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

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

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

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

HUSBAND:  took out da trash

WIFE:  thx!!!!!!

HUSBAND:  u look nice

WIFE:  hahahaha no i dont

HUSBAND:  yes u do

WIFE:  how do u know

HUSBAND:  im lookin at u rite now

WIFE:  rly????????

HUSBAND:  yup u look hott

WIFE:  ok fine

HUSBAND:  im watchin american idol

WIFE:  i know these ppl cant sing

HUSBAND:  hey want 2 do it 2nite?

WIFE:  lol!!!!!!!!

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

And talk to each other.

“Hanging out”: clear as mud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to be the perfect Christian date.

1. Be plain in an attractive way.
2. Stay at least a foot away from the other person at all times.
3. Don’t express too strong of an opinion about anything (a burning desire to become a wife and mother excepted).
4. Be home by 9:45 p.m.
5. Wear a calf-length denim skirt and bedazzled denim jacket.

Am I missing anything?

How to ask a girl out on a date.

My favorite love-to-hate Christian singles blog, Boundlessline, has done it again with a post on how to ask a girl on a date.  The poster, Ted Slater, recounts how he stealth group-dated his now-wife before asking her if she would “consider being in a relationship with [him].”  After asking for time to think about it, she came back to him a couple days later and said she would “enter into a courtship” with him.  Ted then asked the readership for suggestions on how to ask a girl out and what activities might make a great first date.

Predictably, the comments contain some horrible beta-boy ideas.

Here’s what the first commenter, David, said:

The best way I have found is to ask:

“Do you want to go on a date?”

Then figure it out from there.

Nothing sets a woman’s heart aflame for a man like a deflated, limp-wristed question that gives all of the power to the woman.  Men, if you want to show leadership and intentionality (the apogées of desirable masculine traits in the evangelical community), you cannot “respect” a woman’s wishes in this way.  What this question really means is, “Please take control of the direction of our relationship.”  Does that sound like leadership or intentionality?  (Answer:  NO.)  It also puts the woman in the difficult position of either squirming to find a way not to be forward about her interest if she wants to date you, or squirming to find a way to reject you politely if she doesn’t.  Neither choice is ideal.  Now, obviously, David must be finding some degree of success with this game plan, or he wouldn’t have recommended it, but it’s not a tactic that will make a woman more attracted to the man who uses it.  Only a girl with preexisting interest in the guy would tolerate being asked out in this manner…well, that or she’s desperate to land any date at all.

Here is a better way to ask a girl out:

1. Decide when and where you want to take her.
2. Go up to her and say, “I want to take you on a date to [place] on [day of the week].  I’ll pick you up at [time].  Your friends and your dad think this is a great idea.”

In three little sentences, you have demonstrated leadership (you are setting the agenda), intentionality (you’ve made it clear it’s a date), and charm (you are gently poking fun at the current courtship craze in evangelicalism, as well as a woman’s propensity to consult her friends’ opinions on all the decisions she makes).  See?  It’s not that hard.  The reason this approach works and is superior to David’s suggestion is that the vast majority of women find masculine confidence irresistible.  When you show a woman that you’re a man with a plan, and that plan includes her, she’ll go a little weak in the knees and, when you’re not around, squeal in delight to her jealous girlfriends.

Do note:  If you have demonstrated high social value to the girl already (e.g., you are handsome, charming, stable, popular with children, kind to old, disabled, and retarded people, able to quote Bible verses by memory, not afraid to pray in front of a group, a veteran of missions trips, a porn-denouncer, a worship leader who plays an instrument or two, a Bible study leader, and a regular volunteer for service projects and other church activities), you can probably ask the girl out cold and get a yes for an answer.  If your credentials are a little less sterling, you should build enough of a rapport with her first so that she doesn’t think you’re creepy and/or desperate.  But the minute you know she’s not scared of you, you should make your move.  (This helps keep you out of the Friend Zone.  As everyone knows, once you’ve been placed in the Friend Zone, it is very difficult to get out of it.)

Be bold.  Be brave.  Be direct.  Be calm.  Be prepared for rejection.

But be more prepared for success.

Your top three

Over at Boundless, there’s a recent post asking readers to write their top three characteristics they’re looking for in a spouse.  Most of the men (not a very large percentage of the comments) wrote briefly.  Most of the women wrote flowery descriptions of their ideal men that far exceeded three characteristics.  (Most of the women were also single.  Make of that what you will.)

I’ve had a list since I was 18 or 19 of qualities I’d like my future husband to possess.  It’s not 68 items long (as one Boundless commenter shared hers was), but it’s not short.  As I’ve aged, I’ve relaxed on some things, some out of maturity, some out of necessity.  If I had to limit it to three, though, they would be these:**

1. bright
2. funny
3. brave

I had originally written confident instead of brave, but I changed my mind because brave is more all-encompassing.  It implies confidence, but with the moral connotation of inner fortitude.  It’s easy for a man to be confident in an environment in which he is comfortable; it is much less so in an unfamiliar setting.  While confidence is alluring, bravery wins hearts.

**Stipulating, of course, Christian givens like “loves the Lord” and general givens like “is physically attractive to me.”  Seriously, now:  it’s the rarest of women who willingly marries a man whose appearance fails to incite even the tiniest of positive feelings.

What are your top three?

Dating: the thing that’s left to do after you’ve already evaluated the person for spousal potential.

When I was growing up, I never thought much about dating or marriage because I figured it was one of those things that just “happened” to you.  The process seemed simple:  you and a boy meet, you “like” each other, he asks you out and you go on a date (usually involving a meal), and if nothing went terribly awry, you could go on another date, and another, until you got to the point where you liked each other enough to get married.  The man would buy an engagement ring, get down on one knee, propose, and within a year of the proposal, you would walk down the aisle and begin married life together.  All of this would ideally occur by age 26, an age which gave you enough time to finish your education and experience living on your own and taking care of yourself, but not so old as to start getting bored and/or lonely.

Ah, the good old days.  Some people probably do still meet and marry in this fashion, but I feel like dating has increasingly started to resemble a war strategy, especially for those of us wishing to marry a fellow believer.  There’s now all this pre-dating business to be taken care of before a single dating-oriented word is uttered, and it seems like dating itself is more like negotiations for a (holy) business merger.

These days, for the conscientious Christian, merely laying eyes on someone of the opposite sex and liking what you see is no longer enough reason to ask for a date.  Instead, if you see someone attractive, your first move should be to spend an indefinite period of time observing that person’s character.  How long this period of time is supposed to be, I have no idea.  It should at least be long enough for you to engage in some heartfelt prayer asking God to show you whether or not you should ask this other person out, as well as consulting for guidance at least one older, married mentor in the church who knows both you and this other person.  (It goes without saying that if you are a man, you should have or soon be having a job which would enable you to support a wife who didn’t have to work.)  Once you get the go-ahead from your own observation, God, and your mentor, and you have a job, you may finally ask out the observee on a date.   While on the date (for which the man pays all), you should make clear that your intention in asking for a date is to explore the possibility of marriage so as not to “defraud” the other person into believing you have intentions that you don’t really have.

Phew.

I understand the reasoning behind this process, I do:  who hasn’t known about the guy in the youth group (or college and career group, or adult singles group) who indiscriminately asks out every available woman within a +/- 10-year age range, seeming to go down the line in level of attractiveness until he finally finds someone who will say yes?  Who hasn’t known at least one person who got asked out by someone who was very obviously not a potential?  And many Christian women have expressed that they would rather not go out with someone they didn’t know at all and/or would rather be “friends” first.

These are good intentions, and all things that should be done — but why should half of the legwork be completed before the first date?  Why can’t a Christian man see a Christian woman who catches his eye, ask her to go for coffee, and see if they like each other enough to go for a second coffee some other time?  I feel like all the “prep” just adds pressure to the already pressure-filled Christian dating scene.  By the time you get to the date, you’ve been calculated and tabulated and expectations are high.  If you go to a small church where everyone knows everyone else’s business, quadruple those expectations.

I’ve been thinking, though….is a good percentage of the Christian dating “crisis” really just the result of there not being many alpha males in the Church?  If a confident, charming, even mildly good-looking man chatted up a young woman, I find it very hard to believe that she would tell him she wanted to get to know him as a friend first.  At the very least, he would be able to get her number so he could set up a non-threatening coffee date.  The whole procedure that I’ve outlined above just seems beta to the max, something that’s designed to eliminate, rather than merely minimize, risk.  Or is it necessary?  Christian girls with an appetite for marriage do often have terrible cases of “oneitis,” which causes them to glom on to any potential suitor and hold on for dear life — until they are sufficiently emotionally kicked in the face enough to see that it’s not going to lead to the altar (after which they then mourn and mope for a year, making it impossible for any other guy to have a chance).

All around, dating in the church is a risky business — but, thanks to 2 Cor. 6:14, a requisite one.

Mark Sloan discovers the true purpose of dating.

It’s rare in the mainstream media to find examples of dating to determine compatibility for marriage.  Usually it seems that in movies and television, people date so they won’t feel like whores for having sex with the people they’re attracted to.  Having some sort of ~relationship~ with someone, even if said relationship has only lasted a couple of hours and has occurred completely within the confines of a restaurant, totally makes sex okay!  (Sexual feelings always make everything okay.  People freak about the doctor seeing them in a paper gown, but Mr. Tight Abs from the bar seeing the whole kit and kaboodle?  Totally okay if a significant amount of time, like a couple of hours or an equivalent amount of alcohol, has passed.)

So color me quite shocked, but in a good way, when last week on Grey’s Anatomy, shameless manwhore Mark Sloan decided that he was (a) lonely and unhappy, (b) wanted a wife and kids, and (c) decided to go out and find a wife who wanted to have kids.  I know, I was shocked, too!  This happened on Grey’s Anatomy!  The show where people regularly have sex in hospital closets and/or empty rooms in the hospital!

Prompted by his best friend/former lover Callie Torres, Mark zeroes in on Teddy Altman, who up until this point has been pretty lovelorn over the taken Owen Hunt.  Mark’s first attempt at asking Teddy out goes badly after some misunderstandings about breast implants for her patient (a guy whose heart has fallen out of place).  After talking to Callie’s girlfriend Arizona, Teddy decides that it wouldn’t be bad to date Mark — for fun.  He, after all, does not have a reputation for seriousness with women.

Later, Mark finds Teddy and tells her that he has some saline implants, and Teddy asks him if he will participate in the surgery.  He agrees, and she takes a chance and tells him that she actually is free for a date that night.  He is cheered by this news and mentions an Italian restaurant he’s been wanting to try.  She dims, realizing he wants a “serious” date, and counters with the idea of the local bar for a drink.  He tells her that he wants to have dinner so they can talk, and she freaks out and says she’s not available for dinner.

At lunch, Mark tells Callie and Arizona that Teddy only wanted sex and (not seeing the irony) wonders who treats people like a slab of meat.  Arizona reminds him that he does.  Later, during surgery, Teddy is impressed by Mark’s confidence and calmness, but when she compliments him, Mark sarcastically says that surgery is only his hobby and that his real interest is in his work as a male escort.

When Mark reiterates his failure with Teddy to Callie, Callie encourages him to move on to someone else.  (This is actually good advice.  Too many people decide in advance that someone is The One, or the closest thing to it, and then spend weeks or months in angsty agony when they could be out finding someone more amenable to a relationship.)  Mark sarcastically says that he can’t wait for dinner and a conversation, but Callie tells him that he should be taking women out to lunch instead.  Mark frowns on that idea because it’s not romantic, but Callie tells him that that’s how you get to know someone else:  in daylight, in public.  (Also good advice.  Much less pressure, plus lunch menus are cheaper at a lot of restaurants.  Hey, thrift is a virtue.)  Mark says it’s the least sexy idea he’s ever heard in his life, but Callie smartly reminds him that he’s had sex and that he doesn’t want sex, he wants a baby.  He remains discouraged, and Callie gives him a pep talk, telling him that he’s worth getting to know.  (At this point I was wondering why Mark doesn’t get together with Callie, but that’s an issue for the writers to resolve, and the underlying issue is one for a different post by me.)

All of this leads us to this scene:

Mark walks over to the nurses’ station.

Teddy sees him.  Gathering her courage, she approaches him.

TEDDY:  I’d love to have dinner sometime.  If you’re still up for it.

MARK:  I’m not taking you to dinner.

TEDDY:  Oh.

MARK:  I will take you to lunch.  Saturday afternoon, in broad daylight.
We’ll eat at a public place and maybe take a walk on a crowded street.

MARK (CONT’D):  We’ll get to know each other, see if we have
an interest in the same kind of future.

MARK:  Because I want to build a life, and a family, and I’m not
wasting my time on someone who doesn’t share that interest.

[Hmm, how does that sound to you, Teddy?]

MARK:  I’ll pick you up at noon.

TEDDY:  Okay, then.

-End scene-

That’s it, in a nutshell.  That’s what dating should be.  (And, for the record, it’s not a bad template for asking women out, either.  Direct, to the point, with a plan.)