The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS

July 25, 2007 @ 8:26 am

I have to agree with all your objections… they seem like the ideal. But a dad talking with the date is better than no conversation at all.

But, I can’t imagine or endorse a dad talking with the guy if the mother and father never talked with the daughter over the course of years. And, what about talking with our sons so that this type of conversation isn’t really necessary?

Girls are more aggressive these days. My son started getting calls from a girl when he was ten and a half. At first he was flattered, but after two weeks he said, ‘That girl is so needy!’ I was surprised he could assess the situation in that way. But yes, too many girls are emotionally needy and not taught any way to attract attention besides certain clothing, etc. A more attentive, not more dictating, father or father figure would probably be a big help.

The scenario you mention doesn’t address girls being sexually aggressive or suggestive, so it is old-fashioned in that way. I don’t think that playing around with sex is as one-sided as it used to be, but there are plenty of young girls who end up with the baby and no man in the picture. Girls need to be taught to be more choosy.

Comment by cokhavim

July 25, 2007 @ 9:46 am

Why is it that so many Christian books/programs give advice on your daughter’s date and almost nothing on your son’s date? Shouldn’t parents also be concerned about whom their son is dating, and how that girl treats their son?

I totally agree that mother and father should be talking to the young dating couple together. But, if you’re going to have fathers ‘interviewing’ their daughter’s dates (presumably because fathers understand male minds better than mothers do), why not give advice on how mothers can interview their son’s dates?

Comment by B-W

July 25, 2007 @ 11:02 am

He was also to promise… [to] always open the door for her.

Others will have more and better things to say about the main thrust of this post, but I had to comment on this side issue: the messages that may be sent (intentionally or not) by the practice of opening doors for women.

First, I should note that it is my own practice to open the door for practically anybody that I know is approaching that door at about the same time as I am, male or female. I believe that to do so shows respect. I acknowledge their presence and show that I wish to be helpful. If they are clearly in front of me, I do not push them out of the way to open the door, nor do I rush to ‘beat them there’ unless I can tell that they are carrying items that would make opening the door for them difficult.

But, I can’t help but feel that the teaching that men should open doors for women perpetuates the myth that men are superior to women. It’s somewhat condescending, as if to imply that women couldn’t do this simple task for themselves. Some might argue that it’s a gesture of respect that men show to women by acknowledging them and doing something nice for them (much as I argued earlier in why I hold doors for people without regard to gender) – I just don’t buy it. Even worse, in my opinion, I’m aware of a number of men who get downright indignant if a woman tries to open a door for herself, or otherwise ‘impedes’ a man from doing this task. Such men feel that they must be the one to open the door, and (to the extent they have the power to do so) won’t let the woman open the door. That’s clearly not a sign of respect toward the woman (whether the woman who ‘gets in the guy’s way’ is respecting him is a potential issue, but I think that most women are well within their rights here).

Anyway, this is an admitted ‘rabbit-trail’ from the main point, but its inclusion raised some red flags for me.

Comment by kim

July 25, 2007 @ 11:33 am

It seems to me that a more effective method would be for parents to teach their daughters to demand respect from potential boyfriends. It touches on all sorts of old-fashioned, chivalric fantasies for the father and the young men to be responsible for a young woman’s well-being and purity, but young women need to be empowered to stand up for themselves as well (particularly when dealing with less than noble suitors, or when dad’s not around to screen her dates).

Comment by Lainie

July 25, 2007 @ 12:36 pm

I agree with PS (see comment 62172) that this sort of thinking about male/female sexuality is strikingly ineffective in our attempts to encourage sexual purity.

Many – not all – Christians seem to have their heads in the sand regarding female sexuality. Women and girls are depicted as ‘naturally,’ sexually passive, and reluctant, thus requiring protection from ‘naturally’ sexually aggressive men. Female promiscuity is typically pathologized as a consequence of emotional damage (i.e. girls have sex because they are ‘looking for love’).

I think that we need to recognize that women and girls can and do have sex drives and that we do act on them. Instead of directing ‘purity’ programs towards boy’s hormones and girl’s emotional needs, I think that we need to encourage both genders to holiness and self-restraint.

Comment by leigh

July 25, 2007 @ 4:12 pm

I have a thing about door-opening, too. I’ve felt compelled to practically run before, when a man a room and a half away from me was holding the door open ‘for me.’ Thanks for mentioning this. Chivalry has long rung false, to me.

I do have a problem with the language that I am guessing originated with the radio program. ‘Young man’ and ‘girl’ are used to refer to the people preparing to go out on a date, rather than ‘young man’ and ‘young woman.’ This lack of parity is pretty common, I’ve noticed. Just wanted to mention this before I go on.

I agree with a number of points already made by commenters here.

On the one hand, this is not the right way to go about this.

On the other hand, I can appreciate that it has something that most of the recent focus on ‘modesty’ is missing – the promotion of some sort of responsible behavior on the part of the male.

Having noted a less negative aspect of the situation, I will note that I am particularly bothered by the fact that the potential date is encouraged to respect not the young woman, but rather, her potential husband. Sure, lip service is being given to the idea of respecting the young woman, but the potential suitor is told to respect her not as a fellow human being, or as also made in the image of God, but because she may be his or someone else’s wife one day.

How are girls to grow up with self-respect when the larger culture and their religion both give them the message that their worth comes from the men with whom they are associated?

Comment by Lori

July 26, 2007 @ 3:38 am

Lainie (see comment 62192),

I agree with PS (see comment 62172) that this sort of thinking about male/female sexuality is strikingly ineffective in our attempts to encourage sexual purity.

Many – not all – Christians seem to have their heads in the sand regarding female sexuality. Women and girls are depicted as ‘naturally,’ sexually passive, and reluctant, thus requiring protection from ‘naturally’ sexually aggressive men. Female promiscuity is typically pathologized as a consequence of emotional damage (i.e. girls have sex because they are ‘looking for love’).

I think that we need to recognize that women and girls can and do have sex drives and that we do act on them. Instead of directing ‘purity’ programs towards boy’s hormones and girl’s emotional needs, I think that we need to encourage both genders to holiness and self-restraint.

In her book Real Sex, Lauren Winner (a Christian) attacks that idea. She says that she hates it how too many Christians portray girls as almost lifeless beings with no sexual desire, when of course the opposite is true.

I have some friends who have a teenage son. Their son is trying to stay pure before marriage, but my friends have said you wouldn’t believe how aggressive girls have gotten now. It’s their son who is having to run from girls wanting to have sex!

Getting back to the original topic, it’s just another form of dressed-up patriarchy. It goes right back to the Bible. Remember all the haggling that went on between Jacob and Laban over Rachel? I love what my Women’s Bible Commentary says. ‘The Bible says Jacob loved Rachel, but it never says she loved him back.’ A father might use nice language about protecting his daughter, but since he treats the guy like her future husband, then it’s not much different than Jacob and Laban.

And, I just have to add that having grown up in the South, I have no problem with men opening doors for me. I’m not such a modern feminist that I don’t like to be treated as special once and a while. Whenever we go somewhere, I always wait for my husband to open the door for me.

Comment by justanotherjane

July 26, 2007 @ 8:01 pm

Thank you, thank you, Leigh (see comment 62210).

This attitude is really that women are the property of men. They are not to be respected on the merits of their own personhood but respected as property in the same way you’re told as a kid to not trample all over the neighbor’s flower garden – not to respect the flowers, but to respect the neighbor (ugh).

On the other hand, women are more likely to be victimized by their male dating partners, so I think that when it comes to safety, there are more reasons to watch out for a daughter. But, when it comes to purity, the conversation is usually completely one-sided, and does a great disservice to young people in particular. Purity, self control, and respect for others are all great values. And yet again we find the modern ‘Christian’ churches taking something good and turning it into something awful – reminds me why I don’t go to church.

Comment by Amy

July 26, 2007 @ 8:54 pm

I think the idea of a father’s involvement is great. I also agree that what the young man is agreeing to in this type of interview further solidifies negative traditional gender roles, and that is quite troublesome. I also wonder about intrinsic motivation. Rather than attempting to motivate the boy to do all this to protect the girl, a great idea is to talk to him about his own purity. If it’s something he values intrinsically, it’s much more likely to affect his decision-making.

On the topic of modesty, I recently ran into a site which ran a modesty survey which I found troubling. In it, youth listed a variety of categories and guys chimed in as to what was OK and what was not regarding modesty. Some questions and comments are particularly troubling and overall I think the whole thing points back to the overall assumption that women are responsible for men’s lust. I do agree that modesty is very important. I think when you begin breaking it down as to whether cap sleeves are OK or whether it’s OK for a girl to lean over to pick something up if a guy happens to be behind her, that’s just plain old ridiculous.

Comment by sally

July 27, 2007 @ 5:29 am

Troubling? It’s more than troubling.

I grew up in an Eastern culture which did make rules about what women should wear and should not wear. The trouble is: where do you draw the line? The young men on the survey think jeans are OK for women to wear but not a miniskirt over leggings. But where I grew up, jeans were a scandalous outrage. In fact, many in that culture go so far as to say that women appearing in public at all, even completely covered with ‘modest’ clothing, is a scandalous outrage and will cause men everywhere to stumble.

The site says it’s not making rules, but it’s planting the seeds for rules. And, once we start to make rules about what women wear and don’t wear, we are going down the track of saying that the physicality of women is the whole cause of lust. Go there, and there’s not much time before jeans are not OK, and it’s better for women to be completely covered, and then there’s not much time before it’s better for them to be invisible entirely.

Comment by Liz

July 27, 2007 @ 8:48 am

Nothing to add to these excellent comments – I just wanted to say yes to them all!

A further development in all of this is that a lot of young women don’t even question the practice; such is the indoctrination through many church groups.

Comment by Bryan

July 27, 2007 @ 4:42 pm

Gee, I’ve never felt so guy-ish. I’ve been following all this without paying too much attention, and then I read Leigh’s comment (see comment 62210).

I will note that I am particularly bothered by the fact that the potential date is encouraged to respect not the young woman, but rather, her potential husband. Sure, lip service is being given to the idea of respecting the young woman, but the potential suitor is told to respect her not as a fellow human being, or as also made in the image of God, but because she may be his or someone else’s wife one day.

Maybe I’m slow or a product of my upbringing, but that all sounded fine until her comment. I never thought of it in those terms, and was I female would be mightily ticked-off and put upon. I guess one reason I never thought about it is that my teenaged daughters and I have talked repeatedly – the only interview with a date would be something to the effect of ‘Her, I already trust – treat her right or I’ll hurt you.’

Comment by Kate

July 28, 2007 @ 7:02 am

When I was younger, I used to eat stuff like this up. I loved the idea of having someone ‘protect’ me and my purity. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to see that a lot of Christian media is produced with the intent of making moral and ethical decisions easy. Who should you date? Here’s a list. How far can you go before you get married? Here’s another list. In the process of ingesting all this garbage, the captive Christian audience misses the fact that life is not simple or easy. They forget that there are many things that the Bible doesn’t address. God didn’t give us an instruction manual and set us on our way. He gave us brains and a good example and the promise of the Spirit. God didn’t use a cookie cutter to make us. Each of us is being lovingly fashioned and that individuality means that simple cookie cutter strategies for life won’t work.

Sorry for the rant, but I get so worked up about the homogenized mass of Christian media that so many Americans are willing to buy into.

Comment by Terri

July 28, 2007 @ 11:15 am

I can appreciate the fact that sexuality can be more freely discussed in our day without fear of reprisal, but when I was growing up it was taboo.

One thing that does alarm me is the way sexual promiscuity is promoted by the media. You can pick up (especially) Christian magazines and find a photograph of a young teenage girl as the representative for abstinence or promiscuity. It has been, and will always be, a double bind for girls and women in the areas of sexuality. I remember a woman one day that made a comment that was comical but so very true at the same time. She said, ‘My husband wants a kitten [which suggested that she be shy, quiet and cute] in the living room, a Houdini [magician] in the kitchen and a wildcat in the bedroom.’

A young girl had to always be aware of her sexuality. For example, parents would dress boys in little overalls so that they would have freedom to climb and run and play. A little girl, on the other hand, was dressed in a frilly frock and then told to ‘be careful not to show her panties.’ (What?) She had to always be conscience of what was showing and how she was sitting – not fair but true to life. Then, after all that fidgeting as a youngster she begins to develop and has to tackle another set of issues that become her personal problems.

Like I said earlier, I am glad we can talk more freely about things now, but I do not like to see girls and women being made the scapegoats of society and the church.

I believe a lot of the problems that young girls and women face are brought on by unfair expectations and requirements placed on them alone. The problem with sexual feminism is that it encourages an ‘equal access to sin’ mentality for women, when they should be insisting that men be held to a higher standard of purity and morality also.

Comment by Lori

August 2, 2007 @ 4:09 am

See comment 62402.

When I was younger, I used to eat stuff like this up. I loved the idea of having someone ‘protect’ me and my purity. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to see that a lot of Christian media is produced with the intent of making moral and ethical decisions easy.

I came to that conclusion, also, especially when it comes to women. I mean, the whole courtship movement is basically find-a-spouse-by-the-numbers. Hang out in groups until you find a girl that you like. Get daddy’s permission to approach her. Sit on parents’ couch while they make sure you remain pure. Propose. Repeat for every other guy in church.

And for women, of course, it’s even easier. Just drift along until Daddy says, ‘Here, sweetheart, this guy wants to date you.’ Since the guy has been pre-approved, the girl knows he’s gotten the seal of approval to become her husband. Hang out in groups, sit on parent’s sofa, and wait for the guy to propose. Of course, this sets the girl up for a lifetime of submitting and acting as the passive partner in her marriage – in other words, marriage made easy. No need to worry about decisions, just let your husband do it all.

Comment by Hyacinth

August 4, 2007 @ 9:11 am

I think you’ve all said it… It really boils down to respect. But, that respect not only has to go both ways (male to female, female to male) but also has to be a respect for one’s self and for God and our relationship with him.

Comment by the planna

September 16, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

As a mother of a daughter, I see this from two angles. One, I remember being a teenage girl. Two, I love my daughter and want to guide her toward good decisions. Some of these decisions are ones I wish someone had helped me with as a teenager.

You must have a good relationship with your teenager to even begin thinking of how to handle dating with them. (Notice, I said with and not for!) My husband isn’t as assertive as I, therefore I took the initiative to research what boundaries we wanted to set for our daughter. My husband and I then agreed on the ‘rules’ and gave our daughter a copy. She has questioned some of the rules and all are up for discussion and subject to change. I am happy to say she has respected them all so far.

As a Christian, I feel we are held to a higher standard. We have high expectations, high values, and high morals. We expect this from our daughter and we expect this from any guy who dates our daughter while she lives under our roof.

At the risk of ridicule, here are our rules.

The definition of a ‘date’ is when you go out and no adults are present in the transportation to or from.

Before dating, we want to know your friends and one way you can help us learn to trust your judgment of other people’s character is by planning activities that we can be involved in. (We will try not to embarrass you.)We also want you to plan or be involved in activities for groups of friends. (One sex should not outnumber the other, but it shouldn’t be limited to ‘couples only.’) Ideas for this are athletic events (football, basketball, baseball games, wrestling matches, track meets), visiting places (historical sites, attend fairs, go on picnics, restaurant, or coffeehouse), cultural events (play, concert, explore a museum), church activities, group activities (roller or ice skating, bowling, school sponsored dances), school projects (after school homework sessions, extra credit, special project, volunteering), home activities (pizza party after athletic events, having friends over to watch movies or special TV events, play board games, birthday party, or other event).

Prior to approving the date or any other event, parents must know (you should know these answers before you ask for permission!): Where are you going? Is there a number there where you can be reached? Does the date have a cell phone number? What is the number of the date’s parents/guardian? How are you getting there? Who else will be there? How long will you be there? Will you go anywhere else on the way there or on the way home? What time will you be home?

We must meet the person in advance and approve of same. We want to know what church they attend – person should attend at least twice a month or attend with you. The date must come to our door and talk to mom and/or dad – date cannot pick you up by honking a horn outside. Cell phone must be taken, must be charged, must be on, and must be answered. Driver’s car should have half a tank of gas or more.

Age requirements for you and for your date: fifteen and a half, double dating, date should be less than one year older; sixteen, single dating, date should be less than two years older; seventeen, single dating, date should be less than three years older. Double dating can begin at fifteen and a half years. It is imperative that we approve of the other couple involved in the double-date. If the other couple hasn’t been picked up yet, we must talk to one of the parents of the other couple to verify plans, times, etc. Driver must be sixteen and a half with no driving violations.

Curfew is 11 pm for fifteen and a half to sixteen, 11:30 pm for sixteen to seventeen, and midnight for seventeen to eighteen.

Important: Any event involving drugs and/or alcohol should be left immediately. So not be alone with the date in a non-moving car or any other place. All exceptions must be discussed with parents in advance. Any change in plans must be called into parents. (This includes if you think you’ll break curfew.)

Regarding the opposite sex visiting our home, No one of the opposite sex comes in the house if we don’t know about it. No one of the opposite sex comes in the house if no one else is home. No one of the opposite sex in any bedroom, anytime, for any reason. You may not be alone with anyone of the opposite sex in a room with the door shut.

Trust is earned. Betraying trust costs. Each minute late on curfew equals that number of days full grounding. Each minute late on curfew without thirty minutes notice equals twice that number of days fully grounded. Multiple curfew breakings lead to curfew grounding. A lie equals two weeks full grounding, no exceptions. An unchaperoned person of the opposite sex in our house equals one week full grounding. An unanswered cell phone equals communication grounding for a day for every attempt we make to reach you. (So, if you are ‘out of area,’ you should check voice mail every thirty minutes!)

Full grounding is a ban on going anywhere, having anyone over, and use of telephone, cell phone, computer, TV, or video games. Communication grounding is a ban on telephone, cell phone, and computer. Media grounding is a ban on telephone, cell phone, computer, TV, and video games. Travel grounding is no going anywhere (without parents). Curfew grounding is reverting back to prior curfew time

As we grow to trust you more in dating situations and see that you are learning to make sound decisions, we (both parents must agree) will allow you to earn one ‘take you and up to three friends to dinner’ – we pay and you don’t have to sit with us.

Comment by Shaina

September 22, 2007 @ 12:59 am

Father’s involvement is great. I also agree with this because she wants to guide her toward good decisions. If a father is helping her, then thats great and he can guide her a good way. I loved the idea of having someone ‘protect’ me and my purity. So this is the right thing, that the father’s hands are there to protect her.

Comment by Divorced Dad

September 25, 2007 @ 8:33 pm

Planna, those rules were great. I am printing them and giving them to my kids, an eight year old daughter and fourteen year old son. I haven’t had to deal with dating yet, but did start to discuss minimum ages to date. Your rules will be very helpful as I continue to talk to the kids about dating. After we have discussed them, I’ll give their mom a copy.

As for the persons who choose to be offended when a man opens a door for you, I can inform you that I and none of my male friends have ever opened a door for a woman because we thought they were incapable of doing so, or because we thought we were better than the woman. It is an act of kindness and respect and it is your self-inflicted loss to infer impure motives.

Comment by Sue

September 26, 2007 @ 6:26 pm

Divorced Dad, I have no doubt that when you open doors for a woman you mean only to show kindness and respect, as you said. But I must take issue with your expression of ‘self-inflicted loss to infer impure motives.’ I used to think that all men opened doors with the same attitude that you apparently have. In the past few years, though, I have been able to observe three different men doing what I call ‘grandstanding’ when it comes to opening doors. By that I mean, they not only expected the woman to wait in the passenger seat while they got out of the car to run to the other side to open the door for her, they were indignant if she didn’t wait. All three men had the attitude that when a man is out with woman, ‘the man should be in charge, and he should take care of the little woman.’ Attached to the act of kindness of opening the door was also the expectation of having a measure of control over her. The idea that the act of opening doors for a woman is sometimes (not always)a reflection of condescension is not self-inflicted inference of impure motives; it is (sometimes) reality.

Comment by Heather

September 27, 2007 @ 10:41 am

I think Sue is exactly right about sometimes and not always. I sympathize with Divorced Dad; I’ve been reading through this thread planning to comment on the door-opening because I think it’s sad for guys who are really just being nice to get dissed for it. Like B-W, the first person who commented on this, I don’t think only men should open doors for only women, and I tend to open doors for both sexes. (I guess I’m kinda getting out of the habit… maybe I should pick it up again.) What I’d say to my fellow women is: hey, if a guy opens a door for you, you don’t know if he’s actually someone who always opens door for both men and women, so don’t assume it’s gender-linked right off the bat. But as Sue said, grandstanding does happen and sometimes it’s real obvious, and there’s nothing more insulting than having a guy get mad at you because you spoiled his big gesture of courtesy!

I was in a social situation with a young man I had just broken up with, and there was a lot of tension between us. In the car on the way to this Christmas party, he had been really dismissive of something he knew was important to me (for the record, I wasn’t being that nice either); at the Christmas party we were getting refills of spiced cider and he loudly insisted I be served first. That became my stock example of when chivalry is hollow; there was absolutely nothing in that gesture to make me feel honored! But see, I think hollow is exactly the right word: chivalry and courtesy are vessels, empty in themselves, which can be filled with meaning. Some men fill chivalry with the meaning of condescension, and that’s to be rejected; others fill it with the meaning of love or simple goodwill. Far be it from me to reject that.

Comment by Mary

September 27, 2007 @ 10:57 am

I work a lot right now with contracts. One item I see quite a lot is a provision that simply because one party concedes to the other on a particular occasion, in no way prevents the one party from exercising the right not to concede on future occasions. In practical terms, let’s say a landlord decides to be lenient and not assess a contractually-permissible late fee when a tenant is late paying rent. The tenant has no right to expect the landlord from that point forward to forego assessing late fees if the tenant is late paying rent again. It also in no way prevents the landlord from assessing even more severe penalties in the future, if permitted by the lease contract.

I bring this up because sometimes there is an expectation on the part of a man that if a woman accepts a pure courtesy, such as opening a door or assisting with her coat, she is automatically foregoing all her other personal freedoms, such as opening her own door the next time, or choosing not to kiss him, or paying her share of the check. Men who become angry over ‘liberated women’ on the basis of this are being very unreasonable. Like it or not, the 1950s social code is not in force in the 2000s, not even in the church. A woman is a free person, just as a man is. They’re both free to be courteous to each other. Door-opening is no longer a ‘man only’ job, and a woman is not dissing a man if she opens her own door. It might have seemed easier, especially to men, back in the 50s when everyone ‘knew their place.’ I can guarantee, however, that a man would not have liked the kind of place this dictated for a woman. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is probably the single best guide here and now to how to treat others, even others of the opposite sex.

Comment by M. Saville

October 17, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

These comments are all thought-provoking, but very slanted. It would be nice to hear the broadcast, or read the book. Would anyone happen to know the author or title that was referenced in the broadcast?

Comment by Sue

October 17, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

The book is Interviewing Your Daughter’s Date, by Dennis Rainey of Family Life Today. It can be ordered on the website.

Comment by Richard

October 29, 2007 @ 1:16 am

Comments are not slanted – I’ve read the book. The comments are not as bad as they could be, based on the attitude expressed in the book. The author expects that the boy, in addition to opening the door for daughter, will also order for her at dinner. As I write, I realize that I assumed this meant that boy should decide what daughter would eat and order that – but perhaps he only meant that the boy would speak on the daughter’s behalf but she could choose what she wanted to eat.

I’m a man, I have an eleven year old daughter and am preparing for the dating years – and I did not like the book for all of the reasons discussed above. My on-going conversations with my daughter about the need to choose dates wisely and how to protect herself in the event she has made a bad choice will do my daughter far more good than a five-minute conversation with a boy I may never see again – who will likely make promises to me, a stranger, that he never intends to keep.

Comment by tiro

October 29, 2007 @ 10:51 am

Richard (see comment 72359), I agree. It’s much more important to inform and educate the daughter than try to instill ‘fear’ into her potential dates. She must learn to exercise wisdom for herself.

Comment by STF

February 4, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

I agree with the interview process. I call it ‘the talk.’ It has helped weed out some pretty seedy guys. In answer to your question regarding where the mother is, in my home it is clear. She is at my side talking with me. My daughter is also in the room, most likely sitting with the young man who wants to take her out.

This talk, when delivered with compassion, is frank, honest, never naive, clear, and with well-defined boundaries builds a strong image with the young man of her mother and I being parental, caring, sincere, and honest. This is the kind of thing that can take months to build with a young man.

After ‘the talk’ they often decide that they prefer to just come over and hang out with my daughters. They find that a safe, loving, honest home is a good place to be. During that time I am able to model for him what a husband and father should be.

I find it troublesome when people of faith fail to recognize the absolute importance of good, mature, respectful relationships. Start building it as a caring parent immediately, and you will have most of the battle won.

Comment by Terri

February 11, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

It is amazing to me how the concept of a father talking to her daughter’s potential date gets turned into something so incredibly absurd. For example, because a few men may ‘grandstand’ and open doors for the wrong reason, this book is ridiculed for suggesting the young man be a gentlemen and open the door for his date. Does that mean because some people verbally abuse their children, that there should be no reprimand of children or discussion of wrongdoing? Of course not, but this example is no different. I certainly hope that any action that is handled wrongly by someone doesn’t then have to be abolished for all those with the correct motives. And never does the book say the daughter cannot or should not open the door first or for her date if she wants to.

Why is it being assumed that the author has not talked with his daughter about her responsibilities in the dating process? The author states that the most important aspect of the process is the father’s relationship with his daughter. To assume that he is demeaning her by his actions or attitude is simply irresponsible as a reader.

I see this book as a positive step in helping fathers be responsible and active in their godly role. Their is no reason to assume the motivation here is anything but loving, cherishing, and respecting their daughters.

Comment by Shawn

February 9, 2011 @ 5:35 am

All this book is telling us is nothing new, it’s all in the bible, right where we should be getting all life’s instructions. Men are to be the spiritual leaders of the house period!
We are much like a captain of a ship, a quarterback of a football team, etc. We are to be strong leaders and not bend or compromise to what society (the media) is telling us normal is. Dang it people, this is not about male dominance or putting women down, it’s a book that helps to serve as a guide to what a man should be and what a young woman should expect from a young man. The problem here is that we are experiencing a shortage of young men and women are being told to settle for some moron who can’t pull his pants up, get a job, and support himself let alone a potential family!
A MAN IS TO SHOW WOMAN UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, with that i hope that you will forgive me for opening a door or doing other NICE things for you.
A WOMAN IS TO SHOW UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT TO A MAN. let us open the door and doing other nice things for you. support us in a way that we may serve you.

Comment by Don J

February 9, 2011 @ 8:12 am

And a man is to show respect and a woman is to show love. These are CHRISTIAN virtues and not gendered.

Comment by Michelle

February 9, 2011 @ 8:47 am

Of all the comparisons I hear made of various organizations or groups to marriage, in order to describe the way a husband is to behave in marriage, I have not yet heard one that I found similar enough to be persuasive.

A football team like a marriage? Yes, one could find some similarities, but they are limited. Same thing with a ship. They aren’t similar enough, to me, to justify the one-man(literally, male)-in-charge comparison regarding the way they should function.

I don’t know of anywhere “unconditional respect” is talked about in Scripture. When anything close to that is discussed, I believe the topic is holiness and reverence, and the being who is holy and deserves our reverence is God alone. Do not make idols of men (literally, males).

Comment by JR

March 25, 2011 @ 11:21 am

Comment by Michelle 93548
RE: I don’t know of anywhere “unconditional respect” is talked about in Scripture. When anything close to that is discussed, I believe the topic is holiness and reverence, and the being who is holy and deserves our reverence is God alone. Do not make idols of men (literally, males).
=============================================
READ: Ephesians 5:21-33 (in particular 5:33)

5:21 subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife,
and Christ also is the head of the assembly,
being himself the savior of the body.
5:24 But as the assembly is subject to Christ,
so let the wives also be to their own husbands in everything.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself up for it;
5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,
5:27 that he might present the assembly to himself gloriously, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing;
but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
5:29 For no man ever hated his own flesh;
but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord also does the assembly;
5:30 because we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones.
5:31 “For this cause a man will leave his father and mother,
and will be joined to his wife. The two will become one flesh.”

5:32 This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and of the assembly.
5:33 Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

A Male who does not have Respect shuts down and will not provide Love
A Female who does not have Love will not provide Respect

Comment by Michelle

March 25, 2011 @ 11:35 am

I don’t see unconditional respect in that text.
I see unconditional love, as a husband is directly instructed to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Certainly Christ gave his life–as he lived it *and* as he died–for all. Much is said about the expectations of the husband.
Read 5:33 in the text you quoted–If a husband does not love his wife, he does not love himself.

Little is said about the wife respecting the husband.

I recognize the last two statements as stereotypes I’ve heard from some in the church. Humans require love and respect from each other. We were *all* made in the image of God: not some made in 1/2 the image and others made in the other 1/2 of the image of God, each with a completely different set of needs and qualities.

Comment by JR

March 25, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

You must have missed the second part of Eph 5:33

Ultimately it’s about following the Bible teachings, and not about each individual creating their own God image to fit their lifestyle. The better we equip our young men and young women the greater the marriage success rate.

Respect is something a person merits over time by his positive actions. But that is NOT what the apostle Paul is talking about when he says at Ephesians 5:33, “…the wife should have deep respect for her husband.”

According to The Bible in Living English, published by the WTBS, that verse reads, “let each of you individually too, though, love his wife just as he does himself. And the wife should fear her husband.”

“Fear” is the proper translation of the Greek word Paul uses there, not deep respect. The literal translation is, “the but woman in order that she may be fearing the male person.” (see the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) The word “fear” is translated from the Greek φόβος (pho’ bos [pronounced pho'vos]), from which we get our English “phobia.”

Does it really matter if we translate the word for “fearing” (φοβήται, • pho bi’ tai [he, she, it fears]) as deep respect, as also so many other translations do? By changing or mistranslating just one word we can change the meaning of a verse, and thus nullify God’s counsel. That is the case in this instance. Ephesians 5:33 is not about respect but rather about headship. Paul is not telling the wife that she should respect her husband if he lives up to her expectation, but rather that she must be in fear of going against Jehovah’s arrangement of husbandly headship. The emphasis in this case is not on how a wife views her husband but rather on how she obeys Jehovah’s direction to the wives: “Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Regarding marriage, the apostle Paul cautioned, “those who [marry] will have tribulation in their flesh.” (1 Cor. 7:28) This seems to be true of most marriages, even among God’s people. Below is some insightful Food for Thought—as found in the English Standard Version Bible (ESV)—explaining the reason behind the conflict in many marriages.

Gen. 3:16 By way of punishing the woman for her sin of disobedience, God pronounces that she will suffer pain (Hb. ‘itstsabon) in the bearing of children. This strikes at the very heart of the woman’s distinctiveness, for she is the “mother of all living” (v. 20). Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. These words from the Lord indicate that there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship. The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin. This especially takes the form of inordinate desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband). The Hebrew term here translated “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found in the OT. But it appears again in 4:7, in a statement that closely parallels 3:16—that is, where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain’s murder of his brother, that sin’s “desire is for you” (i.e., to master Cain), and that Cain must “rule over it” (which he immediately fails to do, by murdering his brother, as seen in 4:8). Similarly, the ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship: (1) Eve will have the sinful “desire” to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him, reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage. But (2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to “rule” over Eve. Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behavior of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage. (See note on Eph. 5:21-33 for the NT pattern for marriage founded on the redemptive work of Christ.) —Notes on Genesis 3:16; the ESV Study Bible.

Is your marriage a source of happiness as God originally intended it to be? Then you will no doubt agree that “a truly good wife is the most precious treasure a man can find!” Yes, “a prudent wife is from Jehovah.” (Prov. 19:14, CEV; Prov. 18:22; 31:10, ASV) On the other hand, it is “better to live in a wilderness than with a nagging and hot-tempered (contentious) wife.” (Prov. 21:9, 19, HCSB) We can enjoy God’s blessing upon our marriage if both partners obey him and heed his counsel regarding the marriage arrangement. Doing so honors him! (please consider 1 Cor. 7:3-5, 10-16; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-7)

You might want to visit: http://loveandrespect.com/
Where Dr Emerson Eggerichs talks about his research, which reveals that during marital conflict a husband most often reacts when feeling disrespected and a wife reacts when feeling unloved. When he asked 7,000 people this question: when you are in a conflict with your spouse or significant other, do you feel unloved or disrespected? 83% of the men said “disrespected.” 72% of the women said, “unloved.” Though we all need love and respect equally, the felt need differs during conflict, and this difference is as different as pink is from blue!

Comment by Mara

March 25, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

JR: “Paul is not telling the wife that she should respect her husband if he lives up to her expectation, but rather that she must be in fear of going against Jehovah’s arrangement of husbandly headship.”

You have made a grievious assumption here.
You assume that Paul is telling wives this because of Jehovah’s arrangement.

I’ll tell you why women needed to have a phobia fear of their husbands.
Because even though she turns to him for companionship, he will use that against her to rule over her (Genesis 3:16).

And I’ll tell you why the wives in the Ephesian homes needed to phobia fear their husbands.
In the Roman patriarchal culture, the husband ruled and the wife obeyed (not submitted. Flat out obeyed). The husband had the power to make her life miserable. He held ALL the power. The wife held NONE. He owned EVERYTHING. The wife owned NOTHING.
Paul was speaking to the culture of the time. A woman had a lot to fear from the man who had all the power.

It is not like this now. Though I’m sure some men might like to go back to that.

Anyway, Eggerich’s Love/Respect?
BTDT got the tee-shirt. Christian pop-psychology at it’s worst. Nothing like sanctified box making to turn Christians into little plastic sheep.

I actually believe in unconditional respect. All human beings get my unconditional respect because they are created in God’s image.

I’ve also used it in dealing with troubled teens. I gave to them unconditional respect as human beings and you wouldn’t believe the doors it opened up. But the crazy thing is, in these situations, the teens had NO authority over me. I was the one with the authority. But because I respected them, they opened up and respected me back.

And I’ll tell you what else. A woman married to an abusive man has a lot to fear of the phobia type. But instead of submitting, she needs to run for the hills to save her life.

Comment by Retha

March 26, 2011 @ 7:24 am

JR, What makes you think we can read “fear going against the headship of her husband” in the verse? As you say, one word can make a huge difference, but here you insert 5 words (“going against the headship of”) that are not in the text!

I can think of two meanings: 1) She should fear her husband. She should, for example, fear his ability to make wrongful choices, and not blindly follow him. She should fear that he may leave, and therefore see to it that she can adequately and capably provide for herself. She should fear that his influence on her/ the children may be bad, and think twice before trusting him. (The first time this word for fear appear is where Joseph should not fear to take Mary as his wife. The fear he should avoid there there is not a panic-stricken condition that leaves him out of control, but his misgivings that would cause him to distrust Mary. Yet Ephesians tell women to fear! Should women have misgivings about trusting husbands?)
2) The word “and”, connecting “husbands, love” to “wives, fear” is from a Greek root that also mean “but” or other connecting terms. It may mean “husbands, love your wives or the wife will fear you.”

Comment by Don J

March 26, 2011 @ 7:57 am

The ESV Study Bible is a gender hierarchal translation with gender hierarchal study notes.

Teshuqah simply means desire, it is not a desire to control. It is found in SOS as a good thing between husband and wife.

It is pure human imagination what the ESV Study Bible claims is found in Gen 1-3, there is no sanctioned husband authority found there.

Comment by Michelle

March 26, 2011 @ 8:57 am

Mara: That is an excellent point about unconditional respect. I agree with you that we need to respect everyone as beings made in God’s image.

Comment by Sonnet

March 26, 2011 @ 9:03 am

Teshuqah appears not just TWO times in the Old Testament, but THREE times. Those who like to say that it means a desire to rule over another neglect to point out the third occurrence—Song of Solomon 7:10. “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.” No negative connotations there.

Comment by LMcC

March 29, 2011 @ 11:37 am

While I agree with Mara on one level about unconditional respect for people because we are all made in the image of God, I have to disagree with our pro-male-rule poster on a very different level that men must have unconditional respect at all costs.

On the level Mara speaks of, certainly there is that need for basic respect, as a person. It does not cover the level of respect that hierarchically-minded men demand of their wives. If you want leadership and respect, as a ruler, you have to earn that type of respect. You cannot demand it out of a wife. You cannot force it out of her. You cannot beat it out of her. You cannot rape it out of her. If anything, any man who demands that kind of respect — especially through violence — forfeits it. Personally, I think that even the negative view of women within traditionalism, that we’re just allegedly out for ourselves and ready to backstab the husbands first chance we get, is enough to quench all hope of that respect. But that’s just me. Or maybe not.

Fortunately, I’m one of those people who believes in mutual love, mutual respect, and mutual submission in marriage. I don’t have to worry about this alleged tension in marriage of two people fighting over who has control, and quite honestly don’t understand it. I don’t have to worry about my husband overruling me just because he’s The Man and he can. He doesn’t have to worry about me doing anything against him or our marriage. Funny how much better everything works out when assumptions about power struggles and spouses who are just going to stab the other in the back don’t materialize.