From a certain point of view.

Wedding band not required.

Glenn Stanton is back at Boundless, now demanding that Kate Middleton demand that Prince William wear a wedding band.  Apparently the prince has decided not to wear one as a “personal choice.”  He also does not like jewelry.

My opinion about wedding bands is whatever.  I don’t think they are necessary, and the absence of one doesn’t necessarily signify anything.  My dad stopped wearing his early on in his marriage to my mom on account of work safety issues, and as far as I can tell, his not wearing it has never been an issue.  My mom wore her wedding ring, but then it got stolen when my parents moved, so now neither of my parents wear the rings they gave each other on their wedding day.

For me, the main thing that would matter is the reason for not wearing a ring.  If it’s because my future husband doesn’t want to advertise his marriage, that’s obviously going to be a problem.  If there are other considerations, then fine.  The second main consideration would be whether he would demand that I wear a ring.  A man who feels his ring is optional should also feel that his wife’s ring is optional.  I can’t imagine any other attitude not resulting in a screaming match.

As for Stanton, he goes off on how Prince Charles never wore his when he was married to Diana, and DUN DUN DUN LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE.  And now Charles wears a ring for Camilla, so clearly the absence of a ring is an ominous portent of the future for William and Kate.  Stanton also thinks that William’s refusal to wear a ring is William’s refusal of Kate’s commitment to him because that is what the ring is a symbol of.  Stanton ends the post with a quote from Tina Fey’s Liz Lemon character from 30 Rock.  Why do they let this guy write?  At least Ted Slater and Motte Brown didn’t come across like chiding church ladies.

Is romantic competition inspiring?

I’ve noticed over the years in my television watching that the most common method of getting two characters together is to introduce romantic competition.  Typically Girl A and Guy B will be in some sort of platonic holding pattern – usually platonic co-workers, good friends, or good enemies – but either one of them has a secret crush on the other, or they both have secret crushes on each other, or they believe they don’t have secret crushes on each other but the audience knows they do.  No one wants to upset the comfortable apple cart, until – BAM!  Romantic competition shows up and swoops one half of the platonic couple.  This leaves the other half jealous and distraught, which leads to shenanigans that may or may not bring our destined couple closer together, but at the very least primes the audience’s pump for a juicy future romantic reconciliation.  Friends exploited this trope over and over and over, keeping the audience’s interest in Ross and Rachel alive for a decade.  Bones is doing the same for Booth and Brennan, as is Castle with Castle and Beckett (which I don’t watch but this is my understanding of what’s going on).  How I Met Your Mother appears to be going there with Barney and Robin, The Big Bang Theory is currently doing it with Penny and Leonard, and one of my favorites, Gilmore Girls, kept up the song-and-dance for years with Luke and Lorelai.

This is all fine and good for interesting television, but does this scenario ever play out in real life?  If you’re a guy and you have a female friend whom you have a bit of a secret crush on, are you going to act if some other guy steps into the picture and starts dating her?  Or are you just going to sit back and ride it out until she’s free again?  If you’re a girl and believe you don’t have a crush on your male friend, how do you deal with unexpected jealousy when he starts dating someone new?  Is romantic competition a motivator for getting out there and fighting for the person you’re attracted to, or does it make you step down and sit it out?  (Please note that these questions refer to singles only.  Married people had better fight if there is a potential interloper.)

Relating to this concept – are people off-limits if they’re “in a relationship”?  In my opinion, any person not married is free game, although in practice, people tend to treat those “in a relationship” with quasi-marital respect, and attempts to break up an unmarried but established couple are considered akin to homewrecking.

I feel silly jockeying with other girls for a guy’s attention, especially if I’m not receiving any preferential treatment, so I tend to withdraw.  But maybe other people are different?

Alpha Christian dating.

I feel like I’ve been reading a lot on game blogs lately how important it is to push a girl further sexually than she professes to want to go.  The M.O. is basically that of “she’ll have sex with you if you push, then back off, then push harder.”  And it obviously works, if the stories being recounted in the comments are true.  Of course, these successes tend to occur when the woman puts herself in an already compromising position – she’s looking for sex but doesn’t want to admit it (in case the man turns out to be a beta), she’s drunk, or she’s at his apartment late at night just for the naked but chaste cuddles in his bed.

Christian dating, or at least the ideal of Christian dating, is the polar opposite of these scenarios.  Men are typically urged to acquiesce to whatever the woman wants, except in the case of sex, in which case the man should “man up” and draw a big chastity line in the sand.  If women are the gatekeepers, then men should be the gatekeepers’ keepers (in a kindly, protective, safekeeping way, not in an evil, domineering way).  I think this attitude springs from the idea that women are naturally more moral and sexually reticent than men, yet women are also naturally very susceptible to pressure to put out.  Because women are more moral, it is men’s duty to support women’s superior morality, lest the woman become immoral.  It’s all a part of being a leader and manning up and being intentional.

So if Christian men are enjoined from sex or any physical escalation that the woman claims not to want, and Christian men are not to take advantage of alcohol, a bar setting, sexual innuendo, and being alone with a woman in his or her home, then how can a Christian man impress a woman with his alpha bona fides?

I’m sure that if you posed this question to the Boundless types, they would scoff at the idea that a real man even needs alcohol et al. to accomplish his mission.  Real men impress through their superior character and leadership skills!  But how do you do that when you have none of the common cultural tools in your chest?  Here are the most common ones:

• Join the church band/be a worship leader.  Playing an instrument is always a DHV.  Guitar is the most common, but if you’re good at the piano or keyboard, even better.  Plus, you’re just more visible to more women.  (DLV:  working the sound board or the PowerPoint slides.)
• Teach Sunday School or work with the youth group.  Many Christian women start feeling their ovaries quiver when they encounter a man who’s good with kids and wants to teach them the faith.  However, make sure that your bonding with kids is over cool stuff, like sports, music, or rough-and-tumble play, and not, say, Star Trek.
• Go on a foreign missions trip.  Missions trips are very quick ways to prove your Christian bona fides, but make sure that you have a good story to tell when you get back, preferably if it includes some sort of Providential intervention.  (In such cases, it is okay to cry when talking about your experience.  Africa changed you.)
• Join a small group.  You’re not just a Sunday Christian, and you desire the intimacy and learning that a small group affords.
• Pray out loud in group settings.  Possibly the ultimate DHV.  Offer to bless the meal.  Offer to close.  Be the first to jump in with the popcorn prayer.  Just don’t fall into the habit of following a script, or say “Lord” or “Father” every five words.
• Lead social gospel outings.  Be the point person for the soup kitchen, or the clean-up trip, or the day at Habitat for Humanity, or ministering at Skid Row, or cause du jour is.  And be organized.  It’s no good to lead if you’re terrible at administration and planning ahead.

Generally speaking, Christian women – at least those brought up in church culture – are highly attuned to displays of visible, acknowledged leadership.  It’s not always enough to be the alpha of your clique of friends.  Then again, in a church setting, it’s hard to be the alpha of your clique if you’re not doing at least one of the above.

If you happen to score a first date with a GCG (Good Christian Girl), the best default game plan is to play the part of a gentleman.  Open doors, pull the seat out for her, grab the check before it burns a hole in the tablecloth, compliment her outfit (“I like your dress” is fine, but “you look gorgeous” is a little too much, too soon), pray over the meal, don’t order alcohol, and DON’T TAKE HER TO A BAR.  Much of the time, a GCG, especially if she has already graduated from college, is screening for husband (and future father) candidates, which means she expects to be treated like a lady.  If you fail in this department, I can almost guarantee that her friends will deem you unworthy in the inevitable post-game analysis.  If you fail and she likes caddishness, then she’s probably not a true GCG, even if her dad is a deacon, a pastor, a missionary, or an elder.  Oftentimes PKs and MKs are the worst of all, because they get off on rebelling.

At the end of the date, don’t go for the kiss.  Don’t even try.  The only girls who will hold it against you are the ones who are used to cads pushing for more.  Be different and DHV yourself.  Plus, with a GCG, it’s better to let her hamster run for a month or two, or even longer, wondering why you won’t kiss her, than to try too early and confirm that all you want is sex.  Women love the anticipation and the angst of not knowing when they can be treated to your puckered lips.  (However, they should feel relatively assured that it will happen at some point.)

Above all, TREAT EVERY WOMAN AS IF SHE WERE A 10.  This goes for old ladies, fat girls, plain girls, and whatever else isn’t your type.  If you get a reputation for only being nice and friendly to the hotties, it will take a lot to scrub “shallow” and “insincere” from your record.  Jesus loves the plain girls just as much as He loves the hot ones, so you should, too.  Being genuinely nice to the unlovelies is a huge DHV.

You can do better than these guys.

Photo by moi.

A good hairstyle success story.

In the last thread, Ceer asked:

For a men’s haircut, unless it’s quite outlandish, like a mohawk or dreadlocks, is the quality of a man’s haircut REALLY all that noticeable?

The answer is YES.  A good haircut can make the difference between a man looking sexy and a man looking plain (or worse).

A good example of the power of a good haircut is 2008 American Idol winner David Cook.  I think it’s fair to say that Cook might not have won Idol if he hadn’t gotten a very flattering haircut when he was about 6 weeks into the voting rounds of the competition.  Even though Cook had one of the best voices of the season and had turned in some very strong performances, women didn’t get excited about him until the haircut arrived.  It was only after the haircut that Cook, who had previously been considered somewhat douchey and smug, transformed in women’s eyes into a sexy, smart, mature man who sent them into a tingle frenzy.

Here is Cook as he looked at his audition:

He’s not a bad-looking guy, but there’s nothing remarkable about his looks, either.  Pretty much everything about his hair screams douchewad.

Here is Cook as he looked singing “Hello,” which was his breakout performance three weeks into the voting:

His singing put him on the map, but he wasn’t incinerating panties, either.  While the hair is improved, it distracts from his face and looks like a run-of-the-mill “young rocker guy” haircut.

Below is Cook as he looked post-haircut:

His face is now front-and-center, and the facial hair adds maturity and intelligence to his look.  He looks cleaner, healthier, more confident, more approachable, and more open.  He barely resembles the douchewad who auditioned with red bangs, soul patch, and really ugly fauxhawk.  This is the haircut that skyrocketed his sex appeal to women, and which he has more or less maintained since.

The thing to note is that the changes that Cook made to his hair aren’t drastic.  Mainly he just got a cleaner, shorter ‘do that flattered his face.  But the difference that those small changes made was huge.  His haircut allowed people to see the best in him, instead of distracting them.  (He also lost some weight on the show.  That helped, too.)

Now, Cook obviously had the help of professional stylists, and the average person doesn’t have access to that.  Cook was also starting with a more extreme look than the average person.  Still, if you’ve had the same “safe” haircut for a while, maybe it would be worth looking into something a little edgier, something that’s a break from the normal.  It’s only hair.  It’ll grow back.  At the very least, you’ll get credit for rocking the boat a little.

Most women don’t notice most men.

I feel like men in the manosphere often get cranky because women don’t notice them.  “I’m a good man, I want commitment, I have a good job, and I’m not a jerk,” they say – as if these qualities alone naturally draw women’s attention.  (Then there’s a lot of bluffing about asshole game, moving to Thailand or Brazil, and never getting married.)  The consensus seems to be that women go around intentionally ignoring men who don’t meet their 463-point checklist.  Foul wenches!

Truthfully, most of the time, most women don’t notice most men, and it’s not any grand feminine conspiracy.  It’s just how women are wired.  Women aren’t primarily visual, and so unless the man immediately pings on her physical attraction scale, or he does something (alpha) to attract her attention, he’s just not going to register.  And because most men are not all that physically impressive, and most men don’t ever approach women, most men are going to be passively ignored by women going about their daily activities.  It doesn’t mean that women are not amenable to being opened; it just means that women are not usually on alert for the opportunity.

The situation is different, obviously, in social situations designed to put men and women in each other’s company for the express purpose of (potentially romantic) mingling:  bars and clubs, meetup groups, church mixers, matchmaking ambushes.  In these situations, women are usually putting forth extra effort to look good themselves, and they will be much more aware of every male in their surroundings (some more than others, but there is a much greater active awareness than usual).  Also, men will tend to put more effort into their appearances in these situations, which greatly helps their ability to get noticed.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that if men want to get noticed more, they need to distinguish themselves in some way, either through physical appearance (better physique, better clothes, better hair, better accessories), or through approaching with confidence and humor.  If you dress like you shop at Kohl’s and get your hair done at Super Cuts, you have muscle tone like Jell-O, and you never try to talk to any women, and still complain that your good job isn’t turning you into the new Don Draper**, then it’s probably time to rethink your strategy.

**I just finished watching season 4 of Mad Men.  How is it possible that Don Draper is not suffering from a loathsome disease?  …Well, at least that we know of.  Although I doubt that “Don Draper’s got the herp!” is going to be a storyline any time soon.

Minefield.

OT: search terms.

WordPress keeps track of the search terms that people use to find the blog.  Most search terms have something to do with the blog title or my name.  Sometimes there will be searches for specific topics I’ve blogged about.  And sometimes people do searches for specific commenters.  But occasionally I’ll get hits from unrelated things, such as this one that I saw today:

Okay, fess up:  which one of you was this?

Act interested.

One part of my church’s Sunday service that I would happily do away with is the time when the pastor tells everyone to stand up and greet other people.  It’s one of the most useless ways of forcing people to “get to know each other.”  Most people are horrible at talking to people they don’t know, so just add in the pressure of being forced to do it, and you end up with a lot of really limp handshakes and lack of eye contact.  My church is particularly terrible at eye contact.  Most people I shake hands with, other than all of the old people who are delighted to see a younger person at an early service, are not even looking at me when they say hello and shake my hand.  They’re already glancing off in the distance, probably at their next limp hand-shaking victim.

This got me thinking about interactions with the opposite sex.  If you’re on a date with someone, or even meeting someone, it’s important to make eye contact.  If you’re trying to talk to someone and they’re looking everywhere except at you(r face – boobs don’t count), it’s pretty obvious that the person is not interested and has a bunch of other things they’d rather be doing.  It’s pointless to talk to the side of someone’s face.  I hope that the next time this happens to me, I’ll just walk away rather than politely endure the awkwardness.