 |
| Will mention sexual subjects in connection to marriage. |
109
Okay, recap: I’ve criticized veils, expensive dresses, wedding cakes, floral
arrangements and hiring a band. Now, is it fine to play music? Certainly. I
like music. Note, I didn’t say I like noise. Not all sound constitutes music,
and then not all music constitutes pleasant music, or music that would be
fitting for a wedding celebration. I would definitely stock a playlist of songs
that would preach the Gospel and talk about marriage from a Christian
theological perspective. Dave Barnes’ God
Gave Me You, Andrew Peterson’s Dancing
in the Minefields and World Traveler,
Sanctus Real’s Lead Me, and other
songs like Love is Not a Fight, Children
of God, You Belong to Me, Beloved, and many more, and those are just a
sampling of songs remarking on marriage. The wedding is first and foremost an
opportunity to preach the Gospel to people who may never willingly sit still
and pay attention or visit a church of their own accord. What more powerful way
to display the truth of God’s love and grace in salvation than via the single
most powerful representation of His nature that there is in this world?
110
One way that the wedding will be a witness to unbelieving family members or
friends is by the absence of worldly or otherwise religious traditionally
included aspects of the celebration. I’ve already mentioned veils. But the
music played and the ritual parts, like traditional words spoken by the
officiant and spouses, when not included, will tend to jar those who expect a
catholic wedding, or a jewish wedding, or a secular wedding. And that will get
their attention. Then the alternative will be presented, and everyone left with
a choice.
111
Secular folks (here including those who consider themselves members of
churches, and who are probably nominal believers) will probably expect a dance.
No dancing at a wedding would be a shock to this culture, which has come to
take sensuality for granted to such an extreme that people go to weddings
trying to hook up with someone of the opposite sex, or to have fun – really?
The wedding of someone else is for the purpose of you having fun?? Not
allowing people the chance to exercise this narcissism will be a witness enough
to some.
112
Many people are so blind these days that they think priests officiate every
wedding. The only major American religion that has “priests” is the Roman
Catholic Church, which, since before the 1500s, has been an apostate,
anti-Christ religion. The term “priest” is a term that means someone who speaks
to God directly. Prior to Jesus’ incarnation, the Israelites had a high priest
who would sacrifice for the sins of the people once a year, but when Jesus
came, He, functioning as our High Priest, sacrificed once and for all for the
sins of those who would believe. Now, the book of Hebrews says, we His followers
are a royal priesthood—every one of us.
There is no priestly class within Christendom, and the idea that someone else
has greater access to God than my bride and I is an offensive and anti-Biblical
notion!
113
I struggle with the symbolism of the ringbearer. I don’t see where it’s useful,
but it also isn’t clear what it’s supposed to represent in its present use, so
it’s unlikely that I’ll be in favor of utilizing such a fixture at my wedding.
The rings themselves represent continuity and wholeness and union, more on that
below. But if this comes from
somewhere, then it is fitting that the union of marriage be symbolized as
coming down as a gift from God, so it would make more sense for the pastor to
give it to the spouses, or for the rings to be sitting prominently at the front
of the church for the whole time until they are put on the bride and groom’s
fingers.
114
What would the father giving his daughter to her husband to symbolize? If it is
ownership of another person a la slavery, then that's not Biblical, and it must
be dispensed with. But actually having an understanding of female submission in
the Bible, it's clear as day to me: until marriage, a woman is under the
spiritual authority of her father. And when she marries, she comes under the
spiritual authority of her husband. She submits to the one, and at a certain
point, ceases, and begins to submit to the other as her first and foremost
"prophet, priest and king" in the earthly realm, with each of them
submitting in turn to God, our true Prophet Priest and King. This could be included
in a wedding without having anything to do with ownership, but spiritual
authority, and it shows that the bride is a godly woman willing to submit to
her father before marriage and her husband in marriage, out of obedience to
God.
115
Did you know that wedding rings worn on the finger are a custom popularized by
Rome? Rings have been used for a long time to represent engagement, and as far
back as Jacob’s marriages to Leah and Rachel, you can see that he gave his wife
a nose ring. So rings are Biblical symbolism, and having it on the finger isn’t
likely something strange, since nothing is implied to be evil about signet
rings of kings, for example. So I have no beef with a ring being the symbol to
represent that I am married to my wife.
116
But need it be gold? I think that’s fine, because it represents purity, but for
me, personally, I prefer Tungsten. For maximum irony, it’s named after the
Swedish words for “heavy rock” by its Swedish discoverer. But it’s one of the
densest and strongest non-poisonous metals in the periodic table, and any metal
can be pure so long as it’s not alloyed with another element, so the purity
element still stands there. But what matters more to me is the symbolism of
strength. Our union won’t be tainted by adultery, so it’ll be pure in that
respect, but both my wife and I are sinners coming together, and so there is an
inherent impurity in our souls, one that Christ has forgiven and is continually
healing us from, while promising to remove it completely in the end—it is by His strength that we, two sinners,
can come together as one and not be separated. So I like the idea of Tungsten
because it will represent that it is God who keeps our marriage together, that
He’s at the center of it.
117
Because I really don’t care, I’m not even sure which hand the wedding ring is
“supposed to” sit, but I think it’s the right. There is equally valid symbolism
for the right and left hand, the right being used in the Bible (‘the wise man’sheart is at his right hand’) to represent control, because most people are
right handed, although the left hand is closer to the heart, and I know from
Boy Scouts that it was used by Lenape Indians in handshakes to symbolize
friendship for this reason. For me, I have spontaneous, occasional, yet persistent
flare-ups of skin irritation (apparently a form of Eczema), which my right ring
finger tends to bear the brunt of, so I might put it on my left hand for this
proximate cause, and justify it with the reasons given.
118
On the other hand (hur hur), there’s a surprise benefit to having the wedding
ring on the left hand, if it’s usually on the right—people might be more likely
to respect your relationship if it has the appearance to them of being “new,”
so that they wouldn’t doubt your passion for each other. Discouraging
home-wreckers would be a practical benefit of having the ring on the left hand,
without being openly deceitful about it.
119
White wedding dresses were popularized in Victorian England, but white is not the only color that can represent purity. Blue represents water, which hearkens
both to water baptism and the Noachian Deluge as further symbols of the washing
clean that God accomplishes for us through salvation. More to the point would
be the color red, which represents the shed blood of Christ, which itself
represents His death, that satisfied the price to be paid for our sins, and made us ‘white as snow’ in the sight of
God the Father. I could see my wife perhaps wearing a white dress with a red
sash and blue …shawl? Whatever something just covering her shoulders would be
called. Or any of the colors by itself; explaining which symbolism is intended
would be part of the ceremony and I’ll be curious what her personal choice
would be.
120
Of course, there wouldn’t be any alcohol served at the wedding. No open bar,
nothing of that sort. That would probably be a shock to some people. Mark this,
I’m not among the fundamentalist-baptist sort who make it an article of faith
that alcohol is evil. Hardly so, but it’s certainly not necessary nor is it
always good for everyone. Besides, I have a preexisting concern for having full
control over your mental faculties. Anything that interferes with my ability to
think would be bad in my view, sin or not, because nothing good can come from
handicapping my ability to make the best decisions with all the information
available to me. Alcohol present at my wedding would provide some with an excuse
to avoid hearing the Gospel by drinking enough to make them black out or
otherwise lose awareness of whatever is being told to them. In this way, the
presence of alcohol certainly would be a temptation to sin for some, and that’s
why I would not include it.
121
I have no intention to ‘date,’ if dating is seen as a casual relationship with
someone without the intention of marriage. If you have this sort of
relationship, you’ve already decided that you’re not going to be with them
forever (here meaning for the duration of your earthly life), and so you’ve
already decided that you’re going to break up with them when you begin dating. What would be the point of such a
relationship? “Practice?” Make sure you tell that to him or her when you go out
the first time, that you “just want to practice what it’s like to have a real
relationship, using this one for make-pretend.” I bet they’ll be thrilled. And
if they go along with it, there’re two reasons: 1) they don’t believe you. In
other words, they are accusing you of lying, so you already have a lack of
trust, which is going to result in disaster 2) they do believe you, but are
emotionally damaged and would rather be with someone who will hurt them in the
long run rather than take rejection up-front. NEITHER of these situations are
positive, and so no matter how you slice it, “dating” without any plan for
commitment is futile, self-destructive, insensitive, sadistic, immature,
emotionally calamitous and a stupid waste of time. So don’t date.
122
A relationship can culminate in 4 basic ways: stagnation, where it neither
grows nor dissolves; break-up; death; or marriage. Seeing as none of the former
three are appealing, what would be the point of entering a relationship you
were expecting to be doomed from the get-go? Only marriage has any sustaining
value to it.
123
So my approach to women is, initially, no different from my approach to men.
Talk, see if they enjoy talking back. Get to know them. If you connect well,
you can become friends because you build up history and trust (one way to
define friendship). This can take place long-distance
124
After that point, the question becomes: do I know enough about this person that
I can see them as 1) a desirable marriage partner in general and 2) as
compatible with me, in particular? If those are true, courtship can be
initiated, which is simply the expressed intent to get to know a person better
with the motivation of pursuing marriage. Clear goals. And so it isn't
outwardly much different to the world than a friendship. But where it leads is
so different from where anything the world offers leads to.
125
I'm a bit of a sweet-talker as well as having the capacity to be very deep in a lot of ways. There
wouldn't be an option not to explore different aspects of intimacy (responsibly,
naturally, depending on what level of relationship I'm at with a person), so my
fiancee hopeful would have to expect "gooey gross feelings" [a phrase used in a conversation with a
young lady online, by her. This portion of the AWPATT is adapted from that
conversation] eventually. On the journey toward marriage, I wouldn't fail
to make you feel. Or think. I suspect the reason I never get
past more than a casual conversation with most girls is because the sheer depth
of thought and emotion (despite my serious lack of intuition when it comes to
that; my understanding of my own and other people's emotions is all
intellectually comprehended) is something they're not comfortable with.
126
Part of the reason I write a lot is because I hope to give less-talkative
ladies the opportunity to pick something to respond to. It's a behavior I've
developed subconsciously, to elicit more in-depth responses from my
conversation partner. I'm very introspective and analytical. Hence how I know
myself so well, if not others. I like to know why I do things.
127
Cute isn't after all just what you look like. If you show interest in someone,
then as a guy (dunno how widespread this is so I won't speak for all men), I
find you more attractive because now your beauty isn't just something distant,
a mere idea to comprehend. Now it's something you're sharing with me. In
introspecting myself, as I made reference to doing, I've discovered that what
will touch my heart more than any other thing is desire. I don't need an unrealistic
concept of physical beauty to attract me to someone--if I perceive that she
WANTS to be involved with me in some way (be it listening, talking, spending
time, or desiring a relationship), then that's what will make me "fall in
love," as the vernacular puts it. It will be what captivates my mind.
Desire is desirable.
128
I could be wrong about this so I won't pretend to state it as an absolute
truth, but based on my few experiences/anecdotes, it seems to me that girls,
because of legitimate concerns about being vulnerable, are in a way
"afraid" when approaching relationships. Certainly this isn't a
crippling fear that prevents them from happening, or they wouldn't happen, but
I mean that before they know who a guy really is, they're wary about giving him
access to their heart, where he can hurt them if he's careless, foolish,
selfish or malevolent in intent.
129
But when there is freedom to be vulnerable, as in a loving Christian
courtship/engagement/marriage, then it's my understanding that the low-level,
ever-present fear of men dissolves, and a loving man can do wonders to inflame
her soul with joy and passion.
130
Perhaps this is a uniqueness of mine, but I have no problem, at least in
theory, making friends with a girl I think is super cute. Because my view is
that until I find reason to think otherwise, I see every relationship as having
the potential for marriage. This is
different from trying to pigeon-hole every interaction into a context that it
might not be meant for. It simply means that I'll continue to take slow step by
slow step to get to know you or anyone as a person, so long as I "can see
myself marrying them ". That doesn't mean that I'll up and quit a
relationship when I find out we wouldn't be compatible. You can still be friends.
It simply means that I'll be transparent and explain that this is the
conclusion I've come to, at that point, instead of playing games with your
heart.
131
‘Can't ultimately love or show love to a person you don't understand--so to me,
it's all about understanding. It's one of my key core desires (needs?). I
simply want a woman who can understand me, who will respect me, and who wants
me. Those three things. All else is EASY to figure out and get in place. It's
the big central pieces that matter the most about my future relationship on a
very personal level. Everything else is mainly incidental and flows from those
three. Consequently, I want to understand how your mind works. That's why I
appreciate thoughtful talkativeness so much.
132
I actually took a free training course back in high school to be a volunteer
mediator. So I'm now pretty instinctive at applying reflective listening, in
order to make sure that the other person feels that you understand them. It's
just so frustrating when I have conflicts with people who don't allow you to
talk without interruption so that you can never have a constructive discussion
where each side feels heard. I deeply desire someone who can have a respectful
discussion and collaborate to resolve an issue even if we're both livid and
extremely offended with the other. It's a "lost art," although seeing
it a different way, it's highly tied to theology. The Gospel removes your
pride. That removes your perceived "need" to be vindicated, prove the
other person wrong, and make sure they feel punished the way you think they
deserve. When you're free from that, you can exercise forgiveness and you can
resolve extremely angry disputes without the issue becoming
chaotic/violent/destructive etc.
133
I absolutely insist on having a dispute before committing to marriage, in my
thinking about my future spouse. I need to be confident she won't crack when
things get bad, so before I marry a girl, I anticipate intentionally
emphasizing my less pleasant qualities. That's part of my obsession about
honesty. I want to make sure that she can live with me, and not just her idealized perception of me.
134
Unpleasant quarrels are never nice but that's not because of the fact of the
conflict, but the inability to resolve it, I think. If we can get heated and
reconcile, that's more relieving than just avoiding a verbal fight with someone
who you can't communicate with because they always shut you down/out/up.
135
I wouldn’t purposefully cause a
fight, of course. Though I could imagine that bringing up a subject I know to
have the possibility of stirring emotions could perhaps do that. Wisdom lies in
broaching different conversation topics at the right time.
136
Shyness isn’t annoying, but someone who pretends to be shy in order to be a
tease or to hide from vulnerability is offensive, because they’re literally
being a hypocrite—putting on an act—to try to manipulate people into treating
them the way they want rather than accomplishing this through honesty and
communication. So long as someone is able to open up with people they trust,
are comfortable with, etc, then there's nothing that would really bug me about
someone who's quiet at first. There's a difference between being reserved and
being evasive.
137
Now, I sympathize with not wanting to speak unless you can find something of
value to say. Even when I chit-chat, I try to make it meaningful. ‘Can't talk
without conveying information, it just feels wrong. So me being casual in
conversation is still me trying to share something and not just take up the
other person's time.
138
It's a disservice to a young woman for a boy/man to treat her like the
epicenter of his life--to behave as if she is the adventure. Women
are people, too, and so if a guy treats a girl he likes like a goddess, someone
who is perfect, and he's unwilling to acknowledge any flaws she has, then he's
not engaging with her as a real person, but as an unrealistic ideal.
139
Whereas it might be exciting to have a guy lavish attention on you and treat
you well, if he does it because you're the greatest thing in his life, it will
get old, eventually. The inherent problems with the approach will reveal
themselves over time. For example, she can become an idol, where she's so
central to the guy's life that he worships her, and in essence, she takes the
place in his life where God should be. And no human can take the place
of God. They're not cut out for it. They will fail, and there will be
disappointment and let-down on both sides.
140
God doesn't need our help. But a woman, like the man in her life, is an
imperfect being and therefore it's a guarantee that she needs help, somewhere
somehow. If the guy treats her as a perfect angel, then he won't be conditioned
to be able to support her and help her in the way she needs it. So treating her
as a goddess, while it seems nice initially, when you really get into the
details, it hurts the woman more than it helps her, because it puts a blockade
in the way of the man being able to connect with her in the way that she needs,
(and for that matter, that he needs).
141
So what a girl needs is not to be the adventure, but to be taken along
with the man on an adventure. The adventure needs to be something
higher, greater than she. By having the right central focus in his life, a
godly man is able to be properly intimate with his future/spouse so that he can
bring her joy, comfort, and most of all bring her closer to God. It's hard to
do that if she's taking His place, in the relationship.
142
So what I'd like to offer to you is the idea that a guy who can honestly look
at you and say that he sees you as a flawed individual can be sexy, rather than
an insult and an overture for an aggressive verbal fight. Of course, it matters
how it's introduced. You can't just get together with someone and start
criticizing them. It's all about the motivation: is it to hurt, or is it to
realign what we value with what is really important? The latter is what I'm
seeking.
143
Looking at James 4:17 and Romans 14:23, I'd say that concerning Christian
liberty, if you don't think that wearing bikinis is wrong, then it
wouldn't be sin for you. After all, there is nothing evil about the female
body, or anyone's naked body for that matter. So if you've never thought about
swimsuits in a Christian-walk context, that may mean you wouldn't have been
defiantly doing something you thought was inappropriate. There are those who
adamantly think it is, and for them, if they were to do it, it would be sin,
according to those passages. Basically those are saying that whenever we do
something that betrays our conscience, then we are sinning--no matter what that
happens to be, sinful or not. I find that interesting; Christianity is the
thinking faith, unlike any other. It doesn't give a list of all behaviors that
are acceptable, and those that are not, in specific; instead it gives us
guidelines and causes our hearts and minds to be reformed, so that our conduct
would be changed naturally, not as a superficial obedience.
144
What do I think about girls in bikinis? I think they can look really good in
them. And knowing myself, I'm conscious of the fact that I could be tempted to
sin when I see a beautiful woman, and rather than try to toe the line between
"appreciating beauty" and just plain lusting, I am more comfortable
personally to seek to avoid putting myself in situations where I am confronted
with such thoughts.
145
The way that I would hope a young woman thinks about how she decorates her body
would be thus: would it be actively doing something that could give someone an
opportunity to sin, which would by no means be necessary? In an ideal world,
people could see beautiful people, clothed or naked, and never lust at all. And
it's helpful to note that on the other end of the spectrum, no matter what we
do to avoid provoking people, there are those who will sin (not just in lust,
but notably anger and envy etc) no matter how much care we took to not give
them cause. So the reality as it concerns our behavior lies somewhere in
between. We're not accountable for others, but we do live in a world where
there is sin, and so if we love others, we are motivated not to needlessly
provoke them to it.
146
And it scarcely needs noting, in marriage, my wife’s body
would not be an issue for me, personally. You can’t lust for your wife any more
than you can idolize God.
147
Without a lot of impressive civic achievements under my belt, what I long for
that makes me satisfied that I've made the world a better place is simply to be
able to influence other people positively. Something as little as encouragement
is gratifying, but to be able to introduce new ideas to others that they
appreciate (it seems strange to call it "teaching"), that gives me
joy.
148
Applying the theology I’ve discussed and will discuss regarding courtship, it’s
important to recognize that until married, I’m NOT the most important man in a
young woman’s life. THEREFORE, I shouldn’t expect her to give me the highest
priority of her time and energy, or consider my opinion more than anyone
else’s. So anything more than how I might expect her to treat a member of the
public is to be seen as nothing but her willing grace (giving something good
that's not deserved). Seeing it in that frame makes me more apt to be grateful,
rather than disappointed. And that feels good. It's so exciting how good
theology can align your thoughts to influence your emotions for the better.
Just taking some time to think about how to feel about something can keep you
from reacting wrongly.
149
In a big-picture sense, with all the variety in human voices, how someone
sounds is not really a big important factor in determining if you think
someone's a good potential partner. But ironically, I've found that if someone
has a really good voice, that's one of those overlooked "little things"
that can really get to me, about a woman. All other things considered, if she
has a great voice, she can make my heart melt. If said young lady enjoys the
thought of acting possessive, in private, in a future relationship, she could
certainly use her voice to entice me to give myself over to her.
150
. Funny thing regarding cuddling, that I've found: people are either physically
compatible, or not xD. How two people instinctively move their bodies to best
take up space on a couch, or seat, or bed, or other surface, it's interesting
how that can affect your ability to connect early on. I had a physically close
relationship with someone I considered a very good friend and nothing more than
that: We never kissed or decided that we were in a romantic relationship. We
just hung out as friends, and happened to be able to trust each other enough
(because of clearly expressed intentions, as I've harped on before: we were
both strongly conservative Christians and made it clear we weren't a couple, to
each other), that we cuddled a few times. From that, I've learned a few things
I hadn't thought about before:
151
One is that it gets HOT when two bodies are touching, when you're trying to
sleep. Goodness gracious. Never considered that, but it sure must be useful in
wintertime.
152
Two, I'm apparently instinctively predisposed to be a good lover, because I'm
good at reading the other person's body language and being responsive. Yay for
me! :D And I hope my future wife is instinctive in that way, too. But if not, I
can always teach her ;)
153
Funny enough, I have heard the opinions of people who don't like "innocent
intimacy", as one might call it, and it's a bit fascinating in a strange
way to listen to. Like, the fact that there are people in our oversexualized
culture that will do hookups and multiple partners but actually disdain the
simple act of touching without a sexual connotation to it? That boggles the
mind.
154
I'm very open about the abstract--some people get uncomfortable with just how
much I am fine discussing--but I'm SO careful with regard to a serious
commitment beyond an initial romantic attraction. I suspect it might be the
case that I'm a slower mover than most
women, people just wouldn't get that impression when they hear me talk about
how I yearn to be married.
155
Clearly and directly explaining how you see something, so that there's no
ambiguity is incredibly helpful. That can be romantic or flirtatious, too,
depending on the context. I don't think many would disagree with me that trying
to figure out someone who refuses to be pinned down is frustrating if they
don't give up the game eventually. I don't particularly "hate" teases,
but girls who can't not be evasive
come across as immature and I just am not interested in a relationship with
someone like that, so it would never happen because I'd give up pursuit really
quickly.
156
[For the hard-working, busy, ambitious woman]: If your tendency is to
overextend yourself or lose track of "doing things for yourself," a
Christian husband or fiancée can help you keep that balance by virtue of the
fact that his attention will be focused on you, and preoccupied with how to
bless you. Consequently, all you would need to do, rather than second guess
your commitments as you might if you're single, would be to happily pursue your
external obligations to the fullest that you wish, and simply be mindful to
respond to him when he beckons you to slow down. A [marriage] relationship can
be seen as a single human organism with two centers of consciousness, such that
you can benefit from a second-person perspective in ways that you can never
quite realize on your own, through introspection alone. So a loving man would
let you chase your dreams and only when it becomes necessary, pull you back to
him, and all you would need to do (and would be free and secure to do in that
relationship) would be to give in.
157
"How can you be single?" can be a compliment, but often I find that
the context in which it's asked is insulting. I've had girls tell me that,
"how is it that you don't have a girlfriend!?" but often they are in
relationships. That's not inherently insulting, that's just frustrating. But
imagine a person who is single themselves, saying this to someone. If they
really mean it, wouldn't they then be interested in a relationship with them?
What then explains the perplexing situation of a single and attractive girl
telling me that she can see why any girl would want to date me, but isn't
herself interested?
158
I think some people give kinder compliments than they secretly give the
recipient credit for deserving. Because the bottom line is, if they aren't
interested, then clearly they can see some reason for not wanting a
relationship, and hence they CAN understand why others wouldn't also want to
date them, and thus why they are single, after all. So from a single person,
the "compliment" "I don't understand why you're still
single," if they don't follow it up with romantic interest themselves,
really means "I can see why you're still single, I'm just not going to
tell you why, so that the feedback could help you." And that's where I
find the insult.
159
The only reason a single person wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with
someone they find desirable without reservation is because of something
negative on their side of the
equation. They’re unready, in one way or another. That’s the only reason. “I
would be interested in you but I’m a bit too old for you” is still a reason you
can see why they’re not single, so if you see it, say it, don’t say you can’t see
why. “I want to wait until I finish school”, however, is a valid reason not to be
interested even if you find someone desirable. In other words, where you are in
life is really the only valid reason for a person not to want someone they
think would be a good partner. Your own past history is only a reason for them to not be interested in you – that is not your right to decide, that you are ineligible because of.
160
Consequently, I'll never say that to a girl unless I'll allow myself a) that I
am actually personally interested in them, potentially, and b) if I'm not
willing to accept a relationship, that I will explain the reason why not in
terms of some constraining factor on myself, such as not being financially
ready (the big one), etc.
161
Otherwise, if I can see a reason in that person why I wouldn't want a
relationship with them, then it isn't true that I could be confused as to why
they're single. And therefore, if I asked them that, I would be lying.
162
And when you distill the issue down this far, you can once again put words to
why it's frustrating. When complimented by unavailable people, it's frustrating
because they can't satisfy your will not to be single. But when complimented by
single people, it is, insidiously, not a compliment at all, but a subtle lie,
and acknowledgement of withholding helpful information, etc etc. So anybody
told this from someone who's professedly single and available, who does not
have reasons why they're not ready for a relationship, has every right to be
offended.
163
[To the choosy woman]: The only reason anyone would be legitimately
disappointed with someone else's pickiness in choosing a relationship partner
is if they're one of the ones weeded out. Nobody likes being rejected. But no
man with more than an ounce of thought invested in his approach to
relationships would be sincerely interested in a young woman who can't
discriminate at all, and just accepts whatever comes her way, with open arms. "Like
a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion."
Proverbs 11:22
164
I think Proverbs 11:22 is primarily in
regard to how one carries oneself outwardly, but I think it extends to
character and personality as well, not just how she dresses. Bottom line: a
wise woman is definitely selective about her decisions, whether they concern
how to dress, who to be friends with, how to act, who to be courted by, etc.
Being overly resistant to things can make you potentially miss out on the good,
but you won't regret missing out on the bad stuff, so it's far better to be
described as "picky" than, say, "loose."
165
Song of Solomon ch 8 where the girl's brothers speak makes reference of their
sister being either "a wall" or "a door." What does a wall
do? Keeps things out. What does a door do? Opens for people to come in. It's
probably not surprising to you that the symbolism of the young lady being
"a wall" is held up as a virtuous thing in the passage. In
contemporary language, when I read this passage, the phrase "she's a
doorknob, everybody gets a turn," came to mind. Don't ever be tempted to
think disparagingly of yourself because you're not that.
166
If someone demonstrates, on more than one occasion,
a)
total disregard for anything I said
b)
interrupts me repeatedly before I can conclude a single coherent thought
c)
yells, when there was no occasion for it
d)
threatens "punishments" for trying to accomplish a resolution, by
continuing to try to speak/be heard
e)
"ragequits" and attempts to have the last word, or shall I say, the
only word
f)
shows inability to reason logically
g)
nags
…then
I'll be too alarmed to dare risk the only hope of earthly peace I have on
someone who doesn't respect me enough to lay aside their pride in an argument.
I
am a reflective listener. Me asking questions as someone is speaking for a very
long time should not be seen as interruptions but as engagement with what I'm
hearing. Being attacked for having anything to say when someone is talking for
minutes at a time and attacking me is exhausting...
167
One of the big reasons for why I have no problem at all with communicating
letter-style for quite some time, is that because the more ground work you lay,
the less room there is for misunderstanding later on, and the less opportunity
for open conflict to occur.
168
There’s no time limit, because however long we might drag out any mention of
meeting, there is always the opportunity to improve our knowledge of each
other, which I personally see as key to any relationship. So in other words,
you never stop growing in a relationship, and so having to wait is not so much
of a downer because you can redeem the time, making productive use of it in the
meanwhile.
169
And that way, if it's mutually decided at some point that a future
marriage-relationship can't be seen to be possible, then you haven't wasted
your time, but have gained a friend, or at the very least connected with
another person in a real way, and you have that settled conscience about how
you handled it. That it wasn't shallowly preoccupied with getting something
from the other person, but more about what you could gain from giving to each
other.
170
Thinking forward to marriage, it would be a nightmare of nightmares to find
myself in a relationship with someone who's bought into the lie that men want
sex, and for women it's a chore, and that she tries to withhold intimacy to
manipulate me or as "punishment," as if punishment has any place in a
loving relationship. The worst part about this prevalent attitude is that it
hurts the relationship by driving people farther apart. Intimacy is not a
simple reward, it is a necessary part of a healthy marriage that keeps you
close--it's very hard to be very angry at someone who you're physically close
with. One of the rare things the "sex mags" (meaning Cosmo, not
playboy or anything) gets right from time to time is the advice that whether
you resolve it or not, you should have sex at the end of an argument.
171
[Answering the question of what to do for a ‘first date’]: I think the first
meeting wouldn't be a "first date," so the two answers to this
question are a bit different. Meeting someone from on line, it'd make sense to
pick a public place like a mall food court, and then sit and talk, or walk and
talk, from there. On a date-date, I'm actually making this up on the spot as I
write, because I don't think a lot about this because I'm a rebel against
common custom. I personally don't think paying $20 for a salad somewhere is
going to do much to improve our relationship, so I'm pretty antagonistic to the
idea of "going out" to eat. It'd be far more fun to cook a meal
together. You'd save money, you'd get to see how you both interact normally in
a natural context like a kitchen in this example, and obviously you'd have some
casual quality time. But for a first
date, well, once we've met and you're comfortable being alone with me, I'd
suggest a day hike, going somewhere scenic and just walking and talking, but
along a trail instead of a street. It's all about the quality time, I will keep
insisting. :) After getting tired, there's always the opportunity to do
something else--again, getting to know each other through normal interaction.
What does he/she do when they're bored and hungry but don't have the
opportunity to make food at home? Simple everyday stuff, and just fitting in
relating to each other around whatever you happen to be doing.
172
I should explain that my notion of a ‘date’ is a formally pre-planned excursion
under romantic auspices and is not inextricably linked to the concept of
“dating” that I railed against in point #121.
173
I've found that word [gentleman] one of the less loaded ones, and so I use that
to try to communicate that I respect and admire women, am romantic, am mature
and definitely not uninterested in meeting a young lady. Explaining that last
part, there's lots of guys who are nice but not interested in someone. Now, I'm
not desperately trying to woo everyone I meet, but I try to, without being
either creepy or aloof, telegraph that I'm available, but not just available to
anybody who'll have me. The intent is to make any given young lady comfortable
enough in a conversation wherein which if she is interested in me, she won't be
afraid to slip me some encouragement. I have come to hold one Biblical nugget
of wisdom very seriously over time, and that's that in a romantic pursuit, not
only is it the best way but it is also how we're wired: that the man is the
initiator, and the woman is generally more responsive. The man following this
logic would understand that he needs to express some interest before he hopes
to know whether a woman's interested in him. He can't hope to be chased, he's
the one who has the responsibility to pursue. Taking that together with the
fact that a woman compatible with me (for the simple fact that there's very few
sincere Christians in our age group), it's hard to find one, and your chances
are not good if you never probe. So, this gives a little more background for
what I said above. It's a tangent, but it's related to being a gentleman. I'll
be ambiguously flirtatious with most women I talk to, in order to better gauge
their compatibility (but not always that; suppose I'm talking to an older woman
or a mother...in that case, being a gentleman is hoped to have the effect of
producing word-of-mouth benefits.. "that Hakam guy seems real nice. Have
you talked to him?") Perhaps this is a bit of a long shot, but it's in the
back of my mind and helps me not be discouraged if I try to be friendly toward
somebody and they aren't too pleased. :]
174
. I can't get married until I can have a self-sustaining financial household,
but there's no harm in getting to know people while waiting for that, to not
waste the time :) . If they find someone better while I'm still working on
getting settled, that's no harm, no foul, in my view. I would not want a young
lady to feel trapped waiting for me to amount to something, and putting her
life on hold. I would want anyone I'm talking to to feel/be free to pursue
other opportunities if they present themselves to them. See, while a part of
what I'm looking for in a marriage is intended to assure my personal
satisfaction, the operative calculus for the decision to pursue one
person in particular will concern what I can offer her. It wouldn't be entirely
accurate to say that taking my time lets me wait to see what other options I
might find; rather, I'd actually be interested to see if she could find
a better alternative to me. If it turned out that I was the best
man for her, then I would be driven by a sense of honor to give her the
very best she needs, which only just happens to be me. This is not to demean
the relationship at all, but rather to diminish any motivation for pride in
myself in my approach to it, so that I'm more focused on her needs and what I
can give, rather than what I can get--and to put the commitment and
responsibility ahead of my personal feelings.
175
For a woman that I would not end up marrying, or see a relationship with
heading in that direction, this is my thought for how to conduct that
relationship and what goals to pursue for it: Whatever the extent of our
relationship, all I want to give a woman is a great experience. And I'll
sacrifice my own expectations in order to accomplish her best interest. That is
my promise to any one who would engage with me on a personal level.
While
I’m getting to know a woman, since I wouldn’t expect her to open up on every
intimate level at once, my goal is to work hard to be a godly man of such
character that she could trust me intimately to listen to things that are close
to her heart, and if possible to play any small role in helping her a) heal or
b) be encouraged/empowered by how I treat her in response. If I can't be her
husband at some future date, then it inspires me to strive for giving her such
good impressions of what a godly man can be like, so that when she meets a man
who shares the best of my qualities (and presumably surpasses them) and is a
closer match to her, that she'll recognize him for who he is, and better, to be
immunized against posers, so that foolish men can't get the opportunity to hurt
her.
176
Answer to a question about the ‘first kiss’ in a relationship:
My
mind can go so many different ways on this, and not out of uncertainty so much
as that I can see the strength of so many different arguments on it. For
example, I grew up without a tremendous influence against kissing, in a culture
that saw it as something given, not to mention casual, so I remain very
impassively accepting of either notion of what a hypothetical close female
friend would desire: to save kissing for marriage, or to frequently kiss
beginning early in the relationship. I wouldn't be offended by either one in
and of itself. Partly because I haven't shared a mouth-to-mouth kiss at this
point in my life, I'm very amenable to the idea that "I've waited this
long, why not wait til the engagement/wedding/honeymoon?" Like sex, it's
not something you need to test that someone is good at, because it's possible
to learn, and you get better the better you know your partner. And also like
sex, the more you do that, the more you create a subconscious and very strong
bond between two people, which if broken, is painful--and in hindsight,
needlessly so, and easily preventable. With that in mind, together with my
lofty goal of making my interaction with a young lady as positive as possible, I find a compelling reason to, at the very
least, not pressure a girl into this type of intimacy, and to do my best to
make her comfortable with a largely kiss-less relationship.[emphasis added]
That's my initial approach, but as mentioned, it's not so strong that if she
should lay in ambush, grab my face and take what she wants, that I'd be
terribly upset at all. If anything, it would reveal to me the strength of her
desire for me. Going out of your way to kiss me when I've showed disinterest
and made no moves would take a certain level of boldness and confidence, let
alone vulnerability and tenderness, and it would give you a not-inappropriate
way to really get my attention. [Of course, context matters a great
deal]
177
. I care very much about being of one mind with my spouse on theology, but I
definitely don't want to make a woman I’ve begun talking to feel like she’s
being interrogated. And it's definitely true that I can be attracted to a girl who's pretty--but all I need is a basic
level of attraction. Just enough to not be repulsive xD. I can like somebody I get along well with. But
the only thing that can make me "fall in love," colloquially
speaking, is how holy you are. The better your relationship with God, the
better your relationship with me. I can love you because I love God, and really
it's God loving you through me, and that's the theology shining through to
romance. But bottom-line, though I can explain why I should be interested in a
Biblically wise woman, it doesn't explain the presence of a deep-rooted urge,
why I should feel so...drawn toward?...such a lady. And thus I attribute that
to God literally changing my internal desires, as the Bible promises that he
does to those He saves.
178
Physical contact in public in a relationship: I don't think I'm very touchy in
front of others. I think I'd be more likely to put a hand on a shoulder as a
communication gesture as part of a conversation, more so than an absent-minded
caress. If I'm very comfortable with somebody, I think I'm inclined toward
frequent contact but not necessarily "PDA," like hugging or etc--more
like a hand on the back when walking through a door, or touching the
elbow/shoulder/side to get their attention to turn around. And for that matter,
I appreciate the same.
179
Any time a relationship has failed to materialize for me, it’s been ultimately
because of my choice. And any time I've chosen not to pursue a relationship, it
has been solely because I determined that they weren't a match for me, at some
point early on, and consequently never let the intimacy escalate.
180
What I’d be most comfortable with when greeting goodbye with a woman I’m early
on in talking to: Because of my personality type (INTJ/P) and my history of not
being touched or surrounded by people who are physical in that way, I'm quite
simply wired to be content with going through life in a bubble where I never
physically interact with someone. When someone does "reach out and touch
me," it hits me hard because of what a difference it is from the usual,
and is apt to make my mind race, trying to process the stimuli. It's a great
way to confuse me or get me off-balance, if a person chooses to be ambiguous
about how they touch me. A bit of direct communication can help me
tremendously. So, to answer the question, I'd be more inclined to simply bid
adieu, but may be likely to do something different in an active attempt at
empathizing with how the other person would perceive my behavior. So what that
means is, if I knew that a woman wants/needs to be hugged, I would indulge her
needs, now that I was aware of it. Otherwise I might accidentally upset her by
inadvertently offending her. That's why I'm such a fan of communicating :)
181
I could honestly go completely without having my spouse meet my parents, because
a)
there's no Biblical mandate for it
b)
marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man a woman and his or her family,
or a man and a woman and their friends, etc.
c)
there is no concern for me about approval from one person of the other, because
it is not their will I wish to honor first, but God's.
182
That said, because of the spiritual symbolism referenced in thought #114, I
would prefer to introduce myself to my fiancée-to-be’s parents, so that they
would know who I was, to the extent of what kind of leader I would be. But
suppose her parents were unbelievers, or otherwise in sin and chose to refuse
to consent to my decision to court their daughter? There is nothing that says I
need their blessing, it would only be
better if it could be given, really for her parents’ sake, more than her and
mine. But a Christian woman belongs to God first, before her parents, and it’s
Him that I need to be in agreement with. I find no directive from God in
Scripture that suggests that you can’t marry a woman if her parents disapprove.
I find that a person’s father and mother should be honored, but to honor does
not necessarily mean to submit to their wishes. If a woman can never marry against her parents’ wishes,
then that would mean that she is not free to make her own decisions; she is in
effect a slave—see thoughts 102 and 103.
183
I can talk about almost anything. There's really no shame for me in the realm
of sharing ideas, as opposed to things you may have done that were wrong. What
restrains me from being totally explicit to the degree I am in my own mind with
myself, with another person, are these concerns:
1.
Not wanting to upset them, and hurt the progress of the relationship by sharing
things that they're not comfortable with at that stage of intimacy, but would
ultimately be eventually.
2.
Not being completely confident that I can trust the person with my deepest
secrets.
184
In teaching children about sex, you have to start earlier than would be ideal,
because they'll be exposed to it otherwise. So you inoculate them against it by
teaching them the right things, as their mental aptitude allows them to
understand. It's not hard to imagine that you could have a conversation with a
three or four year old, that why mommy's belly is big is because:
"Everybody's body has parts
that do things that are important. It looks like her tummy is big but it's not
her stomach. There is another body part called the "womb," and your
brother/sister is growing inside, until they're ready to come out. Mommy is
pregnant. This is something that happens when people do something called
"sex." You don't need to know what that looks like or all the details
of how it works, but you should know that "sex" is what happens
before a baby begins to grow in a woman's womb. It's also important to
understand that sex can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you
use it, like a hammer or a knife. It's a tool, and if you use it the wrong way,
you'll hurt yourself. So there's a lot of people who have been hurt because of
sex, and so there is a social taboo around the word. Now you know what the word
means, and you should be careful not to use it carelessly because it can upset
other people. Just know this: when sex is done between a husband and wife, like
your mom and dad, it is a beautiful thing and a wonderful thing--because you are
here because of sex. So is sex evil? No, because you are a gift from God to us,
so sex is actually a gift from God. But like everything else in the world, it
is affected by sin, and so even though it's not inherently bad, it has been
used for bad things, and because of this, it is wise to keep your knowledge to
yourself until you grow older, because other kids your age might not be having
this talk with their parents. Please respect the parents of your friends and
classmates' decision to tell their kids about sex when they are ready. And you
can always ask us any questions you have. There is much more to learn, and
we're willing to give you whatever instruction is most helpful to you at your
maturity level." Something
like that.
185
I think I have an average/above-average drive for my age group and sex. If I
were married now, I'd be hoping to make the best use of the time allotted and
have sex with my wife on a 2x-weekly absolute minimum, but a once-daily or
twice-daily maximum is all I'd be physically capable of, so I don't consider
myself hypersexual in any sense. Just normal. And because my idea of sex in
marriage is as an expression of the love I have for her, it's closely tied to
and very important for me to be able to engage in this with her. Subconsciously,
even if I wanted to believe differently, being rebuffed would hit me as if she
was telling me that she didn't want to be loved by me. That complete lack of
caring would hurt very deeply.
186
On the use of the word “like” as a compliment: I find myself often wanting to
qualify this statement, because to other people in my experience, this has
meant anything from "I don't dislike you," to "I want to jump
your bones. Now. In front of everybody." Sooo... to me, the phrase just
means that I'm fond of someone. That I find them appealing in some way and
pleasant to be around or engage with. All-around positive rather than negative
thoughts. Not really a question of romance or sex, though it's undoubtedly
important for both. If I say it to someone, then it’s simply the case that I
like them, insofar as I know them. And I believe the degree to which you can
like or love someone is impacted primarily by your depth of knowledge of that
person. So someone should interpret me wanting to continue to get to know them
as me being happy with how much I like them now, and wanting to like them more.
187
On the length I’d be willing to wait to marry someone when courting them or
engaged: Right now, it's indefinite, because of my personal situation. But upon
being financially self-reliant, I'd move quickly, the only things causing me to
go slow being wanting to be absolutely sure neither one's making a mistake. I
could get to know someone right away and after talking to someone at the rate of
10,000+ words exchanged per week, maybe after 2-3 months asking to court them,
and upon finding that we're fully compatible in the best ways, I'd arrange to
put my top-secret proposal plan in action. An engagement of a half year, give
or take a few months, would seem fair to allow people to make plans to attend
the wedding--and that would be it. [For an illustration of 10,000 words, that’s
a little more (c. 200) than the amount of words from the beginning of this
article to this point right here]
188
On the subject of family again: I don’t approach another person's family
disdainfully--I tend to make good impressions. I don't avoid them nor attempt
to somehow separate her from her family. I just don't need anyone's acceptance
but hers, from an emotional point of view. That's mainly what I meant in point
181 and 182, as it concerned my lack of concern.
189
On the suggestion that a woman might be sexually evasive on the basis of being
tired, lazy, unpretty, etc: Sure, being tired on occasion is granted, and I can
be sure that that'll be the case for me, too. But I know that if there's
something she wants from me in terms of physical intimacy, I will give it to
her any time, no matter how tired I am. And I'd hope she has the same attitude
of self-sacrificial love. What I was referring to, though, was depression over
consistent, prolonged disinterest. Next to cheating, that's one of the biggest
nightmares that exists for me for marriage.
"Not feeling pretty" not only should never happen to my wife,
but if it did it wouldn't be what matters to her, and it definitely shouldn't
be a reason that enters her mind to refrain from intimacy. A strong argument
can be constructed for why feeling 'unpretty' is a better reason TO have
sex--what's the problem with not feeling pretty, if not fear over not being
desired? Easily treatable by letting the person closest to you demonstrate how
desirable you are to them, and make you feel good in the process. 1 Corinthians
7:3-5 "3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and
likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over
her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have
authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another
except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and
prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of
your lack of self-control." [emphasis added; see below thought]
190
Reemphasis of 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. Note the only reasons given for why sexual
abstinence within marriage would be allowable: the spiritual disciplines of
fasting and prayer. And only with the consent of your partner! No other reason is given. It’s logical to conclude that
medical reasons would necessarily force sex from happening at times, but
feeling tired, uninterested, or having body image issues are not medical
issues. They are not illnesses that make sex somehow dangerous to your life—in
contrast, abstaining from sex for too long or for reasons other than fasting
and prayer is directly identified as dangerous to your marriage and your souls.
I can’t think of a more powerful COMMAND to have frequent sexual intercourse
within marriage, and it’s right there in the Bible. Any other excuse is
unacceptable, and I’d go so far as to say that, if a person is acquainted with
this passage, that it is sin and disobedience/faithlessness to God. Is it any
wonder that temptation and adultery strikes, when a person is rebelliously
refusing to be sanctified this way?
191
One more thought on meeting family. Whereas it’s all the same to me whether she
meets my folks, I’d be very keen on meeting hers, for the sake of getting a
better understanding of who she might be, by learning about the people who have
the greatest influence on her.
192
I need to debate, discuss, bounce ideas and argue convictions to have a good
relationship, and I do it with the friends I keep in touch with on an
almost-daily basis. In all my experience, the worst interactions I have had
with people have been those in which someone has tried to shut me down and
refuse to reason with me. When that happens, I have no control or influence
over the situation, and am at the mercy of someone else's arbitrary decisions
to hurt me, until/unless I can flee and remove myself from their reach. This is
a ubiquitous concept, spanning 4th-grade bullies, public school administrators,
and people who have attacked me for excitedly sharing newfound Christian
beliefs at my university. I can trace back every ostracism, every ruined
relationship, and every stressful antagonism to some person deciding to go out
of their way to hurt me, and then refuse to change their mind about what
they're doing and why. I can deal with many things, but irrationality is the
absolute worst of them all, because with it goes the capacity to overcome all
other problems.
For
that reason, it's an uncompromisable deal-breaker. I could never have a
successful relationship on any level with someone who is unwilling to listen to
other perspectives, or explain the reason why they are doing something, because
without that willingness, there is no hope to ever resolve any dispute.
There
is no such thing as a theological subject that does not matter, in the sense of
not being worth discussion and the passing of judgment thereon.
I
certainly am unique in this respect: I seem to be able to get along amicably
with anyone, it's just extremely rare to encounter others who do the same; it's
immensely frustrating to not be able to have fruitful, peaceful and joyful
relationships with others because of others.
193
The benefit of a slow approach without rushing into intimacy is this: You keep
a person at arm's length, but not as a function of not caring for them--quite
the opposite, it's out of respect so that a severance would hurt them as little
as possible. And the practical experience of trying to connect is nevertheless
there, to help inform future engagements, without the emotional baggage that's
so common among others in the culture.
194
On occasion, people (often female) who I’ve spoken to at length, usually over
text, facebook chat or email, have given me kind compliments. Sometimes it’s as
generous as “if only ___, you’d make an excellent husband.” Such an endorsement
is something I’d happily brag about to a soon to be fiancée. In the right way;
not “I’m so great, look, here’s a random person who said I’m great,” but “this
woman is someone who I’ve shared what’s been on my mind with [syntax fail?] for
over a year on a day-to-day basis, and if anyone could give you an insight into
my mood and the thoughts I meditate on, her opinion is one I would trust above
all others, even giving it more weight than my own.” So a brag. But not a
self-absorbed brag.
195
Referring to thoughts 74-75: In a world where knowledge is available
instantaneously at the point of asking a question, the challenge for this
individual is to adopt and determine where to apply restraint, himself, because
by and large, I’ll be the limiting factor in my own experiences, not the
wide-open world at my fingertips.
196
I think one test of a good relationship is the idea that if you were somehow
divinely required to, you could make a marriage work. And that isn’t to be
understood as fantasizing about people who I make friends with, it’s more of an
attempt to channel feelings of endearment into a constructive evaluation of the
strength of the friendship.
197
It’s not something I’ve only contemplated with respect to close friends, by the
way. It’s a consideration in the back of my mind that comes up at some point
when talking to any woman—could I see
myself married to her? With potential interests, it has the obvious practical
effect of influencing the decision to pursue or avoid, but when it comes to
friends who are off limits, the judgment has more of an effect in the way of
making me thankful for them and giving me an opportunity to simply relish our
level of intimacy without any prerogative of progressing down any particular
path. A philosopher put it an interesting way, that God’s experience of loving
another being can’t be based on deepening knowledge, since He knows everything.
Instead His joy would seem to come from recurrently relishing in the satisfaction from the simple fact of having
existing intimacy with someone, be it Himself or one of His children. That
has affected how I see the purpose of non-marital relationships. And also
including marriage.
198
A singles retreat for Christians is probably the best way to take what’s good
about finding someone at church and maximizing your options and chances, but
the singleminded (haha!) mentality it cultivates would be unfortunate. Chances
are just as good that you’d meet desperate or less than desirable people there
as well; expecting everyone to be a ten and have theology as good as John MacArthur
would likely lead to disappointment, or worse, making a forced decision to
engage with someone. It could be great or it could be horrible, but having no
way to control that, I’d be superbly unlikely to go unless pressured, likely by
someone else also going, and even then I’d emphatically adopt a non-expectant
mentality and simply go with the modest goal of seeking encouragement—either
the getting or the giving thereof.
199
[Compare a Reformed young man (me) with a Reformed young woman in a more urban
environment]: I wonder which one of us has the worst chances, where we are in
life/culture/the country, at meeting a partner. I can see it both ways. On the
one hand, I’m free to pursue whomever, though on the other, you don’t have the
responsibility of actively hunting down your husband. There are statistically
less guys my age in churches than any other demographic, but on the other hand,
we wouldn’t be appealing to a young churchwoman before acquiring a sustainable
career, whereas you still would be appealing to men. You live where there are
more yuppies (young, upwardly mobile professionals), though it might be more
conservative by proportion in the area where I live. But that doesn’t =
Christian, and you have dozens of my county’s population within a few miles of
where you live. I can be afforded marrying someone younger than I for
biological reasons, whereas the reverse is less likely, but I don’t really want
to; I want someone close to my age, but they get increasingly fewer as life
goes on.
200
Anyone who saw me and a certain friend from college together thought we were a
couple or should be a couple. I wonder if it’s just showing up somewhere
together with a young woman your age that leads to the notion, or if it’s “me +
girl” that does it, because I seem like “relationship material”…? Or maybe it’s
cultural pressure on the girl, whom others think has to get married ASAP so
that every male she’s seen together with generates an “ooh, a boy! You should
marry him!” reaction.
Female
readers are free to weigh in, in the comments.
~ Rak Chazak
No comments:
Post a Comment