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

Scenario*:

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

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

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

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

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

What’s your next step?

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

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

Oh, Boundless, you never disappoint me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUSBAND:  took out da trash

WIFE:  thx!!!!!!

HUSBAND:  u look nice

WIFE:  hahahaha no i dont

HUSBAND:  yes u do

WIFE:  how do u know

HUSBAND:  im lookin at u rite now

WIFE:  rly????????

HUSBAND:  yup u look hott

WIFE:  ok fine

HUSBAND:  im watchin american idol

WIFE:  i know these ppl cant sing

HUSBAND:  hey want 2 do it 2nite?

WIFE:  lol!!!!!!!!

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

And talk to each other.

“Hanging out”: clear as mud.

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

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

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

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

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

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