking after children, so married mothers are at a disadvantage when it comes to being free to make money if they divorce.
- when mothers divorce, they have to continue looking after children, and take on the extra job of breadwinning, which being married has left them unprepared for
(following that, importantly,
to say that mothers should plan for this, and save up money, is an argument that should then just as strongly be put to husbands, that they make sure to you stay home with the kids enough for their wives to develop their careers as much as their husbands)
- right or wrong, most people believe that it's best for kids to go with the mother after a divorce, other things being equal
- women on average (for whatever reasons) make less money than men, but all children have similar basic needs
- children's needs (and certain desires?) should come before those of their parents'
and,
- sometimes people take advantage of the law and marry rich spouses and then divorce them for profit. At the same time lots of men abandon or don't take responsibility for the children they helped make (an option not as open to their partners: note this inequality).
- In making laws, is it more important to risk harming powerful people for the protection of weak people? Or the opposite, is it better to risk harming weak people to protect more powerful people?
- people in positions of power (including people who are wealthier) are probably better at looking after their own interests than weak people.
Worrying about greedy wives and wronged men can distract from the question of what's best for children. (Just some thoughts. No special interests here: my parents divorced and nobody sued for alimony and things went alright financially)
102. Elizabeth H. said the following at 4:40 PM on Dec 13:
Nat, is it possible there are also cultural factors at play? Just speaking from experience...
To others who have commented, I’m not sure about a woman “showing interest.” I think we are to respond to a man’s initiating, but sometimes we don’t know when he is actually initiating. It can be pretty damaging to other sex when one side responds, only to realize later that the advances were only friendly or flirtatious, and not serious. For that reason I think it’s wise for a woman to guard her interest until a guy has made his intentions clear.
I don’t want to “play hard to get” and frustrate men, but I also don’t want to give myself up too easily. I hope that if a man is interested, he will be willing to fight for me a little bit and show me that he is serious.
103. Paige said the following at 4:49 PM on Dec 13:
Scott...how does a girl "signal her message clearly" short of declaring, "Hey, guys...I'm interested! TAKE NOTICE!"? Seriously, I'm at a loss as to how to go about sending such a signal.
104. Tami said the following at 4:52 PM on Dec 13:
If a guy asked me for a pre-nup, I would *seriously* reconsider marrying him. It speaks of deep distrust. If you can't trust me, why marry me in the first place? And why would I want to marry someone who went into our relationship assuming I was out to wring him dry? I would hope that the man who presumably wants to take me "for better or for worse" would have thought better of *me*.
I would never *want* a divorce, but I would only think of one if the guy did something to break the marital covenant: cheating on me or abusing me. In the case of the latter, you can *bet* I would do whatever I needed to do to keep him from me and our children, for their protection. I would hope it goes without saying that a woman has an obligation to protect herself and her children in that situation. Not "take him for every penny"... but definitely, protect herself and the kids.
And Elizabeth H -- you put my feelings into words about the whole "initiating" issue. While some guys are trying to open the door to something more, a lot of guys enjoy the flirtation for flirtation's sake (and they aren't containing their flirtation to one girl). It's hard to tell the difference after only one or two interactions, so a woman is wise to hold off on super-obvious displays of romantic interest until he makes his intentions clearer.
105. Dustin said the following at 7:20 PM on Dec 13:
Sara:
I guess I just don't see leniency in our divorce-law system. I have two friends who have been divorced. One lives in Chicago, and he caught his wife cheating on him. He now loses more than half of his salary, 65%, and is not allowed to see his kids, even though the 14 year old daughter told the judge she wanted to in fact live, full time, with her father. Because she sinned, he has to pay (both financially, and basically by losing a child, because he isn't allowed contact his children until they're adults).
My other friend, a co-worker, his wife just up and decided that she didn't want to be married anymore. They'd been married since they were 18. He's allowed to see his daughter, fortunately, but still not as much as if he lived with her and he still has to pay child support.
I guess my biggest beefs with the system are that fathers have such little say in the matter, I think that as long as they are good people (no criminal record, drug/alcohol/people abuse, etc) then their child support should be somewhat reflective of their ability to see their children.
I understand that women make less money, and I understand that society believes they are somehow better single parents than fathers (a huge sweeping generality, but I guess that's another discussion). But I think that the way our Father God created things, as a family we work together well. The men make money, harvest or kill something for dinner, and the mom looks after the kiddies while they're gone. If you want to make it that simplistic, just for argument sake, it works well. I think a man is fulfilling his duty as a father and a husband when he provides for his kids and stay-at-home wife. So when a woman asks for a divorce, and then has the gall to say "Oh yeah, I still want you to function as a husband and father though, even though I'm dividing the family, I want you to pay for our food, our shelter, but just not be around," well... I guess I just see that as a bit absurd. The same way I think it would be silly if a man asked for a divorce, for no reason at all, but as 'alimony' wanted her to still fulfill his sexual desires once they parted. That would be outrageous! But no one blinks when a woman 'just doesn't love him anymore' and wants to move on, with the dough.
But it's not the money that gets me, its all I'm ranting about because of Scott's post, it's just a symptom of a much deeper issue of our system imho. Our system has so openly accepted that marriage is a temporary institution, and for no reason at all, a husband or a wife can just suddenly decide it's over and divide a family. That just seems so wrong to me, when you literally signed a contract to stay with this person through the good and the bad, sickness and health, till you *DIE*. And as a Christian I guess I just can't comprehend how it's so popular, and wish we had a system which didn't make it such an attractive/easy option.
106. k. said the following at 9:03 PM on Dec 13:
Nat: Sweetie, just let it go. :) If you genuinely want the pictures, send a friendly email and ask for them.
Honestly, it's easy to overthink this 'initiative' stuff. If you're interested in someone -- whether you're male or female -- for heaven's sake, express that! And then have the confidence to walk away and let the chips fall where they may. I think sometimes we get carried away with mind games, and rules, and analyze things WAY too much.
As for "It can be pretty damaging to other sex when one side responds, only to realize later that the advances were only friendly or flirtatious, and not serious"....well, that depends. Some relationships start with flirting, some start as friendships and turn into something else, some turn serious really quickly, and others take longer to evolve. There's no one right way for everybody.
107. alex said the following at 11:50 PM on Dec 13:
Um, what makes you think that a woman wants to be 'led' by a man in the relationship? I am a very strong leader in my own life (I'm a teacher and a coach), especially in my family of 4 children, and I would never want to be with a man who didn't express interest in me, but neither would I want to be with someone who thought it was his God-given right to tell me what to do and make all my decisions for me. Someone needs to look up a better definition of leadership.
108. BDB said the following at 12:09 AM on Dec 14:
Nat wrote:
>>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.<<
Hmmm...falling back on my Elisabeth Elliot here...sounds like he's a player. The theory is that women should keep her feelings to herself until after the man expresses his - or even until after he proposes. Controversial these days. But as I've said before, over the last several months I've paid more attention to the women I know who are in some kind of relationship that's dragging on for years and years and not moving towards marriage with any speed. In each case, the woman is taking the initiative, planning things, paying her own way, etc. One of the things you should pray about is whether you want a long-running flirtation or whether you want marriage, and if so, why. Lots and lots of men, and women for that matter, are happy to flirt without commitment.
109. Jo said the following at 1:20 AM on Dec 14:
I completely agree with Dustin's last comment. I think the responsibilities of the ex-husband and how much he is allowed to see his kids should be directly linked to his fault in the divorce.
My friend's mum (who got divorced after her husband had an affair) is currently dating another divorcee - his story is that his wife cheated, filed for divorce, and moved her new boyfriend into the house before he was able to chance to move out. She is remarried and works as well, so lives in a double income household, yet still demands the highest amount of child support from her ex that she can. I think that's absolutely appalling.
110. Scott said the following at 5:25 AM on Dec 14:
Sara wrote:
…right or wrong, most people believe that it's best for kids to go with the mother after a divorce, other things being equal
Interestingly, Baskerville points out that children are far more likely to be abused in single-mother households, either by the single mother or by their boyfriend/second husband. This is the case even compared to single fathers.
Sara wrote:
- children's needs (and certain desires?) should come before those of their parents'
I agree. Since a child needs both parents, presumptive joint-custody laws should be the norm; however, they exist in only a few states. Baskerville quotes a child-custody worker saying that if this was the case, he and his colleagues would be out of work. Baskerville goes on to point out that in those states that have implemented such laws, the divorce rate plummets afterwards. Why? Because it is the parent who perceives they have the most to gain (financially and in terms of power over the other) that usually files for divorce.
Sara wrote:
At the same time lots of men abandon or don't take responsibility for the children they helped make (an option not as open to their partners: note this inequality).
Though this happens, it’s not as common has some would have you believe.
Elizabeth wrote:
To others who have commented, I’m not sure about a woman “showing interest.” I think we are to respond to a man’s initiating, but sometimes we don’t know when he is actually initiating. It can be pretty damaging to other sex when one side responds, only to realize later that the advances were only friendly or flirtatious, and not serious. For that reason I think it’s wise for a woman to guard her interest until a guy has made his intentions clear.
I understand what you’re getting at here. However, it’s pretty simple for me; if a woman is not responding positively to my ‘overtures’, or, worse yet, sending signals of disinterest, I just move on. I don't want to waste my time on someone who isn't interested.
Elizabeth wrote:
I don’t want to “play hard to get” and frustrate men, but I also don’t want to give myself up too easily. I hope that if a man is interested, he will be willing to fight for me a little bit and show me that he is serious.
I don’t think you have to ‘give yourself up too easily’. At the very least, if you are interested, do not pretend that you’re not. If you do, don’t be surprised if a guy takes your signals seriously. I don't think you have to pretend to be disinterested to make him 'fight for you'.
Paige wrote:
Scott...how does a girl "signal her message clearly" short of declaring, "Hey, guys...I'm interested! TAKE NOTICE!"? Seriously, I'm at a loss as to how to go about sending such a signal.
First, as I wrote above, DO NOT intentionally send signals of disinterest if you are, in fact, interested. Smile, make consistent eye-contact (avoiding eye-contact screams ‘I’m not interested, go away’), say ‘Hi’ when he happens by, help keep the conversation going (avoid one or two word answers and ask questions of him). In general, give him the impression that you enjoy his company and the attention he’s giving you. If you give the opposite impression, don’t be surprised if he stops coming around.
111. Louise said the following at 5:50 AM on Dec 14:
Dustin, if your Chicago friend is paying child support, why is he not allowed visitation with his daughter?
Re the subject of alimony, folks, I have mixed feeling about it.
I don't get any of course, but to be honest, I don't need it. I know some ex-spouses really do need maintenance (that's what it's called in my state BTW, maintenance, not alimony) for a number of years so they can get back on their feet in the workforce if they have been home for a number of years.
112. Nat said the following at 6:36 AM on Dec 14:
Trevor,
Thank you for sharing this, it was very encouraging, and romantic!
Elizabeth and Tami,
You are so right, I identify totally with what you said and see it clearly now. The man should initiate, even if he did not see “clear expressions of interest”, that is how he takes the risk in relationship, and how he gives up his ego as a sacrifice. He should not be trying to manipulate a girl into revealing something to him, while his position isn’t clear. Thanks girls, and others, I am thinking I should continue to do what I am doing: wait and pray…
Scott,
just trying to explain my position to you. I was not “playing” I don’t have interest. I was attracted to the person (and did not hide it), but was dismayed by the way he tried to get off me whether I am romantically keen on him. I did not think there was enough time to develop such intentions on my side. So, you think that if he said he is interested to pursue me would be “too much, too soon”, but don’t you think that questioning me and expecting me to express feelings was o’k and not “too much, too soon”? I was totally honest with him, when at the end signaled something like “I don’t care”, that is how it was. I was intending to forget it. But as I thought things over afterwards and prayed, I realized that I would be keen to continue our interaction. I reconsidered, o’k? That’s why I am saying, that even if he could have gotten a message that I am not interested, wouldn’t it be right for him to try again. I guess, if he moved on to the greener pastures, that’s for the better.
In fact my question was, would it be godly and not considered as “pursuing” to get his e-mail and write him another note, I am not asking what I should have done or how to fix him better.
113. a sassy sister said the following at 8:43 AM on Dec 14:
NAT,
DO NOT WRITE THAT MAN ANOTHER NOTE! His non verbal communication has shown that he doesn't want to take the risk and be clear about what he wants from you. I am not saying that he's a jerk...I am simply saying that he may be fishing for interest without a declaration of his intentions(which does not mean it's some grand gesture, but a CLEAR INDICATION OF INTEREST, both verballly and with action). Continue praying about how to work through this, because I believe that you deserve better than that.
As for him deserving another opportunity to approach, he's had plenty. He has your email, so therefore he has a way to get in touch with you. Let him chase you! I am not saying not to be honest or not to be yourself, but you should let him go. If he wants you, he will make an effort to get in touch with you.
Seeing stories like this bring up mixed feelings for me. Sadness for the guys being unable to really overcome their fear of rejection or unforgiveness of past wounds by women to try again; anger for women who seem to choose to be interested in men who are frankly emotionally immature and unavailable; but overall frustration for both men and women in the church who seem to keep running across the jokers and not people who really are not so careless with other people's feelings....
114. Adam said the following at 9:48 AM on Dec 14:
BDB and brx,
Gosh, I never thought I'd wish I had taken Hebrew in seminary so I could build a better argument.
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 am actually working on my M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies. I agree with both of you that things are being read into the text that, in fact, turn the text on its head. I have responded in depth do Candace's comments in Ruth Revisited here:
http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/12/real-authors-write-responsibly-as-many.html
Suffice it to say that I know of no scholar who takes Candace's position. Most scholars will admit that it is possible that Boaz was interested in Ruth in chapter 2, but that cannot be derived from the text of chapter 2.
As far as Candace's comments that this is "plain English," we need to remember that everyone brings presuppositions to the text. At the beginning of her article, Candace quotes Debbie Maken who is not exactly unbiased. My assertion would be that the reason Candace thinks "It's all in there in plain English" is because she brings Debbie Maken's presuppositions to this text. Presuppositions have a tendency to make things "plain English" that are not actually "plain English."
That is why we need to be careful to engage in careful exegesis of the text. We need to be aware of the presuppositions that we bring to any given text, and strive to have presuppositions that allow us to read the Bible consistently from Genesis to Revelation, expecially if you are going to be sitting in a position of publically teaching God's people. If we don't do this, then our traditions become the ultimate authority rather than the text of the Bible, and that is very dangerious.
God Bless,
Adam
115. Scott said the following at 10:02 AM on Dec 14:
Nat wrote:
So, you think that if he said he is interested to pursue me would be “too much, too soon”, but don’t you think that questioning me and expecting me to express feelings was o’k and not “too much, too soon”?
I had the impression from what you had written that you intentionally conveyed disinterest. I think it's ridiculous to expect either a man or a woman to have a good grip on whether they'd like to pursue a serious relationship after only one or two days. There is a big difference between expressing interest in getting to know someone and wanting to pursue something more serious.
There is also a big difference between letting it be known that I am seeking marriage in general and declaring that I am certain that I want to pursue that course with you in particular. Perhaps this is what you are looking for; a general declaration that he is seeking marriage? If so I completely agree with you that a guy should be very clear on that point. At the same time, if a guy is clear on that these are his intentions, it seems that, out of consideration, she should be willing to state whether she is on the same page. Otherwise, he is left to wonder if he's just wasting his time stroking a girls ego by pursuing her. I know of a woman who, though she had no intentions of marrying the man, accepted his ring and proposal, Why? Becuase the ring was so beautiful
Nat;
I was totally honest with him, when at the end signaled something like “I don’t care”, that is how it was. I was intending to forget it. But as I thought things over afterwards and prayed, I realized that I would be keen to continue our interaction. I reconsidered, o’k?
I have no problem with that - I'm just saying that he appears to have taken your honest signal of disinterest seriously, that's all.
The same thing can happen in the opposite direction as well. A guy who expresses initial interest (even to point of 'declaring his intentions' up front) might change his mind after getting to know the girl better; deciding that things aren't clicking. I get the impression from some of the posts here that this would be frowned upon because he somehow didn't protect her from the hurt or emabarassment this might cause her.
116. Scott said the following at 10:23 AM on Dec 14:
Christina wrote:
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.
This doesn’t quite work if you are betrayed and abandoned by the one you were supposed to go through such things with.
Christina wrote:
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.
That’s fine, if you cannot comprehend why a guy might think twice about marriage given the risk of being thrown into the meat-grinder of divorce court (and deprived of his income and children) by his wife, then I probably wouldn’t want to marry you. Your post reeks of callous disregard for legitimate concerns on the part of men – would you be any different towards a husband?
Christina wrote:
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."
Bad analogy. The threat in your example comes from a known enemy that you expect to treat you poorly. In this instance, the threat comes from the one who pledged her life and loyalty to you until death. One is betrayal, the other isn't. Big difference.
Christina wrote:
Also, after reading the full article that you so discretely only posted pieces of, this guy isn't AGAINST marriage.
LOL, if I was being so ‘discrete’ why did I link to the entire article? And where, pray tell, did I claim that Baskerville was against marriage? In fact I included the following in my citation, where he clearly recognizes the importance of marraige:
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.
I made no attempt to misrepresent his views. Nor did I claim that men should thus shun marriage. I quoted Baskerville to make the point that women are not the only party with a ‘tremendous stake’ in this game. This is important for people to understand, especially as some (e.g. Maken) are intent on dismissing such concerns as ‘excuse-making’.
Christina wrote:
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.
That will do nothing to address the fact that the debt collection agencies, state governments, the attorney’s bar and many more have a vested interest in perpetuating the divorce industry.
And what will you do if a CPS agent threatens to take your children if you don’t divorce your husband (against your wishes)? Baskerville makes a good case that this is where this is all headed.
Christina wrote:
And hopefully you aren't dating if you feel so strongly about it, because dating is supposed to lead to marriage.
No, I haven’t dated in some time. I don’t believe I should unless I am pursuing marriage, so I don’t.
117. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:36 AM on Dec 14:
The fact that we are discussing divorce and the reality of it is exactly why Boundless exists: to help prevent it from happening. It really makes me sick that we keep going back and forth as if divorce is bound to happen. Really, people, let's focus on the Gospel in order to prevent these things from happening.
118. Christina said the following at 10:46 AM on Dec 14:
Alex,
Real men initiating and feminine submission isn't about men "telling you what to do".
As a strong leader myself, I have found very little conflict in being a leader and being submissive as the Bible describes it.
But sometimes, being a strong leader requires deferring to someone who may know better than you - and also deferring to someone else's authority...(i.e. the principle where you work...)
119. Christy said the following at 11:50 AM on Dec 14:
But sometimes, being a strong leader requires deferring to someone who may know better than you - and also deferring to someone else's authority...(i.e. the principle where you work...)
The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith."
:)
120. Christina said the following at 1:33 PM on Dec 14:
Scott - you fear a failed marriage, and it keeps you from taking the risk and attempting a SUCCESSFUL one.
I was hoping you'd respond to me when I was at home so I could post in a timely manner >.<
Marriage is risk - it is trusting someone to not throw you to the dogs. But you keep focusing on the failure...why? Yes, it is a big problem in todays society...why? I don't know...but why is it even a concern? Because divorce is prevalent. How do you solve the issues with divorce? I don't know. How do you prevent divorce? I don't know. And honestly, no one does.
There is no problem with a man recognizing the consequences of failing. But there is a problem if he is consumed by fear of those consequences to the point of not even trying. Again, I'm not saying one way or another whether YOU should get married. I'm saying that fear of divorce and the consequences thereof are poor excuses NOT to marry.
You validate my points in my blog about men and failure >.< If you have no desire to marry, fine. Just not for this reason. Your only reason to not marry should be to better glorify God. NOT to avoid failure. Have some faith in God, have some trust that there is a woman out there who wouldn't throw her husband to the dogs. Yes, its a risk. But nothing worth having comes at no cost, right?
As to my analogy, it stands perfectly fine seeing as marriage is often analogous of the church's (meaning your's and mine) relationship with Christ.
I'm not being callous here, and yes, I would have an issue with my husband being too afraid of failure to do something great - something that if he trusts in God and focuses on God, then all things will work out to their intended purpose. I will, however, show compassion because I know how difficult facing failure can be for a man simply from paying attention - it robs you of life. And I would use every gift God has given me to encourage, raise-up, pray, and love my husband as he struggles to make such a decision. That isn't being callous. That's being a supportive wife and a "life giver".
Instead of paying so much attention to divorce court as if you were fully intending to head in that direction, focus your eyes on God and how you can glorify God with your life...perhaps if you do that and someday you marry, you won't have to worry about the divorce court.
And as for the men that have already been victims of the court, have compassion on them, be supportive of them, pray for them. And go ahead and work to change laws to help them. But that's vastly different from being consumed by fear of the same happening to you. Perhaps you are actually called to such a ministry...but not on the premise of fear, only and always on the premise of glorifying God.
Seriously, I would love to see a man like Baskerville who is so passionate on the consequences of divorce counseling young men how to be men of God in their relationships with women and teaching them how to build successful relationships.
And on the counter-side of that, a woman who does the same for the young women.
(Titus 3?)
And I believe that's one of the points of boundless, right?
P.S. I never saw a link to the article...I googled it...
121. Scott said the following at 2:48 PM on Dec 14:
Christina:
You make far too much of 'my focus' on divorce. I made the initial post, the rest was me responding in defense of that first post (and Baskerville).
If you read my original post, you will see that I was not citing Baskerville's work as a reason to avoid marriage, nor the reason I am not pursuing marrige. I was specifically 'bouncing off' of a point made by Candice Watters in her recent post on the initial article (Real Men Initiate):
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?
My point was basically 'women have a tremendous amount at stake? so what? so do men'. Further, this whole 'risk rationale' for women not initiating doesn't seem to wash. After that intitial step, the risk borne by men and women in the relationship are basically equal and avoidable. There is simply no way around it. How is it then that there is so much made of women avoiding this initial risk when there is the least at stake of any point in a relationship? It all seems quite arbitrary.
Don't get me wrong, I believe men are to initiate and women respond, I just don't think it has much to do with the issue of risk. I think it has more to do with the fact that women need to be pursued, it's how God wired you, just as men are wired to pursue. In other words, it all boils down to romance - and I have absolutely no problem with that.
As to your analogy, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;-)
122. Christina said the following at 3:51 PM on Dec 14:
Lol, Scott.
Ok...Maybe our debate would've been better placed as me against Baskerville >.<
I think there's a lot of mutual risk involved in any relationship...At all times there's the risk of something not working out right - and whether the man initiates first or the woman tries to make the initiation as painless as possible, there's always the chance that someone is going to get hurt - no matter what stage its at.
Is this what your point is, Scott? =p
/sigh The results of living in a sinful world...
(and my analogy...you know I'm right, but you can keep pretending you don't ;) I won't tell...)
123. BDB said the following at 9:46 PM on Dec 14:
Adam:
Thank you for your contribution. Very interesting.
124. Scott said the following at 10:07 AM on Dec 15:
Christina;
As to the point about risk, yes, that's my point. That being the case, to base the 'intiation issue' on risk seems arbitrary.
About your analogy; stop flattering yourself - I know it's a bad one.
See, if I'm a Christain, say, in Iran, I might get persecuted, tortured and perhaps killed for my faith - by a known enemy. Yet, through it all, Christ will never leave me or forsake me. Whereas with divorce, it is one's spouse (the analogue of Christ in your analaogy) that is, in fact, leaving and forsaking.
You can pretend that I agree with you if that makes you feel better...it will be our secret. ;-)
125. Nat said the following at 12:49 PM on Dec 16:
Sassy,
Thanks for your comment. I guess, you are right, there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part. I already made my decision not to seek his e-mail, thanks! I don’t think the first note (with my e-mail) arrived though, but it doesn’t matter now. That’s for the better, I believe. I was just wondering, whether e-mailing would be interpreted as initiative or just a friendly gesture, considering some miscommunication we had. But the majority of comments seem to imply it would be initiative, which is probably right. I sought God and here is the answer: to leave things as they are.
As for the frustration with bad communication in the church and some mixed ideas in guys heads, how girls should “clearly signal” them, I believe and hope and pray we should not be so discouraged. Nobody’s got it perfect and we are all learning how to do it right, while ministries like this help tremendously to get things straight. Besides, some people are getting married out there, so there is hope for all of us :-) Bless you
126. Liza said the following at 1:18 PM on Dec 16:
I am 24 and a new Christian.There is a guy, 27, whom I have been interested in for about 9 months, but he and I have also been in separate relationships.My friend simply asked him at a party if he was interested now or in the future and he said no.BUT she also told him I was crazy about him.This was quite embarrassing for me.He's not taken any real risk or given any clue if he was interested.Could her actions dampened any intention he may have had?He may think I am immature too.I do like him and want to continue to get to know him as friends.Can this be possible after the embarrassment?
127. Scott said the following at 5:00 AM on Dec 17:
Christina,
Your analogy only works, somewhat, in the case of the State dissolving a marriage against the will of the husband and wife (as in the case I cited above). It does not work when it is dissolved at the behest of one of the partners, though enabled and encouraged by the State.
The main reason I cited that case was to underscore the importance of the legal reform that Baskerville advocates. You can have all the cultural change you want; with young people enthusiastically marrying and all the rest. However, if the divorce bureaucracy is not dismantled (the legal change) and it proceeds to break up marriages against the will of the members of that family, legally prohibiting contact between them and taking the children and/or putting them up for adoption or making them wards of the state, that family is destroyed; cultural change notwithstanding. As such, the consequences of family dissolution will follow regardless of why those families are dissolved.
And that is why your analogy really doesn’t even work in such a case. Nothing can separate us from Christ, not even the power of the State. The power of the state can, however, destroy and separate families. Thus, there is no real parallel between converting to Christianity in a legally/culturally hostile environment and marrying in our own.
128. Scott said the following at 2:10 PM on Dec 17:
Question for the ladies here:
I've gotten the impression from some of the posts here that guys should basically disregard a woman's signals of disinterest and press on anyway (if he is interested). So my question is this: Should we just keep at it until we get a verbal 'No' or perhaps wait unitl we get the 'Can we just be friends' talk? Or is there some other point at which we can be sure the disinterest is 'final'?
At some point, it becomes disrespectful and inconsiderate, not to mention creepy, if a guy won't 'take a hint' and move on - so what 'hint' should we be looking for?
I ask this question sincerely and I would be interested in your thoughts here.
129. Ted Slater said the following at 2:26 PM on Dec 17:
Scott -- check out " Her Actions Say Yes, Her Words Say No" -- it doesn't exactly address what you're asking, but it does touch on the issue a bit.
"Not Your Buddy" and "You're a Great Guy, But ..." and "The Hindrance of a Hint" are also relevant classics.
130. Kelly said the following at 7:13 PM on Dec 17:
Scott asked: I've gotten the impression from some of the posts here that guys should basically disregard a woman's signals of disinterest and press on anyway (if he is interested).
I think YOUNGER ladies, through inexperience with dating, or shyness, will accidentally give signals of disinterest.
Those with more dating experience will very clearly give you 'no' signals such as looking away, avoiding eye contact.
I know that's not a very helpful answer, but when I was 20, I couldn't even LOOK at a guy I had a crush on. I stumbled over my words; I only managed one-word answers. Now, at 29, if I am interested in someone I make sure to smile directly at him, and if I'm NOT interested then I will give someone the cold shoulder.
The two reactions probably look completely similar which is why the poor men would be so confused!
The only way to find out which it is is to continue your attention for a while. Make the younger girl feel comfortable. If she opens up, she likes you, if the coldness continues, she doesn't.
131. Kelly said the following at 7:15 PM on Dec 17:
How my heart aches for how men have been treated in divorce. I know a man who went through this and was eventually thrown in jail, simply because his wife left him (after cheating on him), stole his money, and lied about his actions. (How can you ever prove the truth when it's Her word against His? The judges tend to take the woman's side.)
He is a good man. He tried to do his best and remained faithful to his wife and children even as she repeatedly dragged him into court to get more money.
It destroyed his life and it destroyed his future with me (he refused to get married ever again).
---
So as to the issue of pre-nups, given my experiences with this man and beholding the frightening reality of the Courts (where there is no justice or fairness, only Human Law), then yes, I would sign a pre-nup. It has nothing to do with marriage or God's design. It's something that I would use to fight the evils this world has created for marriage.
132. Sara said the following at 8:54 PM on Dec 17:
About divorce.. I think alimony is often fair even if there aren't children:
Looking at how things are right now, in our culture, there is more support for married women to stay home than for men to (and not just out of convention, but also because men make more money on average).
Getting married is normal, and if a woman gets married, she is more likely to stay at home, and thus, in doing this culturally normal thing, she will likely have less support to advance or maintain her career than her husband.
Assuming a divorce that is the fault of two people (setting aside other cases), if a couple divorces, the wife is in an unequal position to support herself, whereas the husband is in a position to have more disposable income after the split, and this inequality should be tempered by alimony. Not picking out little bits to refute, but as a whole, do people disagree?
And what if kids are involved? It's a bit freaky how immediately and passionately people here are ready to defend a wronged husband, while I get the feeling that there would be some hesitation if people were called on to defend cases of kids living in poverty in single-parent households (no matter what the moral status of their mother).
I understand the outrage of divorces from greed--a recent case here where a neighbour of mine left her husband, and forced him to sell the farm that had been in his family since the land was cleared comes to mind--but if I was going to put energy into defending anyone, it would be the weakest people FIRST.
To anyone who says that the alimony a mother gets should have some connection to her guilt in the divorce, it's more just that a grown man pay for her mistakes than her children.
Never mind the fact that marriage is physically more dangerous for women: battered women far outnumber battered men.
133. R said the following at 9:03 PM on Dec 17:
Nat said to Sassy Sister:
I guess, you are right, there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part.
Nat: Hey, how do you know it was fear of rejection and immaturity. What is your evidence?
All that sounds very judgmental & ungracious, and even a bit bitter.
134. k. said the following at 9:54 PM on Dec 17:
Scott - I'm going to say, don't waste your time chasing women who act disinterested. And I say that as a woman. :)
135. BDB said the following at 10:08 PM on Dec 17:
Liza wrote:
>>I do like him and want to continue to get to know him as friends.Can this be possible after the embarrassment? <<
Well, your friend probably didn't help things any. He'll probably always have the thought in the back of his mind that you're already crazy about him. Anything is possible, of course.
136. Scott said the following at 4:24 AM on Dec 18:
Ted:
Thanks - I read those awhile ago, I'll have to read them again. As you said, the article Her Actions Say Yes, Her Words Say No doesn't really answer my question; in fact it answers almost the opposite question. The cause for confusion here is when Her Actions Say No, But Only For The Moment, So I Should Persist (or something like that).
137. Nat said the following at 5:35 AM on Dec 18:
To Scott's question:
Women are made to respond to love, men are created to initiate love. That’s the whole point in guy’s initiation issue. If a woman sees that a man is persistent in showing affection and selfless friendship, chances are her heart may change towards him. If she is partially attracted to him, her attraction might develop and become full. So, when considering these things, man should not judge by the way he would act, when he is either fully attracted to her or absolutely not. I think, the key issue is whether she likes to spend time with you or not. If she doesn’t like to be around you, you probably should move on. But if she does, even not indicating romantic interest, you may keep trying. A woman would always expect you to go a bit longer way in order to get her, than she does. If you aren’t willing, that means you are not that keen any way. Or, if you are refusing to pursue and are waiting for her to draw a poster for you, which would “clearly” display her thoughts and feelings, you are basically refusing to act as a man in this situation, taking feminine role instead. That’s what I think.
138. Scott said the following at 6:39 AM on Dec 18:
Kelly,
Thanks for the input.
I guess I was specifically ‘bouncing off’ of what Nat was saying. She was sincere when she signaled disinterest (it wasn’t due to shyness) in the guy she was talking about but she now finds herself disappointed that he took her disinterest seriously because she changed her mind about him.
Should a guy just assume that a woman will change her mind and continue pursuing her until he gets an exasperated look and a stern ‘No’ from her?
139. kman said the following at 9:51 AM on Dec 18:
Scott-
If the woman doesn't respond in an encouraging way to your initiating, move on. Why waste your time and effort on someone who isn't interested? She's not right for you and the right one is waiting for you to find her. And don't get so tied up in her decision, you cannot control what someone else decides, no more than you can change the color of the sky.
If that particular field doesn't yield any harvest, try another.
140. Scott said the following at 10:11 AM on Dec 18:
Nat wrote:
A woman would always expect you to go a bit longer way in order to get her, than she does. If you aren’t willing, that means you are not that keen any way. Or, if you are refusing to pursue and are waiting for her to draw a poster for you, which would “clearly” display her thoughts and feelings, you are basically refusing to act as a man in this situation, taking feminine role instead. That’s what I think.
A guys needs something to pursue - if there's no apparent interest on her part, a guy might well assume that she isn't that keen and thus move on. It isn't that we need a poster, it's simply that there is no point in chasing someone who isn't interested.
If a woman responds negatively to a man chasing her, he has every right to take that response seriously. To do so is not acting feminine.
141. Scott said the following at 10:13 AM on Dec 18:
Sara wrote:
Never mind the fact that marriage is physically more dangerous for women: battered women far outnumber battered men.
Not true. Domestic violence is perpetrated by men and women in roughly equal proportion. Secondly, marriage is statistically safer for a woman than is singlness. See Warren Farrell's page on the subject. He writes, in part:
Who is abusing who?
If we look at only police reports and all-female self-help groups, it appears that men perpetrate about 90% of the domestic violence. But when we study male-only self-help groups, we get a different picture: Only 6% of the men involved in domestic violence say they were the perpetrator; 81% said their wives were the perpetrator (13% said it was mutual). So who do we believe?: Ninety percent male perpetrators, or 6%?
Consider the possibility that the percentages are so different because the people we asked were so different — that everyone might be telling their version of the truth. There was something missing: a nationwide domestic violence study of both sexes.
When the first scientific nationwide sample was conducted in 1975 — by Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus and Richard Gelles 11 the researchers could hardly believe their results. The sexes appeared to batter each other about equally. To their credit, despite their assumptions that men were the abusers, every domestic violence survey done of both sexes over the next quarter century in the U.S. Canada, England, New Zealand and Australia — more than 50 of which are annotated in the Appendix — found one of two things: Women and men batter each other about equally, or women batter men more.
In addition, almost all studies found women were more likely to initiate violence, and much more likely to inflict the severe violence. Women themselves acknowledged they are more likely to be violent and to be the initiators of violence. Finally, women were more likely to engage in severe violence that was not reciprocated. The larger and better-designed the study, the more likely the finding that women were significantly more violent.
Studies also make it clear that the women were 70% more likely to use weapons against men than men were to use weapons against women. The weapons women use are more varied and creative than men's, doubtless in compensation for less muscle strength....
See also The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism by Carrie L. Lukas.
K:
That's my general thought - it makes sense to me. Some of the posts here seemed to be criticizing the guy for not disregarding her disinterest - as if he had a responsibility to do so. Was just looking for clarification.
Thanks again.
142. Scott said the following at 10:14 AM on Dec 18:
Sara wrote:
Never mind the fact that marriage is physically more dangerous for women: battered women far outnumber battered men.
Not true. Domestic violence is perpetrated by men and women in roughly equal proportion. Secondly, marriage is statistically safer for a woman than is singlness. See Warren Farrell's page on the subject. He writes, in part:
See also The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism by Carrie L. Lukas.
K:
That's my general thought - it makes sense to me. Some of the posts here seemed to be criticizing the guy for not disregarding her disinterest - as if he had a responsibility to do so. Was just looking for clarification.
Thanks again.
143. Scott said the following at 11:05 AM on Dec 18:
Nat wrote:
So, when considering these things, man should not judge by the way he would act, when he is either fully attracted to her or absolutely not.
This holds true for physcial attraction. More than once, I have lost whatever attraction I had for a woman after getting to know her, or vice versa, where the more I got to know her, the more attracted I was.
144. kman said the following at 11:58 AM on Dec 18:
Scott said:
Some of the posts here seemed to be criticizing the guy for not disregarding her disinterest - as if he had a responsibility to do so.
If a person communicates something (disinterest) when the truth is otherwise (they're interested) then this is deception. Plain and simple.
If it was a guy acting like he was interested when he wasn't people would jump all over him, but let a woman be deceptive and it's about the guy showing true interest or proving himself etc...
Whether the response is a desired one or not it needs to be truthful. If you cannot muster the truth when it will hurt the least, you don't need to be involved with anyone IMO.
145. Rachael said the following at 12:30 PM on Dec 18:
Nat said: "If she doesn’t like to be around you, you probably should move on. But if she does, even not indicating romantic interest, you may keep trying."
I think I could agree with this last part - if both people are enjoying serving together and enjoying being around each other, even if one does not have interest in the other at a particular time, I think it's possible that it could change. I'm not saying men should pursue people that show disinterest (though I have probably shown signs of disinterest when I'm really interested because of shyness), but what I'm saying is that if a guy really likes a gal, even if the interest isn't reciprocated at that time, if they have common 'heart cores' and enjoy being around each other, my guess is that if he pursues her, she might come around, as Nat wrote, "If a woman sees that a man is persistent in showing affection and selfless friendship, chances are her heart may change towards him. If she is partially attracted to him, her attraction might develop and become full." I think I could agree with this. Not really from previous experience, though :). It's just my guess and I thought I'd second Nat's opinion in case it gives some guy hope to keep trying...hopefully not false hope, though. :)
146. Christina said the following at 1:59 PM on Dec 18:
Omg Scott...where on earth to start?
You said:
"So my question is this: Should we just keep at it until we get a verbal 'No' or perhaps wait unitl we get the 'Can we just be friends' talk? Or is there some other point at which we can be sure the disinterest is 'final'?"
(I'd italicize, but I don't know if this uses BB code of HTML...)
It honestly depends on the girl's maturity and personality. If you are pursuing a really honest, down to earth, mature kinda girl, then you can keep pursuing until she says outright that enough is enough. Her "apparent" lack of interest could simply be shyness or her observing you to see if you really are the kinda guy she wants to be in a relationship with. Likely to be hesitant to get into a rushed relationship with a guy she just met...(these girls, often the 'just be friends' talk doesn't usually imply that nothing could happen in the future...just not now cuz 'i don't know you at all')
If the girl is somewhat oblivious, tends to be a space cadet, or is overly absorbed in other things other than catching a man, she could simply be unaware of your interest in her, leading to signals of lack of interest. If she doesn't obviously avoid you, then you should probably be straight up and honest about your interest with her, cuz she might not notice otherwise...
However, if the girl (as kelly said) is immature, unsure of herself, a people pleaser, tender hearted or dislikes hurting anything, your pretty much up a creek without a paddle cuz her "lack of interest" could be real and she's just afraid to say so in case she'll hurt you, or she really is interested and doesn't know how to display that, or she's just simply leading you on.
Of course all of this hinges on how well you know the girl (and how well she knows you). If you two know eachother rather well (in a friendship kinda way), then a lot of this goes out the window depending on how well you know her. After several months of knowing someone, you can pick up on some of their signals just from how you've seen them interact with other people. And that is crucial in getting to know a girl (or guy). Spending time with them and getting to know them in the context of people who already know that person rather well. Observe how she interacts with her friends and how she interacts with strangers or people she just met. The better you get to know the girl as a friend, the more chance you have at better "interpreting" her signals. Which usually aren't really "signals" at all, but simply the way she responds to the people around her and her heart.
Scott, I hope this helped...and I hope this posts >.<
I had something else I had written in response to earlier comments, but this browser hates publishing any comments I write.
I know I just pretty much stereotyped my gender, and rather limitedly as well, but it gives you the idea that personality and characteristics and maturity play a large role in how a girl responds to attention.
And now, time for a song...
"Mood ring, oh mood ring,
Oh tell me will you bring
The key to unlock this mystery...
Of girls and their emotions,
Play it back in slow motion,
So I may begin to understand the complex infrastructure
Known as the female mind..."
-Relient K
P.S. K must be one of those people who is very comfortable around men and has no hesitancy in displaying interest =p Those girls exist too, but you wouldn't be asking this question if all girls were like her...
P.S.S. If the girl says no first, just be content to be friends with her. Eventually you might notice her interest in you changing...my ex had that happen with his best friend - she kept saying no and no and no...he dated other girls and then after his last relationship, he asked and she said yes...if you were attracted to her in the first place, there should be no real reason why you wouldn't want to pursue a friendship with her. Just don't hold out for the change...move on while being friends with her...and don't stunt the potentiality of other relationships in the hopes that she just "might come around".
I think the biggest mistake a guy could make is taking "no" and walking away. I'm not saying continue to pursue her for dating, but definitly continue to pursue her friendship. Nothing might come of it except a great friendship, but if you completely walk away, your limiting yourself to her potentially liking who you become in the future.
147. Christina said the following at 2:00 PM on Dec 18:
sorry it took so long to post my last comment...i've been trying for like half the day >.<
148. Tami said the following at 3:15 PM on Dec 18:
Why is it deceptive to wait to figure out if a guy is being genuine before I let him know I'm interested in him romantically? (I will be polite and friendly, but not romantic.)
That seems wise, not deceptive. There are some weird dudes and users out there. *You* know you're not one; *we* don't, at least until we get to know you a bit. (Ah, the dreaded "friends first" comes back!)
If you had a sister, and some guy that you didn't know (and that she barely knew) was asking her out, would you tell her to show her interest right away so he knew exactly how she felt? Or would you advise her to wait a bit and see what the guy's intentions are before she lets on?
I have a hard time thinking that a woman would purposefully hide her interest from a good guy she knows is interested romantically. I can, however, see her holding off with a guy she barely knows, or not displaying her interest to a guy who's not being entirely clear with *her*, either.
149. R said the following at 10:04 PM on Dec 18:
Tami:
So why can't the same apply to the guy? There are weird girls out there as well. That seems wise, not deceptive. Certainly I would advise my brothers-in-Christ to be polite & friendly.
What if you had a brother, and he meets some girl by happenstance. Would you want him to declare his interest in her right away?
The point is it goes both way ... if you don't believe it then just ask that Air Force captain about a certain diaper wearing astronaunt.
150. Nat said the following at 3:34 AM on Dec 19:
Scott,
Concerning this citation "she now finds herself disappointed that he took her disinterest seriously" - that is your conclusion and you keep talking about it as a fact.
First, you don't know what he actually thought, you may only guess.
Second, as far as I am concerned, I gave plenty of signals that I liked him, and I don't think I needed to signal some more at the end, that I want to keep in touch with him. Here I expected the initiative from him, if he wanted to take it, while indeed showing that I don't care (also thinking that I don't care).
Third, I wasn't complaining of being disappointed, I was considering whether I could do anything to correct the situation. I am repeating it for you again, I was asking a question here, and not criticizing guys.
Tami,
thanks for your post, it could not be answered better.
151. Nat said the following at 3:43 AM on Dec 19:
R,
why would you be so bitter about it? I was just responding to sassy sister's post, and she provided there reasons or evidences as you say. I don't claim I have evidences for anything, I don't know him well enough. I would still leap for joy if he appeared on my horizon.
The conclusions she made (and I agreed) are from the way he behaved. It's not that he asked me directly and I turned him down. He was questioning me without stating where he is at.
to some other comments:
I have no problems in showing interest and affection to all people, guys included (I am not that young by the way, thanks, K, for sending me to do Christmas shopping). The problem I have is that I don't want my friendliness to be interpreted as initiative. Sometimes it happens with guys that I am not interested, where they misinterpret my attention. In this particular case I wanted to be most careful, because it was for the first time in a long time that I deeply liked the guy. And in this case I WAS interested. He provoked me to be defensive. I don't see where is deception here.
152. Nat said the following at 3:44 AM on Dec 19:
R,
why would you be so bitter about it? I was just responding to sassy sister's post, and she provided there reasons or evidences as you say. I don't claim I have evidences for anything, I don't know him well enough. I would still leap for joy if he appeared on my horizon.
The conclusions she made (and I agreed) are from the way he behaved. It's not that he asked me directly and I turned him down. He was questioning me without stating where he is at.
to some other comments:
I have no problems in showing interest to all people, guys included (I am not that young by the way, thanks, K, for sending me to do Christmas shopping). The problem I have is that I don't want my friendliness to be interpreted as initiative. Sometimes it happens with guys that I am not interested, where they misinterpret my attention. In this particular case I wanted to be most careful, because it was for the first time in a long time that I deeply liked the guy. And in this case I WAS interested. He provoked me to be defensive. I don't see where is deception here.
153. Scott said the following at 4:21 AM on Dec 19:
Nat wrote:
I guess, you are right, there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part.
That's awfully presumptious of you Nat. Perhaps he simply changed his mind, after all that's exactly what happened with you...
Tami wrote:
Why is it deceptive to wait to figure out if a guy is being genuine before I let him know I'm interested in him romantically? (I will be polite and friendly, but not romantic.)
I agree somewhat, except that you don't have to be 'romantic' to display interest. It's not like your making some kind of commitment by simply displaying interest. And if he is persistent, regardless of your signals, he's going to be sticking around anyway, so I don't see how hiding your interest is going to 'protect' you from him better than otherwise.
I'm not really thinking of a situation where a guy has asked you out, but one where the guy is clearly displaying interest; flirting, etc. I have no problem if you would put an actual date of for a while, but that's a different issue. Again, I was bouncing of off Nat's situation, where, it seems to me, he hadn't asked her out on a date.
Again, guys need something to chase. Pursuing a disinterested (or seemingly so) woman sounds about as fun as chasing a brick wall.
Christina:
Thanks for your input. You seem somewhat taken aback by my question - it's no exactly new that women often confuse men. How often have we been told that if she isn't interested that we should respect that and move on? How often have we been told (especially here) that we aren't to regard women as 'buddies' (non-romantic friends)? It seems, sometimes, that we just can't win. If we persist in the face of disinterest, we get called on it. If we don't, we get called on that as well. It would be nice to have at least a few reliable 'rules of thumb' to go on here.
As for your diffuculty in posting, was your post getting flagged as 'potental spam' and therefore wouldn't post? That kept happening to my recent post (re: domestic violence). When I deleted Farrell's quote it posted. Now I log on and see that my previously refused post was actually accepted, quote and all...
154. kman said the following at 7:52 AM on Dec 19:
Tami-
Not sure you are responding to my post or not. If the girl knows she isn't interested but doesn't communicate that and leads him on by NOT communicating it's deception.
-If you had a sister, and some guy that you didn't know (and that she barely knew) was asking her out, would you tell her to show her interest right away so he knew exactly how she felt?
I would ask her if she was interested in the guy, if so, I'd tell her to invite him over for dinner with my wife and I. If she couldn't do that with me, do it with a couple from church she trusted or with friends. We're not talking about deciding to marry someone here. We're talking about interest in getting to know someone better in a possibly romantic way.
-so he knew exactly how she felt?
He just needs to know that she's interested. That's all. He doesn't need to know she thinks he's cute, kind, wonderful etc.
If she wasn't interested,I'd tell her to tell him she's not interested in him as gentle a way as possible.
155. Tami said the following at 9:06 AM on Dec 19:
R, it CAN go both ways, but I was answering a question about a woman's behavior from a woman's perspective. If I had to emend everything I wrote with qualifying statements, my comments would be pages long.
So let me just say:
Some women are horrible.
Some men are horrible.
Some women are great.
Some men are great.
Some horrible women do great things.
Some horrible men do great things.
Some great women do horrible things.
Some great men do horrible things.
We cannot tell who's who from one or two interactions. That's why I would advise either party (guy or girl) to get to know the person first (even if just building familiarity) and reveal his or her interest slowly... to put it in a girly way, let it unfold like a flower rather than simply opening a bag and dumping all the contents out at once.
Christine, good analysis. And thanks, Nat. :)
156. Scott said the following at 9:46 AM on Dec 19:
Nat:
Earlier you wrote....
…there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part.
Later, you wrote:
First, you don't know what he actually thought, you may only guess.
So, I can only guess, but yet you know that it was ‘of rejection and immaturity on his part’?
Nat wrote:
Second, as far as I am concerned, I gave plenty of signals that I liked him, and I don't think I needed to signal some more at the end, that I want to keep in touch with him. Here I expected the initiative from him, if he wanted to take it, while indeed showing that I don't care (also thinking that I don't care) .
Perhaps he simply changed his mind, after all that's exactly what happened with you...
Tami wrote:
Why is it deceptive to wait to figure out if a guy is being genuine before I let him know I'm interested in him romantically? (I will be polite and friendly, but not romantic.)
I agree somewhat, except that you don't have to be 'romantic' to display interest. It's not like your making some kind of commitment by simply displaying interest. And if he is persistent, regardless of your signals, he's going to be sticking around anyway, so I don't see how hiding your interest is going to 'protect' you from him better than otherwise.
I'm not really thinking of a situation where a guy has asked you out, but one where the guy is clearly displaying interest; flirting, etc. I have no problem if you would put an actual date of for a while, but that's a different issue. Again, I was bouncing of off Nat's situation, where, it seems to me, he hadn't asked her out on a date.
Again, guys need something to chase. Pursuing a disinterested (or seemingly so) woman sounds about as fun as chasing a brick wall.
Christina:
Thanks for your input. You seem somewhat taken aback by my question - it's no exactly new that women often confuse men. How often have we been told that if she isn't interested that we should respect that and move on? How often have we been told (especially here) that we aren't to regard women as 'buddies' (non-romantic friends)? It seems, sometimes, that we just can't win. If we persist in the face of disinterest, we get called on it. If we don't, we get called on that as well. It would be nice to have at least a few reliable 'rules of thumb' to go on here.
As for your diffuculty in posting, was your post getting flagged as 'potental spam' and therefore wouldn't post? That kept happening to my recent post (re: domestic violence). When I deleted Farrell's quote it posted. Now I log on and see that my previously refused post was actually accepted, quote and all...
157. kman said the following at 9:56 AM on Dec 19:
Nat-
I'm not sure if you're referring to my post. I was the one who brought the word deception into the discussion so I'll answer.
-I don't see where is deception here.
My post was not in reference to your situation. It was in response to Scott's comments.
And I'll just throw this out there, but my wife actually asked me out first!
She beat me to it by about 30 secs. LOL We've been happily married for 10 years. Is it a perfect marriage no, because I'm in it. Am I a bad husband? Ask my wife. Am I a sorry excuse for a man? That depends on who you ask. ;)
My concern is that people get so wrapped up in a set of "rules" about exactly how someone is supposed to begin a possibly romantic relationship that they just cause themselves more angst than what the situation calls for. Showing interest isn't equal to marrying someone! Show enough interest to encourage the man to pursue. If you act uninterested when you're not, to see if the guy's intent is good, well good luck with that.
158. Tami said the following at 10:17 AM on Dec 19:
kman, I agree with your last statement. I'll add, it's one thing to hold off on spilling everything you feel from moment one, in order to wait and get to know the person better before you reveal the depth of your interest; quite another to act "put off" in an effort to have the guy prove something.
But if you *really are* "put off," that's another ball of wax. :)
159. Christina said the following at 11:33 AM on Dec 19:
Scott, my network at work is just "iffy"...it usually takes me hours to get something posted until the end of the day, and suddenly everything gets posted at first attempt...something about the network being busy.
I wasn't taken aback by your question at all...I am a woman, but often I find myself confusing - I can only imagine what its like for the men who don't have the "inside scoop" on the female mind...trust me, you really don't want it.
It's just that there really are no set rules. You behave appropriately to the situation...and unfortunately that comes with experience and wisdom...
No two women are the same. And no two men are the same. You have to know yourself before you can pursue...and its good to know what kind of a woman you want so you know what to pursue. It's kind of pointless to chase after the raccoon when you were really out to pursue the fox...(another bad analogy, I apologize...normally I'm rather good at those...)
I say all this because, well, I'm one of those that just doesn't fit into the mold. I interact differently with different people while always being consistent. It depends on my comfort level in my situation...with the setting, surroundings, topic of conversation (I'm horrible at small talk). I usually have a hard time flirting unless I'm arguing / discussing about something...(which is really bad)...but that's usually because if I'm arguing, I'm comfortable enough to talk more...
A man would never be able to follow a set of rules to pursue me - I don't work that way...not intentionally, its just my personality type...and it disheartens me and makes me want to speak up with relishing vigor to combat the lies that "if she doesn't show interest, than she's just not interested". Because really, how do you know she ISN'T displaying interest, especially if you just met her?
160. Christina said the following at 11:35 AM on Dec 19:
Scott, my network at work is just "iffy"...it usually takes me hours to get something posted until the end of the day, and suddenly everything gets posted at first attempt...something about the network being busy.
I wasn't taken aback by your question at all...I am a woman, but often I find myself confusing - I can only imagine what its like for the men who don't have the "inside scoop" on the female mind...trust me, you really don't want it.
It's just that there really are no set rules. You behave appropriately to the situation...and unfortunately that comes with experience and wisdom...
No two women are the same. And no two men are the same. You have to know yourself before you can pursue...and its good to know what kind of a woman you want so you know what to pursue. It's kind of pointless to chase after the raccoon when you were really out to pursue the fox...(another bad analogy, I apologize...normally I'm rather good at those...)
I say all this because, well, I'm one of those that just doesn't fit into the mold. I interact differently with different people while always being consistent. It depends on my comfort level in my situation...with the setting, surroundings, topic of conversation (I'm horrible at small talk). I usually have a hard time flirting unless I'm arguing / discussing about something...(which is really bad)...but that's usually because if I'm arguing, I'm comfortable enough to talk more...
A man would never be able to follow a set of rules to pursue me - I don't work that way...not intentionally, its just my personality type...and it disheartens me and makes me want to speak up with relishing vigor to combat the lies that "if she doesn't show interest, than she's just not interested". Because really, how do you know she ISN'T displaying interest, especially if you just met her?
161. Christina said the following at 11:36 AM on Dec 19:
lol...that time i got the spam filter...
162. Christina said the following at 11:48 AM on Dec 19:
Scott,
More on that buddies article - I read a lot of christian romance novels when i was younger and some of my favorites were involving tom boys...where as they grew older, the boys they had grown up with still failed to see them as "FEMININE". She was always one of the "boys". Needless to say, led to lots of heartache until they suddenly gets knocked up side the head and sees her as a young woman...gee where'd the tom-boy go?
I'm the only female software engineer on my SW team (other than the menopausal woman next door), and I often forget that I am distinct from them - and often my boss does too...Where he throws out comments concerning marriage and such, completely forgetting that there IS a young, single woman in the group...or his issues with my being out sick every 4th friday, but that was an entirely different problem that he simply refused to accept...
Point is, I don't think there's anything wrong with being friends with girls - just as long as you recognize that they ARE girls...and they ARE to be treated differently than your guy friends...(I say 'your', but I'm not necessarily saying you do/don't do this...) They should be treated as young women, but I think that is still possible without being romantically interested in them...
I honestly wouldn't want to end up with a guy that I don't have some kind of a friendship with prior to dating them...I have too many difficulties socializing with people I don't know to successfully pull that one off...
163. Tami said the following at 11:54 AM on Dec 19:
I am wondering, what kind of interest are you expecting to see? I ask this sincerely, because I think there are several definitions floating around.
Some of these posts sound like the men want the romantic interest to be expressed right out the gate so they know it's OK to ask for a date right away, while some of them seem to imply that "interest" simply equals "I think you are nice, so please continue talking to me."
At other times the whole issue of "interest" seems sticky because if a girl acts interested in the "you're a nice guy and I like you" sense, but she isn't prepared to give a green light of "I want to date you," then she's unfairly categorizing you as a dreaded "friend". On top of that, people have different interpretations of "friendliness" and "flirtatiousness." One person might think they're just being nice, while the other says and does the same thing, intending to send out flirtatious signals.
I think this will continue to go around in circles...
(Christina, once again, helpful post; and kman, I agree with your response to your "sister." I think that's a smart way to handle a situation like that, one I would appreciate if I was your sister.)
164. Tami said the following at 12:07 PM on Dec 19:
Scott - Not trying to be funny here, but how would you define the difference between "romantic interest" and interest of the type that indicates "I like you and I'm attracted to you and may want to date you in the future"?
To me they're sort of the same thing. Otherwise, interest simply equals to me, "I like you, keep talking," and that's it. The kind of interest I'd show to anyone I liked... male, female, young, old, married, single. The type that may be defined on here as "not interested" in terms of dating.
And how does a girl know if flirting is interest and not just flirting?
Again, not being sarcastic; just trying to understand where you're coming from.
165. kman said the following at 1:05 PM on Dec 19:
Christina said:
-Because really, how do you know she -ISN'T displaying interest, especially -if you just met her?
How does a man know if she ISN'T a sociopath? or believes she's an alien? Or that she's the Queen of Potatoes ? Can you expect the guy to anticipate every possible negative criteria?
This is where it's up to the woman. The man can only go by what she communicates. He cannot read anyone's mind. Whether or not he detects your signs of interest is a whole other question. I was very dense in that area. I just assumed that the girl wasn't interested unless I had fairly clear indication to the opposite effect. For me to assume a girl was interested smacked of arrogance IMHO.
166. Christina said the following at 2:25 PM on Dec 19:
Kman,
Respectfully, I disagree...
"This is where it's up to the woman."
Honestly, if the woman thinks she's displaying interest and the guy doesn't notice, its cuz he doesn't know her very well.
Which goes with the point that it all really depends on how well you know the girl.
You can't expect a girl to be obvious - again, its personality and how they interact with people. Each one is different. Some are more obvious than others, others are harder to read then a brick with no words (and they could think they are being TOO obvious)...
And, at the same time, I can't expect a guy to catch on to my signals every single time (or ever for that matter) Because as you said, guys can be pretty dense...But I WOULD like a guy to make an attempt to get to know me before he determines that I am completely uninterested in him.
It is possible that as a guy pursues a friendship with a girl he is interested in, then the girl could see that as his initiative and call him on it - in effect, responding.
For example...my last "relationship" (I call it thus cuz it never actually crossed into dating realm) was me and a guy talking a lot. We enjoyed eachother's company. Then he started saying things about knowing what he wants and yada yada. Of course, me thinking he had finally caught on that I liked him (after 6 months of talking to him), blurts out, "you know that I like you, right?" ... Of course he had no idea, but he was very interested in me himself and had been for some time...
I thought I had been very obvious. I thought he had finally caught on. Maybe I jumped the bullet a bit, but I guess, in this place's terminology, I had called for a "DTR"...And he had been completely clueless that I was interested in him...
And along with Tami - I am VERY curious...what are you guys looking for as "signals" of interest?
But additionally, at what point in knowing her do you expect to see them? Immediately? After knowing her for a couple days? weeks? months? And after what kind of relationship has been established? You guys hang out with friends on a regular basis? You just see her at church and that's it? How much investment are you guys expecting to be putting in before you determine if the girl is simply "uninterested"?
167. kman said the following at 3:19 PM on Dec 19:
-Honestly, if the woman thinks she's -displaying interest and the guy -doesn't notice, its cuz he doesn't -know her very well.
So for the man to know how the woman responds to a man she is interested in, he has to see how she responds to a man she is interested in (which isn't him because she won't let him know as it is his job to find that out for himself).
IOW
Guy A is interested in Girl B.
Guy A doesn't know how Girl B responds to a guy she's interested in.
So Guy A needs to wait for Girl B to be interested in Guy C and learn how she responds.
At which time Guy A now knows how Girl B responds to a guy she's interested in.
Is that what you mean?
168. kman said the following at 4:19 PM on Dec 19:
So for example.
A girl wears a hat when she talks to a guy she is interested in. (I know it's silly ;) ) The girl expects any guy that wants to initiate a relationship with her to know how she responds (by wearing a hat). She won't tell him that her hat wearing indicates her interest in him. For all he knows she just likes hats.
He may or may not ever make the connection. Girl then wonders why the guy didn't pursue. "I wore my hat every time I talked to him! How obvious can I be? I guess his intentions weren't good/he's passive/too feminine/not a leader and so on."
Now in this scenario, who is the one person out of the two that could clarify what hat wearing means?
The man? OK. Maybe he puts it together. He might be able to read minds. If he doesn't he gets put down as "his intentions weren't good/he's passive/too feminine/not a leader and so on"
The woman? Yes. She alone knows her intent and what all the hat wearing was about.
169. Beth L. said the following at 5:45 PM on Dec 19:
Or it could go like this...
Guy A is interested in Girl B.
Guy A doesn't know how Girl B responds to a guy she's interested in.
So Guy A needs to watchs how Girl B acts around Guy C, in whom she has NO interest. Guy A then compares and contrasts to how he is treated, and then he can tell how she responds.
170. Scott said the following at 6:29 PM on Dec 19:
Christina wrote:
...and it disheartens me and makes me want to speak up with relishing vigor to combat the lies that "if she doesn't show interest, than she's just not interested". Because really, how do you know she ISN'T displaying interest, especially if you just met her?
First, why do you then demand that it should be so different for a guy. I'm not the most socially adept guy around and it's not the easiest thing for me to get to know new people. Needless to say, this is exacerbated when it comes to chatting up some girl who has caught my eye.
In the past, I've 'lost' opportunities to get a know a girl because she was put off by my stilted attempts at making her aquaintance, conversation and the rest. It seems to boil down to her feeling uncomfortable beause I am and then associating me with feelings of discomfort.
Now, to an extent, I understand this. I've been around people who are so tightly wound, for instance, that I get worn out just being around them; stuff like that 'rubs off'. At the same time, if she had given me a bit of time (this happened over the course of a couple of weeks), I would have warmed up and been easier and more comfortable with making conversation.
How did I conclude there was no interest? Well, when she never says hi, never makes eye contact and generally acts like I'm not there when she comes around, I assume there is no interest. Fair or not; I'm not gonna chase a brick wall.
Christina wrote:
...I am a woman, but often I find myself confusing - I can only imagine what its like for the men who don't have the "inside scoop" on the female mind...trust me, you really don't want it.
I don't doubt it. Nevertheless, I have been making an effort in the last year or so to understand women. Shaunti Feldhahn's books (For Women Only and For Men Only [the latter book to help women understand men]), Emerson Eggerichs' books (Love and Respect and Cracking the Communication Code) have been especially helpful, I would recommend them to everybody. I've talked at length with my sisters about this stuff and gotten their input. I've also read other books by women on helping men understand women. All of this, again, has been helpful, but sometimes confusing.
Tami wrote:
Scott - Not trying to be funny here, but how would you define the difference between "romantic interest" and interest of the type that indicates "I like you and I'm attracted to you and may want to date you in the future"?
How about just being friendly and letting him know (smiles, eye contact, asking questions) that you're open to further contact. As opposed to, say, no eye contact, no smile, one or two word answers to his questions, no questions of your own, etc. I'm not really talking about some immediate indication that she is interested in a date, but a general sense that she is open to the possibility (at least open to further contact).
Tami wrote:
And how does a girl know if flirting is interest and not just flirting?
That's a good question. I don't know. Guys have to deal with the same thing.
I've had women flirt with me before only to find out they have boyfriends. They were just flirting. I once heard a conversation between one of my sisters and a friend of hers. This woman was in a long-term commited relationship, yet she was going on and on about how much fun she was going to have flirting with all the guys at some upcoming gathering.
171. Christina said the following at 8:16 PM on Dec 19:
Agreed, Scott, that at some point the girl needs to put some initiative in encouraging a friendship if she's interested.
You're making me want to go out and be sociable.
172. R said the following at 8:40 PM on Dec 19:
Nat,
I don't claim I have evidences for anything, I don't know him well enough.
That is exactly my point. So without evidences you can still say that "there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part"??
In all honesty that sounds like sour grapes.
173. R said the following at 8:59 PM on Dec 19:
Scott,
You pretty much hit the nail on the head w/r to the question about pursuing a gal after she says 'no'. I would add that Scripture tells us to "let our yes be yes, and our no be no."
If a girl can not do that, then she probably is not someone we should consider dating. So walk-away ... stay polite & friendly in future meetings, but do not pursue unless her signals are clear. And you'll know.
Furthermore, our reputations our important, Scripture says so. So many of my sisters tell me they hate guys that can not respect them their no answer. Since girls talk, a guy can be blacklisted from other potential gals if one of them thinks you are being creepy & disrespectful.
So as a brother to a brother, do not even consider it. If the girl is truly interested she will make her intentions known, just as Ruth did to Boaz.
I know it is rough & confusing but there are many straight up, gracious women out there. (Though it is sad that I find many nonChristian women much more understanding & pleasant in their dealings with men! Yet there are a few good non-confusing Christian gals out there as well.)
174. BDB said the following at 9:47 PM on Dec 19:
Christina wrote:
>>...or his issues with my being out sick every 4th friday, but that was an entirely different problem that he simply refused to accept...<<
Ironically, when I had female managers and supervisors reporting to me, I discovered that they were pretty quick to write up an employee for such an "attendance pattern." They were a lot less flexible than I was.
I paid more attention to employees who always used exactly 100% of their vacation and sick time every year. After a few years I noticed the pattern...
175. BDB said the following at 10:10 PM on Dec 19:
Christina wrote:
>>And along with Tami - I am VERY curious...what are you guys looking for as "signals" of interest? <<
How's this for confusing:
Guy A and Girl B volunteer in the same ministry. Guy A realizes that Girl B seems to "conveniently" always finish up her ministry commitment and walk out to the parking lot with him every week - 12 weeks in a row.
So Guy A invites Girl B to lunch. She accepts first, then a few days later declines, saying it's inappropriate for single people to go to lunch when they volunteer together.
But Girl B stays friendly and keeps waiting to walk out with Guy A.
What's even more confusing is when, a week after this, Girl C invites Guy A to lunch, and he has to ponder whether maybe it's fine for women to initiate after all...
176. Jo said the following at 7:17 AM on Dec 20:
So, guys (Scott etc...), what do you take as signs of interest? Hypothetical(ish) example: if there is a guy who I'm thinking MAYBE I might be interested in, and certainly would like to get to know better, how do I communicate that? What do you guys look for as signals of possible interest?
177. a sassy sister said the following at 7:43 AM on Dec 20:
Ok, this is for R:
1.) My responses to Nat are based on his behavior towards her, not just hers. Bottom line, if a man does not make ANY attempt to communicate his interest clearly, then there are definite factors---the obvious ones being:
a) the fear of rejection: people who are afraid of getting hurt or getting rejected will act in self-protecting ways, i.e. playing mind games and being ambigous, so they can find out what they need to know without being brave enough to express themselves and face whatever consequences result from that.
b.) the thrill of the chase and pursuit: there are some men out there who actually care nothing about the woman they're pursuing but are more fascinated with the hunt itself. I've seen men(and even women)kick people to the curb because the fun of the chase/being pursued had "worn off."
c.) Immaturity--immature people attack change and have a selfish view of relationships. They will always put themselves above everyone else; the world must cater to them and give them their way all the time.
Nat's point that she doesn't know him well is actually another indication that's she's not paying attention to the signs----HIS BEHAVIOR! Fellas, if your words and your actions don't line up, you've already exposed what kind of person you already are. Nat, for a brief moment, you saw how he behaves when it comes to interacting with women. Do not settle for someone who would rather play games with you instead of being honest about their intentions. ALL REAL RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF RISK!
Rejection sucks. It happens on both sides sometimes. But being rejected will never justify quitting, and frankly in my opinion is a cop-out.
But sour grapes! Wow....you clearly do not see Nat trying to understand what happened so she can stop making the same mistakes when it comes to guys. You're too busy looking at this with the lens of your own personal rejections and bad experiences with women. The sour grapes expression is a reflection of attitude, in which you always HAVE A CHOICE. How do you know if she's bitter about this guy? If anything, it seems as if she's upset about the way the communication went down overall, not just his behavior.
I simply suggested to Nat that she deal with people who are making a TANGIBLE,GENUINE, CONCERTED EFFORT to communicate. PERIOD. And the only way you can tell if that's actually happens if people actually STOP, BE QUIET, AND LISTEN. OBSERVE. This goes for both men and women. This is not for the purpose of trying to achieve closeness without any investment on your part, but to understand, learn, and see someone for who they really are.
Nat, please also know this:
Sometimes, whether we know it or not, we are attracting the wrong kind of attention, things,and people to our lives. I am wondering if you find yourself liking men who are never clear about their intentions because deep down, there are some negative thoughts that you have about yourself and relationships that are fueling that attraction.....
Just my thoughts...
178. Nat said the following at 8:30 AM on Dec 20:
Kman,
That’s great for you, may be it helps sometimes, especially because as you said, you already had the intention and she only beat you by 30sec. But I saw it many times when a girl was taking initiative or even making slightest move and got blamed for that. At the very least he did not value what he had, and in the worst scenario they were in relationship, and he kept telling her that this relationship had only started because of her initiative, so the responsibility for it is on her. How’s that?
I think, yes, may be, we have many rules and some are unnecessary, but don’t they come from the fact, that men and women are made by God differently, and we differ in our needs and wants? If we are talking about initiation here, that’s about beginning, right. I think it’s cool for a man to know that he tried, he risked, and he won, rather than sit and wait until/if she starts singing serenades by his window. Maybe rules are needed mostly in the case when people don’t know each other well, just like you said, because when you know each other or even you are good friends, rules don’t matter any more.
I also think that it takes guts, and high sense of self-security and self-identity for a man to make a move and risk rejection. That’s what women admire about men. Like in the article of John Thomas about his own DTR, which did not go quite right, but he did not give up. Or the testimony of Michael Smally, how he became the best friend of a girl he was in love with, who was engaged to someone else, and basically sacrificed himself for her well-being (and he did marry her!). These are the men, which women would feel safe with. She will know that he would give up his own life (or pride) for her, like in the story which starts this blog entry.
Dear R and Scott,
I would appreciate if you stop commenting on my situation, and misquoting my posts, thanks. Please, feel free not to worry what I say, think or know.
179. kman said the following at 8:39 AM on Dec 20:
BDB-
Is Guy A interested in getting to know Girl C?
If you think it sinful for a woman to initiate then don't go. If not, go to lunch.
180. kman said the following at 9:30 AM on Dec 20:
Nat-
Risk doesn't disappear when you get married. What you can lose in marriage is so much more than when you're single.
And don't be surprised if you find your relationship with your future husband not following a specific set of rules.
And if there is a behavior you believe is sinful for a woman to engage in, don't do it. Keep your convictions and your conscience.
I wish you better results than you can imagine in your relationships!
181. Tami said the following at 10:19 AM on Dec 20:
BDB's Girl B needs to learn to let her yes be yes and her no be no.
And Girl C needs a copy of "Quest for Love."
;)
182. Carrie Lea said the following at 10:42 AM on Dec 20:
Hey guys, mind if I butt in for a moment?
There seem to be a wide variety of interpretations as to what "initiation" means, but here's my personal take on it. The danger in a woman initiating lies in the possible result that a relationship (and even marriage) is entered into by the man with no real intent or leadership on his part. Since he may view himself as "just going along with what she wanted," he may unconsciously place the burdens of the relationship on her, while sharing in the benefits. As long as this situation is avoided, I see no big problem with a woman at least giving strong response and encouragement to a man to pursue her.
Another side of this is that, let's face it, many or most women want to be pursued, at least enough to know they're really wanted. And of course, different women look for different levels of leadership from the men they commit to.
When my husband and I were dating, there came a point one evening when he started saying things like, "If I told you something, would it bother you?" I knew exactly what he was trying to say, and that he was concerned that I would think it was too early. After giving him some time to get over his hesitation, I finally told him, "Hey... I love you too." He grinned at me and responded in kind -- that was the encouragement he needed. Some would consider that initiating, but maybe it's more like what Ruth was doing on the threshing floor.
(Of course, just before we started dating, he had also "initiated" by singling me out to talk to, then later getting my number, calling me for a date, and a number of other things. He is relatively shy, so I knew these actions were sincere and took bravery on his part. Thus, I did not feel like I was initiating anything -- only encouraging. Nevertheless, the "turn him down 5 times first" women would never have gotten very far with this man.)
Could I have found a man with more "courage" than my husband? Possibly. Could I have found a man I would be happier with? Never in a million years.
183. Christina said the following at 11:00 AM on Dec 20:
BDB. I wasn't asking for an example of a girl who was displaying interest and was "deceptive"
I was asking for examples of what you guys would term "interested".
I smile, make eye contact, respond to conversation, put myself in the general vicinity of, and even do what you described to show interest.
I guess that if that's what ur looking for, than I just haven't been interested in guys that are interested in me. But neither have the guys interested in me ever made an effort to approach me, as certain guys I heard of later that had been interested never gave me the oppurtunity to notice.
Although maybe the argument on using "I" and "me" in a sentence between two 5th graders should've been some hint that the guy liked me - but I just attributed to that I got on his nerves.
And on the second hand, what do you guys do to show that your interested before actually asking the girl on a date?
184. Scott said the following at 11:37 AM on Dec 20:
a sassy sister wrote:
Nat's point that she doesn't know him well is actually another indication that's she's not paying attention to the signs----HIS BEHAVIOR! Fellas, if your words and your actions don't line up, you've already exposed what kind of person you already are. Nat, for a brief moment, you saw how he behaves when it comes to interacting with women. Do not settle for someone who would rather play games with you instead of being honest about their intentions. ALL REAL RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF RISK!
And where, pray tell, in Nat’s account do you see evidence of a problem with HIS BEHAVIOR? What in it exposed him as a man ‘who would rather play games with you instead of being honest about their intentions’? Your presuming an awful lot here; he might not be (as Nat said) so adept at interacting with women, he might be shy, or he might have decided he wasn’t all that interested in further contact.
Nat wrote:
Dear R and Scott,
I would appreciate if you stop commenting on my situation, and misquoting my posts, thanks. Please, feel free not to worry what I say, think or know.
No problem, as long you as stop accusing me of misrepresenting you without substantiating it.
185. xeres said the following at 12:28 PM on Dec 20:
Will you guys just drop the whole initiation discuss thing and move on with your lives? It is getting on a lot of people's nerves.
R, Scott, Nat, and a sassy sister:
We all need to practice more grace and genuine with all this. AND please, just because it happens doesn't mean it is the case everywhere all over the country. Do you guy have opposite sex friends to confide in this stuff? I'm serious because you guys seem have such low views toward each other to the extent where I thought I am reading lines from "Mean Girls".
examples-
From Scott:
>>Nat wrote:
Dear R and Scott,
I would appreciate if you stop commenting on my situation, and misquoting my posts, thanks. Please, feel free not to worry what I say, think or know. <<
*No problem, as long you as stop accusing me of misrepresenting you without substantiating it.*
From R,
>>Nat said to Sassy Sister:
I guess, you are right, there was fear of rejection and immaturity on his part.<<
*Nat: Hey, how do you know it was fear of rejection and immaturity. What is your evidence?
All that sounds very judgmental & ungracious, and even a bit bitter.*
*Scott,
You pretty much hit the nail on the head w/r to the question about pursuing a gal after she says 'no'. I would add that Scripture tells us to "let our yes be yes, and our no be no."
If a girl can not do that, then she probably is not someone we should consider dating. So walk-away ... stay polite & friendly in future meetings, but do not pursue unless her signals are clear. And you'll know.
Furthermore, our reputations our important, Scripture says so. So many of my sisters tell me they hate guys that can not respect them their no answer. Since girls talk, a guy can be blacklisted from other potential gals if one of them thinks you are being creepy & disrespectful.
So as a brother to a brother, do not even consider it. If the girl is truly interested she will make her intentions known, just as Ruth did to Boaz.
I know it is rough & confusing but there are many straight up, gracious women out there. (Though it is sad that I find many nonChristian women much more understanding & pleasant in their dealings with men! Yet there are a few good non-confusing Christian gals out there as well.)*
//R, I understand your frustrated with Christian women but DON'T you dare start comparing nonChristian women with Christian women. That's does not make any than Christian women who did the exact same thing. What I mean is Christian felt nonChristians are more forward and open in comparison to their Christian counterpart, who are seen as dull rigid, and are a necessary evil. Don't fall for the 'grass in greener on the side.//
From sassy sister:
*Nat's point that she doesn't know him well is actually another indication that's she's not paying attention to the signs----HIS BEHAVIOR! Fellas, if your words and your actions don't line up, you've already exposed what kind of person you already are. Nat, for a brief moment, you saw how he behaves when it comes to interacting with women. Do not settle for someone who would rather play games with you instead of being honest about their intentions. ALL REAL RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF RISK!
Rejection sucks. It happens on both sides sometimes. But being rejected will never justify quitting, and frankly in my opinion is a cop-out.
But sour grapes! Wow....[R] clearly do not see Nat trying to understand what happened so she can stop making the same mistakes when it comes to guys. You're too busy looking at this with the lens of your own personal rejections and bad experiences with women. The sour grapes expression is a reflection of attitude, in which you always HAVE A CHOICE. How do you know if she's bitter about this guy? If anything, it seems as if she's upset about the way the communication went down overall, not just his behavior.*
186. Christine said the following at 1:35 PM on Dec 20:
Xeres - If you're tired of a conversation, why don't you quit reading the thread instead of responding so harshly? I'd encourage you to season your comments with grace and love.
187. BDB said the following at 3:03 PM on Dec 20:
kman wrote:
>>Is Guy A interested in getting to know Girl C?
If you think it sinful for a woman to initiate then don't go. If not, go to lunch.<<
Oh, A and C have known each other for years, there's definitely lunch in the future there. Just unexpected.
Christina wrote:
>>I wasn't asking for an example of a girl who was displaying interest and was "deceptive"<<
The main point of the example was that someone waiting around after church to walk out and chat with someone specific in the parking lot - over and over again - would appear to be a sign of interest, particularly if they aren't doing that with anyone else.
Tami wrote:
>>Girl B needs to learn to let her yes be yes and her no be no.<<
Oh, it gets more complicated. It seems that lunch was actually vetoed by Girl B's twin sister (we'll call her Girl B-2) because of a church home group lesson on "boundaries" taught by Leader D. The thing is, leader D was previously the home group leader for Guy A and spent the last few years pushing Guy A to take more initiative...how's that for ironic? So now a simple lunch becomes subject to church politics...
>>And Girl C needs a copy of "Quest for Love."<<
She hasn't read it yet...maybe a good Christmas gift?
188. Bethany said the following at 3:35 PM on Dec 20:
Sara said: Never mind the fact that marriage is physically more dangerous for women: battered women far outnumber battered men.
Sara, you might be interested in reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism by Carrie Lukas. From what I could tell, the author is not a Christian, but the book is excellent and she debunks this and a number of other myths.
189. R said the following at 6:20 PM on Dec 20:
>>And Girl C needs a copy of "Quest for Love."<<
She hasn't read it yet...maybe a good Christmas gift?
BDB: Get the book only if you want to confuse her and/or you want to end all possibilities of a friendship & relationship with her! :-)
I still recommend the writings of Hayley DiMarco.
If Guy A is interested then
(1) Pray for wisdom & discernment.
(2) If the checkboxes are on the "GO"( aka "PRO") side, the proceed with lunch.
(3) If that goes well & she still seems interested & engaged (and is Guy A), Guy A thanks her for a fun time, walks her to her car, & he makes sure he has a current phone number.
(4) Plan out a simple, fun outing that fits both of your personalities (to the best of your knowledge ... but, ah, bungee-jumping might have to wait. :-) ) but will allow you both to have time of discussion.
(5) Guy A prays again.
(6) Guy A calls her & they then have a fun & relaxing time. :-)
(7) If that goes well, repeat several times. If all continues to go well, Guy A praises God for his provisions & opportunities, and proposes to Girl C.
190. R said the following at 6:43 PM on Dec 20:
xeres
Do you guy have opposite sex friends to confide in this stuff? I'm serious because you guys seem have such low views toward each other to the extent where I thought I am reading lines from "Mean Girls".
Actually I do, maybe not a lot, but a good few. Over the course of this year I have had several set-ups by these friends, so I must not have a low view of women. Another sister recently sent me a Xmas gift thanking her for listening to her guy problems. Oh, just for context, I have helped two friends find their husbands.
At some point a guy has to do his civic-duty to stop the guy-bashing. Besides how else am I going to find godly women for my brothers-in-Christ?
191. Louise said the following at 7:47 PM on Dec 20:
I agree with Christine...xerxes, if this thread no longer interests you, then just exit it.
192. Rachael said the following at 8:09 PM on Dec 20:
BDB - Just to add to the Boundless drama. Sounds like Girl B is interested as well. If Guy A is interested in Girl B and she just refused because of other advice...hmmm. She just doesn't know what to do.
193. BDB said the following at 8:58 PM on Dec 20:
R wrote:
>>BDB: Get the book only if you want to confuse her and/or you want to end all possibilities of a friendship & relationship with her! :-)<<
Sounds like the voice of experience talking...(Just kidding!)
Rachael wrote:
>>and she just refused because of other advice...hmmm. She just doesn't know what to do. <<
Oh, and it gets more complicated. Girl B is moving out of her parent's house in two weeks because she's found all her spare time being used up as the "assumed" babysitter for Sister A-2's new baby. It should be interesting to see how that bit of boundry-setting plays out. For Guy A I mean.
194. Darin said the following at 11:22 PM on Dec 20:
Pleeeeeeease! Could we have some balance in these posts??? Yes, men should be eager to protect women...even when it requires great sacrifice. But how about some advice for the ladies on their role in the relationship along with that? Like a few people have pointed out already, there has to be a willingness to sacrifice on both sides. There has to be sensitivity and a desire to protect on both sides. The difference between the male and female roles here is that the women are to be submissive and allow the man to put her first. (It's not that she's putting herself first.)
If I took this post at face value, I might well conclude that a man's role is to be a doormat and that somehow there's just nothing sexier than a man in pain. (I've known wives who constantly needed their husband to be suffering to prove his love and needless to say...those relationships didn't work.)
I suspect that most of the women who read Boundless articles and participate in these posts would very much appreciate hearing both sides of the story as well as us guys...so how about it?
195. kman said the following at 7:31 AM on Dec 21:
Someone needs to make a T-shirt with the Guy A, Girl B diagrams on it.
I see stick figures and some arrows.
LOL
All this nuanced situation analysis makes my head hurt. ;)
196. Carrie Lea said the following at 8:34 AM on Dec 21:
Darin,
I posted a different viewpoint above (Dec 20 at 10:42 AM). While my husband and I were getting to know each other, I responded actively and positively to his initiating moves, while giving gentle prodding when necessary, including going out on a limb by telling him I loved him when I did. If you were to ask him, he would probably say he didn't feel like a doormat -- just the opposite.
197. Tami said the following at 10:22 AM on Dec 21:
BDB, I would give her "Through Gates of Splendor" or that one she wrote about discipline.
Then when she says, "What a great book! Know of any others?" you can give her "Quest for Love."
I know if a guy I knew gave me something called "Quest for Love" -- or goodness gracious, "Passion and Purity" -- my brain would explode. :)
198. BDB said the following at 7:03 PM on Dec 21:
kman wrote:
>>Someone needs to make a T-shirt with the Guy A, Girl B diagrams on it. <<
It does cry out for a PowerPoint presentation, doesn't it? Maybe with an animated flow chart...
Tami wrote:
>>I would give her "Through Gates of Splendor" or that one she wrote about discipline.<<
Funny you should bring that up. Girl "E" stopped attending church because a guest speaker from The Voice of the Martyrs showed up and gave a presentation - too hard of a message it seems. On the other hand, "Discipline, the Glad Surrender" is a good choice. For anyone who claims to want "spiritual growth," it will push them out of their comfort zone, no matter where they are comfortable...I've thrown a lot of stuff away since reading the chapter on the discipline of "clutter."
199. R said the following at 8:35 PM on Dec 21:
BDB,
Haha. Not quite but I've managed to have some interesting discussions with the sisters on P&P and QfL.
And some of these girls get so over-romantized (and eventually frustrated) on these notions that I have to recommend they read Elliot's The Path to Loneliness, as well as Discipline: The Glad Surrender to get them refocused on God!
Interestingly enough, hyper-courtship (particularly the views of female passivity) seems to be a Western Christian phenomena (how fitting it dovetails with Western egocentricity & me-centeredness.) The international gals I have met are much more relaxed, easy-going, and understanding about dating since they have yet to be exposed to these ideas. It may explain why I am finding more of the brothers dating internationals gals.
200. R said the following at 8:42 PM on Dec 21:
Carrie Lea: Wow, you told your husband that you loved him first! Is that not an Elisabeth Elliot cardinal rule your broke! :-)
Contrary to the perspectives seen at this site, we certainly read that things work out just fine for the "initiating" women in the stories such as yours, and of Michael Lawrence's wife (and her second chance to the pastor), and the biblical Ruth.
Glad it all worked out for you two; thanks for sharing.