Three must-reads.

If you haven’t read these already, you should!

The Reason Beta Males Pedestalize Women by Heartiste.  If you’ve ever wondered why there are so many guys out there who refuse to take the red pill or just can’t imagine that there are Good Girls who do Bad Things, this post explains it.  It’s the most succinct and clear (not to mention, entertaining) explanation of the origin of white knight dogma that I’ve ever read.  A sample:

So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.

The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole.

Women are innately good by Dalrock.  Here Dalrock goes after FOTF’s #1 Mangina Glenn Stanton and Stanton’s book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.  Anyone who’s been hanging around Haley’s Halo for a while probably knows my opinion of Stanton (read:  I enjoyed Dalrock’s article very much), but Dalrock’s post is just that much more satisfying after reading Roissy’s above post and seeing how Stanton fits that description to a T.  Is it any wonder that Stanton, born and raised to be the best of churchly betas, would find it impossible to believe that even the sweetest, most innocent, most Jesus-loving woman possesses the ability to transform into an unhinged sexual beast given the proper enticement?

Stanton repeatedly pushes the idea that women are genetically programmed to be good, while men are not, and it is the lack of good men (whom no one trained to be good, I guess) that results in women being bad (violating their natural propensities).  Yes, it’s obvious that this makes zero sense.  Dalrock sums it up nicely:

There is a special kind of irony in him lecturing about how good men hold those who do wrong accountable just before he goes on to not hold women accountable for having children out of wedlock, frivolously divorcing, and for choosing cads over dads.

Also stick around to read the comments by deti and van Rooinek.  Good stuff from guys who’ve been in the churchly trenches.

Dating Advice: How to Pick Your Right Girl by Art of Manliness.  Brett McKay found a book from 1944 entitled How to Get Along With Girls.  (The Greatest Generation didn’t have the internet or rappers with advice for handling shorties.)  The first chapter of the book is “How to Pick Your Right Girl” and gives a checklist of traits to consider.  The charm is in the old-fashioned language.  The wisdom is timeless.  Among the things a young man contemplating marriage should consider:

• She is attractive, of course, but is that her chief asset? (Try to imagine her ten years from today.)
• Could you spend seven consecutive evenings in her company without being bored? (If the answer is affirmative, it is a good sign.)
• Is she a flirt? Does she make you jealous? (Decide whether you can stand the strain; your jealousy will persist until you grow indifferent.)
• Does she tell lies? Do you mind?
• Do you agree on children, or a career, or both? (Better settle this beforehand.)
• Does she expect you to support her in a definite style? Could you count on her cooperation in hard times? Would she go to work if necessary?

Read the whole article.  I’m sure we can all think of at least a couple people in our lives who would have benefited from having such a list and taking it seriously.

I’m planning on seeing The Hunger Games tonight.  Last year I wrote a post on the book, so if you’re new here and have an interest in the book/movie, there’s something else you can put on your reading list.  Ha!

Projection: “respecting a man who is ‘verbally open’ with his interest” edition.

In the latest Boundless podcast thread, commenter Elizabeth said the following:

But really, I would very much respect any man who is verbally open about his interests to a girl; especially if he is still seeking what God wants.

Stop right there, missy – we’ve got ourselves a classic case of projection!  For any blog newbies, here’s why it’s projection:  because Elizabeth is unknowingly referring only to men whom she finds attractive to begin with.

Imagine a scenario in which this guy

is “verbally open about his interest” to her and also happens to be verifiably seeking what God wants.

Is Elizabeth really going to “very much respect” this guy for his verbal openness?  Or is she going to mumble an awkward “thanks” and then run to tell her friends about the creeper who hit on her?

Okay, that was kind of a cheap example.  For a slightly more expensive example, let’s consider these peeps:

Of the men in this singles group, how greatly would she respect green shirt or either blue shirt if they came up to her and were very interested in her and were demonstrably “seeking what God wants”?  (Now that I think about it, this photo could spawn its own post of game/SMV analysis.  If I were feeling really ambitious, I could write a whole churchly soap opera off this picture.)

On the other hand, I’m pretty sure a guy like this could just twitch in Elizabeth’s direction and inspire respect:

Actually, he probably already has her respect.  This is why when a girl says she wants X quality in a guy, she really means that she wants X quality in a guy who is already attractive to her.

Furthermore, we know this is true in Elizabeth’s case, because she also wrote in the same post:

I have personally been very hurt by a guy who completely led me on, and if he had simply said something verbally about his intentions it would have (I’m sure) saved me from a LOT of hurt.

The key point here is THE REDUNDANCY, IT BURNSSS US, PRECIOUSSS  that she was denied by someone she was already attracted to.  Because, Let’s Be Real here:  a lot of guys, no matter how much they’re seeking after what God wants, and no matter how “verbally open” they are with her, are even going to have the opportunity to lead her on.  (Not that they would, even if they had the opportunity.)

If you don’t understand projection and can’t recognize it, a lot of dating advice is going to steer you wrong.  Part of the reason I write about the things that I write about here is that so many people are hurt in the dating game not because of being led on, but because there is a general deficit of knowledge and understanding of the dynamics of the SMV,especially in the church.  How many girls would be saved from “being led on” if they understood their true SMV?  And knew that SMV and MMV are not completely synonymous?  Likewise, how many more guys would find dating success (and be able to keep marriages together) if they understood the SMV and female sexual imperatives?  Moreover, how many people would be more emotionally well-off if they understood that being a Christian has NO SMV VALUE in and of itself.  Like other characteristics, being a Christian only has SMV value if other, more primal criteria are satisfied.  But we’re stuck with so much Christian dating advice that encourages people to work on their character and their relationship with God, as if that’s just as good on a fundamental level as going to the gym or learning charm.

By the way, men project, too.  Most men, when talking about characteristics they’d like in a woman, mean “in an attractive woman.”  Kind of like when male celebrities say that they don’t value looks in a woman that much, what they really mean is that they don’t care so much if a woman is an 8.5 or a 9 if she’s got other good qualities.  So when, say, Justin Bieber says that he doesn’t care about looks so much as a girl’s heart (theoretically – I don’t know if he has ever said this), he means the heart of a girl who is an 8+; whether she is an 8 or 9 is immaterial.  Sorry, Belieber 4s.

Good news! Jesus has oneitis for you.

I was thinking some more about contemporary evangelical tactics to spread the good news and concluded that there is a lot of “Jesus is your boyfriend” language in outreach jargon these days.  I’m pretty sure everyone has heard variations of the following at church or similar:

• God wants to have a personal relationship with you.
• God wants to know you intimately.
• God is passionately pursuing you.
• God has a plan for your life and is the Ultimate Provider.
• God gave up everything just to reach special ol’ you.

Basically:  Jesus has oneitis for you, and He’s got it baaaad.

I understand that the “personal God” emphasis is just the pendulum swing to the opposite end of the unpopular hellfire and brimstone approach, but when you look at it objectively, it makes it sound like God is writing your spiritual Harlequin novel.  If you were to substitute “Joe Alpha” for God, the above sound like they could be the M.O. of the hero of this month’s iteration of The Flame and the Jewel or whatever romance novels get named.  Unsurprisingly, this God-as-supernatural-suitor approach has worked quite well in recruiting women, because women want to be eternally pursued.  Who better to know you intimately than the Supreme Being of the Universe who, by the way, forgives you of everything you have ever done wrong and still wants you to be His?

Given this approach, you’d think it would be equally unsurprising that it’s much harder to get men into church, but no:  evangelicals are mostly still scratching their heads about this troubling phenomenon.  (Well, scratching their heads when they’re not screeching at men to put down the XBox, stop having unrealistic standards of beauty, and man up, anyway.)  It apparently has not occurred to the evangelical brain trust that men do not respond to passionate pursuit for an intimate relationship, nor are most men interested in having tear-filled meltdowns as they are overwhelmed by their emotions in light of receiving the truth.  Men are not drawn to guys because they have good haircuts and wear “regular, accessible guy” Hawaiian shirts and eschew pulpits and drop the word “awesome” a lot.  It’s just…men thirst for leadership, for fraternity, and for purpose, and what churches are offering up is not that but “Talk intimately to Jesus, He wants to KNOW YOUR SOUUUUUL” messages accentuated by easy-listening keyboarding from a Korg that has a spider web of wires protruding from it as everyone holds hands across the aisle.  For a lot of men, this is like applying spiritual Nair to the spiritual hairs on their chests.

I think if churches want to get men back in the pews, they need to inspire men.  They need to give men reasons, not emotions, to walk with God.  They need to know that in knowing God, they will discover purpose for their lives, that God permits challenges in life to spur growth, that God is just and fair and disciplines out of love, not spite, that He is the wind at their backs and the leader of their battalions, and that he is the Almighty and we enter into His presence by His grace.  A church that can harness the stout hearts of men can change the world.  Attracting women would not be a problem, because women are drawn to men with purpose and passion.

I mean, if churches are going to cater in outreach to the inner princess of every woman, then they should at least give equal opportunity to the men by appealing to their inner comic book superhero.

Do married people know any single people?

Do married people know any single people?  Why does it seem like once people get married, they’re sucked into a “young marrieds” vortex, never to be seen again by those eternally cruising eHarmony?

I feel like the process goes something like this:

• Two young people from the singles group start dating.
• Group expresses approval.  Single women force down their bitterness jealousy if the man is attractive.
• Engagement!  Everyone cheers.
• Wedding with many references to God’s blessings.
• Newlyweds disappear into the Young Marrieds Vortex, where the ratio of singles to marrieds in all further social activities is 1:20 at most.
• Couple buys a minivan and will have a child seat in the car for the next 10 years.

I’ve taken flack here for not having a social circle where people seem to know any single men who would be potential marriage material for me (or for them).  But do young marrieds (or older marrieds, for that matter) really know that many eligible bachelors or bachelorettes?  It seems like young marrieds are just relieved that they actually found someone worth marrying, and now that their task has been completed, everyone else is off their radar.  And older marrieds, particularly in the church, have social lives that almost exclusively revolve around socializing with other married couples.  If someone is single, it’s because that person was widowed.

Readership, if you have young married friends, do they have a social circle that includes singles that they could set you up with, or do you find that they’ve been sucked into the Young Marrieds Vortex?

Princess fantasies from both sides.

First:  a moment of mourning for the Pats since my dad was from Massachusetts.

Second:  It struck me over the weekend that Christian media is often accusing mainstream media of peddling an unrealistic romantic fantasy for women that causes women to become dissatisfied with the men available to them in real life and to not look for godly standards.  But doesn’t Christian media peddle the exact same unrealistic romantic fantasies (while looking for overly godly standards)?

I mean, you’ve got Christian media on the one hand warning that (essentially) Titanic is bad for you, Reese Witherspoon romcoms are bad for you, romance novels are bad for you, etc.  Unrealistic expectations of beauty, don’t you know that life isn’t a never-ending date?, and (DUN DUN DUN) these people have sex outside of marriage!  Okay, fair enough.

But then that same Christian media turns around and foists Rebecca St. James’s “purity advice,” True Love Waits, Joshua Harris and kissing dating goodbye, and Stasi Eldredge’s Captivating (which includes chapters titled stuff like “Romanced,” “Beauty to Unveil,” “Arousing Adam,” and “Warrior Princesses”) on readers, and we’re supposed to believe that Christian media is peddling wisdom because it’s, like, Christian and stuff.  How is the “Daughter of the King!” industry not setting up women for the exact same problem of an unrealistic romantic fantasy?  You’ve got Rebecca St. James, whose entire adult life has been spent in the entertainment industry where the vast majority of males (and therefore the guys in her social circle) are well above average in looks and have success in a way that the average man will never attain, advising young Christian women on how to find her male peers lacking in romantic worthiness staying pure until they marry The One.  You’ve got True Love Waits telling horny teenagers not to have sex until they’re married, which in this culture may not be for another 15 to 20 years, and expecting that signing a card is going to be a meaningful deterrence in the heat of the moment.  Joshua Harris scared a generation away from dating because some guys in dating didn’t have lofty enough goals.  And then you have people like Stasi Eldredge writing dreamy prose about how God can romantically and emotionally satisfy women.  Here is a quote from Eldredge’s book Captivating:

We long for romance.  We are wired for it; it’s what makes our hearts come alive.  You know that.  Somewhere, deep down inside, you know this.  But what you might never have known is this…

This doesn’t need to wait for a man.

God longs to bring this into your life himself.  … He wants to heal us through his love to become mature women who actually know him.  He wants us to experience verses like, “Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her” (Hos. 2:14).  And “You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride” (Song 4:9).  Our hearts are desperate for this.  What would it be like to experience for yourself that the truest thing about his heart toward yours is not disappointment or disapproval but deep, fiery, passionate love?  This is, after all, what a woman was made for.

HOW CAN A NORMAL, FLESH-AND-BLOOD MAN COMPETE WITH GOD FOR A WOMAN’S SWOONS?

[Insert obligatory Fireproof mention here.]

And yet it’s the mainstream media that’s to blame for setting up unrealistic expectations, tsk tsk.

It seems to me that Christian media sets just as high a bar a fantasy for Christian women as the mainstream media does, if not higher just due to the fact that a staunch Christian woman is far more likely to hold out for “God’s best.”  I feel like we are constantly assured that God is going to give us his Best if we just have faith and wait for it.  This especially includes marriage.  Don’t settle for less than God’s Best.  Do you want to have a good, God-honoring marriage?  Then hold out for His Best.  You’re 25?  You have time.  You’re 30?  Keep praying for God’s Best.  35?  Keep trusting God to bring you his Best.  40?  God’s Best doesn’t have a timetable.  45?  Nothing is impossible for God, who is writing your love story.  God will bring his Best to you in his perfect timing.  50?  Sometimes God’s Best doesn’t include a husband, but that doesn’t mean it’s not God’s Best for you.

The main difference I can see between Christian and mainstream romantic fantasies is that the former causes people not to get married at all, and the latter causes break-ups after the wedding.  In Christian terms, it’s better to be forever alone than to get married and then divorce because you’re not happy.  But for every woman who can’t find someone to meet her expectations, another guy has to remain single, so…..

Boundless blogger considers first anniversary a “miracle.”

Does the Boundless blogger consider his first anniversary a “miracle” because he or his spouse nearly died last year and only miraculously survived?  No.  Did one of them commit adultery and then repent, restoring the marriage?  No.

No, our Boundless blogger considers his first anniversary a “miracle” because, basically, his wife didn’t divorce him for being imperfect.

Very early in this blog’s existence, I wrote a post in which I said:

I’ve noticed that it’s fairly common in evangelical circles for a man to more or less prostrate himself at the feet of his wife’s saintly goodness, proclaiming some mixture of the following:

• I don’t deserve my wife.
• I was a mess before I met my wife.
• If it weren’t for my wife, I don’t know where I’d be right now.
• I don’t know what she sees in me.
• I’m an idiot, but for some reason, she married me.

Lo and behold, Boundless has provided us with a real-life example of this type of talk!  Blogger Nathan Zacharias commemorated his first anniversary with a post disparaging himself and extolling the beneficence of his wife for not divorcing him already.  Says he:

Sarah and I just celebrated our first wedding anniversary. She’s stuck with me 367 days, and that’s a miracle. No, seriously, it is.

….

No longer can I focus on just caring for my needs. No longer can I get by with looking at a situation by how I see it. [AH:  Syntax doctor says what?] Instead, I look at it through her eyes, too. That means I see myself from her perspective. And I have to say, the view isn’t always pretty.

I long to serve Sarah in any way, but that doesn’t mean that my selfishness doesn’t rear its ugly head often. There are plenty of times when I have to tell Sarah I’m sorry for something I did or didn’t do.

The ring on my finger and the vow in my heart sheds light on my negative traits often. And so when I tell people I don’t deserve Sarah, I’m not joking.

….

Why Sarah chose me, I’ll never know. And as a I told someone close to me the other day, I deserve Sarah even less now than I did a year ago. But she loves me anyway.

….

I don’t like seeing my finger without the ring. My finger looks bare without it. And that’s what I’d be without Sarah. [AH:  He would be bare without his wife? “Bare” as in exposed, or “bare” as in I-meant-to-say-lost-or-lonely?]

There’s more, but you get the picture.

Okay, I am not married, so maybe I’m just being a Neanderthal on this topic, but is it not possible to express gratefulness for a spouse without TOTALLY PROSTRATING ONESELF AT HER FEET?

More importantly, does Nathan Zacharias believe that his wife would write a similar article expressing the following?

• how unworthy she is of her husband
• that she has no idea why he married her
• that their one-year anniversary is a miracle
• that she deserves him even less than she did at the time of their wedding
• how ugly she sees herself when she looks at herself from his point of view
• that she often has to apologize to him for things she did or didn’t do

I mean, maybe she would.  Maybe she does see herself as so unworthy of her husband that she would make a public proclamation of it.  Maybe she considers her husband a prince without equal.  Or…maybe she agrees with him.  (As a point of comparison, I don’t recall Suzanne Gosselin, Boundless’s most recently married female blogger, ever writing a comparable post at her one-year anniversary.  I also don’t ever recall Candice Watters opining similarly about her marriage with Steve back when they wrote for Boundless.  Chelsey Munneke, Boundless’s recently engaged blogger who believes weight loss for a wedding is an unnecessary stress, has never spoken of her fiance this way, either.  Rather, she believes her man should love her for her, daughter of the King that she is.  Google-fu experts, feel free to prove my memory wrong.)

I know that it’s popular in evangelical circles to speak of everything in terms of being “sacrificial.”  Sacrificial love, sacrificial serving, no one deserves anything, we’re all sanctified losers, boo hoo hoo, etc.  But this just isn’t a healthy attitude to have in a functional, earth-bound relationship.  Of course no one “deserves” anything; that’s a given.  Humility and tolerance are important in a marriage for sure.  But acting like those traits in a spouse are miraculous is a problem.  Not all that long ago, those were expected in a marriage.  That these are no longer givens but miracles just speaks to how weak marriage has become in America and in the American church.

Furthermore, even if Zacharias used “miracle” for hyperbolic effect, it is still problematic because it accepts modern divorce culture as legitimate.  If he is joking that he is grateful that his wife didn’t frivolously divorce him, then he accepts that this is a realistic possibility for him.  His wording at least suggests this:  he doesn’t mention anything about her honoring her vows despite having to live with his imperfections.  Instead, he chalks up the endurance of their marriage to her love for him.  Well, Nathan, what is going to happen when your wife doesn’t feel “love” anymore?  And are you expecting to be even less worthy of her after two years of marriage, or does the unworthiness sort of level off after a while?  What happens when your wife realizes that she’s been loving someone so unworthy of her affection?  Time to start apologizing for more things you didn’t do, I guess.

Do Christians really want to see stronger families?  Do Christians really want to see positive changes in society?  Less poverty, less abortion, less welfare, fewer single moms, fewer divorces?  Then they really need to begin with marriage, and not just badgering unmarried 28-year-olds about joining eHarmz or making all the husbands do “The Love Dare” or giving purity rings to 15-year-olds who will not realistically marry for twenty more years.

Random thoughts and links.

Some bloggers are very prolific, but I find that my inspiration comes in fits and starts.  Sometimes I can crank out a blog post quickly, but other times I’ll spend hours tinkering with a post, trying to figure out how to say what I want to say.  Sometimes I start a post and then don’t finish it for weeks or even months.  It just depends.

Since I don’t have anything fully-formed at the moment, here’s a smattering of stuff that’s floating around in my mind lately.

• Mrs. Cubbie Fink wrote a book.  It’s called What Is He Thinking? and contains the results of Mrs. Fink’s interviews with “men she respects who hope to get married some day.”  According to the description, “The men share their thoughts on topics like how women can respect themselves and the men in their lives, modesty, purity, taking it slow, friendship, letting guys lead, and more. This book gives them the floor to say what they would really like women to know.”  Or, you know, you could just read some men’s blogs FOR FREE and find more honest, more real, and more true information.  Somehow I find it hard to believe that men would be truly frank with someone who looked like Mrs. Fink, but that’s just cynical ol’ me.  P.S. If anyone wants to hook me up with a copy of the book to review, let me know.
• There’s been noise in the media lately about how 80% of self-identified evangelical singles aren’t virgins.  Well, duh.  Most people can wait until age 22 for sex.  Asking the same people to wait until they’re 30 or 35 or older to have sex is just preposterous.  I generally think that after the age of 25, a lot of Christians say “F THIS” and do what their hormones tell them to do.  If Christians really are serious about preventing premarital sex and the social ills that result from fornication (single moms, bastard kids, poverty, demand for government entitlements, STDs, abortions), then they need to change their attitudes about (a) instructing their kids on marriage and its obligations, (b) when it is appropriate to get married, and (c) getting involved in finding good mates for their children.  I know it’s unpopular to try to shape your child’s romantic destiny (yet okay be a helicopter parent dragging your kid over the finish line to get the minimum SAT score necessary to get into a decent college), but wishful thinking is clearly not keeping the kids out of each other’s pants.
• I came across a shop on Etsy that sells sexy bikinis for plus-size women.
• Women admit they were more attractive at 19.  They are actually shocked at how good they looked when they were younger.
• I started following the whole Tim Tebow thing after I saw someone on TV trashing him as a QB a few weeks ago.  Is the publicity good or bad for Christians?  Weigh in.
• I guess a special on virgins wasn’t enough for TLC, so now they’re doing a special on Sunday, Dec. 18th called Geek Love.  In the Venn diagram of life, those two circles intersect quite a bit.  Here’s a promo clip:
  
•  Lady Gaga is a good example of a woman who is extremely sexual but not at all sexy.
• An older article at The Art of Manliness that I read recently:  5 Easy Ways for the College Student to Upgrade His Style.  Antonio strongly favors a classic, somewhat preppy look, but his general points are good ones for men of any age.
• Buy clothes that fit.  Don’t buy anything that doesn’t “sing” when you put it on.  Buying something because “it’s a great deal” is the worst reason to buy something.  Better to buy something more expensive that is great on you, because you’ll wear it more and pay for itself that way.
• Saw this review of an item at Old Navy, written by a mom who claims she is a size 18:  “I don’t always have the time to pull together a nice outfit outside of sweats and a t-shirt. This shirt makes it easy to pull a nice outfit together quickly whether it’s with cargos, jeans or a skirt.”  A nice outfit outside of sweats and a t-shirt?

Until next time,

a.h.

Clips from TLC’s Virgin Diaries

I haven’t had a chance to see the episode that aired yesterday yet, but TLC’s YouTube channel has some clips up.  Because I am such a generous blogger, I’ve embedded them here.

If anyone had a chance to see the show, please weigh in.

(Virgin Carey goes on a date with a woman who is really perplexed by his ~status and asks if he has any “subscriptions.”)

(Virgin engaged couple discuss the agenda for their wedding night, which includes “do foreplay.”)

(Tamara, the reclaimed virgin, reveals her “number” and says she had sex with each of her previous boyfriends, but that now she has had such a life change that when she has sex again, it’ll be like being a virgin all over again.)

One of the worst LJBF stories I’ve ever read.

It has to be read to be believed.  From a commenter named “Anonymous Male” at Boundless (of course):

Ansley (#2):

In addition to I_choose_to_remain_anonymous’s response, I would like to offer another possible reason that God might choose not to take away your feelings for a certain person even if you asked for it. Here’s my story…

During my senior year of college, I noticed a connection developing with a sister in Christ, someone with whom I served in leadership together in the same on-campus ministry. Knowing that she was still emotionally recovering from a previous failed relationship at that time, though, I decided to hold back on pursuing her for a while. The DTR talk did eventually happen, but I got a polite no along the lines of “thanks for letting me know, but I’m not interested in a relationship right now.”

Despite that, she said that she still wanted to be friends. And since both she and I were still teammates in the same ministry, I thought that it would be uncaring and irresponsible for me to cut off contact with her simply because of the potential awkwardness that could result from the knowledge that there was unilateral interest. So I simply tried my best to continue interacting with her in the same way that I used to before then.

The last semester of that school year, however, would be a stressful one both for her and for me for various reasons. Ironically, this actually allowed the friendship to further deepen despite the mutual recognition that an official relationship was not going to happen. So, as it turned out, having to say goodbye to each other at graduation was not easy (let’s just say tears were shed). It would take my moving out of state for grad school later that summer to provide the distance required to ultimately get over her. Before that, though, she and I did have a chance to exchange quite a few words of blessing for each other on my way out. (To me, that counts as good closure.)

So what’s the point of my story? Based on how things turned out, I wondered if God chose not to take away my feelings for her (even though I asked for that after getting the polite rejection) because the plan was for her and me to be a blessing to each other for a season— no more, and no less.

BICs** and other male readers, DON’T BE THIS GUY.

If you ever want a woman to see you as a man, if you ever want to be attractive to a woman, if you ever want to have sex someday with a woman who has sexual desire for you, DON’T BE THIS GUY.

DON’T.

DON’T.

DON’T.

DON’T.

Don’t think of her as your sister in Christ, at least not if it means putting her on a pedestal.

Don’t hold back on pursuing her because she’s “still emotionally recovering from a failed relationship.”

Don’t think that it’s “uncaring” or “irresponsible” to cut off a friendship with a woman who LJBFs you.

Don’t keep trying to be the same friend afterward.

Don’t man-hamster yourself into thinking your “deeper” friendship means anything when she has completely nixed the possibility of ever having sex with you.

Don’t cry at graduation when you separate.

Don’t “exchange words of blessing” and consider it closure.  (And don’t worry about closure in the first place.)

And DON’T, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, LOOK BACK ON THIS EXPERIENCE AS A CHANCE TO “BE A BLESSING” TO EACH OTHER AND BELIEVE IT WAS GOD’S DIVINE PLAN FOR YOUR LIFE.

**That’s Brothers-In-Christ.  (The girl version is SICs.)

As a bonus in the department of “things that seem like satirical spoofs but are actually really real,” here’s the (unrelated) video that’s been entertaining me all week:

Makaziville Pre Registration from John Andersen on Vimeo.

Stuff Christians like: Sign language.

If there’s one thing that Christians, especially evangelicals, LOVE, it’s other languages.  No one laps up African children’s choirs or a missionary on furlough opening his guest sermon in his missional language quite like Christians do.  Sometimes Christians even like to wear traditional clothing of other nations during Missions Week to show their solidarity with countries they went to once on a missions trip back in the ’90s.

However, there is one language that Christians love above nearly all others, probably because you don’t even have to be able to hear to enjoy it.  That language is SIGN LANGUAGE.

Despite the fact that I have never attended a service where a plural number of people was both hearing impaired and sign-language literate, Christians just LOVE LOVE LOVE singing with their hands.  “Jesus Loves Me”?  SIGNED.  “Awesome God”?  SIGNED.  Anything by Hillsong?  SIGNED.  And if you’ve grown up in church, chances are you performed at least one signed song with the kiddie choir.  Even my church got into the act not that long ago, with a small choir busting out the S.L. and the worship leader exhorting everyone to sing to God in “another language.”

I think the popularity of sign language stems from a couple of different places.  For conservative, non-charismatic Christians, this gives them the opportunity to raise their arms above their heads and not feel like a threatening Pentecostal.  Think of it as the White Christian’s Gospel Hands, or the White Christian’s Dancing From The Waist Up.  For more liberal Christians, sign language gives them the satisfaction of “reaching out” while placating lack-of-diversity guilt at the same time.  Basically, it’s all win from whatever angle you’re coming at it from.

So if you know signing, or even just one song that you learned at another church, don’t be shy.  Let your worship leader know.  Ten bucks says you’ll be doing a solo on Sunday morning in no time flat, or even teaching the choir to sign, and then just watch the hearts be blessed by your rare and special talent.

So SIGN ON, BRETHREN.  SIGN ON.

P.S.  It is not very easy to find videos of men signing while singing.