 |
Last week, Boundless published my article "Girls Need Girls." In it, I talked about the importance of female friendships and wrote about five kinds of female friends I think every woman should have: the intercessor, the encourager, the celebrator, the teacher and the questioner.
Jerry* wrote in with this concern: Would not all of the qualities described be facets of a thriving marriage? I have read elsewhere on the site where warnings are given about intimate boy-girl "friendships" that go nowhere because fulfillment is already taking place. Would not an intimate girl-girl friendship to some extent have the same effect?
I see a valid concern here. Based on Genesis, humans are designed to desire a companion and helpmate. Something we've addressed before on Boundless, is that when a guy and girl are spending a lot of time together in an intimate friendship that is not heading toward marriage, they may be satiating some of those natural longings for a spouse (and thus prolonging singleness). I think Jerry makes a good point that a close friendship with the same sex could do the same thing...or a close guy-girl friends group...or a close-knit family of origin.
Every meaningful relationship in your life has the potential to make you grow complacent about marriage. However, that level of emotional dependence was not what I was suggesting in my article. Scripture is clear about the benefits of female friendship (Titus 2:3-5). By design, women have emotional needs that even the best husband in the world will not be able to meet at all times. If she forsakes female friends, she will put tremendous pressure on her mate.
Personally, I feel that my female friends are an asset in my search for a mate, not a deterrent. They pray for me, counsel me, hold me accountable and challenge me to break past complacency. They are also a hedge of protection, like the friends mentioned in Song of Solomon. If I were to seek out this same level of camaraderie from guys, at best it would be shallow and at worst inappropriate.
I agree with Jerry that the five qualities mentioned in the article would be great in a marriage relationship. Obviously this level of intimacy is appropriate and good in that context. My intent was not to take away from anything marriage has to offer but to highlight the benefits of godly friendships. Friendships, family ties and social circles have their place. They are not a replacement for marriage, but they can be a wonderful (and biblical) supplement.
*Not his real name.
I read an interesting article on Slate this morning. In "The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox," Mark Gimein explores what seems to be a shortage of available, appealing men. Let me preface this by saying I mean no disrespect to any of our excellent male Boundless readers. That said, I have oft heard my female friends complain about the lack of quality single men to pursue them.
Gimein first points out that the woman controls the central decision when it comes to marriage. They are the ones who have to power to say "yes" or "no" to a proposal (or at a micro level, a date). Gimein then explains the paradox (more eligible women than men) in terms of an auction. You can think of this traditional concept of the search for marriage partners as a kind of an auction. In this auction, some women will be more confident of their prospects, others less so. In game-theory terms, you would call the first group "strong bidders" and the second "weak bidders." Your first thought might be that the "strong bidders" -- women who (whether because of looks, social ability, or any other reason) are conventionally deemed more of a catch -- would consistently win this kind of auction.
But this is not true. In fact, game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by "weak" bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the "strong" bidders will hold out for a really great deal.
The result? The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed). And at the same time, you get a pool of women weighted toward the attractive, desirable "strong bidders."
Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them -- and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.
This reminded me of an earlier post I wrote, which considered our propensity to hold out. Perhaps the value in an article like this is to bring us back to reality, ladies. The "great deal" we're waiting for may not exist. This is not to say that a "great deal" for us -- from God -- doesn't. If, indeed, selecting a godly mate is something like an auction, I'd like to think of my Heavenly Father standing beside me, staying my hand when I'm tempted to bid on the wrong thing. And then when it's right: "Bid on this one."
What do you think of game theory and the eligible-bachelor paradox? Have women become too indecisive for their own good?
As I wrote in my previous blog post, I'm no expert. I wrestle with Scripture to understand what the authors meant, and how their God-inspired words are relevant today. The clarity doesn't always come easily.
I've wrestled with 1 Corinthians 7 for years. It's not a simple chapter. Paul affirms both married and single states; he encourages people to get married, he encourages people to stay single. He sometimes offers commands and sometimes offers concessions. Sometimes it appears that he's giving his own personal opinion, while other times it seems he's providing counsel directly from the Lord.
First, Paul affirms marriage. He says that getting married is not a sin. It's no less honorable than staying single. He even commands some people to marry, as a way to deal with their sinful nature!
Paul also affirms the kind of committed singleness that he practiced. He did not date. He did not flirt. He did not seek out a girlfriend. All of his hours were spent pondering how to please the Lord, rather than a girlfriend or wife. He called this lifestyle "good."
And here's one that's got me really thinking. Paul seems to be encouraging a "holding pattern" during certain times of crisis or distress. During such a crisis, if you're single, it might be good for you to stay that way for now. If you're married, it's best to stay that way. The crisis he was talking about was probably persecution or famine. While that particular crisis has passed, the world continues to see crises and times of distress.
Luther put off marrying largely because of his crisis: He thought he'd be killed for his role in the Reformation. Wilberforce put off marrying largely because of his crisis: He, too, thought he'd be killed for his role in bringing an end to the slave trade in England.
Which makes me wonder: Which crises today are legitimate reasons to delay marrying? Serving in harm's way in the Middle East? Traveling to a dangerous country as a missionary? Conducting research with highly contagious diseases? Dealing with the fragments of a broken engagement? Coming through a life-threatening illness? I don't know. I suppose that's between the Lord and those who find themselves in these situations.
FWIW, I don't think Paul would affirm intentional delay of marriage in non-crisis situations; I don't think he'd affirm those who hide behind a claim of Pauline singleness while at the same time "seeking a wife" (i.e., "dating"). And I also don't think he'd condemn those who choose to marry even in the midst of crisis.
As I wrote at the beginning, this really is a complex chapter, and the tendency is to pick one verse out of it to defend our current lifestyle.
Let's not do that, OK? Let's wrestle with Paul's elegant affirmation of certain instances of marriage, of singleness, and of delay of marriage. And reject arguments in favor of inappropriate marriage, undue singleness, and irresponsible delay of marriage.
I wrote an article last week, reminiscent of Suzanne's "Not Your Buddy" article. In mine, I talk about those confusing guy/girl "just friend" relationships. You know the kind -- they're great fun for awhile until things begin to get murky. Someone's feelings get hurt, and usually the friendship dissolves: Since so many of us Christians think being in a relationship is such a serious thing — and rightly so — many guys and girls end up "hanging out" for endless amounts of time. In reality, they are dating but avoiding the title. This way, they can get to know one another and decide if they want to pursue a relationship, but never really have to commit to anything as pressure-filled as dating.
Right …
Unfortunately, confusion and hurt are often a result of these "friendships" because, even though no one ever calls it dating, feelings still get involved. Oftentimes, people are left hurting over the loss of a relationship, but don't feel justified in their pain because they were never really "dating" to begin with.
Although I do believe that guys and girls can hang out and be friends, I do think it's important for us to be intentional in our relationships with the opposite sex. Otherwise, things can get a bit too comfy and stagnant. Girls can let relationships languish as they try to avoid getting hurt, and guys can enjoy their close friendships with women without having to commit to the pressures of dating.
In the end, though, I think it's important for us to all be considerate of one another when it comes to these types of friendships. And, since I wrote the article for women, I recommend being intentional as a way of respecting our guy friends: I honestly believe that when women are intentional about the way they conduct their friendships with guys, the men will end up feeling more respected, whether they realize it or not. When we girls aren't willing to be in these undefined relationships for long periods of time, the guys will be forced to step up and either commit to a relationship or move on.
Personally, I believe this is a way of showing respect to guys because it means that we expect more of them. We're not content with guys who are wishy-washy or non-committal. We expect the men in our lives to be just that — men.
Do you all have experience with the "friend zone"? Do your friendships with the opposite sex usually work out, or do they sometimes end up being too involved?
I appreciated the discussion produced by "Don't Shun the Matchmaker." Someone asked about specific tips for seeking out matchmakers and how to broach the subject. How can single women (and men) expand their networks and seek the assistance and support of others?
First (and Candice addresses this in her book), engage in intergenerational community. Crashing the midlife Sunday school class seems a bit extreme. However, if you don't know many people outside of your own age group, seeking multi-generational community is not a bad idea. Find a mentor. Be intentional about making friends of all ages. Pray that God will bring these people in your life.
Next, be transparent. We have been vocal about our dislike for set-ups and blind dates. I think many Baby Boomers -- including parents -- feel like they've gotten the "back off" vibe. Making it known that you not only wish to be married but that you're actively seeking it may inspire those around you to produce possibilities.
I was recently sitting at the closing banquet of a conference. I struck up a conversation with the 50-something man on my left. A little ways into the conversation, he asked, "Are you married? Dating?"
I answered no.
"Why not?"
"Well, I would like to be married," I started hesitantly, "but I just haven't met the right person."
"Do you have someone in mind?" the 40-something woman on my right asked the man.
The gentleman nodded toward the young man to his left, "What about Howie?"
True, this was awkward (and a little funny), and nothing came of me and Howie. Nevertheless, my admission that I was wanting to be married produced an immediate possibility!
Third, enlist the help of those you know. Don't just alert people to your openness toward marriage; ask them to help you. I have recently asked several married women to pray for me, specifically in this area. While I'm waiting, it is encouraging to know that people are standing with me in prayer. Also, let them know that you are open to entertaining their suggestions. When a matchmaker "matches," he or she is risking rejection. So let them know you appreciate their interest (if you do) and won't hold it against them if things don't work out.
Dating and marriage have become such independent pursuits. Every sitcom makes the joke of a well-meaning mom attempting to set up her little darling with a hideous match. While it's tricky allowing everyone in your business, connecting with a select few could prove helpful -- and, if nothing else, encouraging.
I just finished reading Candice's book, Get Married. In it she says, "It's all about the network." This "network" consists of the friends, family members and older women (possibly moms, aunts and grandmothers of single men) you interact with on a regular basis. One of the points Candice made was that singles should be open to being matched.
Before you give in to the vision of a babushka-wearing old woman, take a minute to consider the value of the network. In her article "Strike a Match," Cindy Schmalz writes: [A single woman] has two options. First, she can wait for the perfect guy to happen across her path, and yes, sometimes that happens. My husband and I were high-school juniors when our eyes locked and we fell head over heels for each other. Thirty-one years later, we're still in love.
But single women also can allow a caring Christian friend to introduce her to a potential mate.
Schmalz gives some great matchmaking tips -- along with some encouraging stories. Her suggestions include: make sure you know the potential couple, host a get-together for six, know when to back off and don't take it personally if your match fizzles.
How do you feel about matchmaking? I recently met a lovely Christian woman my mom's age at a writer's conference. A few weeks later she e-mailed me and said, "I have two single sons. I know your generation thinks introductions are tacky, but let me tell you that I'm praying that they will marry someone like you." Wow. Not only was I incredibly flattered, but I was reminded that our attitude toward our potential "network" may need adjusting. Schmalz concludes: Few things are as fulfilling as the sense of joy you get when you watch a couple you brought together fall in love. If you've said or heard, "leave the matchmaking to God," remember, God often works though his people. Just think about it … if God can use us to feed the poor or visit the sick, why wouldn't he use us to pair up the lonely? Isn't a lonely heart as distressing as an empty stomach or a sick body?
Maybe you're in the position to make a match. Do it. Someday soon someone may return the favor. It's all about the network.
A few days ago, Ted shared a DTR success story. The post generated some interesting comments. Some of them echoed similar good experiences; others reflected discouragement. Having my share of experience with the DTR, I've written a couple of articles on the subject. From "Confessions of a Relationship Consultant:" When I attended Bible college, "defining the relationship" (DTR) was a regular part of the vocabulary. As soon as two members of the opposite sex had been seen hanging out together, oh, say two or three times, the buzz would begin. A girl in the dorm would giddily declare, "Chad and I are having our DTR tonight." By the flurry of excitement that followed, you would have thought they were getting engaged — and often six months later they would.
A DTR became an expectation for men — the inevitable end to serial "hanging out" with one girl.
There was a time when I was tired of hearing about it, but I have observed that a well-timed DTR -- no matter what the outcome -- is a good thing. It either gives a relationship direction or frees up both parties to pursue other options. Still, when a clarity conversation doesn't go the way you planned, the fallout can be frustrating. For every happy ending there seems to be a, well, less-than-happy one.
I addressed this in, "You're a Great Guy, but...."
I talked about the aftermath of an "unsuccessful" DTR from a guy's perspective. Occasionally it's clear that the desired relationship won't happen — ever. Maybe the girl closes the door directly by expressing interest in another person or denying a connection. More often, the talk leaves the guy confused. Her words may seem to be expressing attraction while at the same time professing a lack of it. A man finds himself at a loss to know whether he should give up or try harder.
The confusion that sometimes accompanies the DTR process is not reason enough to quit trying. When it comes to seeking the clarity that precedes godly marriages, let hope spring eternal. From "Relationship Consultant:" Like many single adults, I have long since grown weary of Christian relationship lingo. That doesn't change the wisdom of such actions. My experiences as a DTR consultant have taught me that the first relationship conversation can be more than an exercise — it can be the beginning of true love.
This is the last post in Suzanne's and my dating series. We're all out of wisdom and/or unwanted advice.
I thought it would be fitting to end with what I deem to be the most important aspect in any relationship -- the two greatest commandments: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40, NIV)
As Christians, our goal should be to spend our lives fulfilling these commandments. We'll obviously mess up, but our desire should be to get better at loving God and loving those around us. Dating relationships are no different. If we focus on these things, I believe that our relationships will be healthier and more glorifying to God.
First of all, if we're attempting to love God with all that we are, our hearts and minds will be in the right place. We'll have our priorities straight and our energies will be focused on doing the simple things that God has asked us to do. Secondly, if we love our neighbor/girlfriend/boyfriend as ourselves, we'll have much healthier relationships. We won't be so caught up in our own needs or wants or preferences -- instead we'll be focused on serving and loving whomever we're in relationship with. We won't just be looking out for our own interests, instead we'll be concerned with the needs of others.
And as I've mentioned before, I believe that much of this "love" we're talking about is a choice we make. It's not based on romanticized notions of love or unrealistic expectations. It's based on finding someone with whom you serve the Lord well and then choosing to love that person in the good times and the bad, when you feel giddy about them and when you don't. Our love should be based on the sacrificial example we see of Christ and His bride.
Friendships, dating, courting, marriage -- all of them are difficult. All of them require risk. But we cannot be so concerned with guarding our hearts that we avoid relationships that God has called us to. God's triune nature reveals that He is a relational being. He created us to be in relationship with Him and one another. And as we can see through His relationship with us, the type of community we're supposed to foster with one another is loving, sacrificial and servant-hearted. In order to succeed in the "dating game" we must have the same attitude.
Finally, trust the Lord. He is good and His love endures forever. As you navigate the DTRs, the difficult conversations, the up-and-down feelings and the breakups, remember that you're not alone. Ask God to bring you wisdom and guidance. Practice love and apply it to your dating relationships. And pray that God will be glorified.
A friend once told me: "Expectations are stupid." I think he meant that since we can't control outcomes, expectations -- particularly unreasonable ones -- often lead to disappointment. I'm not sure I'd go that far. After all, expectations can create a framework that helps you see if you're wandering off course. But when it comes to romantic relationships, too many expectations at the onset can be stifling.
There are two main ways I think singles can combat relationship-squelching expectations:
1. Be open to someone who isn't what you've always had in mind. In "7 Myths Single Women Believe," I addressed the expectations some singles have about meeting "the one." Just as my junior high mind projected who I would recognize as "the one," my grown-up self entertains expectations of how I'll feel when my "soul mate" arrives on the scene. The truth is, God knows best the kind of man who will inspire me to greater devotion to Him. As I seek the Lord, I can trust Him to reveal that person to me in whatever way He sees fit.
Basically, throw out expectations that aren't related to the essentials -- essentials being character, godliness and connection. You may be surprised by the type of person who is good for you and brings out your best. There's a country song that goes: "She's not at all what I was looking for. She's more." Be open to God showing you "more."
2. Leave some room for a budding relationship to grow without the expectations that come later. Mark responded to my post on clarity with this comment: I feel pretty overwhelmed with all of the dos and don'ts of dating. In order to undertake all of the above-mentioned items at the outset, I'd have to be pretty blown away by the woman. Of course, it's not entirely likely that I'm going to feel that way immediately so I'd have to spend some time getting to know the girl.
Personally, I have no problem asking a girl out. It's the second or third date that perlplexes me. How do you get to know someone without giving off the signal "we're in a relationship" and not acting clingy?
Many of my guy friends have expressed this same frustration. It seems after a date or two, the woman may be already thinking about marriage, children and their future life together. I talk about this in "Not Your Buddy:" Song of Songs puts it this way, "Do not awaken love before it so desires." As a generation of women drunk on chick flicks, we want romance to happen so badly we allow ourselves to fantasize about relationships that have no founding.
In short, girls need to cool it (and guys, if they're expecting a woman to decide for or against them after one or two dates). If a guy asks you out, don't immediately fixate on him as your future husband. Allow a period of time to simply get to know who he is, without forcing him to state his intentions. There is a time for that -- I'm not condoning the lingering limbo relationship -- but don't send him into a panic after the second or third date by demanding clarity he's not ready to give.
Give lots of grace. Don't assume he's a villain if he decides not to pursue further after a few dates. Being gracious and giving the person in whom your interested the benefit of the doubt also makes acquaintance less awkward if the relationship doesn't work out and you have to part ways. Expectations may not be stupid, but letting them take control may be.
As I mentioned before, our romanticized ideas of dating, love and marriage sometimes cause us to sit back and wait for that perfect someone to fall right into our laps. The Christian version of this sentiment usually involves Bible verses plucked from their context and inserted into conversations about relationships.
So, just in case that guy/girl doesn't just magically appear before you one day, this post is about some proactive ways to pursue relationships.
Being proactive can sometimes be more difficult for women -- especially for those who believe that men should be the initiators in relationships. But that doesn't excuse us from being actively involved in the road to marriage. One thing every girl can do is to make herself available to the guy she's interested in. Go to events he'll be at, make an effort to talk to him, let him get to know who you really are.
And sometimes women need to take matters into their own hands. We see this in Ruth's situation, but hers was unusual. For today's women, sometimes being proactive means pulling away from relationships that aren't going anywhere. If the guy you've been hanging out with hasn't "made a move" then it might be necessary to end whatever sort of pseudo relationship you're involved in. The guy is either 1) not interested or 2) too comfortable with the way things are to define things. Either way, you're going nowhere. Although it may be painful and a difficult transition, sometimes the most healthy thing to do is to let it go.
For guys who are interested in pursuing a girl, Nike would tell you to "just do it." I agree. Take the steps to get to know a girl, ask her out and see where it goes. Be intentional about moving forward in the relationship. Be careful with your words and actions, but don't be paralyzed by the fear of something that might not work out in the end.
One thing that I think both sexes can work on when it comes to proactively pursuing dating is communication. We wrote about this on TrueU awhile back, for both the guys and the girls. Talking things out with the person you're interested in can be very helpful, even if it is awkward or uncomfortable. All of this will help you move toward the clarity that Suzanne talked about.
But what if there's just no one to pursue?! I feel ya. Finding the right guy/girl can be a challenge. But what can I do (besides complain) to change the situation?
Well, if I'm invited to hang out with a group of people I don't know very well, I should go. It might be uncomfortable to hang out with strangers, but if I do it, they won't be strangers for long. I could volunteer somewhere, do some social networking, get to know people at my church. Put up signs around my neighborhood (totally kidding!!).
Finally, both men and women need to be proactive in praying for their future spouses. For some reason, this one is difficult for me -- I either forget to do it, or I don't see automatic results so it feels useless. But it's obviously not. The Bible tells us to present our requests to God, and relationships should be no different. Pray for God to prepare you and your spouse for one another. Ask Him to give you wisdom and to bring that right guy/girl along.
Even if being proactive in one situation doesn't result in marrying the guy/girl of your dreams, it doesn't mean it wasn't worth it. If we approach things with the right attitude, God can and does use the relationships in our lives to make us more like Himself.
And, hey, at least no one can say you didn't try.
So I like you. You like me. We're spending time together. But we're not dating.
I'm going to avoid terminology we've used in the past simply because I'm tired of it. Relationships are complex and each one is different. I wrote an article called "Not Your Buddy" to address the frustration many Christian singles feel when they have a special friend that seems to stay just that. The person obviously has the potential to be more -- otherwise he or she would be "special."
But how do you move from that ambiguous "we've got a connection" to something more intentional? It's not easy for either the guy or the girl. From the article by Jason Illian that Denise referenced in her last post, the author makes this observation: The normal model of male-female relationships is quite simple -- you are either dating or you are not dating. But the current Christian model is quite different. Perhaps we got held underwater a little too long during baptism, but our model looks like this: become friends, hang out, get to know one another, see where it goes, talk about possibly getting involved, discuss the north wind and how it may affect the relationship, talk to the youth pastor about it, pray about it, fast over it, court (which may mean dating), date (which may mean courting), and finally, date. Instead of having or not having a romance, we add a million meaningless micro-steps which muddy the already difficult waters.
So is the problem a lack of decisiveness (as discussed in the post "Holding Out")? Is it an unwillingness or lack of desire to commit to one option, even if it seems promising? Or is it general confusion about how to navigate the process when it seems so much is resting on it?
The last time I was getting to know a Christian guy, I almost felt paralyzed by all the dating and courtship advice I've absorbed over the years. I had a strong desire to do it just right. And I think that's the point Illian was making. We've made it more complicated than it needs to be. Just commit to it. Like any process in life -- getting a job, making a move, choosing a major, selecting a church -- courtship and dating require a certain degree of commitment to the process. And answers to big questions are revealed through that commitment -- not apart from it. Sometimes the answer will be yes, sometimes it will be no. Everything doesn't need to be decided before engaging in the process.
If you're wondering about the viability of a relationship with someone, take a few simple, intentional steps to test your theory. Being direct and seeking clarity will provide more answers -- and satisfaction -- than hanging on in a relationship shrouded in mystery. And if you've made things complicated for yourself, start afresh ... the simple answer is often the right answer.
In case you haven't heard, "group dating" has become the spiritual way to date for Christian singles. This method involves guys and girls hanging out in platonic groups. It is supposed to help people build friendships that eventually become "something more." However, the reality is that this group dating mentality has morphed into coed packs of friends who never actually get around to dating. Consider Anna and Cody:
Anna and Cody are part of a group of coed friends hanging out at someone's house. Anna sits down on the couch, strategically leaving a wide open space next to her. Cody wanders over and casually takes a seat next to Anna. They ignore one another.
After about a year and a half of pretending to watch TV, Cody turns and asks Anna how things are going. She answers. They turn back to the TV.
The group of friends decides to hang out this weekend to go hiking. Cody and Anna are pleased that they'll see one another again, but do not let on. They are no fools -- they can't let anyone know that they are interested in one another! Besides, this type of group dating is ideal. There is no commitment and no fear of rejection. Perfect!
* * * The whole "guys and girls hanging out all of the time but never actually dating" is somewhat popular in Christian culture. Sometime these group get-togethers are wonderful -- they allow you to meet new people, have fun and spend time with good friends. But, in my opinion, these group outings are not always good, for the following reasons:
For one thing, if you want to be in a relationship with someone, you eventually have to get to know them at a deeper level. Group dating can be great in the beginning -- it's a non-threatening way to figure out who someone is. But groups have a lot of people, a lot of interruptions and a lot of surface-level conversation.
An article by Jason Illian talks about why group dating has become popular in Christian culture, but adds that, when it goes on for too long, it can become hurtful: The church devised the group dating concept because it recognized the futility and dangers of how most people date in American culture. With pregnancies, diseases, and divorces on the rise, they wanted to protect their flock from having similar heart-wrenching results. I can appreciate their intentions, but going from one extreme to another has not alleviated our problems. It has just given most singles a whole new set of issues to deal with—loneliness, despair, and confusion ranking at the top of the list.
I think that possible problems that can arise from co-ed groups just "hanging out" for all eternity is that it allows for a lack of commitment on both sides. Girls and guys get a lot of the emotional support that they would be getting from a boyfriend/girlfriend without having to take the risk of possibly getting hurt. Illian thinks this is a bigger issue for the guys: One of the biggest problems with group dating is that it allows men to be passive. In a group setting, men can shun accountability and responsibility. They don't have to make any plans because someone else will. They don't have to be responsible for anything because it is easy to disperse ownership with others involved. And they don't have to ask any one girl out because they can enjoy all of them at the same time! Men don't have to be proactive leaders—they can simply be pack hunters.
Illian points out that marriage is not a group outing. Eventually it has to be two people figuring out how they're going to live life together. In Illian's opinion, one-on-one dating is a great way for men to learn how to lead in a society where they have not been taught what leadership looks like.
As for women, hanging out with guys in groups sometimes feel more emotionally safe. Dating and commitment can be scary because it's possible that your heart can get broken. We've been taught to "guard our hearts" (something we'll address in another post), and group dating seems like a safe way to do that. However, we girls often end up getting emotionally involved even without commitment -- group dating doesn't always protect us from heartbreak. And, when we're constantly willing to hang out with guys without requiring any commitment, we're encouraging behavior that allows for tedious, non-relationship relationships. No bueno.
So, in the end, I think it's great to hang out with friends -- guys and girls. However, as singles who want to move toward marriage, I think we need to be wise and intentional with our time -- including the time we spend just "hanging out."
I had an interesting conversation on a plane the other day. (No rudeness occurred, thankfully.) I was sitting next to a single, Christian guy (I know, how often does that happen?), and we began discussing the Christian dating scene. "It seems like the majority of Christian singles are holding out for something," my new friend said. "Like the guys are waiting for a pastor's daughter/cheerleader that just popped out of Bible college, and girls are looking for...I don't know, a guy who just returned from a four-year missions trip to Peru."
I smiled at that analysis. I'm sure each single could generate his or her own similar "fantasy." And true, this notion that something better (or cuter or funnier) may be just around the corner, has the tendency to paralyze us in the "choosing" process.
Candice considers this very topic in her article "When to Settle." She explains that when she began dating Steve, a friend questioned whether she might be "settling," because Steve planned to use his degree to be a small town principal. Candice writes:
My friend was a believer in the notion that to marry a man without certain traits or ambitions would be settling. And in her mind, settling was bad. No longer just a guideline, not settling was itself a goal. Something worth striving for. As in: Finish that report for work, lose 20 pounds, get a boyfriend, don't settle.
And so we find ourselves in the midst of a massive shift in marriage trends: women waiting longer than ever to marry, all the while holding out for their soul mate -- "the one." When a nice guy asks a woman out, if the sparks of attraction aren't hot from the start, she turns him down, reasoning, sure, I want to get married someday, but I'm not about to ... settle.
But this kind of "holding out" may be hurting us in the end. As my new friend observed," It creates this weird vibe. People are always evaluating each other like, 'Are you it? Will you meet the criteria? " That, plus the fear of settling may drive us to pass by perfectly good options. Candice explains:
Have you ever known a man that you've thought about dating, but in the end, ruled him out because to do otherwise would be settling? If you're holding out for perfection, or have a long list of must-haves, it's possible you're overlooking some good men who are already in your life. Knowing what about a potential mate is worth appreciating and what's just eye candy has everything to do with when you should "settle."
Choosing to marry a man — whomever he is — inevitably involves compromise (on his part, and yours). That's why it's not truly settling. It's just making a decision. Something we do every time we pick one thing over another. In most areas, it's called being decisive. For some reason we've made indecision noble when it comes to dating.
And that's the crux of this issue. We've spiritualized "holding out." And yet is there even one biblical character who passed up perfectly good marriage options in the name of not settling? No. Read Candice's article. She provides a great list to evaluate whether a person has the potential to be God's best for you. Then move forward with confidence!
So Suzanne and I have decided to do a series on The Line in which we impart all of our wisdom about dating and relationships. (It'll be a short series.)
I'll cover the first issue, so here goes: be realistic.
Because of our culture and the romanticized version of relationships we see in the movies, I think it's easy to get caught up in an unrealistic idea of what love and romance should look like. Girls get accused of having these false expectations a lot-- and they do -- but guys are guilty of it as well.
Because of Hollywood's influence, it's easy for me to believe that the perfect guy will fall into my lap at any moment. He will be gorgeous, smart, funny, well-educated, entertaining and enjoy all the same things I do. He will love me perfectly and bring out the best in me every single day. I think the danger in this attitude is being on the lookout for this person and ignoring anyone who doesn't fit each of these qualifications. This attitude, I believe, will only set me up for disappointment.
First of all, people are people. No one -– including me and you -- is all that great. We all fail and we all have shortcomings. Honestly, I'm never going to find someone who is completely perfect. I do want to be with someone who I work well with and whom I love, but it's important to be realistic when it comes to what I can live with and live without.
Secondly, I think it's important to give people the benefit of the doubt. Most of my girl friends and I are willing to go on at least one date with a guy if he asks (as long as he meets the basic expectations -- loves the Lord, doesn't eat bugs, and so on). We do this because 1) the guy had the guts to actually ask us out, which is awesome. It seems to be rare among lots of guys these days, so we should give them credit when they go for it. 2) You never know what you'll find out when you give someone a chance. He just may surprise you.
Guys, I think you should do the same. Be willing to ask a girl out even if she doesn't meet every expectation you've set up in your mind. Does she want to be more like Jesus? Is she kind? Is she enjoyable to be around? All of these are great reasons to consider getting to know this girl better. It may be scary, but it's worth doing.
Most importantly, I've realized that I need be realistic about love. Those romantic feelings will come and go, which is why much of true love is a choice I have to make. The Bible reinforces this idea in the picture we see of love between God and the chosen nation of Israel. The people of Israel were always running around being unlovable, but God did it anyway -- He kept His promise and loved her even when they didn't deserve it. I think we should work on approaching dating and marriage the same way -- we should choose to love one another because we want to be more like Jesus -- no matter what the other person is doing.
I recently began to pray for God to bring me the man He wants me to love unconditionally -- whatever that may look like. It's a scary prayer. I don't like it. But I realized that so much of my prayers for a husband had to do with someone who would love me, who would make me happy, who would fulfill me. Yes, I hope God brings me someone who will do all those things, but my attitude should be more about how I can serve and love someone, not what they can do for me.
Anyway, Suzanne will follow up later this week with another tidbit of advice. Until then, discuss away.
According to this article on LiveScience, people who are socially awkward may have an edge in long-term relationship success. Research shows that some of the best daters make the worst marriage partners. The reason? Good daters often self-monitor. Popular people who monitor themselves carefully in social situations and thereby appear to be the most socially appropriate are often highly sought after as romantic partners, a study finds, but these people show less satisfaction and commitment in relationships than socially-awkward people.
Self-monitors have that magical aptitude for fitting into any social group, because they "screen their words and behavior to suit the people around them." While self-monitors are popular and often successful in their jobs, they may flounder in relationships. Northwestern University professor of communication studies Michael E. Roloff, who conducted the study, explains: "The desire to alter one's personality to appropriately fit a given situation or social climate prevents high self-monitors from presenting their true selves during intimate interactions with their romantic partners," Roloff said. "High self-monitors are very likeable and successful people. However, it appears they’re just not deep."
Let me be honest here. Women flock to the self-monitor. This person appears to be what we're looking for because, well...he's talented at making himself appear to be what we're looking for. Being aware of this may shed some scales from our eyes as we evaluate potential matches. Conversely, the researchers found that low self-monitors — people who are the least concerned with social appropriateness and are unlikely to mask their feelings or opinions to avoid confrontation or preserve their self-image — are more committed to and more satisfied with their relationships.
Keeping this in mind, don't be excessively dazzled by the talented dater. And don't rule out the guy who's less socially polished -- he may turn out to be the better match.
Happy Valentine's Day! My dad called me this morning with a singing telegram (to the tune of "Happy Birthday"): "Happy Valentine's Day to you; we both [Mom and Dad] love you; Happy Valentine's Day to You-oo; we both love you." Refreshing. (Not to mention the brilliance of multiple rhyming yous.)
Speaking of love among family members, Gina at the Point brought to my attention this column, perfect for Valentine's Day. Author Jennifer Roback Morse recounts a day when she and her husband, her grandpa, uncle, birth daughter, two foster children and adopted son piled into their mini-van: I realized that all these people were counting on my husband and I to love one another. Obviously, our kids are legitimately dependent on us. Our love for each other sustains them. We couldn't really be much help to the foster kids if we weren't able to work together as a team, for their good, as well as the good of the whole family. Without our love for each other, our middle-class lifestyle would be an empty sham, and not nearly so valuable for them.
And there was grandpa nodding off in the front seat. Because my husband and I love each other, he doesn't have to worry about us. A lot of elderly people end up taking care of their grandchildren because their adult children's marriages have collapsed, or exploded. In the back seat, my husband’s brother was tickling the nieces and nephews we provide him. Our marriage enriches him, even though he is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. If we didn't love each other, my husband and I wouldn't have that van full of people who love us and count on us.
On Ungrind, Ashleigh Slater writes a great piece about loving your spouse by starving crushes: Five years, one month, and twenty-something days ago, I walked down the aisle of a century-old church and committed to forsake all others for the man standing beside me at the altar. There, I publicly proclaimed the days of schoolgirl crushes to be behind me.
As a new bride, I determined that from then on the only man who'd make me weak in my knees was my husband. And that even on those days when I didn't swoon in his presence, my heart would still remain steadfastly faithful to him.
And for those of us who are still waiting this Valentine's Day, consider the wisdom in Frederica Matthews Green's response to a young woman praying for a spouse: Does this young man seem like a companion for the entire life journey toward salvation? Would he help you always to put God first-would he want you to love God even more than himself? Also, take a hard look at yourself. Do you like him because of his sterling qualities, or because he makes you feel desirable (which indicates that he is stirring up vanity in you), or because you could boss him around (pride, arrogance), or because he makes a good salary (greed)? If the main thing drawing you toward this man is rooted in one of your sins, he’s not the right one.
We serve a God who is love. So whether you're single, married, loving on a family or serving others this Valentine's Day, love big. "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" (1 John 4:12).
For those of you who were wondering if my statement that "The happiest matches are still those that began with an introduction by someone the couple knew, who also knew them," was just my experience or empirically supported, here's the source: The most likely way to find a future marriage partner is through an introduction by family, friends, or acquaintances. Despite the romantic notion that people meet and fall in love through chance or fate, the evidence suggests that social networks [the old fashioned kind] are important in bringing together individuals of similar interests and backgrounds, especially when it comes to selecting a marriage partner. According to a large-scale national survey of sexuality, almost 60 percent of married people were introduced by family, friends, co-workers or other acquaintances.
Want to dig into the findings a little deeper? The survey, "Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a Marriage Partner," was conducted by David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. You can read it here.
Online dating services may be getting too big for their britches. Not content to spotlight the things they do relatively well (i.e., introduce users to a large pool of potentially like-minded single men and women ) they make wild claims of being able to help you find "your soul mate," "the perfect love you were born to meet," "satisfying marriage" and more. But not only that. They now claim, in view of their moderate success, that they can do so better than anyone else. The reason: scientific algorithms.
A New York Times story Tuesday described it this way: Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.
But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.
The leading yenta is eHarmony, which pioneered the don't-try-this-yourself approach eight years ago by refusing to let its online customers browse for their own dates. It requires them to answer a 258-question personality test and then picks potential partners. The company estimates, based on a national Harris survey it commissioned, that its matchmaking was responsible for about 2 percent of the marriages in America last year, nearly 120 weddings a day.
Wow. Two percent of marriages are thanks to eHarmony. Sounds impressive till you realize their conversion rate is only around 3 percent. Yes, three percent of 12 million is a lot of people. But the number they don't spotlight is even bigger number: the 97 percent for whom eHarmony fails.
Aside from the one eHarmony marriage I know of personally, my single friends have all been part of the 11.6 million members who've experienced months of repeated -- and expensive -- frustration; with little, if anything, to show for it. (That is, unless you consider months of go-nowhere phone calls and meetings something.)
For all its bravado about results, eHarmony's methods remain veiled in unreviewed mystery. The story reports, As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other's methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. ... So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists' conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.
Until outside scientists have a good look at the numbers, no one can know how effective any of these algorithms are, but one thing is already clear. People aren't so good at picking their own mates online. Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns.
So where does that leave the 97 percent for whom the leader in online dating was unable to help? I think the secret lies with the people who used to be a big part of this process. The people so quickly dismissed by the NYT, eHarmony and large segments of our culture: parents and matchmakers (forget the astrologers). The happiest matches are still those that began with an introduction by someone the couple knew, who also knew them. And it's that first-hand knowledge that no algorithm, no matter how fancy, will ever be able to mimic.
I appreciate the feedback I received from my "just choose one" plea at the end of the roundtable discussion of our first podcast. For those who haven't listened (and really, you should), I was responding to the generally accepted "I just haven't found the right one" defense from single guys in their 30s.
And before you start hatin' on me here, let me explain what I meant.
I've been married 10 years. And over the years I've learned that I could allow myself to become attracted to a great many women. All of whom would probably have made excellent wives. But I made my choice a long time ago. That's what you do when you ask (and accept) someone to marry you -- you choose, you forsake all others.
It's just a fact of life that many women probably share my Christian and doctrinal beliefs, complementarian views, child-centeredness, political leanings, sense of humor, etc. (note: these qualifications are for illustration purposes only). And in my opinion, it's not difficult to find many beautiful women with these characteristics.
So you might be asking yourself what all this has to do with single guys who just haven't found the "right one." Just this: I don't think there is "a right one." I think there are many right ones. And single men simply need to make a choice from all of the right ones out there. Because it's not about finding the right one, it's about making the right one by laying down your life for the one you chose until death do you part.
Before I popped the question, I was anxious about making the wrong decision. I asked my pastor how he knew his wife was the right one. He said simply, "Because I chose her over all the others. And she said yes." The rest is an act of the will.
Hope you're not sick of hearing about online dating. Camerin Courtney wrote one of the more insightful articles I've read on the subject. She begins by describing the opening moments of taking the online plunge: In the privacy of our own homes, we logged on, fed in our credit card numbers, and created clever screen names. We searched endlessly for electronic images of ourselves looking thin and content and non-desperate and spent too long figuring out how to post them. Then we agonized over the three best adjectives to describe ourselves, the five things we can't live without, our hopes for the future, our ideal first date.
When we were finally satisfied with this electronic dating resume, we sat back and marveled at the ability to search for and e-mail interesting-sounding single people while in our bathrobe. We requested communication, and winked, and waved, and employed all other kinds of newfangled ways to drop a hankie or bat an eye -- and we held our breath, hoping this smiling stranger who loved Jesus and Russian literature would look at our picture and profile and find us worth a message, a minute of his life.
As Courtney's tongue-and-cheek account reveals, the process of online dating is deceptively easy. Forming a quality relationship and getting married -- not as easy. Without bashing online dating, she takes a careful look at some of its inherent flaws. She talks about how potential matches can become almost like cartoon characters: My online dating buddies and I have devised a shorthand for identifying these guys by combining their name with one of their most identifying characteristics. Thus, Acid Reflux Joe, Saucy Bob, Texas Stan, and the like.
But at times I fear nicknaming these guys strips away some of their value and worth. On the web, I too easily forget each of those names and faces is a person with feelings and hopes and gifts and fears. This medium too easily facilitates nicknaming, rejecting, snubbing, or recreationally flirting without respect for a brother in Christ's feelings.
She goes on to describe how greediness for a better online match may cause one to pass up someone that we'd be thrilled to meet at church. In real life an attraction may take time to grow, and quick online judgments just don't allow for that possibility. "Some people just don't offer an instant razzle-dazzle," Courtney says, "they're more of a slow burn."
In "Browsing for a Mate," Candice pointed out that online daters should be aware of the medium's limitations. Online dating services are a tool -- better at some things than others. It's important to figure out what they're good for and not ask more of them than they're designed to provide.
And don't forget that even in our digital world, non-digital romance is still possible. Candice says: If all you read is the online services' promotional material, you might believe romance, love and marriage just can't happen anymore without their help. But lots of people do still fall in love and marry without them.
Last night, the Jane Austen fest officially began in the Koerner household.
If you didn't know, PBS is kicking off its Masterpiece Theatre year "with The Complete Jane Austen, featuring adaptations of all six Austen novels and a new biopic of her life." Ah, 10 uninterrupted Sunday evenings of pure Austen bliss.
Persuasion started the series off last night. I was literally running in the door from church to make sure I got it recorded and as I watched it (so my husband informed me, gently teasing) a dumb grin never left my face.
I admit it. I love Austen. Am I just a hopeless romantic who loves to imbibe girly fluff? Well, probably half true. But I think it's a little bit more too. Candice, a fellow fan, talks about how Austen captures the "dance of courtship" -- something we no longer have and long for. J. Budziszewski talks here and here about how Austen's Christian beliefs "penetrate her writing" and how reading her books, among other great writers, "will keep you from being shut into the narrow little views of our time."
For me, it's the sense of hope. I discovered this over Christmas break. Recognizing my Austen bias, I decided to intentionally expand my horizons and pick up a few Henry James novels to read over the holidays. I started with Washington Square and was left, let's just say, flat.
It's not just that the couple didn't live happily ever after, as Austen lets them do. It was that James' story just seemed to ooze cynicism. Virtue wasn't rewarded. Worldly pursuits won and the heroine didn't even have the strength of character to move on, instead wallowing in her pain for the rest of her life.
I know that the Christian life will not be all happily ever after. But as one who is living the wonderful consequences of choosing a mate wisely in the great adventure of Christian marriage, I know there is hope. I'm glad Austen did too.
In "Love Where You Least Expect It," MSN offers some suggestions to guys on unusual places to meet women: in a long line, playing community sports, at a work event. The article is secular but it reminded me that all singles -- not just Christian singles -- struggle to meet new people.
The article inspired me to compile my own list (and I would love Line readers to add to it):
Hobby group. Four years ago, a couple of friends and I started a comedy improv troupe. The result has been a constant flow of new, funny (and godly) friends. Many churches offer interest-based groups, like cooking, mountain biking or softball. If there's nothing that appeals to you, start your own.
Your church. Church remains a great place to meet someone. The key is to get involved. Join a young adult Bible study or volunteer with a ministry. My friends Jane and Peter met at small group and were friends for several months before they started dating and eventually married.
Someone else's church. One of my college professors met her husband when a friend invited her to her little country church. The friend had told Barbara that there was a very nice widower at her church who was a flight instructor. Barbara was interested in learning to fly, but when she met Chuck, she knew she had found more than a flight instructor. The two married within a year.
A friend's house. When I first moved to Colorado Springs, I was introduced to a concept called "share your friends." A group of singles had a quarterly dinner where each person brought a friend the rest of the group probably didn't know. I've incorporated this idea on a micro level by trying to mingle groups of friends who may have not met. Don't turn down invites into new groups.
Coffee shops. Once my brother, trying to encourage me in my single plight, asked, "Aren't there...like...any Christian coffee shops...or something?" I didn't laugh. Partly because it was a sweet thought. Partly because in Colorado Springs, the home of more than 70 ministries, EVERY coffee shop is a Christian coffee shop (Bible studies abound). However, many coffee shops offer music nights with Christian bands, which can provide a great atmosphere to strike up a conversation.
Enough of my ideas. What are yours?
Today, if singles can't find potential mates among their acquaintances -- or among their family's and friend's acquaintances -- all they need to do is go online. I mean, it seems that out of millions of profiles you could at least find one that matches your 29 dimensions of compatibility, right?
But what do you do if even that fails? Well, you get matched by your DNA, of course.
An ABC affiliate in Boston reports on a new dating service that launched this week using DNA to help singles find that "perfect someone." Here's how: ScientificMatch.com promises its technology will use DNA to find a date with "a natural odor you'll love, with whom you'd have healthier children and a more satisfying sex life."
How does it work?
In analyzing DNA, the company said it looks at immune system genes and identifies compatible mates from people with different immune systems.
"Nature attracts us to our genetic matches with our noses. The fact is, we love how other people smell when their immune systems are different from ours—they smell sexier," the company wrote in a release on its Web site.
That's right. For a fee of only $1,995 you too can receive a kit of cotton swabs and cheek swabbing instructions so you can find a mate with an odor you'll love.
How in the world did people mingle, meet and marry before the age of technology? I guess people back then just "settled." Or maybe they just believed something we don't anymore -- that "love is much a question of the will as it is of the emotion." Or odor, I should add.
I've recently been receiving some letters from guys telling me that they want to be intentional but that women they know have not been receptive. In my article "What Girls Wish You Knew," I laid out some of the things that catch a woman's eye -- for good and bad. Among these are a man who is consistently kind, shows signs of a vital relationship with God, respects women and takes initiative.
I know there are guys out there who say, "I'm doing all this, and women still walk the other direction when I approach." As I discussed in "You're a Great Guy, But..." sometimes this is just a lack of chemistry. If this is the case for you, don't be discouraged: Keep in mind that unique aspects of you that she's not responding to may be the very things your future spouse loves. Instead of wasting energy thinking about what you might lack and trying to correct it, engage in the supreme form of self-improvement: Submit yourself to God (James 4:7). Then trust Him to do the rest.
However, it's possible that your method is flawed. From my experience, there are several approaches guys should avoid:
The shotgun approach. I've mentioned this before, but a guy who acts like it's a contest to see how many women he can ask out in a space of time does not make any woman feel special. Always put some thought and prayer into the woman you approach. This may even save you investing in the wrong relationship.
The too-fast approach. Many of my friends have been scared off by someone they were initially interested in because he moved too fast. Intentionality is good, but the "I know we just met, but God told me we're going to get married," tact may cause women to feel threatened. Slow down and take it easy.
The won't-give-up approach. Guys, if a girl says no or seems to be withdrawing from you, move on. If she's interested she'll initiate conversations, e-mails, text messages, etc. There's a saying about beating a dead horse -- don't do it.
Several months ago, when I went on a date, my dad offered me some advice that I think applies to this situation:
- Relax.
- Have fun.
- Show him how fun and cool you are.
In the early stage of a relationship, being relaxed and having fun are key ingredients. If you realize you're consistently having fun and feeling relaxed with the same person, you may have the beginnings of a successful relationship.
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
 My coworker alerted me to this story. When New York Illustrator Patrick Moberg couldn't get up the nerve to talk to the "woman of his dreams" on the Subway, he created a Web site to find her. It worked — sort of. Judging by their chemistry on this ABC News interview, I predict it won't last.
What about you? Have you ever missed an opportunity to strike up a conversation and regretted it later? With the Internet has come a myriad of new ways to develop relationships of varying degrees. For example, instead of talking to someone at an event, you can simply look them up on Facebook and add them as a "friend." Moberg's quest is extreme (and debatably a publicity stunt), but it's becoming easier for guys (and girls) to cyber-stalk instead of taking real-time risks. This can create confusion (as if relationships aren't perplexing enough). If a guy asks you out as a blog comment, adding a winking emoticon, is he joking, serious or testing the waters?
Evidently, copycat bloggers are taking Moberg's approach to getting the girl: blogging about her instead of talking to her — and then waiting to see what happens. It seems like a cowardly way to go about things. If a girl never responds to an Internet ask-out, it's possible it wasn't rejection — just a miscommunication. Some may view Moberg's actions as romantic; to me, they seem like an afterthought.
An interesting article on Slate looks at the mysteries of attraction and dating...from an economist's perspective. Economists Ray Fisman and Emir Kamenica, along with psychologists, Sheena Iyengar and Itamar Simonson, conducted a speed-dating experiment near Columbia University's campus.
First, Fisman establishes his core assumption: dating is rational-minded people searching for the most desirable partner who will have them. Fisman asks: What, exactly, makes someone desirable? There are, of course, the answers that get regular reinforcement: Men value looks; women value brains, money, and success. But do these old-fashioned stereotypes continue to hold today (if they were true to begin with)?
Observed dating and marriage choices are at least as much a result of whom we meet as what we prefer. Doctors marry doctors, lawyers marry lawyers, and economists marry economists, probably not because they actually prefer to do so, but because those are the people they meet in daily life. The same may be true of the tendency to marry someone of one's own race or religion.
After two years of collecting data on thousands of decisions made by some 400 daters from Columbia University's graduate and professional schools, Fisman and his team discovered that some stereotypes held true: In a survey we did before the speed dating began, participants rated their own intelligence levels, and it turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. Women care more about how men think and perform, and they don't mind being outdone on those scores.
One slightly surprising finding, according to Fisman, was that women showed a strong preference for men of their own race, while men didn't seem to discriminate. "A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices," he writes.
Something to consider is that all of this data is based on first impressions. In other words, it only shows what makes someone "desirable" upon first impression. Speed dating isn't exactly the best catalyst for meaningful relationships. My interpretation of first-impression desirability: A woman is looking for someone who makes her feel secure — brains and ambition (and even someone of similar race and religion) exhibit this potential. A man is looking for an attractive woman he believes could respect him — low key intelligence and ambition exhibit this potential. I still don't think a speed-dating experiment can tell us much about the ingredients that contribute to lasting love and ideal matches.
If the school has a dance but nobody shows up, did the dance happen?
That's the question lots of high school girls will be asking if a recent trend takes hold. According to Jeffrey Zaslow in "Some Date: How Homecoming Is Losing Out to Hanging Out," his daughter was asked to homecoming but the boy who asked her "never bought tickets to the dance." The plan was to dress up, eat a fancy dinner, then hang out for the rest of the night at someone's house. "I live in suburban Detroit," wrote Zaslow, "but this phenomenon is playing out elsewhere in the country, too -- a telling example of the indifference with which young people today view dating, chivalry and romance."
Zaslow felt bad for his daughter and her friends who, he said, were "disappointed. ... They would have loved to have been taken to the dance." During the pre-event parental photo shoot, his "heart went out to those girls -- all dressed up with no place to go. Couldn't we, as parents, have demanded that the boys take our daughters to the dance?" he wondered. Well, um, yes. Actually. You could have.
"Why did we stand there, clicking our digital cameras, saying nothing?"
Good question. One Zaslow later comes back to, saying, As the father of three daughters, I wish that more parents of sons would talk to their boys about being respectful, and about the thrill that can come from holding hands. Those of us with daughters need to tell them that empowerment is less about sexual freedom and more about recognizing their true feelings.
It is too bad that my daughter and her friends didn't demand that the boys take them to homecoming. Yes, they risked being dumped for easier girls. But maybe the boys would have gotten the message and, as promised, graciously escorted their dates to the dance.
What's missing in all this discussion is the realization that if the boys are going to respect the girls, that respect must first be modeled by the dads. What's really too bad is that Zaslow didn't follow his gut and insist his daughter's date have integrity, rather than leaving her unprotected, the problem resting fully in her hands.
In response to "Trusting God with Relationships, Part 6," Christine asks: Do you have any additional thoughts on how to be content in singleness in this circumstance: A former serious beau has moved on to another relationship...or gotten married. So tough! It's hard not to feel left behind....
Several months ago, I read this article at Christianity Today. I didn't blog about it, because I didn't know how to feel about it. It's a sad story with lots of loose ends. Still, I related to it. The author recounts her uncertainties while dating a guy who seemed like a great fit: Despite the fact I'd met him at church on Valentine's Day, that he made me laugh and feel beautiful, that he loved God and his family, I still felt uncertain about moving toward marriage with this terrific guy.
I asked married friends what they felt before they got hitched. They all responded with some rendition of "I just knew he was the one," a feeling conspicuously absent in all my thinking and overanalyzing. I even met with a Christian counselor, who confirmed I wasn't a commitment-phobe. I prayed—no, pleaded—with God for direction. And when I was met with silence and a lack of peace for months on end, I slowly, excruciatingly let this relationship go.
She describes how she later saw this guy in a furniture store with another woman. She felt the pang of loss -- a touch of "what if?" And then: About a month ago, I had another "chance" encounter, this time with a woman from my Bible study. We were chatting about work when she casually mentioned she knew Andrew. She'd even dated him briefly. She still saw him on occasion at work and knew he'd just gotten married a few weeks before.
I stood there in stunned silence, an odd mixture of grief and peace washing over me. It was the clarity of a closed door and the loneliness of an empty horizon all at once. And I stood amazed at the way God had orchestrated this answer to my prayer. While it wasn't a confirmation that the past decision to let Andrew go was absolutely God's will, it was a peace with which to look to the future. And, I've learned, sometimes that's all we can hope for.
Claire's tale leaves us hanging. I get the feeling she believes she may have made a mistake. It reminded me of the importance of being thorough in relationship decisions. Ask God to help you walk through relationships in such a way that you either marry the person or part ways with no regrets. In other words, be prepared to accept the consequences (good or bad) of your decisions. And when it becomes clear that person is now not for you -- when they pursue and marry someone else -- accept that reality and ask the Lord to comfort you and help you to renew your resolve to be faithful. As Claire says, "God once again proved he's there, listening, caring about my future. These truths will be welcome company no matter what the future holds."
I cannot conclude this series without considering the formidable task of trusting God with relationships in the absence of possibilities. When there's a promising online match, a friendship that appears to be blossoming into more or an interesting fellow you met at that last wedding you attended, trust is a bit easier. There's something tangible to rest your hope in (even if it never goes anywhere).
But what of the dry spells? I discussed this in an article I wrote last year: I am single.
I'm not ashamed to say it. Most of the time I'm OK with it. By "OK" I mean I don't break down in tears after attending my fifth wedding in one summer. I don't mourn with a tub of mint chocolate chip and "Sleepless in Seattle" every time I have a quiet Saturday night ... or four. And I barely cringe when my married friends get a twinkle in their eye and utter those dreaded words: "Soooo (they drag this word out endlessly), is there a guy in your life?"
I smile and explain (with maybe a bit of overcompensating enthusiasm) that there's not currently a special someone (nor has there been for three years), but I'm confident, in God's perfect timing, the right one will come along.
I know from experience, this kind of waiting gets old. Really old. Relationship advice is all well and good, but how do you apply it to the reality of no viable options? I cannot tell you that God will deliver you a spouse. I can tell you He cares about you deeply, is invested in this idea of marriage and has the power to provide a godly mate. Still, I also know you can't negotiate with God to secure that person.
For the everyday pain singles face while they're waiting for a spouse, I am reminded of two principles for living. First, regardless of whether God blesses me in this way, I am called to trust Him. In a very painful and confusing situation, Job said: "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him" (Job 13:15).
Second, God is all powerful and my lack of a spouse has nothing to do with His ability to provide. Not only that, but He wants good for me. Consider 1 Corinthians 2:9: "However, as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.' "
Perhaps the most important thing to remember when enduring a dry spell is to avoid giving in to bitterness. Not only will it render you spiritually useless, but others will cease to be drawn to you. Along with pursuing the straight path, rejoicing in God's romantic heart, actively building community and seeking to respect and build up the men I know, I must choose to live in the life-giving joy of Christ. The truth is, the Lord is worthy of my trust even when I don't see how He's working. And because of that, in the dry spell, I still have hope.
One reason it is difficult to trust God with relationships is a lack of confidence or distrust in the opposite sex. Christian singles may be hitting the same barriers to marriage as those with a worldly mindset -- hesitancy to commit, lack of viable choices in partner, a desire to establish wealth and possessions first -- but here's the honest truth: Christians need to have a radically different perspective about the opposite sex, dating and marriage. Consider Corinthians 5:17-19: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
Several months ago, I was stunned by one Boundless Line reader's response to my blog. He said, "It's obvious there's a lot of woundedness here." Each sex feels wounded by the other. Women feel slighted because the men they believe should be asking them out either won't take a risk or seem uninterested in committing to a relationship. Men are frustrated because the women they'd like to get to know either won't give them a chance or send them mix signals. Our first reaction is to blame others. "I'm doing everything right. It's him/her who is holding up the process!"
I recently heard some great advice for getting along with people who naturally irritate you. When this person says something that irritates you, instead of assigning motives (I know she said that to boast or I know he said that to manipulate), pour in as much grace as possible. Choose to be compassionate and look for what is really going on beneath the statement (Maybe she's feeling insecure or maybe he feels I don't trust him). Perhaps your reaction wasn't appropriate or was fueled by your own past hurts.
Focus on the Family promotes the Love and Respect conference. The central idea of these conferences is that women need love and men need respect. This is a breakthrough concept for married couples. However, single men and women are motivated by these same responses. As a woman, are you seeking to respect the single men you know or are you tearing them down (even just in your mind)? As a man, are you looking to care for the women you know or do you cast a suspicious eye on them, afraid they'll get the wrong idea? As singles, we have not been very successful in cultivating an attitude of love and respect. I have experienced a love and respect dynamic in micro-settings, and I believe it's the best start for a healthy, godly relationship.
Part of trusting God with relationships is discerning how He would renew our minds and make us new creations. If we're not seeking this with all our hearts, the ministry of reconciliation -- particularly between the sexes -- will fail. If Christian relationships, and the way we go about them, were radically different from the world, it might send a message to the world about the reconciliation offered in God through Christ.
Guys -- you're explaining something to your girlfriend, and while her eyes seem uncertain, her nodding is telling you that she understands and agrees. Right?
Wrong.
Apparently, the going research indicates that a woman's nod is different from a man's nod: Body language differs by gender. Men tend to stare as they listen and nod to signify they understand. Women may nod when they don't yet understand to encourage the speaker to keep talking.
So my wife's nodding to me when I was explaining my desire to buy a new keyboard wasn't an expression of her approval? Oops.
HT: Al Mohler
|
