Treatise: What's the Deal With the "Friend Zone?"

Talks about boy-girl stuff.

The first time I remember hearing this phrase, it was in a Ryan Reynolds comedy I saw in high school, where the main character was romantically interested in a woman who didn't reciprocate, but considered him a friend. Apparently the vernacular idiom originates from the tv series "Friends," but at any rate, I didn't see the end to the movie. I don't think I missed out very much.

The "accepted wisdom" of the day among adolescent males is that you want to avoid the dreaded "friend zone" because once a girl considers you her friend, you've lost the chance to become her boyfriend. This is based on the unquestioned assumption that men and women cannot be friends prior to becoming romantically involved. It implies that a girl/woman would rather date a stranger than someone she knows. Further, it cheapens friendships by casually disregarding them as anything worth having. The doctrine of "the friend zone" declares that boys should be primarily interested in "getting laid," or at least getting a girlfriend, which these days are essentially the same thing. If a girl is pretty, there is no redeeming value in having her as a friend. And if she won't be your girlfriend, 1) you've failed as a man, and 2) don't waste your time on her.

The fear of being frozen into "friendship" so horrifies modern chauvinists that they'll go to great pains to avoid being the kind of guy that a girl can be friends with, so as to leave her only 2 options: have nothing to do with him, or fall in love with him (not manipulative at all, of course!). The consequence is part of the reason why certain attractive women have difficulty relating to men. Nobody interacts with her normally, so she has no concept of normality. Everyone has ulterior motives, so she's either a cynic, inclined to dislike men, or vulnerable, easily taken advantage of and hurt by disingenuous sleazeballs.

Misogynists have perpetrated a culture of dysfunction. Idiot boys with no respect for women as equals use the words "friend zone" to shame others who are being too courteous to ladies without 'making a move,' and discourage them from being content without intimacy. And many boys/men who find themselves in a friendly but non-intimate relationship with a single woman tend to be restless, frustrated or resentful of the fact that they haven't been rewarded for the time they've put in.

What a shame that many relationships suffer, because young men don't want to be friends with women. What a shame that their insecurity and single-minded pursuit of sexual conquest robs women of healthy relationships with respectful gentlemen who are more concerned with her honor than with their gratification.

Isn't there another way? Oh sure there is. We can stop exposing young women to the dichotomy of "every guy who talks to you wants to sleep with you" and "you're completely alone and no one likes you." But what will that take? Logically, the young men need to figure out that girls are not there for you, let alone for 'the one thing.' That there's redeeming value in having non-sexual relationships. That they can like someone, and not have to act on that by trying to force a "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship.

But for them to move in that direction, they have to have motive and incentive. Positive incentive, through seeing abstinence as desirable. Disincentivization, through not letting them be rewarded for promoting misogyny, chauvinism, sexism, etc. Girls must stop expecting sex to be a normal part of a casual relationship. Logically, if there's a concern that a guy's just after sex, what's the best way to rule that out as a possibility? Obviously, don't give it to him -- don't let him have sex with you! If he doesn't get what he wants, and he's a shallow fool, he'll leave right quick (in most cases). If sex is not the only thing he's living for, then he'll have integrity and stick around.

This can be expanded beyond sex to include physical affection, kissing, or announcing yourselves as a couple. Some desperate boys can/will hang on as long as they're getting something. The best way to get rid of the ones with selfish intentions is to refrain from any kind of physical romantic intimacy prior to the all-in commitment of the marriage ceremony.

Isn't it ironic how everything always comes around to the Biblical side of things, after a time?

Summary

The "friend zone" is a nonsense derogatory term used in reference to a man being friends with a woman without pursuing sexual intimacy, which is intended to shame 'deviants' and justify the chauvinist's view of women as sex objects for his pleasure. It makes men into noncommittal idiots, and women into victims, who either distrust men - to the detriment of their relationships - or trust men far too much, and go in vain from one to the next, searching for the one who won't break her heart.

There is a two-pronged approach to killing this insanity: women must stop rewarding sexists, and men must decide that women are worthy of respect, not to be treated as objectives in a game. Men must get their priorities straight, and realize that integrity of character and permanence of love are more desirable than racking up shallow sexual encounters.

Simply telling them they're wrong won't do the whole job. Evangelizing with Scripture presents a united front, where the claims of "you must treat women ____" are not the disorganized arbitrary cries of feminists, but levied against them with the full weight of the authority of Almighty God.

It is the renewal of the mind by the washing of the Word that supernaturally empowers a man to treat a woman with the dignity and honor she deserves in God's eyes.

If you leave God out of it, have fun doing the same things and expecting different results (something Einstein called insanity).


~ Rak Chazak

Text Treatise: How Do We Deserve to Be Treated by Other People?

This was a response to a friend's text. I had expressed frustration with the behavior of coworkers and she'd replied with the ever-relevant "anything better than hell is better than you deserve."

Well, there are two levels of "desserts." The one you mentioned is before me always and is a relished bulwark against pride and resentment. Then there is "what we deserve" in the sense of how other humans should treat us if they were acting in obedience to the Law of God and with the Love of Christ. So there is a sense in which it is wrong how you and I and any Christian is treated -- but it's not wrong because we deserve better on our merits, but because God says that there is a better standard by which they should be treating others. So not a dessert in an ultimate sense, but a dessert in the sense of idealized personal relationships.

Basically the ultimate sense is important to avoid sinning by thinking that we deserve any thing, which is pride: thinking we deserve more than we do, which in an ultimate sense is nothing good, and everything bad. The second sense is helpful in addressing grief and other emotions in response to ill treatment: that feeling such a way is valid and appropriate. You have been wronged, and you are not inherently wrong to feel anguished or even angry about it. "But in all your anger do not sin." It's helpful as a perspective on why it's wrong: it's not wrong, what they did to you, because you're hurt. That makes you the standard, and now we're back to pride. It's wrong because it's a sin against God. David after indirectly murdering Uriah: "against you, and you only, oh Lord, have I sinned." If you should be angry at mistreatment, it should be because they're dishonoring God, not because they insulted you. I try to harness my feelings of insult and turn it into zeal instead. To validate the emotions in an appropriate way, with truth.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XVII: February 18-April 15 (Thoughts 263-320)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

Not vulgar, but addresses sexual subjects. Recommended
for those of 'dating age' and older.

"She's An Evil Person" (Christian Commentary on The Bachelor)

It so happens that I nearly never watch ABC. This is mostly because CBS and NBC are two clicks away from each other, and at my house we have old-fashioned broadcast television. No preset channels, and the "back" button only works for two channels at a time.

The picture credits belong to whatever site they came from. I'm not motivated enough to hunt down where I got them. "I don't claim credit." That should be enough. It's ultimately ABC that owns the shots anyway, so whatever.

When there was nothing on television one night, I decided to stop by ABC to see what was on. It just so happened to be The Bachelor. I could never be a fan, but I figured I'd let myself look over the show and hold my relationship philosophy up to it and see whether the broadcast would challenge or confirm my instincts.

I hadn't thought to make a blog comment on the episodes of last week and the week before, but after I had a chance encounter with a 35-50-year old woman in a supermarket checkout, my attention once again returned to a phrase uttered by one of the contestants, and I want to opine about it.

"They were evil"

This was the casual comment the older lady made with reference to the ladies below, who were both 'sent home' from the show on the same day.

"Always Angsty." Photo cred: Observer.com

"Sob Story." Photo cred: Observer.com

AWPATT XV: January 17-February 2 (Thoughts 231-247)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

231 It’s got to be a good sign when I can go this long without deferring to saying, “I hope she’ll be friendly.” I’ve perused enough dating profiles from time to time (mainly out of curiosity, wanting to see what’s out there) that I’ve had ample opportunity to be dismayed by the shallowness, not of desire (it’s hardly a lousy character trait to want to be around friendly people) but of the amount of thought put into what people are looking for. My anecdotal survey of sites like these turned out that the vast majority of ‘what I’m looking for’ sections, at least for women, say something like “a guy who can make me laugh,” “a guy with a beard/tattoos,” “a guy my friends will like,” “a guy who doesn’t say ‘your’ when he should say ‘you’re’,” “a guy who’s taller than me,” “a guy who can go out or stay home,” “a guy who can keep up with me.”

If you thought I was superficial when I talked about height in Thoughts #50-52, you should see some of these profiles. I was just analyzing subconscious inclinations in myself, but made no hard statement categorically excluding different heights from “wife potential.” But for many girls on dating sites, it’s serious, or at least one of the only things they put thought into. But what I notice when I see those statements is that there’s next to nothing you can learn about a person’s character based on their meeting those criteria. Some profiles will pretend that there’s more to be worked through once she’s interested already, but that just sets you up for a high rate of frustration, because your filter isn’t tuned well enough.

Yes, I want someone friendly, but in person, that’s the first thing I notice, and ultimately it’s a given, so it almost doesn’t even enter into the consideration of what sort of a woman I’m looking for. I have deeper compatibility concerns in mind than the utmost superficial things imaginable. And I’m looking for someone with a similar depth of forethought in their relationship plans. Statements like the ones I quoted show carelessness and possibly intellectual stupidity, and that’s a turnoff, so I avoid people like that, but without being disrespectful.

232 I don’t believe I mentioned being interested in a studious woman. I’ve talked about intelligence, knowledge, that she’s careful to think about things before making decisions, but not specifically about the pursuit of knowledge in itself. While someone who goes to school for the sake of schooling, and to insulate themselves from reality, is not highly appealing, someone who’s had a certain measure of achievement in terms of education will stand out. Now, pretentious Type-A’s are exhausting to be on the receiving end of, so not every personality type is made more magnetic by the increase of education. For some, it reveals abhorrent ego issues. But perhaps more important is the question of whether you can learn outside of structured academia. Someone who pursues learning on their own time is like someone who exercises regularly. They’re not content to languish with what they already have, but are honing it, to get better and better, for themselves and others. That is the root attitude that will benefit any relationship. Because someone who thinks they can improve is someone who isn’t likely to think that they’ve “already arrived,” and thus is less apt to be arrogant. It’s not a guarantee, as I mentioned, but a woman who is reading and learning on her own time is more interesting to me because of what it implies about her character.

233 Noses! Do you like ‘em big or small? It’s one of those things that I don’t typically notice, like prescription eyeglasses, but when I do, it’s temporarily amazing, as I look around and compare others’ to appreciate the variety. I don’t think I like flattened or broad noses very much, but I’ve been intrigued by noticing that a diversity in relative size can still be attractive to me. I remember reading somewhere, where Song of Solomon was being referenced, that large noses were considered appealing in Hebrew culture (Song makes a big deal out of the Shulamite woman’s nose in one section). It’s funny, considering that from ancient Egyptian images of Hebrews to modern day stereotypes, Jews are characterized as having big noses. This is in the back of my mind every time I notice an attractive woman who has a noticeably larger than average nose. I suppose I don’t mind them if they have an isosceles shape, have no bumps on the ridge, and aren’t over-bulbous or over-pointy. Longer better than shorter. Thinner rather than thicker. It’s not usually that I think about what shape of someone’s nose might be more attractive, but I suppose it’s one of the subconscious impulses in your mind, like head shape, eye spacing, etc, that work together to give you the instant reflex of “that’s good looking,” or “that’s kinda odd,” even if you can’t quite put your finger on what makes that person different from others. Maybe it’s the nose.

234 That thought came from noticing a very friendly woman’s nose in one of my prerequisite courses I’m taking. I’m diverting to talk about light subjects before beginning an excursus on “how to approach dating when dating isn’t the focus/goal/objective.” In each of my classes, there are 5 or less males, making the ratio something like 1:6 or 1:5 men to women in each respective course. This is a little odd. I realize the field might be less interesting to men, but the vast difference could have more to do with a simple, unemphasized detail that I’ve been noticing in trend reports for higher education. There’s less and less men, percentage-wise, in higher ed courses, the higher you go. Amazingly, the focus of grants and government projects is still on getting more women to go to school, but the tables have already turned. It’s something like a 40-60% split in the makeup of men and women who attain baccalaureate degrees in this country (unless perhaps it was Master’s). What are the possible consequences of this? Statistics show that more boys are born than girls, so it’s not explained by population. There is a huge chunk of males missing from classrooms. What are the possible reasons, or consequences? Who knows? No one’s funneling resources to investigate; it’s as if men don’t matter. Oh, I’m not bitter. It’s just as easy to take the alternate view, that “women need the help, men don’t.” But I refuse to take either one. It’s just a fact that no one is obligated to help me, so whether they do or don’t, the responsibility is still on the individual to pursue educational success. But I can’t help but wonder if, given the dramatically high gender disproportion in these classes, it might be within a course or within the field itself that I meet my future wife, just looking at it from a statistical possibility perspective. There’s scarcely anywhere else I could interact personally with so many women close to my age, except for bars/clubs/concerts or church-related youth events. For a middle ground in terms of the chance of meeting a wholesome virtuous lady, the classroom is not a terrible place to be.

235 Addendum to Thoughts #22 & 199. What are the chances that I’ll end up with a younger woman? As recently as a year or two ago, I would defiantly have refused the notion that I wouldn’t marry someone within a half year of my age. But that’s idealism, and the realistic outcome might be different. Should I refuse someone who’s perfect in every other way but happens to be 5 years my junior (if I’m 28 and she’s 23, for example)? The older I get, the more likely this becomes, because the margin of what’s appropriate expands with age. Up to now, if I had entered a relationship with someone 2 years younger, they’d have been 21 or less. But now, 2 years younger is 23, which is not quite so young as to have a high likelihood of being immature or naïve. Since I probably won’t seriously look for a spouse until age 27-28, anticipating a solid career by that time, the idea that I’d get to know someone now who’s 22, and maintain a friendship until then, when she’d be 25, is not very far-fetched.

I think the reason I’m resistant and cautious to contemplating a relationship with someone 5-7 years younger, other than the difference in life experience, is that for most of my life up to now, such an age difference would have been monumental and clearly inappropriate: 18 and 13 year olds? 22 and 15 year olds? Eeugh. But people who are 33 and 25 routinely marry, and the brute age difference is even wider there. But they are in the same age group. Adults. Because people mature irrespective of their biological age, it could be that a marriage to a 23 year old, at age 28, would be wiser than to a 27 year old who is far more foolish. Just letting the thought hit me as actually concerning me, and not just as a distant hypothetical, is a source of amazement to consider.

The really weird thing about it is pondering where such a person would be now. If I married a 23 year old at age 29, then by the time I met her and became engaged, we’d have been 22 and 28, meaning that there’s a possibility that a woman like that would just now be graduating high school, or a freshman or sophomore in college. In other words, I’d have no hope of meeting her now, anyway. Our life trajectories don't intersect at this time. So it may be several years before I’m engaged, not only because I’m waiting to get a career and stable income, and not only because I want to be careful to find the right person, but even because, if the ‘playing field’ is too devoid of suitable candidates my age, my future wife COULD BE, because of our age difference, not even here yet. Not arrived on scene. Somewhere else entirely.

What a mind-boggling thought.

236 Taking those last two thoughts together, there’s a real possibility that I might either meet someone in church or at university, while taking courses to get where I want to get. And they might be significantly younger. Respect for them would demand that I don’t make their life more difficult by ‘jumping the gun,’ and inadvertently pressuring them to commit long before the opportunity for engagement arises. But if they turned out to be fond of me, and for those years did not enter a relationship with another young man, then that would be gratifying. I can see myself like Boaz (paraphrasing), “you’ve shown me more kindness than before, because you could have had any younger man you wanted, but did not.” (Ruth 3:10) It’s equally likely that I can’t find anyone there, either, however, and may nevertheless resort to a dating site later on, but only God knows. I have the opportunity to wonder now, that I may marvel later.

How to Approach Dating when Dating isn’t the Focus, Goal, or Objective

AWPATT XII: September 17-December 17 (Thoughts 109-200)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub Page

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.

I've Finally Arrived

Because of my personal history of not being frequently immersed in social situations with people my age outside of school, sports, or places where adults congregated, I've had far less experience in terms of the types of encounters I've heard from others that they were having or have had. 

Some personal information, non-explicit nor personally identifiable. Discusses being 'hit on' and romantic crushes.

It wasn't until after graduating high school that I had the experience of unrequited emotions toward me by other people. Well, that's not entirely accurate, because I was aware of a few crushes in middle school (I was cuter then), but they were overtly declared and fizzled, they've just taken me more and more by surprise as time has gone on. 

-  A girl who avoided me ever after touching me inappropriately (and not getting the reaction she was expecting, I guess) wrote a suggestive note in my yearbook indicating she had tender feelings for me.

-  A girl in my freshman year of college brought a movie over to watch in my dorm room. When we said goodbye, she kissed me on the neck. I was totally oblivious to the presence of any physical attraction up to that point, and I think my 'failure to reciprocate' explains why she and her three friends always seemed to interact with me awkwardly, though they would acknowledge me and wave if we passed each other on campus. 

-  Another girl that year sent me an email to say she was avoiding me because she liked me. Nothing came of that, for obvious reasons.

-  Someone I hadn't spoken to in two years, because she had asked me "do you hate me?" which I took as an offensive insult and said 'yes' in desperation to end her insecure texting, emailed me to try to reconnect, and shared that she'd really liked me/had a strong crush for some time. She again persisted with the "do you dislike me?" questioning, my best guess is because she wanted me to say I liked her, but I refused to take her lead, and she became offended and ragequit.

-  I went on a casual 'date' with a girl I'd flirted with in Fall 2011, and after talking for a long time she revealed that she had a boyfriend and was most interested in seeing 'what I was like,' because of persistent negative rumors about me on campus [as a result of presenting Biblical Christianity on the university forum] that she had become aware of. 

Nothing like being ambush-kissed or having to constantly defend your friend/family/partner in court because of false allegations by a 'crazy ex,' or being propositioned for a threesome, or going to a social gathering where a fight occurs or police arrive for whatever reason. Just a bunch of people failing to consider that their assumptions about how people respond to certain behaviors might be..let's say limited. 

*   *   *   *   *

Piggybacking off that last idea, I now come to the topic of discussion. A friend of mine had once informed me that they've been 'hit on' by people of "all 3" claimed orientations, i.e. hetero, bi and homosexual, both males and females. To me, I'd just assumed it was something that wouldn't happen because I just don't go out to places like clubs or parties or wherever else one might expect to be hit on (oh, almost forgot bars). The lack-of-alcohol factor also would play a role, since slightly inebriated people might be less inhibited and feel more confident or flamboyant. For that reason, I wasn't expecting to get handed a note by a coworker (from a guest) one day that said 'call me' (or 'text me?') with a number attached. A few days later, sitting at home, I let my curiosity lead me to send off a text.

It went sort of like this:

-Initial Contact
-Who's this? response
-Explanation; so we don't know each other?
-Respondent feigns uncertainty
-I suggest it was someone playing a prank giving me his number
-Suddenly remembers who I am
-Tells me I'm "seriously attractive."
-I reassure him and thank him for the compliment, then ask if he got the impression I had 'an animus, condemnation, disgust, meanness, lack of respect etc or made you suspicious that I harbor those emotions toward you'
-He replies no, tells me I'm nice, 'obviously very intelligent' and deserves 'props for being as respectful as you are.'
-I tell him "You happen to have stumbled upon one of the most conservative Christian 24-year-olds this side of D.C." and explain that my kindness is not in spite of my Christianity, but as a result, a derivative of my beliefs which "leave no part of life uninfluenced."

I decided to tell him that, I explained, "because tomorrow is not promised. There is no better moment than the present," to talk about such a serious subject.

This is the conversation, summarized. I'm including his final text as a whole, as an anecdotal evidence for any Christians out there who aren't sure/confident about whether they should be up-front with the fact that they are Christian and "preach" to people when they've just gotten to know them a little bit. I wasn't sure how he would react, because chances are he could be like the homosexual activists at my university who have gone out of their way to try to destroy for me, academically, professionally and otherwise. But I stepped out in faith. Here's his response:

I really think you're honestly an awesome person [Hakam]. I'm really glad you've been openly honest with me about this all. It brings a lot to mind, because a lot of people have reacted very negatively. & you being a Christian, & reacting as respectful as you possibly could, is sure a powerful thing to see. I'm more then open to answering any questions & talking to you about anything at anytime you'd like. In my personal opinion someone as intelligent & awesome as you should not be working at [Restaurant]. Keep up the good work & push for what you want, [Hakam]. I believe in you. You're for sure an awesome dude.  & again, I'll just say if there's any possibility of us becoming friends, I'd be more then happy too. You seem like a really cool guy with a great outlook on life. & I see you going big & making it just from the little I know about you! 

- Results not typical. Faithful witness is required by God of Christians regardless of the end result. -

I appear to have an open door for further witnessing, with a person who's now in a position to listen and care about what I tell them.

"Imitate me as I imitate Christ."
~ Paul
1 Corinthians 11:1

~ Rak Chazak

Treatise: Married Women, Turn-offs, Turn-ons, and Plato’s Forms

                        I realized something right around the time when I was beginning to enjoy Christian music and spend time with other believers on campus. There were several couples who attended Campus Crusade (now known as just “Cru”), and I was happy to see that. Rather than focus on the obvious downside (“bummer, one less fish in the sea”), seeing a happy couple in a good relationship gave me encouragement because they, by their very existence, demonstrated that a committed relationship between young Christians could work. The obvious extrapolation of this observation is that if it works for them, it can work for me. Instead of being disappointed when I see a beautiful woman who’s “taken,” I draw enjoyment from their enjoyment by being glad that God is strengthening their bond and using them as a lamp for His glory, and look forward to the day when I can experience the same joy, personally. 

Yet, I want to make clear that what I like about a young Christian couple is the fact of their relationship itself and not an attraction to the woman in the relationship—getting these two confused can lead to catastrophe, and I think that inappropriate approaches to people in relationships, both by Christians and nonchristians, is one of the root causes for a lot of strange relationship problems that exist. I acknowledge that I initially recognize the woman as an attractive person. Sin is when that becomes lust—the desire to have HER for myself, which I’d like to think I don’t often do, but I acknowledge my imperfection and won’t dare to suppose that I’m less prone to that sort of thought than any other man. What I hold to be attractive about seeing her, happy, in a loving bond, is not her but the fact that she is happy, the fact that someone like her can be happy, and the fact that there can be such a loving bond that can generate such happiness. 

Let me briefly explain Plato’s forms. Plato used his brain of brains to wonder about things like definitions—what makes a thing the thing that it is? Is it arbitrary convention or is there an abstract concept that defines it? Let’s give an example: a chair. What makes a chair a chair? Is it that it has four legs, or three, or five? Is it its shape or its material that it’s made of, or its size? Why do we recognize every new chair that we see as a chair, and not as a completely new thing, since not all chairs are exactly alike? Plato would hold that there is a form called chair that defines “chair-ness,” and describes what it means to be a chair. Chairs are destructible and material but forms are eternally existent and immutable. Every chair possesses the form of “chair-ness,” and that’s what enables us to recognize it as a chair.  This is all a complicated way of getting to my point, which is this: I am attracted to the form of marriage. It is recognizable only in actual examples of marriage, but each actual marriage possesses some quality of “marriage-ness” that points to the form marriage, which is what I’m attracted to and desire. 

When I see a happy marriage between two Christians, it is not THEIR marriage that I desire. But there is something in their marriage that points to, that “reminds” me of some quality of the ideal of marriage, and it is THAT that I want. So when I see something in this ideal of marriage displayed in an actual marriage, it gives me hope because it shows that it’s not just an unreachable abstract idea, but a concrete reality that isn’t impossible to achieve—they did, and that means that you can have it too. That’s why I can be turned off to a particular woman upon realizing that she’s in a relationship (this is true. I would almost consider it a spiritual gift, but I suspect it’s just biology or psychology), yet turned on to/by something more abstract about her that isn’t HER, but a quality that she possesses that I yearn for in my own life. I don’t want their relationship. I want a relationship like theirs. And what that really means, in Christian theology, is that I want an earthly relationship with a woman that as closely mirrors the heavenly relationship, that God has with His Church, as possible.

~ Rak Chazak

All the Nice Girls I Meet Are "Older Women" in Relationships Already

Today I met Caitlin. I have a feeling I've spoken to her before, but I can't remember the conversation. That's typical of me because of the way in which I meet people--namely, spontaneously. I'll walk by somebody and decide to start talking to them. Yes, complete strangers. Because why not? It's nice to talk to people I already know, but you don't meet new people until you talk to someone you don't. I therefore make many many acquaintances as I go about my daily life in public.

The reason I'm so outgoing, despite being an introvert, is worthy to be another story in itself. But suffice it to say, I traveled out of the country at a formative period, when I had just hit puberty, and so I had the opportunity to "practice" talking to strangers -- girls, mainly, but not exclusively -- with the freedom of conscience of knowing that if I embarrassed myself, none of it would follow me home, because I'd never see those people again when I returned to the States. As a result, I figured out how to flirt with girls and I found out that starting conversations with complete strangers was not only easy but enjoyable. And that's what I've been doing ever since.

Caitlin was unsuspecting, sitting outside my class as I left it this morning; amazingly, she found the hard-backed bench in the hallway comfortable. I can almost never find a comfortable public-access chair, couch or bench, and I suspect I'm just an unfortunate height. Or too picky, I suppose. At any rate, I asked if she was waiting for the class after mine, she said no, and then I commented on her "snake-bite" lip piercings. And that was the lead-in. Then the conversation was begun, and we talked about all sorts of things, like exercise and posture, introversion and shyness/outgoing-'itude?' (what's the accusative noun for "outgoing?"--to "have the quality of being" outgoing..? Oh well...), and then we talked about relationships, maturity, what body types are attractive, aging, gender roles and marriage. 

Wow!, right? She wouldn't have spoken to me if I hadn't started the conversation. So the fact that I took the initiative led to an enjoyable dialogue. I ended up giving her my Facebook and hope to have more conversations like that in the future. I had to leave at some point, because I have a tendency to absorb people into multiple-hour conversations, and she had a class she was reading a paper for. Something about Gandhi, the background behind the famous statements he's made.

One of the things I took away from the conversation was that here was yet another nice young woman whom I happen to connect with on a 'maturity-level' basis. Yet, as I've often found, though I admit it could just be my perception, I seem to be more intellectually attracted toward such women than those a year or more younger than I, and even a large chunk of those who are my age. As it happens, she was "almost 30," she told me, and her mentioning that caused me to recall the time when I was visiting the mall to see a movie in my Freshman year. I would have been 18, and as I stood in line waiting to order at Subway, I came across a lovely young lady who was not only stunningly attractive, but had a great personality. She, to my dismay, was 27. We're simply worlds apart. Different life experiences, different immediate goals, that sort of thing. It made me think, "I can't wait until I'm 27, because that's where the 27-year olds are." It might sound silly, but the main idea is this: the independence and maturity level of girls several years older than me is highly attractive to me, and, not to promote myself, I find that I have much more in common with them. So for me to be able to find a potential love interest, I essentially have to play the waiting game. This is all fine and dandy with me, since I recognize that I'm not financially stable and independent, such that I can put time, effort and money (being broke) into pursuing someone. If an opportunity were to come by at this point, I'd miss it. So for the time being, I'm content with being single, despite the occasional pangs of loneliness.

Now, I didn't yearn to be in a romantic relationship with Caitlin, however. Instead, since I found out early in the conversation that she was in a long-term relationship with a young man, I became interested in what I could learn from her about that. To my surprise, she told me that her boyfriend "did not believe in marriage." What?? I immediately responded, "he needs to grow up/man up." She laughed affirmatively. I can sympathize with the frustration of young women who want to get married but who can't seem to find a guy who has his act together/priorities in order who can give them that. Now, I don't believe that they're in a bad relationship. I know nothing else beyond that, which is all she mentioned before we diverted the topic. But I think the boy she's been dating has a little bit of growing he needs to do. Guys who don't want to marry, ultimately, are not being responsible. They don't want to commit, in one way or another, to loving a woman full-time and not merely enjoying the benefits of a casual relationship without having to work hard  and sacrifice their fleeting desires for the benefit of someone else. That's what marriage ultimately is, a mutual self-sacrifice of your wants for their needs, and comfort. There's nothing better, in my mind, as far as human relationships go. Any guy who doesn't want to get married is just in need of getting his perspective altered. 

I let the cat out of the bag at that point, and asked if she thought her boyfriend would be willing to check out a motivational video if it happened to be a Christian sermon. She herself was definitely interested; I hope they both watch it. I gave her the link to Mark Driscoll's "Marriage and Men" sermon and when I get home to Facebook, I plan to give her the link to this one (which I couldn't remember the name of when we were talking):

Title: Adolescence: Boys Who Can Shave. 23 minutes in length.

This together with the "Marriage and Men" sermon have been the single two most foundational videos I've seen, with regard to forming my own understanding of my responsibility as a man and about what marriage is.

Yeah, most of the girls my age seem to not know what they want, yet. The secret that no one ever tells you in school is that girls don't actually mature faster than guys, that's only true for middle school and until the guys catch up. I've met girls in college whose immaturity would outpace even the immaturity of the worst-behaved class clown from my public school days. I seem to be more drawn to the "older women." Ladies, lest you think otherwise: maturity is sexiest. There's nothing quite as attractive as a woman with integrity. And if I can grow to be a responsible, independent young man with integrity, then that's the sort of woman I hope to meet.

Patiently waiting, 


~ Rak Chazak

The Chaos Theory of Impropriety

Chaos Theory encompasses the phenomenon known as the "Butterfly Effect," technically known as "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions." It's a mix of mathematical theory and philosophy that explains why it's difficult to predict the outcome of complicated systems. Weather, for instance. This is where the "Butterfly" analogy comes from. It supposes that the flapping of a butterfly's wings could alter the flow of the air molecules in its immediate vicinity, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events farther in the future. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at a moment in time, the event cascade leading to a particular future condition would be very different than in the case where the butterfly would have flapped its wings.

Tonight I thought to apply this to relationships. Particularly to moments where two people put themselves in a situation where they are alone, secluded and have a lot of time to kill. We often hear people explain their choices with the phrase "one thing led to another, and...", and this is the essence of Chaos Intimacy. 

As a single guy, I have been blessed to make very few mistakes of my own, and have gained a lot of wisdom by learning from other people's mistakes. That said, while my own experiences haven't been "as bad" (we have a tendency to compare ourselves to others), the sum message that I would give to young people is this: be warned. Don't put yourselves in situations where there's a possibility for "something to happen." You need not be of the opinion that you will do something. You don't need to be able to envision how it could occur. All that is necessary is for two people attracted to each other (or not even that--you only need to not be repulsed) to be alone in a place, where no one can interrupt you, and where there is no structure for your activity. If you haven't set clear boundaries, you're in trouble. There's no guarantee that you will do "something bad," but no matter how "good" you are, I'm writing to let you know, there's something mysterious about or human nature that practically guarantees that if we make ourselves vulnerable to impropriety in such a situation, that we'll have overestimated our fortitude, and we will fall. What may seem innocent at first could accidentally turn into something you didn't expect. Maybe you decide to box or wrestle and someone's privates are touched. This opens the door for further "activity." Your mind, when high on sexual hormones, has an uncanny ability to rationalize what you would "know better" than to do if you were thinking straight.

The Chaos Theory of Impropriety is simply that when something is left to chance, the outcome is unpredictable. Therefore make sure that you set boundaries when you spend time with someone you like. The best thing you can do is to avoid being completely alone together, particularly in one or the other's bedroom. But please also note, it's never too late to call it quits. Just because a line was crossed, it does NOT mean that you have to keep going, or that it doesn't matter if you do it again. You can always walk it back. Making a mistake does not doom you to remain in the place where your actions have landed you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. It's never too late to turn around and recommit yourself to purity.

That's my encouragement to young single people, and people in flirtatious relationships, this evening.

~ Rak Chazak