Boundless put up an article today that further demonstrates why church dating is so difficult. In “How Not to Freak a Girl Out,” Martha Krienke shares a letter from a reader wherein the reader describes that after knowing a guy for two weeks, he asked her out with Boundless-style intentionality, explaining that he saw her as “marriage material.” Reader promptly FREAKED OUT and rejected the guy. Then her hamster went into overdrive, culminating in the letter to Boundless.
I’ll admit that the guy made the mistake of destroying any mystery he may have possessed by laying all of his cards out on the table at the get-go. He also, I assume, made the mistake of proceeding without enough (any?) IOIs from Reader.
But Reader’s letter to Boundless was so hamsterrific, my eyes boggled, and it speaks to Boundless’s disconnect with the realities of the SMP that Krienke didn’t rebuke Reader. Reader writes:
I know that Boundless and many circles are beginning to promote guys becoming pursuers and moving purposefully toward marriage. But I’d like to promote that there needs to be more caress, creativity and sensitivity in this area. “Putting the ball in her court” too early may drive a godly lady to emotional turmoil. She may need time to marinate in his light affections and attention before having him express in words his intentions and affections.
The idea that Reader wanted to be wooed rather than told “I’m looking for a wife, and you seem like wife material” – I can understand that. Especially after only knowing a guy for a couple of weeks and probably not having much one-on-one interaction with him, it probably came off a little like the guy was going shopping and she looked like a good deal. But then all of Reader’s purple prose about marinating and “emotional turmoil” betrayed entitlement: that she expected this guy to read her mind and know exactly how she wanted to be pursued. She continues:
To be poetic, I describe my “feelings and affections” like a flower that grows. We gently, and in good amounts for the specific type of flower, give it water and sunlight. [In relationships], the water and sunlight are the “pursuit/flirting/feeling the water.” The flower represents the “relationship.” And the growth of the flower represents the “feelings and affections.” The blooming of the flower represents “commitment.”
I think that for this particular flower, there was too much sunlight and water too early. The flower was not ready to bloom yet. It had not grown enough in the right conditions to be ready to bloom.
Church guys, if you would like to be successful in acquiring a woman who seems like “wife material,” adhere to the above instructions…if she’s not already attracted to you. What reader is ignoring is that if this guy had already been attractive to her, she wouldn’t be going on about watering, stems, and blooming, or needing to “marinate.” She would have jumped at the opportunity to go on a date with this guy and would be reading Passion and Purity to try to keep her hormones in check.
The major problem with the Boundless approach to dating is that Boundless doesn’t believe in/hasn’t discovered the alpha/beta divide. It assumes that all men are starting from the same place and therefore need only apply the same steps to get where they want to go. But because some men are alphas and even more are betas, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work, and it only leads to results like the one chronicled by Reader. Telling men to “man up,” “be intentional,” and “stop jerking girls around” is only useful for alphas. Telling a beta to man up and be intentional leads to freak-outs and rejections. By omitting the critical step of gauging female interest (and responding accordingly), Boundless dooms many men to dating failure.
Reader concludes:
I’m hoping that I might have a chance to start over. To get to know each other as brother and sister serving together. To get “pursuitive hints” without being faced with an expression of intentions. To get to grow in my own affections before being asked to commit.
[In my final refusal toward him,] I never actually meant that I didn’t want to be pursued. I guess I just wanted to be pursued in a lighter, slower and building sort of way.
I would say that Reader is in the “neutral” zone with the guy, otherwise she wouldn’t have expressed interest in “get[ting] to know each other as brother and sister serving together.” Having rejected him, she wants the option of having him back so she won’t feel like she made a big mistake if he turns out to be a catch. If he were truly repulsive to her, she wouldn’t have wanted to get to know him in any way. That said, it’s pretty clear that he’s not super attractive to her – a woman invoking brother/sister comparisons, even if it’s brother/sister in Christ, is not a sign of burgeoning attraction. Overall, Reader’s letter just seems to be a politely-worded complaint that she wasn’t pursued in the desired manner.
Still, Reader’s situation does shed light on the dating situation that most singles will face in the church, mainly because most people are not automatically attractive to vast numbers of the opposite sex. Most church guys will still need to learn some game and learn to read IOIs. Boundless keeps neglecting to mention (because it doesn’t distinguish between alphas and betas) that intentionality alone is not enough. Most church girls will have to accept dates requested in a less than ideal manner, with guys who are not super attractive to them at the time of the asking. Alas, Mr. Darcy doesn’t go to your church. Neither does Megan Fox. But on the upside, you’re probably not Chunk from The Goonies, so take comfort in that silver lining.
Haley's Halo 
First!
I just came from Boundless, without knowing you commented on their post. Let’s see if they publish my comment.
Flower, my butt. A woman is like a carrot. Pour on the water and sunlight, let it get nice and sweet and juicy, pull it out of the ground by the top, and chow down.
The atheists and womanizers are starting to win me over.
When the church is a fountain of pretty lies, what else can I say?
“Intentionality” is an effing FOOL’s strategy.
Again, “freaked out” or “uncomfortable” or “creeper” are words women throw out when discussing unattractive men. This whole Boundless discussion is a head fake – the way to not freak a woman out is to be an attractive man.
I’m with Jack. The lesson here is for church guys to game hard – play push-pull and avoid the topic of commitment. Maybe date another woman at the same time. I pity these guys, they’ve been indoctrinated into Nice-Guy Christianity and their reward is contempt.
Somebody tell them that to bear your swords into plowshares, you need to have swords to begin with.
Almost forgot the obvious corollary – this goes to show how you can never make a woman happy. They’ll complain guys aren’t asking them out and aren’t “spiritually mature,” then a guy is forward with a woman about getting serious and that’s no good either.
(To be fair, there’s a lot of that among guys in the SMP too.)
Women in the churches are as fickle, hypergamous and selective as their secular counterparts. The more attractive of them need hardcore game. Nearly all of them have no use at all for betas.
It’s time to face up to the fact that our churches have done men a terrible disservice and literally lied to an entire generation of men. I was raised in a liberal protestant denomination. I was told that young Christian women would be ripe for the pickings because they just wanted “nice guys” and physical attractiveness did not matter.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian women are no better than their secular counterparts. They want alpha Christian men. They want attractive men. They hate beats just as much as secular unchurched women.
If the church wants to remain relevant, it better take a look at this issue — and so should so-called Christian women. No wonder men are staying away from church in droves — there’s nothing there for most of them; and the church just wants to make them into women with penises.
@ Haley:
“Most church girls will have to accept dates requested in a less than ideal manner, with guys who are not super attractive to them at the time of the asking.”
Church girls are not going to do that. They haven’t done it in the past 30 years and they’re not about to start now in today’s ultrahypergamous female buyer’s market. Believe me. I know. I’ve been there. I’ve been lied to about how church girls just “want a nice Christian guy who will treat me right”.
Church girls are not going to accept dates from men they don’t find attractive. Full stop. The entire reason the girl in the Boundless post freaked out was because she did not find the guy attractive. End of discussion. They want to be asked out by the guys they want in the manner they want. They won’t accept anything less. And no guy in today’s SMP should talk about marriage to any girl anywhere (including in Church) unless they are very, very serious. In today’s culture, talking about marriage as a reason to ask out a girl is just silly.
I’m not sure even an alpha could get away with mentioning marriage right off the bat. Women like to take their own time deciding if they want to spend the rest of their life with a guy, no matter how attracted they are to him. Non-church alphas can speed up the process by getting her into bed quickly, but building an actual relationship with a girl usually requires a fair amount of time.
Long term commitment and monogamy are just incompatible with strong feelings of infatuation and romance. You might as well try to square the circle. “Attraction” is just a biological catalyst to facilitate mating. If these women want a Christian marriage and children they’re going to have to compromise on the necessity of “feelings” for eveything. Sure, the guys could use some “game”, some attraction is necessary initially, but most guys just aren’t going to be at the top of the SMV pyramid initially, or long term.
This kind of shite is one of the reasons I’m very cautious with dating, In addition, the use of churchy and poetic language sanitises some pretty ugly emotions. Like disgust.
Girl should woman up. If disgusted, politely and firmly tell him to drop dead. And cut him off.
If not disgusted, have a good look in the mirror, ask for time, and then allow herself to be courted, or tell him to drop dead.
Freaking like a two year old is not an option, except for the most silly, privileged and corrupt class of humanity — North American Women.
Looks like I’ve got much in common with other guys here who had bad experiences in church dating.
Stories like this, along with my own church dating experiences, are the reason I ‘Kissed Church Dating Goodbye’. My experience was that idiot christian women and men sold me a boatload of lies about character, integrity, honesty being important to most church women in dating. Those attributes are important but they’re WAY down the list when compared with social status, looks and money. Gee, where have I heard those factors being mentioned before, could it be? Yes, those factors are primarily important to the unsaved sisters. I guess the message of being ‘in the world but not of it’ never was received by the church gals.
I tried being the honest, considerate nice guy in my younger years to a cute but not beautiful church gal. That didn’t work so I moved on. Evidently she wasn’t the unique little snowflake mommy and daddy told her she was and she later pursued me with direct indications of interest about a year later, guess she’d gotten tired of staying at home when her relationship options weren’t what she thought they were.
She then found out that men can do the rejecting just as well as the ladies can as I’d lost interest. I guess when I asked her out I was too direct, but I never badgered her, just told her that I wanted to spend time with her. Too bad I didn’t read her mind like this guy didn’t read this gal’s mind.
The guy was a little too direct but I suspect that he’d been told that’s how women should be approached, probably told that by well-meaning christian singles leaders hoping to perpetuate their flawed and false relational ideals about masculinity and femininity.
No, I’ll never believe another word the church and its minions say about dating in the church. Those ideals are failures and will only lead to frustration and shattered hopes. Give the pickup artists their due, moral faults aside. At least they’re better at teaching men how to truly ‘man up’ than are the ‘Girly Men for Christ’ Mr. Magoo types so present in church singles ministries.
Ultimately, church singles teachings will lead to many relational failures, spinster women and middle-aged bachelors like myself who learned too late that church teachings on dating are a colossal failure and that such teaching are naive and dangerous. Yeah, church women’s attitudes change as they age, lose their attractiveness and ability to offer a man a family of his own. But who wants an aged spinster who has unrealistic expectations of what she brings to the relationship and often still has the entitlement attitudes prevalent in her younger years?
The ranks of rapidly-aging spinsters with few or no relationship prospects are significant and growing. Sad reality. Thanks in no small part to the organized church.
Christianity doesn’t relieve women of their biological imperatives any more than it does men. No woman becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to poor, ugly, unpopular men with no game any more than a man becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to fat, plain girls.
If looking to reconcile Christian pairing with biological imperatives you’re going to run into trouble quickly, because average women are still looking for extraordinary men.
@ Haley:
‘Christianity doesn’t relieve women of their biological imperatives any more than it does men. No woman becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to poor, ugly, unpopular men with no game any more than a man becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to fat, plain girls.”
Agree 100%. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that today’s evangelical church is either completely ignorant of this, or willfully dishonest about it. According to the Church, Christian church bodies all across this country are filled to the brim with women who “just want a nice guy who will treat them right” and who are just waiting for someone — anyone — to ask them out.
Uhh, nothing coule be further from the truth. Most women in the church are either engaged or married. If there are single women, they idolize Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga. Christian identification and character takes a definite back seat to the man’s alpha characteristics. These women need as much game as their secular counterparts.
detinennui32–
Most women in the church are either engaged or married. If there are single women, they idolize Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga.
What church are you doing your polling at?!? Besides, even if it were true, it’s not hard to see why girls would admire these two women. Gaga has a great body and seems to be very self-confident (if also extremely odd) in addition to being very successful in her career. Kim K. is a curvaceous raven-haired beauty who has a never-ending stream of professional athlete boyfriends (and now fiance), along with a life that is free of financial worry and enables her to live in luxury.
@ Haley:
I don’t see how you square this
“Most church girls will have to accept dates requested in a less than ideal manner, with guys who are not super attractive to them at the time of the asking.”
with this:
“Christianity doesn’t relieve women of their biological imperatives any more than it does men. No woman becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to poor, ugly, unpopular men with no game any more than a man becomes a Christian and is suddenly more attracted to fat, plain girls.”
The two seem fundamentally inconsistent. Or at least this: If she is not “super attracted to him, or at least attracted, then why should she go out with him?: She won’t like him and he’ll know this. And most of the time she gets “freaked out” anyway.
Well, sure, young girls in general would idolize Gaga or Kim K. . But I thought young Christian girls and women were supposed to be above that and focus more on the spiritual than the flesh. At least that’s what I was taught. “That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit.”
detinennui32–
Or at least this: If she is not “super attracted to him, or at least attracted, then why should she go out with him?: She won’t like him and he’ll know this.
Because she’s trying to override her initial biological impulses on the chance that she may become more attracted to him after spending time with him and getting to know him better.
But I thought young Christian girls and women were supposed to be above that and focus more on the spiritual than the flesh.
Well, I don’t see a lot of young Christian guys proclaiming that they’re more into spiritual things than Megan Fox, Mila Kunis, Jessica Alba, or the rest of their ilk, so let’s call it a draw, shall we?
Aunt Haley said:
“Christianity doesn’t relieve women of their biological imperatives any more than it does men.”
Agreed. Perhaps you should share that insight with the silly christians who keep spouting such contra-intuitive nonsense to us men, telling us that if we’re ‘nice’ we’ll get the girl. I’ve been ‘nice’. It doesn’t work despite the efforts of well meaning but naive christians who say it does. Dating and relationships are much more complex and to have the intellectual equivalent of Gomer Pyle and Granny Clampett telling us otherwise is to feed us lies and sow the seeds of frustration and relational failure.
I’ve been approached by unbelieving women whose attractiveness was off the scale compared with the average christian gal who rejected and then was later rejected by me. I didn’t pursue the unbelievers because I’m not interested in being yoked with someone with whom I had little in common beside physical attraction that wasn’t enough. But it was tempting nonetheless. Silly me for believe that ‘nice guy’ bovine droppings.
modernguy: regarding the average women looking for extraordinary men, that’s true both inside and outside of the church. That truth destroys the ‘set apart’ myth propagated by the churches regarding many single church women, no?
Aunt Haley, very good discussion that is resonating with most or all of us. I appreciate you posting this topic. There are no easy answers to these challenges. Even lifelong singleness, toward which I am disposed, has its costs as well as benefits.
Actually, I see a lot of young Christian guys who would love just to get a chance with some of these church girls without them freaking out. I used to be one of those guys who bought into the canards I described above and that JG exposited better than I did.
What the church should be doing is teaching these men how to be men and that it is all right for them to be men, instead of having them “get in touch with their feelings” or shaming them or telling them they are responsible for their wives’ misconduct or unhappiness or trying to turn them into women with penises.
Your analogy to Christian men being more into Megan Fox, Mila Kunis et al isn’t apposite. My example centered around Christian women emulating MSM women. Yours talks about young Christian men lusting after secular women. While I think that’s generally true, it’s not exactly analogous.
Finally, If she tries to override her initial biological impulse of nonattraction or “meh” or freaked out, isn’t that counterproductive because it will just come out eventually? And won’t that result in wasted time all around and at least one broken heart?
detinennui32–
Finally, If she tries to override her initial biological impulse of nonattraction or “meh” or freaked out, isn’t that counterproductive because it will just come out eventually? And won’t that result in wasted time all around and at least one broken heart?
Maybe, maybe not. Just because she doesn’t feel a strong attraction now doesn’t mean she won’t ever. She may need time to find something to admire and respect about him – time she wouldn’t have if she rejected him immediately.
I think it would behoove everyone when going on first dates not to get their hopes up too high, too.
Thanks for your blog, Haley! I had no idea other Christian women (and men) were starting to understand/apply the psychological game principles to the Christian DMP. I continue to read through old posts here; very enjoyable and insightful.
It wasn’t until I read about alpha/beta that I realized why all my non-Christian male dating relationships seemed real and my Christian ones fake and sappy and superficial. After reading Roissy and understanding game, I noted that many of my non-Christian boyfriends were natural gamers and are men I still adore. I felt like a real woman around them and I was naturally much more compliant and feminine and FUN.
The reality is: No Christian woman is a princess who needs to be babied and soothed. I’ve had lots of Christian male White Knight Gifts and Romantic Gestures and Dinner Feasts and ladies, don’t deceive yourselves: it’s not what you need. Sometimes I think Christian women believe it is a sin for a man to be just as he is: demanding, rough, “unemotional”, and sometimes crude, and yet as females our very nature is a complement to that roughness. God is masculine as well, and I feel like we don’t talk about that in the church in a real way.
The hamster is probably what Paul meant when he mentioned “weaker vessel” because it definitely makes me weaker.
All hail Daya! Now if you’d be so kind, please bring me a rum & Coke.
Daya–
I’ve had lots of Christian male White Knight Gifts and Romantic Gestures and Dinner Feasts
Well, you’re doing about a thousand times better than me, then.
Haley: In your opinon, what should young Christian men be doing that they are not doing in terms of fostering relationships with women?
What should young single Christian women be doing to foster relationships with men?
Daya, get me a sandwich. (Just kidding)
I don’t doubt that you felt a sappy environment when dating christian men. We guys have been brainwashed and many of us are still trying to get rid of the bitter taste and the bitter fruit of the lies that we used to believe about dating and relationships. I hope that you find a great christian guy who treats you well. Ditto for you Haley.
I second all those emotions, JG. There are some on these boards who seem to think we men wish all women ill. I don’t feel that way. I admit I’m working some of the blue pill out of my system, but that doesn’t mean there’s no common ground.
“Most women in the church are either engaged or married.”
Wow, you should come to our church. More generally, I’ve been to lots of churches–mostly ones located in big cities or college towns–that are full of single women. Of course, if, like many commenters here, you consider such places to be Sodom and Gomorrah, you will indeed be spending your life talking to suburban matrons or farmer’s wives at the coffee hour.
“Gaga has a great body and seems to be very self-confident (if also extremely odd) in addition to being very successful in her career.”
No she does not have a great body.. Small tits, big thighs..
Sure she can play the piano, but for the most part lacks talent. Nothing to look at either.. Probably a five..
Have you listened to her stupid lyrics, Haley?
I want your ugly I want your disease????
FFS! Get a grip..
It is she who is the monster!
I followed the advice of “stating intentions”, being up front, etc., and experienced the same failure. Certainly it is the case that if she is attracted to you, all is forgiven, and if she is not attracted to you, nothing is forgiven. One friend told me that women prefer ambiguity (though it didn’t serve her well in the end, since she is in her mid-40’s and single). Perhaps the preference of women that men be mind-readers is simply a $hit test — alphas are much better at reading cues than betas. The problem for most women is that however much they might desire to land an alpha, they don’t have the attractiveness to do so. The wiser single women recognize this and adjust their expectations accordingly.
Haley is right that men have to learn game and read IOIs to date any kind of woman, church girls included. Game 101 is you eject and forget her if you don’t get IOIs in a very short time, and invest nothing further.
@ y81: “Most women in the church are either engaged or married.”
Wow, you should come to our church. More generally, I’ve been to lots of churches–mostly ones located in big cities or college towns–that are full of single women. Of course, if, like many commenters here, you consider such places to be Sodom and Gomorrah, you will indeed be spending your life talking to suburban matrons or farmer’s wives at the coffee hour.”
I don’t know why I am so drawn to this. I live in a small city with a metro area of about 350,000 in the midwest. I lived in college towns for 7 years before that. I have yet to see any churches with even a sizable minority of single women. And the single women I have met there routinely turned me down flat. Not tall enough. Not good looking enough. Too old. Too fat. Too plain. Too bald. Too boring. Just not interested.
And these were young CHURCH women.
detinennui32 said:
“…the single women I have met there routinely turned me down flat. Not tall enough. Not good looking enough. Too old. Too fat. Too plain. Too bald. Too boring. Just not interested.
And these were young CHURCH women.”
Assuming that you were respectful, being ‘nice’ and thoughtful sure worked for you, didn’t it?
You wouldn’t have been turned down by her or most other church gals had you been what they considered ‘handsome’, had money, or both. In other words, the 15% of single church guys desired by 85% of single women in the average christian singles group. Had you been one of those ‘biologically or mammon-blessed brothers’ you might even have gotten some ‘friends with benefits’ action like I’ve seen some ‘christian’ women give guys they believed were going to marry them. Believing such, the ladies gave the okay to start the honeymoon early.
In one instance, the gal was shocked when she got an STD from that ‘good christian’ guy and future husband she rolled in the hay with. I’m not saying all single church women have such ‘situational morals’, but I am saying there’s more than I previously thought as a silly beta boy who believed the false paradigms bandied about as truth concerning church women.
Yes ladies, I know it takes two to dance the tango and immorality among church singles is the fault of both man and woman. But the difference is that nobody I know has EVER held up christian men as paragons of virtue, but many have implied that trait about christian women.
When immorality in singles groups occurs, usually it’s the man who is portrayed as the corrupter, the immoral person who took advantage of the poor innocent church girl. But the gal in my story is every bit as wrong, even though I got an “are you crazy” look from my friend when I asked her why the girl in the story started sleeping with the guy. Double standards are curious things, are they not?
“In the world but not of it” my rear.
Sad to see the story about the Christian girls who “start the honeymoon early”.
Christian girls are really no better than their non Christian counterparts in a large number of instances.
The problem is that the pedastalization of Christian girls is even more thorough than that of non Christian women. And too many of them believe their own brochure selling points.
I remember reading many of the now-defunct PUA blogs where the guys were regularly bedding girls with serious evangelical credentials. These girls have rationalization hamsters of Olympic caliber. After all, the Christian girl has to rationalize a double set of rules, whereas the secular girl only needs to rationalize to meet whatever standard society currently has in place.
I’d rather have a girl who got saved after being with a lot of men than a Christian girl who has rationalized away a few “favorite mistakes”.
D32–
Haley: In your opinon, what should young Christian men be doing that they are not doing in terms of fostering relationships with women?
Learn to read IOIs, become more interesting, APPROACH MORE. A girl might as well be ugly if all a guy does is notice her from afar and think it means something.
What should young single Christian women be doing to foster relationships with men?
Diet and exercise.
And the single women I have met there routinely turned me down flat. Not tall enough. Not good looking enough. Too old. Too fat. Too plain. Too bald. Too boring. Just not interested.
They actually told you these were the reasons??
Haley:
Agree with you that men should learn IOIs and be interesting. Learning IOIs is the single most important thing men should be learning. And they should be learning this from other men who have a track record of success.
Another thing is that men should never take dating or relationship advice from non-red pill women.
Christian women need to do a lot more than just improve their physical appearance. They should take seriously the Biblical injunctions on sexual behavior. They should cultivate more of a feminine demeanor.
If Christian women want men approaching them, they should work more on being approachable. How about dropping the protection shields once in a while? How about differentiating yourselves from your secular sisters? How about showing a little kindness and a pleasant demeanor?
More than a few told me directly I didn’t meet their physical criteria. For many, I heard it from my friends or their friends.
@ Haley: And the single women I have met there routinely turned me down flat. Not tall enough. Not good looking enough. Too old. Too fat. Too plain. Too bald. Too boring. Just not interested.
They actually told you these were the reasons??
Some said so directly. For many, I heard it from my friends or their friends.
Modern, Christian women are just that, modern.
Their rationalization hamsters have no faith.
I think some men may have a misconception about the reason to be direct (or intentional), and the woman in the email might as well. (I’m not familiar with Boundless. I’m just speaking from my own experience.)
The point of being direct about what you want is not that it will allow you to win any woman you desire. The point is that it will help you to build a satisfying marriage. It does so in two ways:
1) It lays a solid foundation for a successful relationship.
2) It screens out women who aren’t a good match for you.
As to point 1, when I look a woman directly in the eye and say “Do you want to go out sometime?” things always end happily, even if she rejects me. The polite but direct approach makes me feel better and makes the woman feel better. We part on good terms. In those cases where we’re in the same social circle, there is no awkwardness afterwards.
As to point 2, if a woman freaks out when a man says “From what I know of you so far, I think you’d make a good wife. I’d like to get to know you better. Would you like to go out sometime?” then she’s proving herself unworthy of that man.
In fairness to the woman who wrote this email, though, we don’t know the exact words or tone of voice or facial expressions or body language that the guy used.
Still, if she’s wishing for a second chance or a rewind, I think she knows she reacted in a way that would cause a man with self-respect to change his mind about her being “marriage material”. Instead of obsessing over this guy, she should develop healthier attitudes so that she won’t make the same mistake with another guy that she initially puts in the “Maybe” category.
This seeming sense of betrayal at the hands of Christian women sounds a lot to me like Freud’s “madonna-whore” complex. We live in a fallen world. Women are human beings. Human beings are sinners. That is exactly what the Christian worldview predicts.
And the solution is not to be petulant and hold grudges. It’s to forgive those who trespass against us in the same way that we would ask God to forgive us our trespasses.
Church should probably not be the only place you try to meet a potential spouse. On the plus side, it ensures that the two of you have something in common, and it gives you time to gradually get to know each other without having to decide right away about dating. On the negative side, people tend to keep their guard up a little too much at church. Some people very consciously prefer to keep their distance from the people they go to church with.
“If looking to reconcile Christian pairing with biological imperatives you’re going to run into trouble quickly, because average women are still looking for extraordinary men.”
That is a brilliant statement.
“Actually, I see a lot of young Christian guys who would love just to get a chance with some of these church girls without them freaking out. I used to be one of those guys who bought into the canards I described above and that JG exposited better than I did.”
It’s becoming clear to me that men just can’t afford to get invested in a woman. Any sign of real investment throws a woman into paroxysms of intimacy anxiety. Seriously, they need to stop listening to the fairly tales.
“It wasn’t until I read about alpha/beta that I realized why all my non-Christian male dating relationships seemed real and my Christian ones fake and sappy and superficial. After reading Roissy and understanding game, I noted that many of my non-Christian boyfriends were natural gamers and are men I still adore. I felt like a real woman around them and I was naturally much more compliant and feminine and FUN.
The reality is: No Christian woman is a princess who needs to be babied and soothed. I’ve had lots of Christian male White Knight Gifts and Romantic Gestures and Dinner Feasts and ladies, don’t deceive yourselves: it’s not what you need. Sometimes I think Christian women believe it is a sin for a man to be just as he is: demanding, rough, “unemotional”, and sometimes crude, and yet as females our very nature is a complement to that roughness. God is masculine as well, and I feel like we don’t talk about that in the church in a real way.”
From the horse’s mouth.
Badger–
It’s becoming clear to me that men just can’t afford to get invested in a woman. Any sign of real investment throws a woman into paroxysms of intimacy anxiety.
No, it’s any sign of real investment that isn’t backed up by a corresponding and mutual degree of trust/intimacy that throws women into paroxysms of intimacy anxiety.
Badger: “It’s becoming clear to me that men just can’t afford to get invested in a woman. Any sign of real investment throws a woman into paroxysms of intimacy anxiety.”
Haley: “No, it’s any sign of real investment that isn’t backed up by a corresponding and mutual degree of trust/intimacy that throws women into paroxysms of intimacy anxiety.”
Detinennui32: And round and round we go. The man shows interest, she freaks out. But how will he know if there’s interest if he doesn’t approach and ask? And how does he get a chance to build trust/intimacy if she’s a hair trigger away from freaking out? How does he know she won’t file a criminal report against him?
It’s a Catch-22. If he approaches Boundless style, he risks freaking her out. If he doesn’t approach, he gets nothing. Either way, he gets no chance to build trust and intimacy.
Personally, I recommend avoiding “intentionality” of the Boundless variety completely. That doesn’t mean that, if you want to see a girl, you shouldn’t ask her out straightforwardly. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. But the idea of telling her that she seems like marriage material is wacky. Approach the first date–indeed approach every day, to the extent possible–without expectations, and see what happens. Consider the lilies of the field.
As chance (or providence) would have it, a man without expectations will supply plenty of ambiguity for the woman who wants to build melodramas, but will encounter little disappointment himself, so everyone will be happy.
all this brings it back around to “uncomfortable/creepy/freaked out = unattractive”.
I bet Reader wouldn’t have been freaked out in the least if she had found the man attractive. But because he’s unattractive and awkward, and he’s following terrible advice from Boundless and starting to invest in a girl, he gets shot down.
it also comes back to my original point. The Church is simply selling today’s men a bill of goods by telling them to be “intentional” without first telling them to find ways to build attraction. The Church is ignorant or dishonest about this, or both.
Even church girls want Roissy-style cads — they just want him with a helping of Jesus sprinkled on top.
I don’t think I would ever tell a woman she was marriage material before asking her out on a first date. “Would you like to go out some time?” is good enough for me. After all, how can you really know if someone is marriage material when you’ve first met them?
Still, if that’s something I felt strongly about when I was first asking a woman out, I might say it. I think what’s important is not whether or not you say something like that early on, but the feelings and attitudes underneath it. If you’re a bottomless pit of insecurity and anxiety who believes that your life will finally be worth something once you’ve found a wife, that’s going to come across no matter what you say.
But if it’s a healthy attitude that underlies the words, it will usually come across in the spirit with which it’s intended. And if it doesn’t, it’s her loss, and she’ll realize that soon enough.
My best relationships have started out with me repeatedly thinking, “I can’t believe I just told her that on the first date,… and she didn’t even flinch!”
agree NB. Boundless is way off base on this topic. No man should talk about marriage at all unless there is a serious relationship. He certainly should not talk about marriage before a date, or on the first, second or tenth dates. And Boundless and the church should be getting their acts together and telling men the truth about women and their natures.
‘Telling men to “man up,” “be intentional,” and “stop jerking girls around” is only useful for alphas.’
If a woman tells me to “man up” I will either laugh at her or tell her to get lost, depending on the context.
There are many churches superior to both feminism and game, and they know better than to either give women carte blanche or tell men to dominate everything.
Boundless is way off base on this topic. No man should talk about marriage at all unless there is a serious relationship. He certainly should not talk about marriage before a date, or on the first, second or tenth dates.
I disagree completely. My wife and I discussed marriage on our second (first? third? can’t remember) date. Christians of marrying should discuss this topic early and often. If she’s won’t, she’s not ready for marriage and likely not ready to respect your leadership in the relationship.
Telling men to “man up,” “be intentional,” and “stop jerking girls around” is only useful for alphas.
I don’t necessarily agree. “Intentionality” may or may not be *attractive* (I think it often is attractive), but you can’t get to marriage without it.
*marrying age