One thing you shouldn’t tell him.

On a message board I regularly read, there is a dating advice thread.  Sometimes the posts are entertaining, like when posters recount their adventures in online dating, but a lot of times posters genuinely seek advice or share personal stories, both triumphs and failures.  Today a female poster wrote that she had finally told a male friend that she liked him, only for him to tell her that not only did he not have those feelings for her, he was also secretly dating a mutual friend.  Quiver of arrows, straight to the heart.

The other posters all rallied around this girl, assuring her that she had done a brave thing and that the next time she did so, perhaps the outcome would be different.  They then recommended ice cream and booze as remedies.  I think it would have been kinder advice to tell her never to confess feelings for a man she wasn’t dating.

In general, feminist dating principles rarely lead to greater happiness for women.  Women’s magazines keep trying to encourage women to ask men out on dates and to make it seem chic and just the thing men are all dying for (the reasoning being that you, female reader, are just so bodacious that men tremble and lose their words in your presence), but the reality more often than not tends to be that a woman suffers disappointment and sometimes a severely crushed ego.  Usually what happens is that either the man accepts the date, but with no real enthusiasm, or he turns down the woman.  If a dating relationship does spring up, the woman will eventually become more and more agitated as she wishes to progress the level of emotional intimacy and commitment, while the man dawdles.  Finally, when the woman can take no more, she and the man break up, and the woman flips out when she discovers six months later that her ex-boyfriend just got engaged to his new girlfriend and they are getting married soon and have never been happier.

Similarly, when a woman confesses her attraction to a man when he hasn’t done anything to make her believe her feelings are reciprocated (like, you know, asking her on a date), disaster usually follows.  All the feminist orthodoxy in the world can’t change the fact that men are psychologically designed to be initiators.  It’s part of what makes them so relentlessly interested in competing and exploring and innovating — and pursuing romantically (although in these feminized times, it often doesn’t feel that way).  So when a woman takes matters into her own hands, so to speak, she’s thwarting natural design.  She’s taking the chance to initiate away from the man and robbing herself of the pleasure of being singled out.  It’s the “he’s just not that into you” principle:  if he wanted to date you — really, truly wanted to date you and kiss you and march around in public with your hand in his — then he would find a way to make it happen, especially if you were giving him loud signals to go ahead.  Your eager “help” is not necessary.  And, really, what do you think is going to happen when you do reveal the feelings that have been turning your insides out for the last however-many weeks?

YOU:  I have to tell you something.

HIM:  Uh, okay.

YOU:  It’s something that’s been on my heart and my mind for a while.

HIM:  Uh-huh.

YOU:  And I’ve been trying to hold it back, but I just can’t anymore.  I have to get it out.

HIM:  Okay…

YOU:  Sorry, I’m kind of nervous.

HIM:  It’s okay, just tell me.

YOU:  All right…I have feelings for you.

HIM:  OH, PRAISE THE LORD!  I HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR THIS SINCE LAST JULY, YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND!  THERE WERE SO MANY TIMES I WANTED TO ASK YOU OUT, BUT GOD HELD ME BACK, TELLING ME THAT YOU WOULD MAKE THE FIRST MOVE IF IT WAS HIS WILL!  OH, MAN, THIS IS THE HAPPIEST DAY OF MY LIFE! LET’S GO TO CHIK-FIL-A TO CELEBRATE!  I HAVE A COUPON!

Yeah, it usually doesn’t happen like that.  I know, the temptation is strong, and it seems so simple and rational, and your situation is going to turn out differently — but! — there is beauty in restraint.

Do men and women ever agree on looks?

I am often surprised at which famous women men find attractive.  Almost all famous women are objectively physically attractive; that is to say, while some of them may not be bombshells or traffic stoppers, no one would rank them in the lower half of attractiveness if grouped with nine other random women from Averagetown, U.S.A.  Yes, even without their hair, makeup, and wardrobe done by Hollywood professionals, these women would still be ranked in the top half, probably top third, of attractiveness in comparison with a truly random sampling of women of similar age.

But what makes a woman cross over into gorgeous or hot territory, in a man’s opinion?  (Besides big boobs, I mean.)  I worked with someone once who said he thought Hilary Duff was hot.  My jaw just about hit the ground.  Speaking as a woman:  cute, yes.  Hot?  NO.  I just read a comment on a blog that said that Lauren Conrad of The Hills was gorgeous.  Again:  cute, yes.  Gorgeous?  That’s stretching it a little, unless your standard definition of gorgeous is “generic Orange County co-ed.”  And what about the men who think actresses like Natalie Portman and Kristin Kreuk are hot?  I see beautiful faces paired with bodies shaped like an adolescent boy’s.  That’s supposed to be hot?

I think that for women, beauty in other women is aspirational.  Women look for the women whose perfect proportions don’t seem like work at all.  And those women are rare.  We see very easily the slightly too wide shoulders, the narrow hips, the brows that need constant grooming or they’ll hijack the face, the body that needs a strict diet and exercise to stay so thin.  It’s hard for women, even the most attractive ones, to hide imperfections from the critical eyes of other women.  Men, on the other hand, seem to have much simpler criteria and not as stringent standards.  I suppose this should be comforting…except for the fact that most of us will never come close to looking as good as a famous woman, and most men will never have a chance with one.

Any male readers care to enlighten?

Scenario: when phone calls don’t turn into dates.

Scenario*:

You are a twentysomething single woman.  You attend a weekly activity with other single young people.  One of those other young people is a young man.  (Let’s call him Flint.)

Flint sends you a lot of messages over Facebook, and you reciprocate.  You find yourself developing feelings for Flint.

You and Flint graduate to phone conversations which run long.  Flint expresses interest in you.  You invite Flint to a backyard barbecue with your family.  Flint attends and is a perfect gentleman.

You continue to have long phone conversations with Flint.  Finally you ask Flint what’s going on – is he ever going to ask you out like he’s been talking about?  You are abashed when Flint sounds genuinely taken aback and answers, “Eventually.”

Your friends advise you to cut off communication with Flint and go fishing in better waters, but you see Flint every week at your regular activity which you are very committed to.

What’s your next step?

(*This scenario is based on a real life situation where the single young people activity is a Bible study.  However, I think that has little bearing on what’s going on overall and the dynamics apply to any sort of regular coed group activity, Christian or not.)

Youth Group Guy

Anyone who has grown up in an evangelical setting is familiar with Youth Group Guy.  He’s the de facto social leader of the youth group by virtue of one or more of the following:  having the right parents, being willing to pray aloud in front of the entire youth group, being a part of the youth group’s praise band, being first in line to volunteer for outreach events, being eager to talk about his experiences on missions trips and how they Really Affected his relationship with God, being brave enough to confess to the youth group that he struggles with lust but somehow manages to treat all girls as if their looks don’t matter, promoting virginity via a True Love Waits or similar pledge, having A+ credentials in apologetics, always being the youth group’s number one supporter, being the youth pastor’s favorite and go-to guy for teen cred, and dressing better or at least more uniquely than all of the other guys in the youth group.  Sometimes he is considered “good-looking.”

Youth Group Guy typically has an extroverted, gregarious personality and loves to crack unfunny but safe, Christian-approved jokes.  Youth Group Guy lacks a sense of irony or sarcasm and has little use for subtext.  He tends to be proud that he is ignorant of popular culture and loves to denounce the evils of movies, television, and popular music.  He is convinced to his core that he is right and enjoys battling unbelievers on hot-button topics.

Youth Group Guy is usually deeply desired by a large percentage of girls in the youth group, who see him as the sexually pure spiritual leader of their future marriage.  He tends to treat all girls equally and doesn’t seem overly interested in girls, yet he always has a girlfriend, usually one of the choicest picks of the youth group (cute, nice, inoffensive, popular, wants to have lots of babies, sincerely loves Jesus).

Youth Group Guy’s future usually follows a track like this:  youth group superstar, goes to Bible college, majors in one of the liberal arts, acquires girlfriend who was homeschooled at least through eighth grade, graduates, gets married to college girlfriend, goes to the mission field or seminary, has a bunch of kids.

Sometimes I wish I could be attracted to Youth Group Guy.

Presentation is of the essence: men’s edition

I read a lot of howling by men on the internet that women are no longer attractive because they don’t take care of their appearance.  I’m not going to argue against this because it’s too often true (I think in the Church, at least, this stems from a feminist, legalistic interpretation of some key verses), but women can say the same thing about men.  While men’s looks don’t matter to women as much as the other way around, they do still matter.  Presentation is of the essence, as the saying goes, and an otherwise worthy man can torpedo his chances with women if the presentation is not good.  How can a man maximize his presentation?  By tending to the three Fs – fitness, follicles, and fashion.

FITNESS

Most women are not obsessed with dating a modelesque hardbody.  (Most women are actually intimidated by a man with an amazing physique.)  What most women want is something resembling a general state of health relative to your bone structure.  This means that if you’re skinny, it’s okay to be skinny.  If you’re stocky, it’s okay to be stocky.  Women like all sorts of body types.  Just don’t look like you’re a candidate for The Biggest Loser (or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, for Intervention).  Bottom line:  unless being ripped is your passion, it’s not necessary to go kill yourself at the gym and add a scoop of protein powder to every meal in order to know the love of a woman.

That said…I’m not aware of any woman who says “eh, whatevs” to good muscle tone.  If you’re not fat but are squishy to the touch, you might want to get more exercise than just walking to your car and into your cubicle, and back to your car each day.  Look at it this way:  someday a woman may touch your bicep.  If you have a squishy bicep, she won’t like you any less, but if you have a nice, solid bicep, she will definitely be put on alert that you’ve got a body beneath your shirt, and she’ll also tell all of her girlfriends about it.  Not trying to ~awaken love before it is ready~ here, just stating the facts. :)

Also, eat some vegetables and fruits and stop eating Stouffer’s for every meal.  And stop drinking so much alcohol (if you happen to be of that persuasion).  All alcohol is is a ton of empty calories that leads to a swollen gut and swollen face.  Not sexy.

FOLLICLES

A good haircut can do a world of good for a man’s looks.  (See:  McDreamy on Grey’s Anatomy or David Cook after his hair makeover on American Idol.)  It can make a man look sophisticated or mysterious, or add playfulness or gravity to his face.  It can also make a man look bland and uninteresting if executed poorly.  If you have the same haircut you’ve had since second grade, it might be time to reevaluate your hairstyle.  Sometimes even a minor change can make a world of difference.

If you are losing your hair, you can always do the preemptive head shave, but I only recommend this if you have the head shape for it.  Some men don’t, and end up looking like chemo patients instead of Mr. Clean.  Short buzz cuts are currently in style and can be a better option if the chrome dome thing isn’t for you.  Just, whatever you do, don’t do the combover where the part starts at your ear, and don’t wear fake hair.

Be aware that a new, better haircut will probably cost more and may require more upkeep.  If you don’t like that, then I hope you’re not the guy who also complains that girls wear their hair in ponytails too much instead of having sexy, perfect blow-out hair every day.

FASHION

Dress for success.  A man who outdresses the competition has a significant advantage with women.  You don’t have to be flashy; you just have to stand out.  This doesn’t mean showing up in a suit when everyone else is dressed in jeans, or wearing five layers of clothing when one will do.  It does mean things like wearing a blazer to a social gathering when the other guys will be wearing “stylish dude” T-shirts.  (You know what I’m talking about; this current craze of vaguely gothic patterns on a black or gray T-shirt.)  It means wearing a bolder color than what the other guys are wearing and not acting apologetic because you’re afraid it might make you seem a little g a y.  It means a bracelet or a necklace or an eye-catching watch or a snazzy pair of shoes.  Women notice everything, so they will definitely notice if you look like you put a little more thought and effort into your outfit than the rest of the guys whose main consideration is “is it mostly clean?”.

So, with this principle of standing out in mind, here are some tips that can help:

– Good fit and drape of fabric

In my opinion, proper fit and drape of clothing are just as important as style and color.  Pants should fit at or slightly below the waist.  They should NOT hang halfway down your butt so we can see what kind of boxers you’re wearing today.  They should also not bunch a lot at the ankles; get them tailored if they’re too long.  Shirts should not be extra baggy.  Button-downs should not “blouse” if you tuck them in.  Jackets should not be too wide in the shoulders or too long in the sleeves; again, go to a tailor to fix these problems.  You shouldn’t look like you are swimming in your clothing.  If you look like you can fit a second you inside any garment, it’s too big.

– Color

I noticed the other day when taking a quick stroll through the men’s section of a department store that most men’s clothing comes in very drab colors.  Lots of varieties of browns, olive greens, blue-grays, grays, and some black.  Snore.  More sedate colors are fine for the office, but a little pop of color in social situations is very welcome.  Be the guy who wears the pink or lavendar knit polo shirt.  I guarantee you that women will come up to you and talk about your shirt – and from there you can segue into other topics, like how cool you are what you liked best about Fireproof.  Women will not, however, make a point of talking to you if you’re wearing a beige knit polo shirt absent other factors such as good looks or being funny.

Color also can play up your features, like flatter your skin tone or enhance the color of your eyes.  If you have blue, green, or hazel eyes, certain colors will make your eyes look amazing.  Women love amazing eyes.  If your eyes look amazing, women may also make a point of talking to you by complimenting your eyes.

– Style

Generally, you want to project sophistication, even when dressing casually.  Good fit and drape will take care of a lot of this.  You also want to look contemporary, but not ultra trendy, unless you run with a hipster crowd.  Avoid popped collars, really tight shirts and pants, anything Ed Hardy, “shants” that end somewhere between your knee and ankle, tank tops unless you have a toned upper body, ’80s style jackets with the sleeves pushed up to your elbows, bowling shirts, Hawaiian shirts, T-shirts with cheeky slogans, and by all means do not wear a white crew-neck T-shirt underneath a button-down shirt with the top button unbuttoned.  Use caution with V-necks; if you’re overweight, don’t go there.  Also use caution with stylish dude T-shirts or stylish dude polos (the kind with the enormous logo on the breast); again, if you’re not pretty fit or young-ish, you might end up looking like you’re trying too hard.

Which reminds me — your style should look natural on you.  You should not look like the clothes are wearing you; instead, they should be an extension of your personality.  If you’re walking around like the tags are still on the clothes, you’re not wearing a style that works for you.

Finally, I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to be on the safe side:  shower regularly, shave or keep facial hair neat, brush and floss your teeth, keep your fingernails and toenails trimmed and clean (the number of men I’ve seen with grimy bear claws is…not good), and don’t douse yourself with cologne.  A woman doesn’t want to choke when she gets within a 5-foot radius of you just because you went crazy with the Cool Water.

How many chances are enough before giving up?

Scenario:  Duke, a single man from your church, asks you on a date.  You note that Duke is neither physically off-putting nor a psycho/stalker/rapist/killer/child molester/creeper so, despite not having any pre-existing interest in him, you accept.  You haven’t been on a date in a while, and you have taken to heart the admonition to give decent men a chance.  Duke takes you to Johnny Rocket’s and doesn’t chew with his mouth open, talk about himself the whole time, or forget about the biblical prohibition against fornication.  In fact, he is well-spoken and gracious, and he even leads in prayer as he asks God to bless your cheeseburgers to your bodies.  You find out during conversation that Duke has a stable, well-paying job, owns his own house, has a good relationship with his parents and siblings, has interesting, non-weird hobbies, and desires marriage and children.  Even better, there are no awkward pauses; the conversation flows with relative ease.  Still, while there’s nothing wrong with Duke, you don’t feel excited about being with him.  As the date progresses, this feeling nags at you.  He is a great guy, so why isn’t any adrenaline flowing?  You try to figure it out, but no answer presents itself.

When Duke asks you to go out with him again, you say yes.  But then you go on your next date, and you still don’t experience a single tingle of excitement, even though Duke is undeniably a wonderful man.  This time when he asks you for another date, you hesitate.  Do you give him another chance?

This is a question that ties single Christian women in knots.  How many chances do you give a man before you decide that not only is the magic not there, it’s never going to be there? You’ve been told over and over in your women’s group at church that you need to be receptive and encouraging to young men who have taken the risk of asking you out.  So what if you don’t feel anything right away?  Sometimes the best love is gradual…like an iceberg!  It’s better to get to know each other first; that way you don’t have any pesky desires for sex feelings getting in the way.  Besides, if he’s the right one, God will turn your heart toward this man and you will be able to entertain all of your new, married friends with stories about how you once wondered if you could ever love your dear, darling hubby.

You agree with this advice…at least you do in theory.  You do want to give men a chance, and you don’t want to be the worldly fool who threw away a great opportunity and spends the rest of her life lamenting her Greatest Mistake.  Plus, you haven’t been on a date in quite some time, and you’re grateful that you’ve caught someone’s eye.  However, none of this can change the reality that you just can’t get excited about Duke.  You enjoy spending time with him, but you don’t miss him when he’s not around.  You don’t check your phone, hoping he’s left a message or a text for you.  You don’t wait by the computer for an email or Facebook note.  You don’t wonder what he’s thinking about or doing, at least not in more than a detached sort of way.  In short, you don’t feel the thrills that girls are supposed to feel when they’re falling in love with someone.

Unfortunately, there’s no clear-cut answer to the question of how long is long enough.  It’s different for everybody, and it’s true that a lot of women have grown to love the men they eventually marry but weren’t initially attracted to.  I think, though, that there are some principles you can apply to help you figure out if you should cut bait.

First – do you respect him?  If you already want to make fun of something about him or roll your eyes, you probably don’t have enough basis of respect to build a relationship on.

Second – do you admire anything about him?  A woman who loves a man will always admire something about him.  Usually it’s a character trait (kindness, honesty, fairness, determination, etc.) or a talent (music, technology, sports, humor, intelligence, handiness…).  If you can’t think of one thing that makes you say “wow” even at this stage of the game, that’s not a good sign.  Also, if the only thing that makes you say “wow” is his looks, RUN AWAY.  It’s not going to end well.

Third – do you feel comfortable sharing things about yourself with him?  If you don’t feel that you can trust him with more personal details of your life, or you feel that he won’t understand you, it will be very hard for you to build the kind of emotional intimacy that leads to and sustains love.

Fourth – does the idea of ever having sex with him make you want to recoil, or does it make you want to rejoice?  If it’s “recoil,” the likelihood is not high that you will ever completely reverse your feelings on this matter.  If it’s “rejoice,” or at least “I don’t think it would be all bad,” then you probably have sufficient basis of physical attraction, even if your heart’s not beating a mile a minute presently.  The thing is, if you marry this guy, he’s going to want to do it with you all the time.  It’ll be helpful if you think you’ll be enjoying doing it right back to him.

I would say that if you don’t see any of these points emerging after two or three dates, it’s probably time to part ways.  If at least two of these characteristics start kicking in, though, I’d say go on some more dates and see if you don’t get all four points starting to happen.  (Anything less than all four, though, probably means you’re destined to be Just Friends, especially if point 4 is missing.)

Ladies, stop blaming “the world” for men’s taste in women.

Oh, Boundless, you never disappoint me:

Are your standards of beauty hindering your path to marriage? If you have an expectation in your mind of what your future wife or husband should look like, you may be passing up on a lot of prospects who possess true beauty. And true beauty isn’t always visible at first glance.  On this week’s Roundtable, Lisa, Candice and Sarah not only discuss true beauty but also talk about being good stewards of the beauty that God gave you.

During the podcast, Lisa, Candice, and Sarah offer up a bunch of overspiritualized pap as they explain why looks are an issue between the sexes.  First, Candice, who at least has the sense to admit that no one is blind to looks, tells listeners to stop expecting their future spouses to look like their favorite movie stars.  In a beautiful show of misandry, after telling female listeners not to keep looking for a “Christian Brad Pitt,” she tells male listeners who have “held on this long” not to look for “Christian Barbie.”  In other words, women are attracted to real, albeit exceptionally beautiful, men, whereas men are attracted to unrealistic plastic fantasy women, a.k.a. something that doesn’t even exist.  Nice.  Candice talks about how Pierce Brosnan was her physical ideal during her younger years.  Seriously, though?  This isn’t really the problem.  Candice inadvertently proves this in her next statement — that even while Pierce Brosnan was her ideal, in her everyday interactions with men, she was attracted to a much broader variety of looks.  The idea that Christian young people are so inflexible on specific physical attributes such as hair color and height (e.g., “my husband must be 6’2″ and blond”) is ridiculous on its face.  A preference isn’t a standard.  To imply that this is a widespread phenomenon that is impeding marriage is seeing a tree and deeming it the forest.

Sarah chimes in that a good personality and character are what’s most important.  No shocker there — except that everyone already knows that looks alone will not sustain a relationship.  That’s why so many women date bad boys but ultimately settle down with a nice guy, and vice versa.

Lisa then brings up the concept of “points” — that a male friend told her that men assign points to women based on various characteristics.  Women can lose points for bad personalities, etc., but they will never go beyond that initial threshold.  It’s obvious from Candice, Lisa, and Sarah’s tones of voice that this is Bad.  Lisa then points out that for a woman, men can gain points as a woman gets to know them.  This has a much more favorable reception.  Keep beating the feminist drum, Boundless:  women good, men bad!

Sarah then gives female listeners a pep talk:  it’s not you, it’s God’s will. Yes, she actually tells young women that if a man doesn’t think you meet his attractiveness standards a man isn’t interested in you, then it’s not God’s plan for your life.  This way, instead of feeling that you don’t measure up, you can just understand that it’s not God’s will and remind yourself that you are valuable and worthy in God’s eyes and that’s what really matters.  In other words, the man’s disinterest has nothing to do with the woman!  It’s actually God’s intervention in the woman’s life!  Lisa and Candice then reverently praise her for being so “healthy.”

Lisa, Candice, and Sarah go on to discuss stewardship of looks, i.e., things a woman can do to maximize her looks.  Lisa and Candice talk about how terrible they looked in the ’80s — as if ’80s fashion is what prevented them from being considered attractive.  Except, you know, everyone else was dressing just as badly at the time, yet I’m sure some women were thought attractive then.  Oh, who are we kidding:  those were probably just flukes of lighting or angles.  Sarah says that she asks her sister for advice about hair and clothing and remarks that women can do things like shower, “not smell,” and wear perfume.  Not once did any of these women bring up diet and exercise as the first line of offense in women’s attractiveness — even though a perusal of any men’s blog will reveal repeated statements that a healthy figure is crucial to men’s attraction.  But I suppose any man who brings this up will just get shouted down by Christian women who have been taught to believe that men’s non-interest is God’s will and that men need to accept “true beauty” instead.

But that’s not the end:  Lisa compliments herself on having an open mind about men’s looks but then is honest about being inflexible on a few specifics, such as height.  Then Candice says that she “feels bad” for Lisa for having some inflexible standards!  What if a short man who is otherwise great comes along?  Candice reminds her that there are not enough tall men to go around for all the women who desire tall men and that she may have to compromise.  After all, she has seen short men with taller wives.  Lisa then says that if it’s the Lord’s will, she’ll fall in love with some other guy and carry him over the threshold, women’s lib-style.  Lisa and Candice chuckle.  Women’s lib.  As if!

So, what are the takeaway lessons for young women from this podcast?

1. Men desire unrealistic fantasy women that they’ve seen in the media and shun the “true beauty” being offered to them on silver platters by single Christian women.
2. A man’s non-attraction is God’s will and no fault of the woman’s.
3. Fashion, not figure, is the first thing young women can work on to improve their chances with men.

IS IT ANY WONDER GENDER RELATIONS IN THE CHURCH ARE CRIPPLED????

And there is no better example of this brainwashing line of thinking than this comment left on the post:

I have to say, Candice and Lisa, that I appreciated this topic. Last year, a guy that I dated for about 8 months finally told me that he wasn’t overly impressed with me on our first date (this guy did have a point system, like you said!), and he had never been able to get over the negative first impression. (No more points for me!)

Then he told me that I just didn’t measure up to his preconceived standard of beauty. Now, I’m no model, but I’m not overweight, I’m healthy and attractive and dress “up” and wear a nice amount of makeup.

As hurtful as that (last conversation we ever had) was, what really makes me mad is that the world has destroyed this good Christian guy’s sense of true beauty. I know I’ll never compete with the magazine model. And sadly, that’s what the standard is.

Sarah’s comments to the ladies were right on in the podcast, but I hope that Christian guys can learn to embrace and accept true beauty, too, in the women they know.

What do we have going on here?  Well, the simple explanation is that this woman is a 5 and the young man she was dating is a 7, and her ego is deeply wounded that eight months of her Truly Beautiful personality weren’t enough to overcome her looks deficit.  But let’s break it down from her point of view:

1. Man has developed an unrealistic standard of beauty due to exposure to the media.
2. His non-attraction is not her fault.
3. Her fashion sense inexplicably did not overcome his objections to her face and/or figure.

Hmm, where have I seen these ideas before….?  Yes, I’m sure the reason this relationship didn’t work out is that this young woman’s ex-boyfriend had viewed the Victoria’s Secret catalog and if not for visions of Adriana Lima pouting in a push-up bra, he would not have found this young lady’s looks lacking.  I’m sure he didn’t once offer a prayer to God, asking God for guidance for the relationship or for more physical attraction to this girl who had given him such a negative initial impression.  Let’s all offer a prayer for him right now, that he would get over his worldly, entitled view of women and start developing a love for “true beauty.”  Perhaps someday the Lord will change his heart, and he will become attracted to women he’s not attracted to.  In the meantime, we can clutch our pearls and lament over all the young men who could have good Christian wives, if only they hadn’t bought into the World’s Agenda.  (NOTE:  The only instance in which this young woman could be right is if she were the 7 and the young man were the 5.  In that case, the man would do well to reassess his sexual market value and the resulting caliber of woman he could reasonably hope to attract and keep attracted.  I know the idea of sexual market value is offensive to Christians because it implies that we’re not all on an equal playing field in the mating game, but it exists.  Otherwise we would see a lot more good-looking men married to homely women, especially in the Church.)

The thing is, if Christians want to press the idea that God created men and women and sexuality, then they have to accept the whole kit-and-kaboodle.  This means accepting — yes, in the face of both secular and Church culture — God’s design for sexual attraction.  Women are attracted to leadership, purposefulness, strength, and stability.  Men are attracted to physical beauty, loyalty, gentleness, and grace.  To deny any one of these characteristics is to deny God’s design for sexual attraction.  No amount of cultural pressure or indoctrination will change this design any more than introducing a chicken to a lake will make it interested in swimming.  The best way to capitalize on this design is to recognize that we all bring a certain amount of goods to the mating table and to look for someone who brings a similar amount of goods and understands this concept.  Trying to get more than what you bring only leads to instability and insecurity, because the person who brings less will always have to work harder to make up for the deficit.

Put down the Facebook. Rest your thumbs. Use your voice.

I would like to know who the women are who prefer Facebook and texting to talking on the phone or in person as a principal relationship tool, because I seem not to know any such women in real life.  Obviously, anecdotal evidence isn’t proof one way or the other of a trend, but I have never heard any woman rejoice that the object of her affection uses Facebook or texting as the primary means of communication.  It’s much more common for a woman to complain that a man texts her all day long, or that he asks for dates (or, more commonly, “hanging out or sumthin…sometime“) via Facebook.  (Forget MySpace.  That’s so 2005.)  When did the telephone become anathema?

It’s easy to understand why Facebook and texting have risen in popularity for communicating with the opposite sex.  We are a risk-averse culture used to ease and convenience.  Facebook and texting provide both the minimization of risk and effort.  Instead of having to get into the same physical space as another person, we can now communicate with a few clicks of the thumbs and fingers from any distance.  The other person doesn’t have to see us – no more need to submit ourselves to the critical eye of another evaluating our face, body, clothes, smile, hair, eyes, posture, how we hold our arms, where we are looking, and whether we have any sweat stains under our armpits or something stuck in our teeth.  What a relief!  Instead of having to be ready to respond to conversation on the spot, we now have the power of self-editing and thinking up all the witty responses that in real time we only think of well after the fact.  We can be cool in a text!  Texting rocks!  Even better is that we can take or leave the conversation at will.  In person or over the phone, you have to respond to the other person’s mood and emotions promptly and deftly in order to avoid social stigma.  With Facebook and texting, you can just ignore someone if you don’t feel like dealing with him or her.  You can respond instantly or respond never.  How did people not come up with such a genius arrangement sooner?

The problem with such advantages is that eventually, if you want the relationship to progress, you’re going to have to spend real-time time with the other person.  For a generation addicted to Facebook and texting, it’s hard to think of something more foreign, unnatural, or terrifying.  You’re going to have to be in the same physical space as the other person.  You’re going to have to talk to each other face to face.  You won’t be able to walk away.  You won’t be able to self-edit.  You’re going to have to let the other person know you as you really are…you’re going to have to be you.  But isn’t that what we all want, really, in a relationship?  To find someone who loves us for us?  To be able to rest in that person’s presence and replenish ourselves so we can march back out and face the rest of the world?  You just can’t reach that kind of intimacy when you’ve only got 140 or so characters to work with at a time.  Extending this limitation to marriage — who wants to be in a marriage where your thumbs are constantly glued to a keyboard and your eyes are staring down at a screen rather than at each other?  I can see it now:

HUSBAND:  took out da trash

WIFE:  thx!!!!!!

HUSBAND:  u look nice

WIFE:  hahahaha no i dont

HUSBAND:  yes u do

WIFE:  how do u know

HUSBAND:  im lookin at u rite now

WIFE:  rly????????

HUSBAND:  yup u look hott

WIFE:  ok fine

HUSBAND:  im watchin american idol

WIFE:  i know these ppl cant sing

HUSBAND:  hey want 2 do it 2nite?

WIFE:  lol!!!!!!!!

I’m not knocking Facebook and texting as communication tools, per se.  They can be useful (like confirming plans) and can even enhance a relationship (women live for the written word, and a sweet, unexpected text from a loved one can be like receiving a tiny love letter in the mail).  The important thing is to use them judiciously.  They are accents in a room, not the main furnishings.  The main rules still apply – men, be bold and brave; women, be graciously receptive.

And talk to each other.

“Hanging out”: clear as mud.

Two of the most stress-inducing words in the English language, at least as far as male/female relationships and dating go, have got to be “hanging out.”

Say you’re friends with a guy (o most common of scenarios in Christian circles!), and you’re somewhere on the sliding scale of never-in-a-million-years to straight-up head-over-heels in love and dying for him to reciprocate.  Whenever you’re together (always in a group, of course), he’s friendly with you, gives you lots of side hugs, sometimes has one-on-one conversations with you about Important Things, and thanks you for praying for him/his friend/his unsaved relative/his mom’s operation.  Now, one day out of the blue, he calls you up and asks you to “hang out.”  (Sometimes this also takes the form of “maybe get some people together,” with “some people” being optional.)  He sounds casual, but your heart starts to patter.  What does he mean?  What does “hanging out” mean?  Good news!  Nobody knows!

Here is where the folks at Boundless would step in and browbeat encourage young men to be intentional about women and to stop hanging out and start dating instead — all the while encouraging hanging out, usually via group stealth dates, to get to know someone.  (How’s that for irony?)  I generally think that hanging out should be confined to groups.  If a man calls up a woman and asks her to hang out, and it’s just the two of them, then that’s a date.  Even if it’s not intended to be a date, it tends to have the form of a date and be interpreted by others as a date.  And, at least in my experience, there’s often a strange, quasi-date feel permeating the affair.  I know, I know:  you’re different, and your friends are aware of the delineations you’ve made in relationship status.  But generalizations arise from commonality, and chances are that you are not quite the special snowflake you think you are.  Someone, somewhere, is going to be misinterpreting something.

In sum:  Men, be upfront.  Women, be receptive (so long as it’s not of the “I’ll say yes to anyone” variety).

Since pictures are worth a thousand words, and stories are how we learn about ourselves, I thought the following scenes from the show Gilmore Girls would be a good example of what “hanging out” usually leads to.  In Rory’s case, her object of interest is actually interested back, but he doesn’t make it clear before Rory goes through the emotional ringer.

[Background to the scene:  Rory Gilmore was the beautiful, brainy daughter on the old WB show Gilmore Girls.  Throughout high school she had the (g0od?) fortune of having two different boyfriends who liked to fight with each other over her.  However, in college she met her match in Logan, a party boy who also happened to be the heir to a publishing empire.  Early on, Rory didn’t know how to handle either her attraction to Logan or Logan himself due to never having encountered a boy who could either take or leave her looks charms.]

Going out with a man should not be a reward for his asking.

I often see discussed in evangelical circles the idea that a single Christian woman should accept any date offer from a single Christian man.  After all, the logic goes, he took the Enormous Risk of asking you out.  Therefore, since you do not want to discourage risk-taking, you should reward the man for Taking Initiative and should go out with him.  Besides, you might magically become attracted to him!  He is a Child of the King, after all!

Friends, this is idiocy, and worse, it is disingenuous idiocy.  Indiscriminately accepting a date from any Christian man, whether or not you have any inclination toward him whatsoever, is tantamount to giving out your Social Security number to a stranger on the phone just because he asked.  There is nothing wrong with using some discrimination in choosing whom you will be spending some time with.  It is not wrong to look for some basic, bottom-line characteristics that are necessary for a relationship, particularly one which may lead to marriage.  If, say, a man is terrible at managing his money, why should you reward him with a date?  Because Jesus forgave his sins?  Bad money management is not an issue that is going to go away easily just because you are now in his life.  Ditto other universally undesirable characteristics like lying, laziness, and bad dressing unkindness.

The reason I say that it is disingenuous idiocy to vow to say yes to every Christian date proffered is that all women have standards.  I’m confident enough in this to say all.  Some women have higher standards than others, but all women have standards.  Beyond basic attributes like Not A Psycho/Stalker/Rapist/Child Molester/Murderer and Is Alive, a woman is going to demand specific qualities in a man to whom she will be attracted.  It’s impossible that every Christian man who desires a date with her is going to meet that threshold.  A woman who denies this reality, therefore, is a disingenuous idiot.  Why would she put herself through a date with a man when she already knows she’s never going to be attracted to him?  And why would she deceive a man by showing a modicum of interest that doesn’t exist?  Going on a date with a man to whom you are not attracted is NOT showing him kindness.  It’s NOT boosting his ego.  It’s NOT “encouraging him in the Lord as a brother in Christ.”  It’s you leading him on and giving him false hope.

Evangelicals LOVE hard-luck-made-good stories.  Evangelical women turn to piles of goo when they read or hear stories about impossible love that triumphed through alcoholism, pornography, adultery, bankruptcy, homosexuality, obesity, and just about every other terrible something that can happen to people.  That’s why it’s so hard for them to admit that not saying yes to every Christian man who asks is a poor strategy that they don’t really want to follow through with.  It’s romantic (and status-building) to be able to say, “Yes, if Nose-Picker Wall-Eyed Willie asked me out, I’d say yes, because he has such a good heart for the Lord.”  But push come to shove, how many women would enjoy a date with Nose-Picker Wall-Eyed Willie?  How many women would not be cringing through the conversations, trying not to check their watches too often or notice all the instances of nose-picking, and, gee, the smacking sounds Willie makes when chewing his food are really kind of disgusting.  But oh, did he ever offer up a genuine prayer of thanks for your delicious meal at Taco Bell.  Remember that the Lord loves a cheerful giver.

The one caveat I do have about my advice opinion is if a man about whom you are on the fence asks you out.  He doesn’t really set your heart afire, but he doesn’t douse it with ice cold water, either.  He’s not genuinely good-looking, but he’s not not good-looking.  He’s just sort of there.  However, he is not a psycho/stalker/rapist/child molester/murderer, and he’s kind to others, and he’s not a hopeless slob, and he doesn’t seem like the idea of talking to a woman terrifies him to death.  He’s the one you might want to give a chance to.  Even if the date doesn’t lead to another date, you’ll still have spent some time with a decent man, and you never know if he has some other single decent man friends….