Airing It Out on Pseudo-relationships: Episode #2
by Motte Brown on 02/01/2008 at 6:24 PM
 iTunes | FeedBurner/RSS |
These are some of the things we discuss on this week's "The Boundless Show." But don't worry, the show won't always be relationship heavy. As our host Lisa Anderson explains, we're focusing on it only through Valentine's Day. After that, it's open season on pretty much everything.
But while we're there, you won't want to miss Lisa's interview with Candice Watters about her book, Get Married: What Women Can Do to Help it Happen. If you ladies follow Candice's advice, enabling relationship ambiguity won't be an issue.
We also have longtime Boundless contributor Kara Schwab in this week's "The Hungry Years" segment with a beautiful illustration on how we love sin like her dog loves vomit. Good times.
Last but not least, Steve Watters answers a question from a listener who's struggling with Internet addiction. You may not know this but Steve wrote a book about the subject titled, Real Solutions for Overcoming Internet Addictions. And he gives great advice here.
We really appreciated all the constructive criticism and kudos we received after our first show. And we've taken it to heart. We've shortened the chat at the beginning and have included the segment times here:
Intro
Roundtable -- 3:42
Culture -- 15:06
Hungry Years -- 21:45
Inbox -- 25:39
However, you won't want to skip over the bumper music. We're using the rest of Jeff Caylor's tunes from his top rated cd, "Okay."
The show is available on iTunes. We also have an RSS feed set up for it.
1. Lisa said the following at 1:39 AM on Feb 2:
Thanks boundless! This is awesome especially as I can get this from Itunes New Zealand! Unlike all that music you guys can get and we can't! Grrr.
I digress - this is great and now means I can take boundless on the road and listen as I work!
2. Jo said the following at 3:02 AM on Feb 2:
Re: pseudo relationships. I agree with everything that was said on the show, but I wanted to add one point: with some people, it is really REALLY easy to get pulled into a type of friendship that you didn't intend and don't want, without realising what's happening.
An example:
Woman sees man she likes the look of and wants to get to know him better. She initiates contact, chats, suggests meeting up, opens up to him emotionally, and encourages a reciprocal response from man.
Man goes along with this without thinking it through because why wouldn't he when she's making all the effort, and she consequently gets all kinds of ideas about his level of interest.
As time goes on, man begins to feel uncomfortable with the level of intimacy going on, begins to realise that woman is after more than he was ever willing to give, and gets confused wondering how their friendship ended up this close when he never really desired it.
Who is at fault in this scenario? The man is not intentionally defrauding the woman, and has simply let himself be pulled along by the woman without realising the dangers involved. Yet of course when he eventually wakes up and ends the friendship, it inevitably causes huge pain on both sides, and he comes out looking like the bad guy, and she the helpless victim.
Of course this isn't the case in all situations, but I've seen it happen and I wonder if it happens more often than we realise...
3. Tami said the following at 2:51 PM on Feb 2:
Jo, in your scenario: I think the guy has some responsibility in the situation, but not that he's necessarily led her on with the intention of hurting her. Perhaps he's being naive (maybe even willfully so, because he enjoys the friendship and her attention)... but I don't know how much "right" the woman has to be angry at the guy in a situation like that -- if he's gentle when he begins to draw boundaries (if he cuts things off uncaringly, that's a different story). After all, she initiated the relationship. And I'd expect her to feel sad or hurt; that comes with the territory in a situation like that. However, I do think "thinking it through" is a wise strategy for him to take the next time a woman approaches him for "friendship."
On the other hand, if he's "play-acting" at dating -- e.g. they go out on the weekends, nice dinners, calls her pretty all the time, says things like "you're the type of girl I'd like to marry," or even invites her over to his house -- yet he has no intention of having a serious relationship with her, then I would say he has culpability.
In any case, before things escalate to that level, he's always free to say something like, "Oh, you want to go to the movies Saturday? Great! Let's get a group together" or something, which makes it clear he's not rejecting her as a person, but that he doesn't view her in a dating light.
I'm curious about the other side of the equation: When a guy is very open with you, but you're not really "encouraging" it in the way that the lady in Jo's example has done so? (That is to say, you're quite happy he's so open and finds you so trustworthy, but not sure what that means in terms of how he views you.)
4. Tami said the following at 3:01 PM on Feb 2:
Oh yeah... love the music!
5. poetryman69 said the following at 3:48 PM on Feb 2:
pseudo love in pseudo relationships. pseudo intimacy...food for thought.
6. BDB said the following at 4:09 PM on Feb 2:
Tami wrote:
>>I'm curious about the other side of the equation: When a guy is very open with you, but you're not really "encouraging" it in the way that the lady in Jo's example has done so? <<
Hmmm...so many women take initiative. I decided to draw the line at accepting lunch invitations. For busness women, lunch is often just a way to discuss business, it doesn't mean anything more than that.
But when someone wants to escalate...suggests dinner and a movie instead of another lunch, for example...that's when I really think men bear responsibility for "relationship clarity," though that term sounds messy.
If a guy is calling you every week, and you spend hours talking with him, and he escalates to dinner, etc., then a woman is leading him on if she continues to accept the attention.
One thing that doesn't get much discusion here is that people CAN develop an attachment without intending to on either side. Heck, a lot of marriages start that way.
But I believe that sometimes when people are "surprised" that someone thought it was more than friendship, there really was some chemistry at play between them. And one problem is that chemistry makes people feel weird - and act weird, instead of businesslike. So after several months, one decides the other is acting weird when they're together...well, I'd be willing to bet that there at some point earlier they were BOTH enjoying the weirdness.
Not that it's ever happened to me...I'm just saying...
It's also possible to get over the weirdness and stay friends for decades, go to their wedding in Hawaii (to someone else), etc. And that can be worth getting through the weirdness.
Age matters, too. Someone's reactions at age 18 shouldn't be interpreted the same as 38. But that's another blog.
7. RoRo said the following at 4:49 PM on Feb 2:
Yes, Jo... happened to me, precisely as you described. To the "t."
8. Laurie said the following at 6:32 PM on Feb 2:
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I definitely will. I have major pseudo-relationship issues. I am "just friends" with a guy, and eventually had to tell him to quit calling me until he was ready to actually commit to a relationship, because we were clearly more than "just friends." He no longer calls, but does everything he can to talk to me around that rule, and gives me stuff. I have tried to avoid him, but he still finds ways to get my attention. He claims there's nothing going on between us, but he hasn't left me alone since I did the whole "define the relationship" thing. Am I just being too available? I don't want to be rude and tell him I'm never talking to him again, because I really like him.
9. Fred said the following at 9:32 PM on Feb 2:
Laurie,
It does sound as though he is looking for a freebie and if you are certain that he knows what you expect from him then you may want to think about being rude. On the other hand, he may need a little time to get into the right frame of mind, being direct in committing to dating or courting may be a little foreign to him, but if he keeps trying to get you to compromise you should tell him that it looks like he is trying to manipulate you and you'll have no part in that. - Just a thought.
10. BDB said the following at 9:40 PM on Feb 2:
Laurie wrote:
>> He claims there's nothing going on between us, but he hasn't left me alone since I did the whole "define the relationship" thing. <<
I suppose you could tell him that you want to meet men who have the courage for a real relationship, and his attention is getting in the way, so he needs to step back.
That approach gets a lot of men to propose after a few days.
11. Tami said the following at 12:00 AM on Feb 3:
I agree, workweek lunch is pretty much just... lunch. I used to have a "lunch buddy" at work, absolutely no romantic interest on either part. It was like a debriefing of the week's events. Although, he did end up marrying another co-worker, so I guess there was more than just "lunch buddies" going on somewhere. :)
And also on the whole "openness thing," I do agree that it's not kind to let the guy open up to you like that, or continue to accept invitations, if you're not interested. The problem comes when you ARE interested, but are also the type to want the guy to say what his intentions are, but he never does. Eventually you just assume the guy's not interested, or else he'd say something. I mean, he's already told you everything else. j/k ;)
12. Jo said the following at 1:47 AM on Feb 3:
Laurie - yeah I think if I were you I'd try to be a bit less available. You've told him how it is and it seems like he hasn't taken much notice, so he probably needs to actually feel a difference in the relationship (ie start 'missing you') before he steps up... Make him jealous. :P
And yeah, I was thinking of a particular pair of friends in my example, and the woman consistently initiated, her calling him, her visiting him and her getting annoyed because he wasn't not making any effort. But now it seems to me that he didn't make any effort because he wasn't after a close friendship with her, he just sort of got pulled along. He's not blameless, and the eventual ending of said friendship was messy and not handled well by him, but I have sympathy with his predicament.
13. Emily said the following at 8:04 AM on Feb 3:
I listened to the podcast yesterday and was listening intently when you all were talking about the girl who met the guy on-line. I am in a situation (not on-line) where a guy has been pursuing me for months but has never been clear why. He initiates everything and even invited me to have dinner at his mom's house accross town so I could meet her. I really like him, so clearly I need to know where this is going. You said in the pod cast that the woman should pull away if this happens, but I feel like the only thing that will communicate is that I want to see less of him. I feel like that will discourage him. Do I have to risk losing my best friend by giving him an ultimatum? Is there another way?
14. San Soo said the following at 4:17 PM on Feb 3:
For the record, many women play the pseudo thing, too. I'm in it right now. i really like someone, and she will flirt with me, ask me to do things, etc. I told her that I like her, that I would like more, on and on. She said it's "bad timing". I'm almost 30 and she almost 28. Sounds like really good timing to me, but whatever. I have totally fallen for her and she would rather just act like buddies. I can't take it anymore.
15. Rosabacio said the following at 7:32 PM on Feb 3:
I often wonder how different our courting situations would be if we approached it like in the Jane Austen books. The men were very straight forward with their intentions. Seemed much easier in a way.
16. Andrew said the following at 8:31 PM on Feb 3:
When will men and women finally start realizing that this love from God actually affects every part of their life, love protects, love does no harm to its neighbor, no greater love than this, than to lay one's life down for a friend, love rejoices with the truth. At some point , if we are so called mature christians, (young adults) let us deny our selves, pick up our cross, and follow after HIM, I am saying we have to lay down this so called right to a relationship with the opposite sex, when in reality it is just feeding an emotional need. This is not to say guys and girls can't be friends, I am talking to a mature audience here, so hear me clearly, close friendships between guys and girls are unhealthy in the long run. For example, when a man gets married, his wife should be the only woman he confides in, seeks comfort, and love. Most everyone recognizes that physical affairs are wrong, yet physical affairs always start way before any touch happens. Now how wrong is it for an emotional affair. If this is just an opinion , let God judge our hearts, but tell me any Man who would enjoy even his wife to be emotionally involved with another man,
17. SHL said the following at 9:16 PM on Feb 3:
This podcast was just right. I like the tweaks that were made.
I liked the roundtable discussion best. I am a college student with neither relationship nor pseudo relationship experience, but I've see friends snared in the pseudo ones (and liking it that way).
The dog/vomit segment was also very good. I won't be forgetting the mental image anytime soon.
18. Amelia said the following at 11:58 PM on Feb 3:
Kara Schwab was so dramatic!
19. BDB said the following at 12:05 AM on Feb 4:
Andrew wrote:
>>If this is just an opinion , let God judge our hearts,<<
C.S. Lewis disagrees with you. See his chapter on "friendship" in "The 4 Loves."
Anyway, I've been wrestling with a way to articulate a chicken-and-egg problem, but let me give it another shot.
Say a guy has divorced parents, but he sees happy marriages where the couple "married their best friend." He knows his parents didn't do this. Sounds like a good plan. So he focuses on developing deep friendships with women, and if one becomes his best friend, he'll declare his intentions, and mean it.
Of course, we have many sets of rules people are operating under.
Say a guy like that meets a woman who believes that she should ONLY get to know a man who declares his "intentions" up front. If he doesn't do that first, it's a 'psudo-relationship.'
It looks to me like they're operating under such different sets of rule that they will never give each other a chance. She'll be looking for someone who is infatuated and makes all sorts of promises right off the bat...he will think it's entirely inappropriate to do so without getting to know someone really well.
Ah, conflict...
20. Grays said the following at 5:56 AM on Feb 4:
No time to read all the comments or listen to the whole show right now unfortunately (I will try to come back).
But here's a thought: since when should a brother-in-Christ *EVER* consider himself "uncommitted" to his sisters?
21. Sarah P. said the following at 7:55 AM on Feb 4:
Andrew: I agree. I went to a very conservative Christian college that is full of purposeful people, and I let myself slowly slide into a "pseudo-relationship" habit over my time there without realizing it was a problem. After graduation, it's been very hard regrouping and realizing that this method of interaction not only doesn't work very well out here in the "real world," but it also distracted me during my college time in a bad way. Nor is it compatible with marriage.
22. K said the following at 8:16 AM on Feb 4:
SanSoo:
I would walk away if you've already made your intentions known. What is said to women about leaving them a little hungry, the same could be said for the opposite side.
23. Tami said the following at 9:30 AM on Feb 4:
BDB -- Interesting scenario.
Except I wouldn't say, "never give each other a chance," but that they're stuck in neutral because neither one is making the move the other expects them to make.
Not that I would know or anything.
24. Nat said the following at 10:35 AM on Feb 4:
Jo,
It sounds like in the situation you described a guy acts a little irresponsible. (I guess it also depends how long it was going on for). Man should assume that the responsibility is on him for how the relationship would develop and where it is going. It’s too bad when he allows a women ‘to lead him on” since a man is supposed to be a leader in the relationships. Then suddenly he wakes up and realizes they are actually emotionally intimate with each other and he isn’t comfortable about it. It looks to me that there was a chemistry between them, and he was enjoying her attention (let’s add - selfishly) without thinking that she would interpret his willingness to befriend her as a positive response. She should not have initiated, that’s right, may be she’ll be smarter next time. But he should have been assuming responsibility for what is going on. These things are hard, but I think they get much easier if people clearly communicate with each other, without too much hinting, assuming, not realizing, etc.
25. Jeannie said the following at 12:48 PM on Feb 4:
Emily,
"Do I have to risk losing my best friend by giving him an ultimatum? Is there another way?"
Give him the ultimatum. If he is not going to get serious (i.e., marry you eventually), you can't keep being "best friends" forever anyway. I'm speaking from experience here -- as much as it will hurt, you will be better off without him if he really isn't going to commit. See, you can't stay best friends with one guy and marry another! Nor can he continue to be your best friend when he meets the girl he *is* ready to get serious with. Hope that helps.
26. Jo said the following at 12:54 PM on Feb 4:
Nat said: "These things are hard, but I think they get much easier if people clearly communicate with each other, without too much hinting, assuming, not realizing, etc."
Oh absolutely. But who does that these days?
27. Sophie said the following at 3:21 PM on Feb 4:
Advice wanted:
I met a guy online...we've since had one date and it went really well. Definitely a mutual attraction, lots of laughs and I really admire his character and faith.
However...after the date, I was suddenly freaked out. He expressed his intentions and interest very clearly and we talked openly about the 'relationship' throughout the date. In retrospect, it seems to have happened very fast and while it seems like a good match, I just want to run away because I'm so overwhelmed by his interest. I also am a little uneasy about pretty big age difference.
Since the date, I've told him I need to take it slow and he is respecting that.
But what I need to know is how do I not lead him on by accepting dates, emailing, and talking on the phone, if this is what I need to decide if this is going to work out? (I have a bad history with being 'nice' and leading guys on...and I'm been trying hard not to do this.)
Should I just get away while I can and try to prevent hurting him while I can? (Since I'm not sure about it and he is?)
Or should I give it a few more chances and see if I warm up to the idea?
Thanks for sharing any experiences or ideas!
28. Mike said the following at 6:56 PM on Feb 4:
In response to Sophie:
One date does not a marriage make. Trust your instincts about taking things slowly. If this guy is truly interested in you and truly pursuing a real relationship with you, he will respect your fears and allow you space to get to know him better, without pressure. This is how a real man will treat you.
Take time to get to know him. Yes this will involve taking dates, calls, and emails, but this is how you will be able to know him better. This is not leading him on, even if you decide to end it. Real men know this and will respect you for it. Real men respect caution in women.
Do not worry about hurting his feelings. Real men realize that they must risk rejection in relationships. And yes, rejection hurts. It is far better for you to be cautious and realize his true intentions, than to dive into a relationship. You, as a woman have a right to be respected in this decision. If other guys threw tantrums or reacted badly because you didn't desire a romantic relationship, then they weren't really ready for a real relationship with a woman.
Trust yourself and seek the advice of your family, friends, and Faith.
29. Kelly said the following at 7:15 PM on Feb 4:
Is it taking advantage of someone if you have told them you don't forsee a dating relationship yet they continue to do nice things for you?
My experience: I was close friends with a guy (it happened gradually) and when I realised he might start to see something more in our friendship, I started telling him he was like my brother etc. i.e. All the little things you can say to make it clear you're not interested in dating (he wasn't a Christian and I told him I could never marry a non-Christian) while not embarrassing them by making it obvious that you know about their crush.
I refused his 1-on-1 invitations, I made sure we only ever hung out at group events, I did everything I could to keep that professional distance between us. He finally seemed to realise/accept that I wasn't into him when I started dating someone else for a while.
YET... he still continued to do nice things for me. I felt bad for rejecting someone's kindness so I accepted (e.g. he helped me move, and helped me with a lot of things that a single woman has trouble doing on her own).
Several months after breaking up with my bf, he told me that he'd been in love with me for the past 3 years (!!!) I was horrified that he'd held on to those feelings for so long despite everything I did/said to make it clear that while I valued him as a close friend, he wasn't a marriage potential.
I turned him down and he hasn't spoken to me since. Just like that, one of my best friends is gone from my life. From my point of view, we were near the dangerous edge of psuedo-relationship but in turning down anything "date-like" I thought we were okay.
People tell me that I strung him along for years. I did not mean to: I accepted his help in times I really needed it. And of course enjoyed his friendship, who wouldn't be grateful for a wonderful friend?
Do you think I defrauded him?
30. Eliza said the following at 8:15 PM on Feb 4:
Kelly,
Sometimes people are just so attached that they're only going to see what they want to see. If you really did not single him out above anyone else, then it doesn't sound like there's much more you could have done. I hope you can work through the loss of his friendship without feeling guilty. Guilt can be so confusing and destructive.
I'm really sorry you lost a friend this way :(.
31. Andrea (aka Elena) said the following at 8:25 PM on Feb 4:
Kelly,
No, you didn't defraud him. Don't take on guilt that isn't yours. He is responsible for what he did with the truth. He ignored the truth that the reality was/is that you're not into him and never will be. He nurtured his hopes with counterfeit food (that is, lies and half-truths).
In the future you can try to minimize the food a guy in this situation has to feed himself: let him bestow his kindnesses on others. You do not have to be the object of them. (And ask yourself, Was it my pride that prevented me from limiting my contact with him even more than I did? Was I trying to prevent getting a reputation for being THAT girl who hurts guys? Perhaps in your case, pride didn't enter in. Still, ask God to show you if there was even a speck of it mixed in with your motives to allow the young man to give to you [which is what we want to do for other Christians---let them serve us, rather than keeping them from serving us, from a sense of false humility].)
Make sense so far?
At some point men really must face their own feelings, process them, divide lies from truth (where they were at fault; where the woman was at fault; and where neither person was at fault, and yet the man still hurts), and really receive unto themselves the healing God offers. God Himself must do this work in a person, though He uses many human tools to accomplish it. The "ex" is not the person to help with this facing feelings and facts, processing them, rightly dividing the truth of the situation and the past, and receiving healing.
Hope this has helped!
~A-Elena~
32. Denise said the following at 8:49 PM on Feb 4:
BDB, have you been snooping around my personal life? You said:
"She'll be looking for someone who is infatuated and makes all sorts of promises right off the bat...he will think it's entirely inappropriate to do so without getting to know someone really well.
Ah, conflict..."
And I have to say that I'm in exactly the situation you describe. I've held that the best thing to do is to declare intentions first if the interest is more than friendly. And while I do think that is wise, I'm sure it has just as much to do with my own fears about emotional risk and whatnot as his relationship approach have to do with his fears.
People come from genuinely different perspectives. And I've learned in this situation that you just have to communicate and talk, and talk, and talk some more until both of you are on the same page about what is important, good, true, etc.
33. Mary said the following at 9:24 PM on Feb 4:
I am so thankful for your healthy and Biblical advice. I have enjoyed both podcasts. This podcast fills a large need. Thanks!
34. Tara said the following at 10:02 PM on Feb 4:
I'm struggling to grasp onto this concept of "pseudo relationships". I guess I just don't understand how it happens. I've had secret crushes on guy friends but I would never have believed myself in a relationship with them nor expected any sort of "declaration of intentions" as if it was owed to me. I had certainly hoped those guys would "see the error of their ways" and fall madly in love with me...sometimes I hung on for years...but I never felt defrauded because I alone was to blame for my feelings...I alone was reading into any kind word or gesture to fuel my desperate hope (and I certainly was never asked onto a fake date by any of them). I HAVE seen guys (and girls) do that to my friends, however, and I have a hard time seeing them as anything but selfish jerks or just plain ignorant. How can you continually invite your friends out for coffee, movies, etc., pay for them and then still end up surprised they're in love with you?? Or conversely, how can you chase so intently after a friendship with a member of the opposite sex even with the purest of intentions and not get your heart entangled? I have yet to see any intimate male-female friendship completely free of any sexual tension (even if there is no real romantic interest). There are exceptions, to be sure, but to assume you're that exception just seems foolish to me.
Maybe my confusion stems from the fact the only non-related, male best friend I have is my boyfriend. As much as I care about my other guy friends I don't have any sort of one-on-one intimacy with them and never had. Perhaps the only time I had a "pseudo-relationship" was the three weeks between my first date with my bf and our third when we became official. Maybe some of our pseudo-relationships are really the birth pains of a dating relationship. Though I don't think it should take several years to figure out...
Sorry for the nonsensical ramble. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. I wonder how have the lines between the genders have become so blurred that we're caught in some wierd, social haze where we don't even know what we want or what to expect from other people. In light of our cultural confusion maybe it's best to err on the side of caution and keep people of the opposite sex at a respectful distance? You can love a friend even if you don't spend as much intimate time as you would with another friend. I'd argue there are many different forms of love and different ways of showing it. I don't know. Maybe I'm just tired of seeing people getting hurt, of the self-pity, and constant blaming.
35. BDB said the following at 11:26 PM on Feb 4:
Tami wrote:
>>but that they're stuck in neutral because neither one is making the move the other expects them to make.<<
Unless, of course, someone gives them a nudge.
One of my long-time friends, about 15 years ago, insisted that no wedding bells were in the future. One day she was complaining that people were teasing her about marrying this guy. She asked me, "Why do people say that?"
And I said, "That's because..." and I reeled off about 8 reasons why they should get married.
She said, "Oh." And changed the subject.
I did attend their wedding in Hawaii a few years later...
36. Leah said the following at 11:33 PM on Feb 4:
I have a friend- we'll call him Jason- who is in the situation Jo gave with a girl who we'll call Cassie. Jason and Cassie have been great friends for years. There was even a certain amount of romantic interest, but after talking about it she 'rejected' him. Things got a bit awkward but they worked it out and they were fine again. Then, as time went on, Cassie became more and more reliant on him, needing him to "enable" her (as he put it). She told him all her secrets, was emotionally very open with him, and he's gotten to the point where he realises things only have one track to go down- a track they can't go down. She is too attached to him, too reliant, too "involved". He knows he can't tell her to just back off- he has to completely cut off the friendship. Once he explains it to her, he's intending on not seeing her again, completely cutting all ties, in an effort to make sure she does not continue to grow on him. And I admire him for doing that. It's a step most people are not willing to take when they realise they are too attached to someone.
37. BDB said the following at 12:02 AM on Feb 5:
Denise wrote:
>>BDB, have you been snooping around my personal life?<<
Gosh, this is common...
Here's my theory WHY it's common, and it's not because guys play video games.
When I was a freshman in college, I was puzzling over how to do "dating" as a Christian. There seemed to be some inherent conflicts.
While I was pondering this, a woman I was talking to - that I had just met - explained that she didn't believe in dating. She then immediately asked if I wanted to have dinner off campus.
I said, "Now?!?"
"Yes now."
"I don't have any money."
"I'll pay."
She drove, she paid, I had a great time.
Another woman also told me she didn't date anymore. She was in line with me at Knott's Berry Farm at the time - we'd wandered away from the group to ride roller coasters.
Ah - a trend.
Today, I'd interpret the trend by saying there's so much cultural pressure for dating = sex that women say they don't date to avoid pressure. It certainly doesn't keep them from getting to know people, going to dinner, etc. It also solves some of the more serious conflicts with Christian morals.
Does it introduce the possibility of the pain associated in the OP with "Psuedo-relationships?"
You betcha.
On the other hand, pseudo-relationships don't spread disease or cause unplanned pregnancies.
Changing gears...
Leah wrote:
>>He knows he can't tell her to just back off- he has to completely cut off the friendship.<<
That sounds really cruel. It sounds to me like the guy is too immature to take responsibility for his own choices, so he's going to run away. HE needs to learn to step back and be gentle. Otherwise he'll end up being one of those guys who divorces his wife and thinks his kids will "heal" faster if he just cuts off contact with them, too.
He's a coward.
And Ted, you can give this person my e-mail address, I'll say it to their face.
38. Childless single woman said the following at 9:18 AM on Feb 5:
Mike - I felt an inordinate amount of relief reading your comment! I think this is why.
Time and time again, women are on the receiving end of an unjust scolding. Either they desire marriage too much ("You are making an idol out of marriage!"), or they don't desire it enough ("You're a 'feminist' that has put your career first!).
Women really can't win.
On top of that, there is the not insignificant detail that there are not enough men in church circles to go around anyway, and of the fewer number that there are, they are effectively discouraged from seeking a wife because of wrong teaching that men should "wait on the Lord" for a spouse.
Then of course they have to deal with the wider generic stumbling blocks to marriage within our culture too.
All that, plus there is the reality of God's design to take into account, which means a relatively short period of time in which to have children, all adding to the difficulties that women face.
With women contending with all this, I am appalled to hear grown men whingeing and whining about how they are being "man-bashed" if a legitimate concern is raised that actually holds men accountable.
Reading your comment, about how a "real man" treats a woman, how "real men" respect women and most of all how "real men" realise that they must risk rejection in relationships, was really was like a breath of fresh air.
It is so sad that the most natural thing in the world - a real man acknowledging that real men need to take responsibility for leading a woman to marriage - is so rare that it made such an impact on me.
39. Tami said the following at 10:52 AM on Feb 5:
Sophie, I've been in a situation almost identical to yours.
Be honest about where you stand: if you say, "I like you, but I need time to get to know you before we make decisions about the future," that's honest. As much as I believe in "just knowing" who my husband will be (and having that confirmed by, well, *getting married* to the guy ;), I don't think that necessarily happens in one meeting. Just don't let it be months on end, for both his sake and yours.
On the other hand, don't let him push you into the decision. (There's a difference between leading and pushing.) If he gives you some time, and things proceed at a "normal" pace, that's great. If not, wonder what's driving him to be so all-fired pushy. And consider: if he can't hold back now, what would your married life be like?
It's not good for anyone to be indecisive. Pray that God would reveal the truth to you soon, and for light for the path in how you would proceed. God bless you. It's not easy -- but Mike's right, it is up to the man to deal with his own emotions about the situation.
BDB -- You are correct, the "nudge" may have to be employed in such a situation. In your example, how did the *guy* come around?
40. Sarah P. said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 5:
To Kelly: Girl, it's hard, and it's humbling. Who knows if you led him on? If you feel guilt and wondering about it, chances are God wants to teach you something about the friendship still. But in this type of situation, so long as you are friends with the person, he or she is going to read into the friendship. Trust me, I know. Not too long since I've been the hapless, clueless person on the other side of the equation. It takes an extreme amount of struggle and stress to crawl back out of a pit of confusion and half-truths told to oneself.
Personally, if I suspected a man was interested in me, and I was not interested in him romantically, I would seriously limit contact. I would not accept gifts. If he proceeded, I would confront him on it. Better to embarrass a friend who is uninterested than to hurt someone unnecessarily whose friendship you will have to lose anyway.
There is the question, if he truly was your "best friend," why weren't you interested in him? Were you taking advantage of his friendship to carry you through a dry spell without a romantic interest? Could it be that you were afraid of confrontation, and that you did not trust God to take you through the pain of a lost friendship? Obviously, I don't know you, so these are just some questions to think about.
41. Mike said the following at 9:34 PM on Feb 5:
To the Ladies who have posted on this blog:
Kelly: You did not lead him on. 3 years and he didn't get it? I have never pursued a woman who was in a relationship with another man. I have pursued romantic relationships with women that I considered friends and desirable, but when they said no, it meant no.
Andrea/Elena: You are right. False hopes are exactly that. False. They're not real. We all need to have a reality check sometimes. Pray for peace and deal with it.
Tara: Great post. We do live in a "social haze." Friendship is the gateway and foundation to a stronger relationship. But it is pretty clear whether it is a romantic relationship or a friendship. Men and women both need to stop blurring the lines.
Tami: Great post as well. I agree that women would be well served to not draw their decision process out months, but frankly, you have a right to do that. I once pursued a woman, with clear intentions, for over a year and she eventually said no anyway. As much as that hurt, I'm NOT SORRY! It was awesome to have the chance to pursue someone I cared about, and still do (yes, we're friends). The pursuit of love is still the experience of love. I've never been sorry for that, ever.
Childless Single Woman: Glad I could provide some relief and/or hope. Remember, Heb 11:1. By far one of my favorite Bible passages. I Believe things will work out. I'm saying a prayer for you tonight.
I'm not trying to be patronizing, but ladies, stay strong in your convictions to find the right relationships with men. As a man who has pursued women and "struck out" I have always walked away with an admiration for the women I pursued. It takes courage to be honest, but you're worth the chase and the wait!
42. BDB said the following at 9:39 PM on Feb 5:
Tami wrote:
>>In your example, how did the *guy* come around?<<
Actually, he didn't need to. He had been intentional, if awkward, from the beginning.
He had actually done several things that demonstrated a level of commitment well beyond any other "couple" we knew. For example, when flying back to campus after one summer (she was in Hawaii taking care of her grandparents), he drove 4 hours, picked her up at the airport, dropped her off on campus, then turned around and drove 4 hours home.
I was in town, I could have done it. We were impressed.
Some women would be freaked out.
In any case, I was paying attention to make sure my friend wasn't being taken advantage of. The things I pointed out to her were examples of commitment. I don't think I convinced her, but, if memory serves, she never again complained about people saying they should get married.
So, I guess she took it seriously.
And I do have a FEW letters from her insisting, "You do not hear wedding bells!" I intend to save those letters and bring them to their 25th Wedding Anniversary.
43. BDB said the following at 9:53 PM on Feb 5:
Sarah P. wrote:
>>and I was not interested in him romantically, I would seriously limit contact. I would not accept gifts.<<
It's particularly confusing when women who aren't interested invite you to dinner and GIVE you well thought-out gifts...the phrase, "What was that all about, then?" comes to mind...
44. Tami said the following at 10:56 PM on Feb 5:
Mike and BDB, thanks. :)
45. Sophie said the following at 11:10 PM on Feb 5:
Mike and Tami,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful posts. The fact that you took time to respond meant a lot to me.
They both encouraged me greatly and helped me find peace about the situation.
God bless you!!!
46. Leah said the following at 12:47 AM on Feb 6:
BDB- I think you should read some old Boundless articles addressing this topic which actually recommend cutting off a friendship like this.
There is nowhere else for him to go.
He's a coward?? A coward? You have no idea! Don't try saying something to his face when you don't know the half of what he's been through.
He loves this girl (in a friendship sense) and cares for her, cutting off the friendship will be the hardest thing he does. How on earth is that COWARDLY? You say it's cowardly probably because you're too cowardly to be able to do it.
None of this is to say he will never talk to her ever again. Given 6 months for her to cool off he may very well get back in contact with her.
You have no grounds to say he is immature. Immature is leading her on and enjoying yourself. And what choices should he take responsibility for? *She* was the one who rejected *him*.
What would you do if there was a girl dear to you, you were her closest confidante despite your efforts to put space between the two of you, yet she has rejected you romantically?
47. Rachael said the following at 7:55 AM on Feb 6:
Re: cutting off relationships.
I was going to respond to this yesterday complete with a Girl and Boy situation but decided against it. However the topic came up again on here so I thought I'd respond as seems to be my custom.
At least the person that Leah wrote about is planning to explain his decision to the girl. That is, in my opinion, more admirable than cutting off the friendship or communication without final warning, or appearing to back out tremendously on communication without a final "we're at peace, but this is what I'm doing and why" type of communication (even if the guy had previously hinted he might cut off the communication, I'd recommend there being a final clear cut-off than an ambiguous cold turkey drop because the latter method produces tremendous pain, though I'm sure the other style would too). I would highly recommend that IF the friendship MUST be cut or die down that it be done explicitly, gently, sensitively, and in love. No guess work. A peaceful, loving "end"...
But I guess as long as the guy tries his best and makes his decision out of love and care, and maybe that should be assumed when unknown, a girl with a pain-filled heart from even a cold-turkey communication drop should seek to respect that decision, or at least the person, even though it might be impossible or immediately impossible to respect and understand the cold turkey decision itself.
...Isn't is SO nice to know that heaven won't be filled with heart pain or/and complicated relationships!
48. Andrea (aka Elena) said the following at 9:04 AM on Feb 6:
Sorta off-topic but definitely related to the OP:
I downloaded the two Boundless podcasts last night and listened to both. Great job, Lisa, Steve, Candice, Ted, and Motte!
Hope you don't mind this comparison, but the show's format (and even the cadence of Lisa Anderson's speaking!) reminded me of NPR's This American Life... but the Boundless show is even better, because y'all and I have the same values. =) And more than being merely informative, your show is edifying and equipping. (And great fun to listen to your camraderie and humor and wisdom.)
Since these podcasts have confirmed the thought-path I've been on with God and since several people I know are going through similar experiences, I'm going to recommend the podcasts as "must-listens" to my singleton friends.
(And I am now convinced that I "need" a Jeff Caylor CD!! He's an Andrew Peterson fan: that clinches it for me! Well, that and the fact that Jeff's obviously a very good lyricist and composer.)
Many, many props to the Boundless team!!!
49. Rachael said the following at 10:26 AM on Feb 6:
Hi pseudo friends, just a quick P.S. to my comment. Add in that the cold turkey (well, *partially* cold turkey) drop is painful at least when the two people still see each other and minimally communicate with each other in group settings. Perhaps it's better if it's completely cold turkey AND complete removal of sight or contact. I don't know. I'd still say that an explicit final explanation would be even better...if any of the options must be employed. That's all ~
50. Leah said the following at 5:50 PM on Feb 6:
Rachael- thanks for your thoughts :) My friend has been thinking continuously, almost rehearsing, what he's going to say to this girl. He complained to me that his thoughts sound like a rehearsed break-up speech- I pointed out that in some aspects, it is a break-up. He wants the best for both of them. He doesn't want to fill that "special guy" position in her life because she's already said "no" to him. He doesn't want her to fill the "special girl" position in his life for the same reason- but with the amount of time they're spending together, and the amount she's been confiding in him, that is almost impossible.
He has tried to back off and tried to get her to back off, but to no avail. It is to his disappointment that he feels this is his very last option. He will definitely explain to the girl how much she means to him and that he is doing this out of concern for her, but also in an attempt to keep his own heart in check. And like I said, there's no reason to think that given a few months he will get back in touch with her.
51. DC said the following at 7:11 PM on Feb 6:
Speaking of still seeing a person in group settings. Ive had to stop going to church and Bible study, because of a girl. Its been terribly painful because I have few friends outside of that group (weekends spent alone are fun..yeah, not). However, the wrinkle to this that its not my psuedo-relationship that was really the problem. We were together for a few months (it was a real relationship), when she ended and promptly went back to hanging out with her ex. To be more specific, her previous ex, whom she made clear to me was out of the picture and she would not date him again...Anyway, to my knowledge they hang out and he wants to date her; however, theyve never moved beyond being in a psuedo-relationship. Which, is completely ridiculous, because it pushed me away from a church and shes keeping a guy around because maybe she'll finally decide to actually be in a real relationship again. Anyway, so basically even though Im not a part of a psuedo-relationship. Im still deeply affected by someone else's. All the more reason to avoid them because they can cause problems for more people than just the person your leading on.
52. BDB said the following at 10:09 PM on Feb 6:
Rachael wrote:
>>I'd recommend there being a final clear cut-off than an ambiguous cold turkey drop<<
OK, I will admit that I probably was assuming more cold-turkey than explanation. I've seen people do that, and I maintain that it's wrong.
Leah, I've probably commented similarly on those previous articles.
Here's a little calmer way of phrasing it:
If someone has gotten into a situation over a period of a year or more, and they've found themselves too close to someone, then they need to take full responsibility for letting it go that long.
In my opinion, that probably means a rather long conversation with someone about why the situation can't continue. That conversation should include taking responsibility for not saying something sooner. It might be an honest explanation that their interactions are affecting them too much and they need to step back.
I do think it's cowardly for people to "cut and run" after they've spent a period of years convincing someone to trust them. This kind of betrayal of trust can do serious damage to another person.
Frankly, I've come across people with very poor conflict-resolution skills. They tend to cut off every friendship - or work relationship - at the first disagreement. Going into a discussion of a conflict with someone with the intent to shut them out - regardless of what happens in that conversation - is, in my opionion, a horrible way to relate to people.
And frankly, when people are more mature, you can simply set a boundary (such as only talking at church), and the other person just might be willing to live with that boundary. But you'll never know if you don't try that.
53. DC said the following at 12:09 PM on Feb 7:
On setting boundaries, that to me says that the relationship (or psuedo-relationship) is so broke that it cannot be fixed. So instead it needs to be controlled. That, and from personal experience, going from a relationship that was thriving in and out of a church. To one where you suddenly can only talk to the person at church creates a very unwelcome environment. Regardless of how mature you are, its not easy to handle being cut off from someone you were close to and then still be around them frequently.
54. BDB said the following at 1:47 PM on Feb 7:
DC wrote:
>>Regardless of how mature you are, its not easy to handle being cut off from someone you were close to and then still be around them frequently. <<
Oh, I didn't say it was easy. I said it was the right thing to do.
In business, "boundaries" are called "Service Level Agreements." They spell out in detail what each party can expect in certain situations. For example, in telecommunications, each party specifies what their response will be to an outage in order to get the customer taken care of in a timely manner. This might be (such as re-routing a circuit in under 10 seconds, or an on-site technician in 2 hours. The more stringent the requirement, the more expensive it is.
The key thing to remember is that a boundary is a negotiation, not a demand. There are three typical responses to setting a boundary:
1) The other person complies witout complaint. They probably also feel they are being controlled.
2) The other person refuses and/or tries to bully the person setting the boundaries.
3) The most interesting one: they stop at the boundary and start asking questions. Usually in this situation they are pretty quick to tell me that I drew the line in the wrong place. But they don't cross the line until they convince me to move it. These are te work and personal relationships tha last decades.
55. DC said the following at 2:54 PM on Feb 7:
Ok, that makes alot more sense. I was suggesting that fixed, immovable boundaries are a bad idea and do not solve the problem. However; temporary boundaries are less of an issue. Points 1 and 2 are where I was getting at about creating an unwelcome atmosphere. Would you feel welcome going to church with a person who had shut you out, refused to listen to you, and had put up an arbitrary boundary? Likewise, with point 2, if you keep pushing someones boundaries...you are liable to make them angry and uncomfortable. Anyway, I dont think setting up boundaries is 'the right thing to do' as you say. However; I totally agree with your last point. That is how relationships should be, and they will last a lifetime so long as they operate that way. Ive been stuck somewhere between 1 and 2 with a person at church. Its been pretty effective at leaving the relationship totally broken (and accordingly Ive stopped going just to not be reminded of it). Not fun, I want 3, just cant make it happen on my own.
56. BDB said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 7:
DC wrote:
>>I want 3, just cant make it happen on my own. <<
Hmmm...and to tie this all together with something unrelated, this is why single's groups are a bad idea; it's much better to mix singles and married couples.
In my experience, single people do 1 and 2; but married co-workers tend to be the best at #3. It comes with practice.
57. Kelly said the following at 5:48 PM on Feb 7:
To Eliza, Andrea (aka Elena), Sarah P., Mike - thank you so much for your words of kindness, insight and questions into my situation (did I lead on my 'best friend'?) You have all given me a lot to think about AND ALSO comfort. :D It's wonderful how God can use people like all of us on this blog.
Sarah P. did ask a few questions, and one I will answer here because I want to share:
There is the question, if he truly was your "best friend," why weren't you interested in him?
I truly considered him as a potential husband at one stage, I prayed on it, and for a brief period, I 'decided' that I would date him even though he didn't believe in God. But that decision caused me no end of torment, I couldn't sleep, I felt troubled all the time, I had an unsettled spirit and I can only attribute that to God telling me 'no'. The moment I made the clear decision that there was no dating relationship for us, I felt peace. Still sad, a little heartbroken that I couldn't date this wonderful guy, but God tells us to only be yoked with fellow believers for a Very Good Reason.
BDB said
I do think it's cowardly for people to "cut and run" after they've spent a period of years convincing someone to trust them.
THANK YOU. I never thought of it this way because even though I understand WHY my friend has cut me off, it hurts because it means that he wasn't as trustworthy as I thought, which of course throws me into the whole, "How can I ever trust people when I am such a poor judge of character!" frame of mind. (My answer to that: people are people, people are fallen and we cannot expect total trustworthiness until Heaven.)
58. Leah said the following at 5:53 PM on Feb 7:
BDB- this isn't a matter about them having a disagreement. If you want a timeline of how things have progressed, this is as good a one as I can give you: (I have not observed this relationship and can only tell you waht I've heard from him over the past 18 months)-
1. They become friends
2. Friendship develops
3. He realises he has feelings for her
4. He waits a while, trying to gauge her feelings
5. He's convinced she may have feelings for him too
6. They have a DTR to decide if they could be a couple
7. She says yes and things appear set
8. A few days later she suddenly turns around and says no, which hurts him, but he works through it
9. They continue a normal friendship
10. Several months later, he realises she is getting too close for a girl who does not want to go out with him
11. He tries to put space between them over several more months, because (out of care for her) he doesn't want to be filling a position in her life that should be saved for someone else
12. He realises it simply isn't working and the only way to force her to remove him from that position is to cut off the friendship (at least for a certain period of time)
13. He rehearses over and over how he is going to explain it to her... which is where he's currently at.
Not to mention he's afraid of the lust factor going up on both sides of the relationship, and he really doesn't want that.
It amuses me that you say to DC >>Regardless of how mature you are, its not easy to handle being cut off from someone you were close to and then still be around them frequently. <<
Oh, I didn't say it was easy. I said it was the right thing to do. when a few days ago you were ready to rip into my friend for doing exactly that. *raises eyebrow slightly*
59. Kelly said the following at 5:56 PM on Feb 7:
BDB said:
Today, I'd interpret the trend by saying there's so much cultural pressure for dating = sex that women say they don't date to avoid pressure.
That is SO TRUE. Let me share with you all a story.
A "Christian" guy and I had known each other socially for a few months and we'd started having coffee-dates together. Momentum was building so one night he asked me, straight out, to be his girlfriend. I was impressed that he was SO UP FRONT about wanting a relationship instead of dragging along in limbo-land so I said yes.
Apparently that meant that I had just given him exclusive rights to sex. Of course I didn't find this out until the 3rd official date, where he expected things to go all the way, and when I refused it turned into a big discussion.
He said, "You should have told me much earlier than this that you're a virgin."
My thinking, "WHAT THE?! WE have only been dating for 2 weeks and you expect me to bring that up???!!!"
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that girls "don't date" to make it clear that sex is NOT on the menu.
60. BDB said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 7:
Leah wrote:
>>when a few days ago you were ready to rip into my friend for doing exactly that. *raises eyebrow slightly*<<
I assure you, if someone was telling me how they were going to cut off all communication with someone when I knew they had spent more than a year spending lots of time together, I would rip into them. I'd probably apologize later, but at that moment my response would be immediate and decisive.
I would say his mistake is at point #11. That's when he should respond to her calling him by reminder her that she didn't want a "relationship," and ask if she is changing her mind (if he's still interested.) After 3-4 times, people realize they need to make a decision.
Rehearsing an opening statement is fine, but also be prepared to absorb the reaction. And when people really don't realize what they're doing wrong, you'd be surprised by how often they're willing to change their behavior.
61. Kelly said the following at 9:51 PM on Feb 7:
Leah, when I read your description of the relationship between your friend and the girl, I couldn't help but think:
This 'talk' is gonna knock some sense into that girl and she'll probably marry him. ;) Because the way it's been described, she would be a fool not to!
62. Fred said the following at 10:01 PM on Feb 7:
BDB,
I don't know if anyone has brought this up but I was wondering how you can say something to a person's face through email?
In reference to your comment: "And Ted, you can give this person my e-mail address, I'll say it to their face."
63. Rachael said the following at 10:25 PM on Feb 7:
Hi Leah,
I think the emphasis on BDB's comment about it being the right thing to do was on still being around the person even though the relationship is cut off...not the cutting off part. Could be wrong.
Remember that in a follow-up comment he seemed to be against the 'cold-turkey, no explanation drop', which is admirable, don't you think?
Maybe I'm getting "BDB" and "brx" mixed up, but if I'm remembering the comments I've seen of theirs correctly, somehow I have this impression that one or both of them seem to be more of the peaceful/respectable type than the combative type. I might be wrong, though...But regardless of what 'types' anyone is, we should all be *peaceful* toward everyone :).
It can be hard with the internet, though, as tone can frequently be misunderstood, and it's easy for people to get fired up about deeply personal issues or controversial ideas...
64. DC said the following at 10:36 PM on Feb 7:
BDB Said:
>>Hmmm...and to tie this all together with something unrelated, this is why single's groups are a bad idea; it's much better to mix singles and married couples.
In my experience, single people do 1 and 2; but married co-workers tend to be the best at #3. It comes with practice.<<
Thats a really interesting point. Being single, I cant even comprehend getting to 3. Married couples have vows to keep them together, and hopefully, ensure they always work things out. What do friends, or unmarried couples have to keep them together? Ive had a guy friend cut and run for a few months for no real reason, just was frustrated with me. I dated a girl who also cut and ran just because she wasnt completely happy. Both hurt in different ways. Anyway, I see what you were getting at that married couples would set better examples for non-marrieds. Within the, basically, singles group Ive been involved in conflict is seen as something to seperate and isolate people over. As in, the other people in the group keep the people in conflict apart and encourage them to just never talk. Ive chastised alot for wanting to try to work things out maturely. Anyway, sorry, thats kind of off-topic...maybe someone will blog about that someday so it can be on topic.
Anyway, speaking of psuedo-relationships. How do you handle a relationship, in which you have spent months on end with a person whom you want to date, but they only say they will 'maybe' date you in the future? I guess, how long is too long to be in a relationship that may or may not go anywhere? Is that not a horribly cruel thing to do someone...keep a relationship going with someone just in case you end up liking them enough to commit to them. Knowing that they will wait for you practically indefinitely. Lastly, can commited dating relationships turn into psuedo-relationships? Like being friends after a breakup.
65. Fred said the following at 4:45 PM on Feb 8:
BDB,
From what Leah has said it sounds like he initially tried to gradually separate and that breaking it off completely is the only option. I agree with what he is doing. If the other party cannot accept the boundaries then you have to stop contact until they realise you mean what you say.
I'm also wondering how you you know that your suggestion (re point 11) would have worked and that Leah's friend didn't try something similar?
Leah has said that her friend has tried to explain things to his friend and to make some space between them, without completely breaking it off, but I don't see, from what you have written, that you recognise this.
Why do you think it is appropriate to rip into someone and then say that you would apologise later - which is an acknowledgement that your reaction was wrong? If you know it's wrong why do it in the first place?
66. BDB said the following at 9:23 PM on Feb 8:
Fred wrote:
>>Why do you think it is appropriate to rip into someone and then say that you would apologise later<<
Hmmm...well, the apology would probably go something like this:
"Sorry I was so hard on you, but I needed to get your attention."
As you can see from other posters who have been on the receiving end of a communication cutoff, it's pretty mean. It is not something a mature person would do. It is particularly inappropriate for someone to do that after getting someone to trust them. I find that unconscionable.
There was enough information presented to make it clear there were mistakes made on both sides. When people make repeated mistakes over a long period of time, they need to take responsbility for them, not unilaterially pull the carpet out from under someone.
Do I know that my suggestion would work? Can't be sure, no. But I've observed situations where people "play along" for months or years, then suddenly cut off communication with no explanation. That is wrong.
I've also seen people try to distance themselves by being "busy" sometimes, but generally still making themselves available to extensive, deep conversation. In my opinion, that doesn't count as "gradually" moving away. It needs to be an explicit explanation that they can't continue to have the long conversations/spend lots of time together if they are ruling out a relationship leading to marriage.
And frankly, bringing up a smaller conflict, much earlier on, will probably either result in a) healty boundaries, or b) a friendship-ending conflict before people get too attached.
As for the mechanics of saying this to someone directly, it probably would first require communication then setting up a meeting. I forgot for a moment that it would require a plane ticket to Australia. But I'd definitely pick up the phone at my own expense to speak to someone in this. Even overseas.
Rachael is right, I'm mostly objecting to cutting off communication with no explanation. It's a poor conflict-resolution practice, and the people who do that usually continue to have problems because they run away from conflict instead of facing it; leaving a trail of broken relationships (both personal and professional) in their wake.
67. Fred said the following at 9:03 PM on Feb 9:
BDB,
"As you can see from other posters who have been on the receiving end of a communication cutoff, it's pretty mean. It is not something a mature person would do. It is particularly inappropriate for someone to do that after getting someone to trust them. I find that unconscionable."
Ever known a person who would overdose on sleeping pills in order to get your attention? Even between reasonable people cutting a person off can be necessary. Leah was also not saying that her friend would cut his friend off forever or do so without explanation.
Saying this: "It is particularly inappropriate for someone to do that after getting someone to trust them."
Gives the impression that Leah's friend deliberately mislead his friend and somehow tricked her into being friends.
"I'm mostly objecting to cutting off communication with no explanation."
I agree, no explanation is wrong but this is not what Leah said her friend would do. She has said a number of times that her friend would explain and in fact has tried to gradually move away.
A black and white approach isn't helpful in this case. You talk about a mature approach to conflict resolution but you jumped in and called Leah's friend a coward without knowing all the facts.
68. BDB said the following at 10:55 AM on Feb 10:
Fred wrote:
>>Even between reasonable people cutting a person off can be necessary.<<
No, that has not been my observation. It has been my observation that these kinds of deliberate communications cut-offs come when one or both parties is being unreasonable in their expectations or actions.
69. Jo said the following at 4:45 PM on Feb 10:
Hum dee hum.
I've 'cut someone off' only once, and Fred's comment ("Ever known a person who would overdose on sleeping pills in order to get your attention?") is pretty reflective of the situation I was in, although it never went quite that far. The 'friendship' was completely unhealthy, he wouldn't accept that we were never going to be an item, was completely insecure and manipulative and lied about me to my friends. Every few weeks he would go through a cycle of contacting me obsessively, then 'ending our friendship' over nothing, then apologising profusely and beginning again. In the end I told him the friendship was over and not to contact me again, because it was totally destructive for both of us. It was horrible and felt incredibly harsh, but never once have I regretted it.
So I would say there are exceptional circumstances where it's necessary... but I'd agree that they aren't the norm. And in most cases (possibly even in that one, although believe me I tried), things could be done earlier to prevent the problem from reaching that stage.
70. Leah said the following at 4:45 PM on Feb 10:
BDB;
well maybe you've just observed immature people.
You also said "As you can see from other posters who have been on the receiving end of a communication cutoff, it's pretty mean." Yes, it's called tough love. And this is not a complete communication cut off because he is explaining everything to her first in a loving way.
You also say that my friend has "(made) repeated mistakes over a long period of time" and "(needs) to take responsbility for them, not unilaterially pull the carpet out from under someone." Have you not read anything I've said? I can't see the mistakes my friend has made. I don't see how Point 11 (putting distance between himself and the girl without cutting things off, which is what you seem to be advocating) is a mistake. Yet again, you are contradicting yourself- you said to DC that cutting someone off can be the right thing to do.
You don't seem to have any alternative plan in mind as to what my friend should do, so I suggest you don't criticise him until you do.
Rachael- I never indicated that my friend would still be around the girl, and even so, I don't believe that's what BDB is opposed to.
Fred- thanks for your comments. You appear to have understood the situation perfectly.
71. Rachael said the following at 5:59 PM on Feb 10:
Hi Leah,
I don't think that's what BDB is opposed to either, and I wouldn't doubt your friend not going to still be around the girl; if I said anything to lead you believe otherwise I was referring to a very real situation in my head that has nothing to do with yours. In thinking about this topic, I wasn't only thinking about your particular case, but more of my experience and the issue in general. I retire from this discussion.
Peace!
72. BDB said the following at 6:45 PM on Feb 10:
Leah wrote:
>>well maybe you've just observed immature people.<<
Yes, I believe your friend is being immature. He is responsible for getting her to trust and rely on him, and he needs to realize that was the wrong thing to do and take responsibility for that.
>>you said to DC that cutting someone off can be the right thing to do.<<
I don't see where I've said that, but perhaps I forgot to put in a "NOT." It happens sometimes.
Alas, we will disagree on this one, I'm afraid.
73. BDB said the following at 6:51 PM on Feb 10:
Jo wrote:
>>And in most cases (possibly even in that one, although believe me I tried), things could be done earlier to prevent the problem from reaching that stage.<<
Yes, there are cases of clinical depression. That's very different than a "psuedo-relationship." Clinical cases should be handled by a professional, whether through pastoral care or counseling as appropriate. But there again, the professionals will lay out specific structures for the counseling relationship. This sometimes must be done in a church home-group setting, where people with clinical-level issues need to be specifically instructed to follow the rules of the group. If those kinds of discussion structures aren't in place, they will likely take over the group and it will cease meeting. I've seen this happen.
But that's very different than a guy and girl hanging out for too many hours, getting too involved with each other, and needing to step back.
74. Leah said the following at 7:34 PM on Feb 10:
BDB, why is it wrong to get people to trust you? I would hope everybody trusts me. Am I being immature?
75. BDB said the following at 9:16 PM on Feb 10:
Leah,
It's not wrong to get people to trust you. But when you do that, you make a commitment to them. In my opinion, part of the responsibility of people's trust is not simply cutting them off when it gets uncomfortable.
It has been my observation that "clinical" cases of people being overly dependent happen quickly. Someone throws out something designed to shock and elicit sympathy - often quite early in the relationship. By that I mean in the first few conversations.
A relationship where this kind of trust/dependence grows slowly, say over a year or more, implies responsibility to both parties. I know that the argument against "pseudo-relationships" basically because people get hurt. I do think that argument is a little weak, given the same authors think it's OK for men to be hurt by rejection, but that's another thread.
Frankly, I've also watched marriages end because one partner decides that the other partner has become "too needy." Vows are necessary because it's not always easy. When people develop the habit of pushing away anyone who grows to trust and depend on them, they are, in my opinion, also practicing to run away from problems in their future marriage.
76. Rebecca said the following at 9:49 PM on Feb 10:
My friends have a name for this almost-relationship unoffical state:
the pzeupo
;)
77. Jill said the following at 10:02 PM on Feb 10:
I've been an avid reader of boundless for a while, and this particular post recently. I realized the 'pseudo-relationship' I was in, and tonight had a "DTR" of sorts with the guy. Since there is mutual interest, we're now praying about whether God desires us to date. Praise Jesus for making me realize that He demands to be Lord of my life, not just my Savior... and taking over the direction of this! I feel such peace about whatever will come, now that I finally put this friendship under God's authority to let Him decide if there should be something more. My shy tendencies are to never share my interest in any guy, but I realized I had become so preoccupied with what 'status' our friendship was that my schoolwork was being affected. Therefore, our friendship would have become ungodly since it was interfering in God's call for me as a student right now. Both of us are busy students, and we understand that about each other, so we're praying and seeking the guidance of mentors who know both of us about how to proceed. Praise God again, for granting me the courage to admit my true feelings. He is so good.
78. DC said the following at 10:05 PM on Feb 10:
Relationships where someone is clinically depressed or ill aside; can you even have a close, personal, and healthy relationship with a person whom you do not trust and depend on?
BDB Said:
>>A relationship where this kind of trust/dependence grows slowly, say over a year or more, implies responsibility to both parties.<<
Im not sure there are any healthy, non-abusive relationships in which both parties are not responsible for the other. Given this is a Christian site, are we not to put others interests above our own? Again, dis-regarding clearly unhealthy and abusive relationships. I cant imagine how in any kind of relationship: friendships, dating relationships, marriages...that it is not completely selfish for a person to simply 'cut and run' because suddenly that relationship has become inconvenient for them. As for psuedo-relationships, perhaps they could be considered in the abusive category? As, effectively, one person is using the other so they can have a close opposite sex relationship that they can depend on without the need to truly reciprocate.
Lastly...is it only a psuedo-relationship when someone has decided they will never marry the other but still continues with a close relationship, or is it also a psuedo-relationship when a future marriage is only a 'maybe someday' thing?
79. Fred said the following at 10:49 PM on Feb 10:
BDB,
You said, "No, that has not been my observation. It has been my observation that these kinds of deliberate communications cut-offs come when one or both parties is being unreasonable in their expectations or actions."
So a reasonable person is defined as someone who is reasonable in every situation? And it's obvious that Leah's friend's friend isn't being reasonable so why do you think that a cut-off isn't necessary or why do you think that being reasonable would work? Would it not in fact be reasonable to cut-off contact with an unreasonable person?
You said, "But when you do that, you make a commitment to them. In my opinion, part of the responsibility of people's trust is not simply cutting them off when it gets uncomfortable."
Have you not understood what Leah has said? You do not appear to realise that Leah's friend is not simply cutting and running at the first sign of trouble and that he has tried to deal with the problem other ways.
You said, "A relationship where this kind of trust/dependence grows slowly, say over a year or more, implies responsibility to both parties."
And Leah's friend's friend's responsibility is what? How exactly is her friend not meeting his responsibility by first trying to gradually move away and then having no choice but to cut contact after explaining why?
80. Kelly said the following at 11:33 PM on Feb 10:
Test... I keep getting an error message!
81. Fred said the following at 1:25 AM on Feb 11:
Leah,
Thanks, but it's only because I'm a little dependent myself and know that tactfully cutting off contact is the only option.
82. Jo said the following at 3:54 AM on Feb 11:
BDB said: "That's very different than a "psuedo-relationship.""
Yes, that's true, though I'm sure he would've said I led him on. Still, good comes out of these things. He got back into church because of 'my influence' and although he left my church after this, I know he's now very involved in another church and doing really well by all accounts, which is brilliant.
83. Leah said the following at 5:51 AM on Feb 11:
BDB, I have no idea what wedding vows or men being hurt by rejection have to do with this, but you're again missing the situation here. My friend is not "uncomfortable". He simply knows it is not good for the girl to be so attached to him. It's not like he's trying to escape the girl. He is not "pushing (her) away" just because she trusts and depends on him, but because he knows it is wrong for her to have such a close connection to him.
So I don't know of any situation within a marriage where you can be "too close" where he might be at risk of running away from problems, as if that's what he's doing anyway. He's not running away from problems, it's not like they have relational problems. They're just fine. The point remains that the single fault you've found with my friend is that he's responsible for her trusting him- as if that's wrong. As soon as he saw her getting close, he tried several times to put space between them, and NOTHING HAS WORKED.
And you've still avoided my question, if what he's doing is wrong, what woudl you do? Don't criticise unless you have a better idea.
84. Kelly said the following at 5:34 PM on Feb 11:
I'm replying to DC, who asked: "How do you handle a relationship, in which you have spent months on end with a person whom you want to date, but they only say they will 'maybe' date you in the future?"
RUN AWAY NOW. When I was 25 I was completely in love with a man who seemed pretty into me too. But every so often he would tell me that he wasn't ready to committ and we should just put things 'on hold' for a while. I asked him if there was any future for us and he always said he couldn't give me an answer now but maybe in the future.
I WASTED 1.5 YEARS WAITING FOR HIM TO DECIDE. In the meantime, we continued to go out most Friday nights and spend a lot of of our free time together. It tore me apart, the not knowing, but I loved him so much that I was prepared to put up with it.
Looking back it seems so silly; why didn't I walk away? I had hope that one day he'd 'come round' but the truth is, he never did. The only way it finally ended was when I left: I moved to the other side of the world to force myself into making a break from him. That may seem melodramatic but such was the hold I'd allowed him to have over me. (The word for "terrifying" is being heartbroken and moving to another country where you don't know ANYONE and just have to trust God to see you through.)
My take on it now: if someone doesn't know within 3 months if they can DATE you, then the answer is No. If someone doesn't know within 6 months if they could ever MARRY you, then the answer is no. Especially for guys: they tend to know these things much sooner whereas a girl will take longer to make up her mind.
85. DC said the following at 11:44 PM on Feb 11:
Thanks Kelly...for better or worst at least its not me who is dealing with that. Although, Im afraid that I would keep holding out hope if I were faced with that situation. I can see how difficult it would be to break free from a relationship like that. Melodramatic or not, that was quite courageous of you to move like that. Ive been emotionally caught up in a psuedo-like-relationship situation in which I was in a relationship with a girl for a few months. She ended it and then started talking to and hanging out with her previous ex. They have been hanging out, kind of inbetween dating and friends for going on 7 months (with a prior dating relationship of 2 years behind them)...I know hes wanted her back all along, and shes (as far as I can tell) content where things are and not sure where things will end up.
86. BDB said the following at 1:48 PM on Feb 12:
Hmmm...I seem to be digging a deeper hole here...let's see...
Fred wrote:
>>Would it not in fact be reasonable to cut-off contact with an unreasonable person?<<
With a dangerous person, yes. Aside from clinical issues, there's lots of gray when it comes to "reasonable." A 20 year old and a 37 year old will likely not have the same opinion due to the substantial difference in life experience. It has been my experience that people who favor the communication cut-off method exhibit a pattern of running away from their business and personal conflicts instead of facing them directly. That is why I'm not backing down.
Leah wrote:
>>he tried several times to put space between them, and NOTHING HAS WORKED.<<
I guess I would need specific examples in order to provide a more comprehensive response.
>>And you've still avoided my question, if what he's doing is wrong, what woudl you do? Don't criticise unless you have a better idea.<<
I honestly thought I had answered that, but here goes again:
1) He should ask her if she remembers when she said she didn't want to date him/be in a relationship - whatever she said. (Sit quietly, wait for a response.)
2) After she has finished, he should state, "When you do X, Y, and Z, it tells me that you didn't mean that, and you do want a relationship." (Wait for response.)
3) Then it depends on the response. If she is shocked that he would interpret her actions as a sign of interest, that may be enough to change her behavior. She may honestly not realize she is doing that.
4) If she says that yes, she's changed her mind, he needs to decide what he wants to do. If he's not interested, this is the point where he says she was right the first time, they shouldn't be together, and then he takes responsibility for letting it continue.
5) She MAY point out specific things that he has done to make her believe that what she was doing was OK. For example, if they spend hours talking, that can be easily interpreted as tacit agreement.
6) If they agree they are not going to marry each other, then he should say that specifically, and THAT is why they need to stop doing X, Y and Z.
Personally, I've always found it sufficient to point out specific behaviors and how they are coming across. Surprisingly often, people don't know how their actions are being perceived.
But it is quite possible to reduce communication without cutting someone off completely. You gently remind them after a minute or two that they didn't want a relationship, remember?
As for whether it is a clinical situation requiring more specific structure, it should be discussed with a pastor or similar person with some experience. That's what accountability partners are for.
I hope that I've outlined my suggested approach better this time. Good luck.
87. BDB said the following at 2:07 PM on Feb 12:
Kelly wrote:
>>My take on it now: if someone doesn't know within 3 months if they can DATE you, then the answer is No.<<
Question: is that 3 months of talking to someone every day, or talking to them once a week at church?
88. Kelly said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 12:
BDB asked:
Question: is that 3 months of talking to someone every day, or talking to them once a week at church?
It's 3 months within a psuedo-relationship.
i.e. Generally, you meet someone, there's a spark, you start spending time together and there's a point where you realise this could be something serious. (Some people have a Define the Relationship talk at this point, some just coast along for a while longer into a psuedo-relationship).
My '3 month' guideline is from the point you REALISE that it could be something more and say something about it, and the other person hesitates. I am assuming that the two of you already know each other pretty well by this point - you certainly shouldn't use this guideline for a person you chat to once a week! ;)
89. Fred said the following at 8:14 PM on Feb 12:
BDB,
"It has been my experience that people who favor the communication cut-off method exhibit a pattern of running away from their business and personal conflicts instead of facing them directly. That is why I'm not backing down."
But the problem is that you didn't check with Leah about whether or not there is such a pattern to her friend's behaviour nor what actions he had taken before his decision to cut-off contact. It also appears that you have ignored what Leah has said about what her friend did, because it does look as though he did try explaining and gradually moving away.
The other question is, what do you do when the other person cannot/will not see the need for distance? And a person doesn't have to have a mental disorder to not see the need for space.
90. BDB said the following at 9:55 PM on Feb 13:
Fred wrote:
>>But the problem is that you didn't check with Leah<<
If she would like to provide her phone number to Ted, he can give it to me, and I'll call her in Australia on my dime. Dime per minute, I think.
>>The other question is, what do you do when the other person cannot/will not see the need for distance?<<
If a person defines their boundary as only spending lots of time with someone when is moving towards marriage, then it becomes a yes/no question. If they are not interested/ready to move towards marriage in a deliberate way, when they try to get more time, simply remind them, "You said no, remember. Are you changing your answer?" Two or three times should be enough.
Maybe not if you're in high school, but for adults, it's enough.
Kelly wrote:
>>It's 3 months within a psuedo-relationship.<<
Ok - just clarifying that you're not suggesting that men write off women who won't agree to a date within 3 months of meeting them and seeing them weekly at church. Some people are impatient, you know...
91. Fred said the following at 6:39 PM on Feb 14:
BDB,
"If they are not interested/ready to move towards marriage in a deliberate way, when they try to get more time, simply remind them, "You said no, remember. Are you changing your answer?" Two or three times should be enough."
Yes, but the question is what do you do when two or three or six times isn't enough? You do have to break off communication when they will not stop.
"If she would like to provide her phone number to Ted, he can give it to me, and I'll call her in Australia on my dime. Dime per minute, I think."
But what about what Leah has already told you about what her friend did? And why didn't you ask for number in the first place instead of jumping to conclusions about her friend?
92. BDB said the following at 5:23 PM on Feb 15:
Fred wrote in #91:
>>But what about what Leah has already told you about what her friend did?<<
There wasn't enough detail about what specific things were said, nor about the specific reactions. I can't comment on what was already done without a lot more detail.
My general observation of such situations, however, is that people try to "distance" themselves by being "vague," "busy," and sending mixed messages in other ways. I believe it is wrong for someone to spend a year or more sending mixed messages, then suddenly deciding it "isn't working" and cut off communication.
93. Fred said the following at 5:51 AM on Feb 17:
BDB,
Probably because I like to have the last word but you said, "I can't comment on what was already done without a lot more detail." And I can't help wonder why you commented in the first place without more detail?
If Leah's friend wasn't clear and was sending mixed messages you would be right but I'm partially talking about how you jumped to that conclusion.
94. Rachael said the following at 11:49 PM on Apr 6:
As a follow-up to my comments (47, 49). Perhaps #1 below will help someone, #2 is more of a slight heart dilemna of mine, but who knows, maybe my thought process will help others with their decision-making process...
1) I'd written "Perhaps it's better if it's completely cold turkey AND complete removal of sight or contact."
-->An update is that I removed myself from seeing him regularly in group settings and I think it helped.
2) I'd also written: "I don't know. I'd still say that an explicit final explanation would be even better..."
-->Well I finally got the explanation and the person is willing to communicate again and be friends even though I no longer see him regularly in group settings. I don't trust my heart, though...I wonder if we sometimes communicate if I will still hold on to a glimmer of hope...and, as Prov. 13:12 says, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" but the last part of that verse is nice..."a longing fulfilled is a tree of life."
Isn't it nice that in heaven these sorts of issues won't be issues? YES!