The CBE Scroll

Comment by Anna

March 24, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Great thoughts you’ve shared. I’ve been there, too. I’ve seen countless girls hurt deeply as they sit and wait for the man to do the leading, as they are unwilling to accept that gender hierarchy is not only unnecessary but unbiblical.. To answer your questions…

1. Both parties are capable of initiating a relationship/date/etc. Just as a man traditionally has expressed his desire to date a woman, so she can do in return. If a woman can call her female friend and schedule a coffee date, why should she feel incapable of making the same call to a man?

2. It can be a little of both! The woman can plan and execute a date in which she pays, the man can do the same, or they can each pay for their own portions, or any other arrangement which suits the couple. Obviously this needs to be openly discussed and understood for it to work.

3. Isn’t it simply a desire to be lazy and passive when WOMEN want MEN to initiate? :-)

4. Relationship conflicts are solved through open communication and mutual submission. In my marriage, if we have a disagreement, we discuss it together we wait until we have come to a mutual decision before moving forward into any action. Just as a friendship between two women or two men can be productive and fruitful without a leader, so can it be between women and men in a relationship.

5. Everyone is unique and individual! As you put it so well, “In order to strip away ideas of hierarchy, we must view our ideas of dating and relationships as being culturally embedded.” It has been ingrained in many cultures today that men are “wild” and women just want to be “beautiful” when in fact we share far more similarities in our humanity than we do differences in our genders. Forcing people into these gender stereotypes is harmful and paralyzing.

All relationships (friendship, romantic, working, etc) must have a strong foundation of mutual respect and mutual submission to grow and flourish. When cultural expectations and gender stereotypes seep in and take the place of that mutual respect and mutual submission, then power struggles arise.

Comment by LKH

March 25, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

Glad you brought this up!

* Who initiates/how should a person initiate if it is not automatically assumed that the man will?
I think waiting on the other to initiate is problematic, but waiting for a sense the other is interested could be good. Also, initiating spending time with a person of the opposite sex doesn’t have to be such a big deal. When I first met my husband, I asked if he wanted to carpool to where we both attended grad school. It gave us the chance to get to know each other better without pressure, and six weeks later we went on our first official date.

* Who—the man or the woman—should plan and pay for dates?
This varies for every couple but I think should be discussed early on. My now husband joked on our 3rd date that if we wanted an egalitarian relationship we should trade off planning for dates. I thought it was a great idea and that’s what we still do, 3 1/2 years later. While we were dating we decided he would pay for our date night and I would pay for other activities (spontaneous lunches, etc.)

* Isn’t it simply a desire to be lazy and passive when men want women to initiate?
Maybe a way to look at this is that men and women are both capable of initiating, so if either refuses to do anything before the other, that’s the bigger problem.

* How can relationship conflicts be resolved when there is no designated head?
Even when people take the “husband is the head” concept literally, the Bible in no way implies girlfriends should submit to boyfriends. That is so dangerous and misguided! Discussing conflict resolution before any major conflict came up helped us to determine how to go about this.

* Doesn’t every man want to rescue a beauty and every woman want to be a beauty to be rescued?
I think more people want a warrior king or queen to fight alongside! Giving up the rescuer/rescued dynamic has freed a lot of my friends to embrace healthy and fulfilling relationships.

Comment by Don

March 26, 2010 @ 7:50 am

Rather than calling it being pursued, I think everyone likes to be chosen/selected sometimes and everyone likes to be treated special.

Comment by Robyn

March 26, 2010 @ 10:29 am

The thing about these cultural expectations is that it is far EASIER to rest on them. If everyone “knows” that the man asks and the woman accepts, the man chooses and the woman acquieces, the man leads and the woman follows, it’s easier to be lazy and go along. You don’t have to work as hard.

But seeking the higher way of equality really challenges a couple to communicate, to sacrifice for one another, and to know one another deeply. If we are trying to prefer the other above ourselves, we have to KNOW the other. We have to really talk and sometimes negotiate. The balance of power is trickier and it takes more work to maintain. And, ultimately, I think it leads to a far more intimate relationship.

How many “complementarian” couples where it is assumed that the man will make the decisions end up with the woman feeling undervalued, misunderstood, powerless, and unknown by her husband? A lot, I would venture to guess. But if she is an equal partner in the relationship–if she is an active participant rather than a passive follower–they must seek to know one another and truly work as a team. Which seems far, far more satisfying to me.

Comment by Robyn

March 26, 2010 @ 10:34 am

To answer a couple of the specific questions…

How can relationship conflicts be resolved when there is no designated head? In my nearly ten years of marriage, this has never been a problem. We talk and pray until we agree. Period. I always laugh when people bring up the “tie-breaker” argument. When a husband and wife respect and value one another and are committed to submitting to each other and to God, this disappears.

Doesn’t every man want to rescue a beauty and every woman want to be a beauty to be rescued? Clearly not since that is not my desire nor that of many women I know. I’ve never wanted to be a princess on a pedestal. I’ve always wanted to work side by side with my husband. Maybe some have bought into this fairy tale, but obviously not EVERYone.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

@Anna

Wow! I would completely agree with everything you wrote. With #2, I would actually say that the person who asks out does the paying. It’s almost as if the person is saying – “I want to get to know you. So, I’ll treat you, since I’m the one who proposed the idea.”

Though, it is cool to know that a Christian woman sees things this way because, in my experience, most Christian women desire a form of equality – except for the rules of dating. It tends to be that non-Christian women are the ones who see where I am coming from (and, sadly, I can’t date them). Right now, I’m really interested in a young lady who exemplifies the ideals I have…but most likely she isn’t a Christian (or hasn’t professed it yet. I’ve known her for only a week.). I really wish I could date her because I see so much in her that I like and respect! Really hard having these ideals when it seems that mainly Christian women do not hold them.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

@LKH

I’ve been asked to monitor the responses you guys give and try to respond to them. That might prove to be a large task! Though, I do like your responses, LKH. The only one that I would offer up a response to would be the one to the question: “How can relationship conflicts be resolved when there is no designated head?”

I have friends who say that, if their husband will be the “head of the family” after marriage, then their relationships with men, especially with their boyfriends, should reflect this submission. I think that is reasonable. I see dating as a getting to know someone. Simply that. You can break up with them and become just friends if you see that it isn’t heading to marriage. But there is an aspect of it being “training ground” for the marriage. Working on communication. Working on getting to know the families. So, if that is the case, then shouldn’t the dating relationship begin to reflect the marriage relationship?

I speak as a single man still unsure of what I think of this cultural phenomenon. Recently, I got into a discussion with a student about whether or not love lasts after “love marriages” and arranged marriages. Just mentioning this because, once again, pointing out that dating is a cultural construct, and the “rules” of arranged marriages around the world seem to reflect each society’s ideas of gender hierarchy.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 10:49 pm

@Don…yes, and men too. I got into this discussion with a young lady recently. She mentioned that women like to be pursued and men like to pursue. I said that I actually hate pursuing. Too emotionally draining. But I do like to be pursued! I really don’t like how some of the women I have dated expected me to do all of the pursuing, planning and such. The young lady I was talking to asked me if I truly would enjoy a woman pursuing me and asking me out. Heck, yes! Been there…and enjoyed it (by the way, that young lady and I are still close friends. One of my best friends :-)

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

@Don…so semantics aside, yes, all like to know they were chosen. Loved truly.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

@Robyn

Even though my dating experiences are limited, I would say that what you mentioned by the work to have equality is true. By equally opening up. By equally being willing to be weak and strong. I think that this creates two who know the depths of the other, rather than the roles they must fill. I don’t want to be in a marriage where I need to be the leader because, to be honest, I have a lot of weaknesses. I rather us rejoice in our strengths and weaknesses together than for her to expect me to be “manly” and be the boss.

But, sadly, in my experiences, my ideas have prevented me from dating some Christian women. How do I know? They have told me! Sadly, I don’t know how to hold my tongue, and so many people know my views. And I have been told over and over again that it will be hard for me to find someone who is willing to enjoy an egalitarian relationship. All of the women I have dated so far were basically moderate complementarians (or at least thought I had a role to at least somewhat fill). One of my pastor friends told me that I just needed to accept the cultural expectations and adjust to them. I teach international students and have lived overseas, so I know about adjusting to another culture (even if I don’t do it well). However, I just can’t on this issue! And unfortunately, I feel it has doomed me to a life of singleness. But as I told another friend, I can’t be anything other than who I am…so I can’t hide what I believe is the truth in the Bible.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 26, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

Sorry for the typos *^^* I’m a writing teacher, but I’m not doing too much editing before hitting enter. Maybe I should do more!

Comment by Liz

March 26, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

Don’t worry about the typos Christensen, if you miss them, we’ll catch them :-)

And also, don’t be concerned about the fact that many women don’t want an equal relationship. You wouldn’t be happy with a woman who held those views anyway, so you are not missing out – nothing to be sad about.
Keep being yourself and see if God brings you and an egalitarian lady together so you can both be comfortable with the relationship.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 27, 2010 @ 12:06 am

I agree, Liz. But it is hard to keep my views on equality when they do seem to exclude me as a possibility for so many Christian women. I have considered being less out-spoken so that I have at least a chance. And maybe my blunt comments do need to be softened (I try to do that…but maybe I’m not successful). Why is it that non-Christian women are the ones who pat me on the back for my stand? I have a co-worker (now recently married) who asked me to talk to her boyfriend (now her husband) to help him see the benefits of equality. But I never have Christian women (around me at least) who support how I try to stand up against the culture and defend their equal standing. Going to school at Moody, my views were more challenged by women than men. And I didn’t date a single person there (but maybe there were other issues going on :) ). For sure, I never found an egalitarian woman at Moody! And I have only found a handful of truly egalitarian women outside of Moody. This makes it very difficult for me to not want to simply chuck out my ideals on egalitarianism.

Comment by leigh

March 27, 2010 @ 11:53 am

I’d like to throw in that in addition to the theology these women have learned…

My own experience in a soft complementarian church is that I heard very vague, fluffy, even cheery, things about the husband’s and wife’s roles in marriage…until I was dating someone seriously. Once we were engaged, and then in marriage counseling, and after we first got married, it was a different story.

I became aware that in my husband’s church (which is where we still attend), the messages were the same but presented differently to different audiences: more directly, more realistically, one might say, once a couple was on the road to marriage. I recognized in conversations with a couple of single women that they really had *no* idea how the beliefs they had been taught were to play out in the marriage relationship. So their view of the system was idealistic: perhaps because it fits in so well with the images we are constantly fed in popular culture.

The rose-colored glasses are not such an option when, in premarital counseling, a woman is asked directly whether she will obey her husband (“obey” may not be the exact word that was used, but it undoubtedly the meaning of what I was asked).

An aside: I had not bought into complementarianism as a single woman, either, so I found the conversations with these unmarried women who seemed to not comprehend its implications to be enlightening.

Comment by Amanda Beattie

March 30, 2010 @ 3:57 am

I’m a bit late to the party, but thought I’d pitch in my two cents in case they’re at all helpful:

1) Unless it’s one of those fairly rare instances when there is precisely mutual attraction, then whoever is interested should do the initiating. In other words, one person is probably going to awaken to the attraction before the other. It only makes sense that that’s the person who should step up to the plate and say something about it.

2) I think the same person doing the initiating should pick up the tab. If/when that mutual attraction does form, I think it makes sense to split the costs more at that point. Of course, this is assuming that both people are on roughly equal financial ground. However, I think it’s very important that this should never become an argument of, “No, we’re equal, so it’s YOUR turn to pay this time.” I think in a healthy relationship, each partner is going to WANT to chip in for the dates, and the conversation will be much more like, “Aw, you got to pay last time. Can I please pay for YOUR meal this time?”

3) I’d say that it could be laziness, but that would depend entirely on the individual man and his motives and thought process. I imagine that different men would have different reasons, some of which are legitimate, some of which are not. But the same goes for women. If a person is refusing to intiate because of laziness, bitterness, or fear, that’s a problem. If a person is trying to manipulate the other into making the first move, that’s a really big problem. But if a person is simply okay with the idea of being pursued, then I can’t imagine what’s wrong with that.

4) Relational conflicts are resolved by communication in a servant-hearted demeanor towards one another. No friendship functions very long when one person always is prioritized above the other and always gets to have the final say — why should a dating/marriage relationship be different?

5) Seeing that my dad hated reading “Wild at Heart”, and seeing that, unless I am in a burning building, drowning, or otherwise in threat of life and limb, I don’t particularly want to be rescued — I would say no. :)

Comment by Deborah

March 31, 2010 @ 10:59 am

I’m egal and believe in give and take in all areas.

Let me say something about #3 though:

I suppose b/c of the societal expectations, most guys fall into the initiative pattern. The times I’ve encountered guys who hold back on initiating the relationship w/ some clarity have usually been when they are relationally unhealthy (or else were experiences from a time when *I* was too relationally unhealthy to make them comfortable or welcome in initiating). They may think they are looking for give and take, but they are really looking for me to shoulder the load and take the more substantive risks. This even applies to some friendship situations and can be a really uncomfortable weight to carry (especially when one has done it again and again). Perhaps they do one element of initiative here or there, but they wait for me to lay everything else out at every other step. It seems like men who are waiting for women to do more and more directionally are often too wounded to healthily do their *share* of leadership as though they are doing enough by showing up and being friendly. That is just my experience and that of those I’ve known though. It’s not that it could not be otherwise, but if one is straying from societal norms on something like this, the question is why. There COULD be good answers why. However, I don’t know that most men who stray from societal norms on this (or that those who stray particularly far, not speaking of a bit more give and take than is the norm around them) have yet developed a fully egal ideal, much less one w/ solid biblical underpinnings. Rather, it is a response of rather radical insecurity (some women, including myself, have moderate insecurity and are attracted to being pursued out of wherever that insecurity melds w/ societal expectations, yet the social pressure men experience to pursue usually trumps their moderate insecurity so that they act on this, I think, unless they are super-duper insecure).

I admittedly have a bias from being raised in this culture where it is hard for my innermost person to feel truly desired as a woman w/o a little bit more of the initiative coming from the guy than from myself. To my inner man, it feels ideal, then, for me to not be the PRIMARY initiator even if taking plenty of initiative (which I DO do, even just in friendships… I both am bold and an am encourager, though sometimes I am frustrated at how much bolder I must be than those around me… I am a natural leader but don’t want to always be in leadership mode and constantly try to encourage others in their initiating abilities… I suppose I get sort of worn out from being placed in this role so much–being the one to call problems out, for instance–and this also makes being somewhat pursued more attractive).

This has practically been stamped in my DNA so that I’ve been “undoing” it for a couple of years but also searching the scriptures and social sciences to understand this better—what may be “me” and what may be God’s intent. And I do think both scripture and social science MAY point to some reasons for a bit more male initiative in the initial romantic relationship even if romance was not the norm in some eras. I personally feel a primary initiative in establishing the relationship may reflect the vulnerability (societally and physically) that a woman experiences in relation to a man–the weaker vessel deal scripture tells us about. I need assurance that the man will see me as of sufficient value to treat me as an equal, to value the callings on my life, etc. There is no changing the fact (this side of the fall) that he IS at an advantage and I at a disadvantage (indeed, my read on “head” in the Trinity and in husband/wife reflects this dynamic, not establishing superior authority for the man but suggesting a nuance in relating). I feel especially vulnerable as one called to ministry and seeing just how very, very difficult the contrary pressures would be for a man married to a woman in ministry. I’ve also been mistreated by men since I was an infant. (Again, the whole weaker vessel amid the fall thing which a large fraction of women have experienced in traumatic ways.) Furthermore, again and again, I see the church condoning men moving away from a servant heart in their marital relationship, which further indicates vulnerability w/in the instituational church for a woman (w/ the woman held far more accountable than the man). To me, it makes sense that one way he shows me that he respects me enough from his position of advantage is to extend a hand that I might stand eye to eye w/ him (and speak boldly face to face from there).

So when it comes to THIS relationship, I do sort of see a weight of initiative as ideal for the man in most but not all dating relationships (it will depend some on the circumstances and personalities and isn’t even something I see as an ultimatum for my dating rels. but, rather, something that would be encouraging and help me to trust that he might really be a strong enough sort of person to stand beside me when the flack I get is thick—which it already is). When it comes to women w/ more traditional calls, even the physical vulnerability of considering being pregnant by this person (and the compounded bodily weaknesses and needs at that time) and raising kids (and the need for a servant-hearted father/husband at that time and the increased financial vulnerability relative to the man that children introduce) and likely depending more on him for finances when the kids are young, etc. all seem to encourage the thought that some extra male initiative in establishing the relationship is useful (to our hearts and our understanding of the man’s mettle). This initiative may be a false indicator that he will use his physical and societal advantage for good rather than turning it against her, but the absence of it may seem to suggest (at least to our subconscious) that he may not appropriately apply it, period.

But primary initiative is NOT to the exclusion of women initiating dates too, making phone calls, etc. It certainly doesn’t mean he decides what food she will eat at the restaurant, etc. (as some dating experts command!!).

My 2.

Comment by Deborah

March 31, 2010 @ 5:06 pm

p.s.–Women have radical insecurity too (indeed, science reveals that women are generally a little less secure than men overall, likely for cultural reasons). I am only speaking of my experience and that of friends when I talk about men who haven’t wanted to initiate. We have found them to be especially insecure to the point where relationship is extremely difficult. I don’t mean to say this is always the reason men would fail to initiate in our culture (those of us who are Western) nor to offend. But that is my honest response.

Interestingly, these have not mostly been egal men (or at least not ones w/ much clarity on egal beliefs) but men who believe in superior male initiative. However, since they feel unable or disinclined to do that very thing, it results in a crazy amount of “games” and frustration. They are in conflict with themselves and, really out of that conflict, in conflict w/ these “other” women. This of course is exacerbated BY their compism and is another reason to embrace egal. But as I suggest, egalitarianism may have reason to generally embrace a bit more male initiative in the dating relationship as part of how we serve one another in respect for our unique experiences in light of women’s vulnerability (and even the way the culture has shaped our hearts, some of which, even if not good, cannot be undone in one day).

Comment by Deborah

March 31, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

p.p.s.–Christensen, well done. Do you have a Mutuality article forthcoming as well?

Comment by Liz

March 31, 2010 @ 6:07 pm

Christensen…maybe you could find some places where more egalitarian women hang out if that’s possible where you live.

If you truly desire an equal companion in life, it is no good bemoaning the fact that complementarian women don’t show interest. It saves you from disappointment later on in the relationship…..best to start on the right foot.

Seems like there is a conflict of interest at times. You see women you admire for other reasons and then feel sad you ‘can’t’ pursue a friendship. Guess that would be natural, but you need to keep your end view in sight. God knows what’s going on and will guide your way.

Comment by Liz

March 31, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

It just occurred to me that maybe the title of this post shows up the issue.

Looking for biblical principles for a cultural practice…..maybe there aren’t any!

Maybe we should forget the cultural practice and look at biblical principles for friendships and relating to other members of the body of Christ and treat this whole experience more as a spiritual issue rather than a secular one.

Comment by Christensen Low

March 31, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

Deborah,

Once again, I wasn’t able to fully read your post, so I probably missed something. I’m heading to bed now, but here is something I just wrote in my notes on facebook that I thought would be good for discussion.

**Please realize that my perceptions might be wrong. But be “gentle” in your responses as this is something that is really stressful and painful for me.

A friend of mine and I had a very honest conversation today. Actually, it got to the point where I was cussing a bit because of just needing to vent the stress. I only cuss when I just have such strong emotions that need to be released. I don’t like cussing…but sometimes I just feel that I need those “strong” words to express my emotions. But…I try to NEVER direct them at someone. Never to hurt someone.

We were talking about how women often expect men to do the lionshare (the majority) of the contacting and such in a relationship. This applies to even friendships. I have heard this over and over again from guys when we sit down and talk about it. How we feel that we are expected to do the work in relationships – calling, emailing, messaging, etc. It’s not that we are expected to do 100%. But it often means we do 70%. And as a person who believes in equality, I don’t understand this.

I remember being in Texas and talking about this. I discussed it a number of times with my female friends. Actually, most of my friends have been women. :) And I would ask them why I usually never got phone calls from them (this was before emailing and such were popular, mind you). We had a close enough friendship for me to ask this (and one of them is still one of my best friends). They often told me that they grew up with the “rule” – a woman doesn’t call a man.

When I was in Korea, I mainly had female friendships. They were the ones who could speak English well, so it just was easier to be friends with them while I was learning Korean (and I appreciated my friendships with them). At Moody, most of my friends were men. But in Korea, I remember many times in which I would call the list of my friends and see what they were doing that weekend. But I got to the point were I was just tired of doing the planning. And so I gave up. I didn’t want to contact someone who didn’t want to contact me. I was tired of doing all the planning. All the calling. All the initiating. And so, even today, I go in spurts – contacting and then giving up. Contacting and then giving up. Maybe I just need to learn…

To be honest, that’s one of the things I liked about my ex-girlfriend. Our friendship was a little more balanced. She would often initiate and come and visit me. Besides enjoying her as a person, I enjoyed that I knew it was a mutual friendship.

This might be my problem. But my friend said he has been hurt by this too. And I have heard other guys saying this. And I think that women should know this! Don’t be lazy! Break with tradition! But I know that I’m probably alone in this…I usually am.

And my friend said that this could just be how things are. I’ve heard this said over and over again too. Actually, one time, I had a friend of mine encourage me to call and do things with a mutual friend I hadn’t seen in a while. I told her to tell the friend (another young lady) that I would try to call, but that she could call too. But she told me that this just wasn’t done in the Chinese culture. Men are expected to initiate.

The friend I was having a conversation with tonight asked me if there was any where on the face of the earth were this was different. “Where can you go?” He asked. I replied – “hell”. I just have been hurt by this too many times. But maybe I’m too sensitive.

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

I’m sorry for your hurt, Christensen. I’m not clear if I added to it, but I hope you do read my second post b/c I thought of you and thought you might be sensitive to what I wrote.

As for your response re: intiation in platonic friendship, here is the two-edged sword I deal w/:

(1) I was taught that one should not call guy friends much b/c they might think you are interested in being more than friends, as this is not usually appropriate for girls. Also, I clicked w/ guys well even as a really young kid and called some of them up to come over, but my mom called to cancel when she realized they were guys, thinking it inappropriate somehow even at that age. It took me quite awhile to undo this, and in reality, it is not fully undone in action (if not in heart and mind) simply b/c I have found that most guys DO take it precisely that way b/c of the societal codes. For this reason, it is very hard to break out of the norms, as you are likely to cause the guy MORE pain by confusing him as to your intent if you do. This is frustrating to me!!! I want it to be simpler, but it just seems it is not.

(2) That said, I think e-mail kind of came with new, mitigated rules???? I don’t know, but I don’t think I hit this same difficulty so much w/ e-mail or w/ letter-writing (perhaps partially b/c men in my life know I am a writer so I am excused for being so chatty?). I DO do the lionshare of the initiating in most friendships–guys or girls–and usually through writing w/ the guys. I think you can testify to that as I’ve deluged your inbox in past months and also as I took the initiative in drafting a letter up for you to send to CBE about some stuff (even though it really was not my area of interest particularly but, rather, yours; I just like to get things DONE). Likewise, I typically do the lionshare of initiating in small group settings unless I sense the need to sit back to give others more opportunity to hopefully initiate. Even this, however, gets me in frequent trouble as a women b/c folks are trained that a woman should not be like that (I am not domineering, but in the south the definition of “gentle” is extreme), and so I am constantly re-learning to be less of an initiator and having fewer voiced opinions for the sake of not unduly offending in the south. I remain the core initiator in probably ALL of my male and female relationships I have with folks up north though.

I do, however, still maintain my premise here that the guys I’ve found who are reticent to initiate seem to not realize that they are pretty much not initiating even their share worth (more like 20-30%) and seem quite buried in insecurity “issues” so that I just have to put an enormous amount of energy into both hitting what needs to be hit and treading delicately. Some seem not to even realize that they are waiting on me to initiate again and again (and those who are comps would be freaked out if they realized). I do (however unpopular it may be among those CBErs who do not nuance “head,” etc.) also still maintain that I think for a romantic relationship, most times it will serve the complementary life experiences of the sexes best for the man to do a bit more of the initiating as the relationship gets established. And I do maintain that this does not at all necessarily lead to unequal footing in an established relationship but is a respectful way for getting there.

All best,
Deb

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

p.s.–re: point 1, I think this may be a problem more in the church and in the south than in other parts of society today. I suspect I could call my guy friends in the arts community, for instance, more readily w/o everything coming w/ this really strong culturally attached significance.

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

Oh, and also re #1, I’ve hit the “guy offense” button in calling Christian guys before, whether they were interested in me or not. I think that this changes as you get to know a guy well, but in initial platonic friendship, this part seems tricky.

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

Forgive the many grammar errrors, etc. …In a hurry.

Comment by Liz

April 1, 2010 @ 5:33 pm

Just thinking…..maybe sometimes an egalitarian guy could ‘play the game’ culturally and make the first move then if the friendship developed he could broach the subject of mutuality. In some church circles it would seem one never gets to know anyone of the other gender without conforming to some extent to the cultural rules. Sad but true.

Or….one can wait and pray and see God work in spite of the cultural bias.

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

Yes, Liz, if for no other reason than pragmatics, it seems like it doesn’t often work well for us to entirely avoid cultural rules in the initial stages–particularly within the church. I may see some other reasons for a slight nod to cultural normatives on this point as well. But the prospect of side-stepping the cultural “rules” altogether as an egalitarian in either the initial or “big step” stages really suggests practical problems for me in all of the likely scenarios I could conjure up according to all of the intimate circles I have known. It would “mess things up” before they even started both with many guys (who might be made uncomfortable or confused by my straying from the “rules” and from what they have been taught to desire even if they would prove really open to my equality in the merger that might ensue) and with those in the church community who are looking on and who would be offended at my approach, drawing negative conclusions and quite possibly even warning the guy against me and seeing a reason (an alarm) to particularly train him/us in their version of compism.

Comment by Deborah

April 1, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

Oh, and I can’t even imagine the flack and pressure not to marry I would get from family, etc. if I was a prime or equal initiator of engagement. It’s just not worth the grief of the years of trying to get folks to accept the guy afterwards. If he does that and does it well and asks my father’s hand in marriage, well, he is a smart man. As it is, I’d like a wedding ceremony to be egal, and THAT shock factor is enough!!! If I were dating a guy who was developed in egal thought, I would give him cues, though, as to what he can and can’t do if he wants to fly well amidst the family. At that point it almost becomes more about them and our relationship to them than about us, as we are navigating treacherous waters in choosing to be egal together and for life and had better enter in with wisdom as to disarm our detractors.

That said, who knows how my life will ACTUALLY play out!!! I think of C.S. Lewis and Joy–he was pretty traditional. She was bold, and in the process, I think she gradually changed some of his views. And many traditionalists actually celebrate their love story out of love for him.

Comment by Marjorie

April 1, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

My favorite Biblical principle for every kind of friendship, for dating, and for marriage is “Let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”

Liz, the story of your and Trevor’s romance is sweet! (#91073) Thank you for sharing. I know another couple who had a similar exchange and were happily married for fifty years or so before death separated them. And I know several Christian couples who successfully managed internet “dating” in its varied forms, and now have well-established families.

I want to suggest, though, that we should not view these “miracles” as the norm. Even if one is waiting for the right one, and is specifically seeking the person that God sees as the right one, that is not the whole of the matter. Dating and marriage are not the same thing at all. Getting married and “becoming” married and then staying married are not the same. Talk, after all, is cheap. It takes continued commitment to our values of autonomy and equality, actually living out what we have professed to believe. If one partner eventually says, “No, this is just too hard,” or says “This is not right. I should . . . you should. . .”, then it is nearly impossible, I think, for the other to maintain their peace and liberty.

Lest you assume that it would be a man wanting to rule his household and create his own little serfdom, I know that it can just as well be a woman who still believes deep in her heart that her husband ought to be leading. If he doesn’t or can’t, she just tries bravely to accept that. If she is insecure about her own worth, she may permit the relationship with her husband to develop into one of subordination. Sad, because we all probably start so hopefully and with good intentions.

Comment by diamondnell

April 2, 2010 @ 9:44 am

Christensen, I wanted to respond in particular to some of what you said in post #(91033). My heart goes out to you for your frustration and feelings of isolation, and temptation to be less outspoken about your beliefs.

As a recovering complementarian (but not egalitarian) who is married to a current complementarian, I beg you and everyone reading this not to be silent about your commitment to putting God’s word above cultural expectations, even church culture. For the sake, in particular, of your female complementarian friends and acquaintances, they need to see that there are people who love God’s word and do not buy into popular church teachings on gender roles.

When I was getting married, I didn’t even know about such terms as complementarianism and egalitarianism. From my social circle, all I knew was that there were Christians who loved God and his word, and these people believed husbands should lead their wives; and then there were non-Christians who believed everyone was equal; and also in the mix there were seekers and Christians who didn’t like to talk about Jesus but liked to base their beliefs in equality upon secular cultural norms. As far as I could tell, to be a “true” Christ-follower meant to accept male leadership in marriage. After all, the Bible said the husband was the “head.” (And every modern-day speaker of English automatically knows what that means in the context of Scripture, right? Hmm…)

Honestly, if the arrangement had worked out for my marriage, I never would have questioned the status quo. I not only would still be trying to figure out how to obey and please my husband, I would also be trying to give other married couples gentle but “truthful” advice on how to conduct their marriages.

But after years of manipulation, emotional abuse and paralysis, I finally decided to look into the matter further. I looked for those sources buried in footnotes that might offer alternative viewpoints. It was hard to find scholarly sources, who did not seem to be employing the find-what-you-want approach to Biblical interpretation just as much as those on the other side.

Eventually I found a book (“Men and Women in the Church” by Dr. Sarah Sumner) promising a scholarly, balanced approach in an online review about another book. It pointed out that far more often than “leader” or “source,” at that point in history “head” usually meant simply “head.” A physical head. Thus husband and wife are one flesh. No specific rule about hierarchy one way or the other.

I don’t know a single person in my life who shares my view, that Scripture doesn’t command hierarchy or equality but rather unity, and organizational matters may in good conscience be decided on a group-by-group, marriage-by-marriage basis. It’s very lonely. But mercifully God has brought me to a small group where people care about God, his word, and each other more than maintaining the status quo, and we feel free to engage in open, rational conversation, even possibly (gasp) learn from each other sometimes.

The point of all this is that everyone in the body of Christ needs each other to voice our disagreements, respectfully. This brings us closer to God and unity, not farther away. It’s scary and may require personal sacrifice and even suffering. But it’s the only way to alleviate suffering in the long run.

Encouraging female friends to really think about what they believe might not result in more dates, but surely it can result in more growth in the body of Christ. And it might even help you find the person who’s right for you, for you to model the example of continually putting God’s word above the cultural practices of avoiding equality or hierarchy.

diamondnell

Comment by Deborah

April 2, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

diamondnell, it is so good to hear from you and hear your encouragement. it is really neat when someone who isn’t a CBEr sees the benefit and need for me/us to stand for what we believe.

and, by the by, i personally love sarah sumner, although i feel she is addressing a cariacature of egalitarianism and personally feel a need to be more proactive than she about the release of women (all in time and wisdom as she challenges us to… but more proactive nonetheless). even though she doesn’t like the term applied to her, i have a hard time not viewing her as an egalitarian at base but one who is so concerned about being pushy (and rightly concerned about service above rights) that she would rather step far, far back from any strident or bitter manifestation of the same.

blessings~d

Comment by Christensen Low

April 2, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

Very cool, diamondnell. Thank you for your encouragement. I might respond more later, but I need to head out (hmmm…as an English teacher, I can tell you that the word head can mean a lot of different things. Like “head of a river” or “bring it to a head”. In my studies of those Scriptures, I haven’t been convinced of the interpretations that are often preached and promoted among Christians). I agree with you that there should be a “safe” place to seek God’s will in Scripture and be wrong (is there a single church that is perfect?). Is there such a safe place?

I do want to say that I’m sorry that you were hurt during your marriage. That is something that pains me and causes me to continue to examine this issue. I don’t like seeing people (whatever gender) not loved well.

Comment by Liz Beyer

April 3, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

I can really understand your frustration and hurt, but it appears that the majority of girls in the church are raised to not take initiative. I was raised by my parents to be independent and pursue the things I liked, but by the church I was raised to be a follower, and take a backseat. And it doesn’t look as though things have changed much for my daughters. Maybe it would help to understand that there are multiple messages that girls pick up from multiple places (religious and secular) ALL of their lives that reinforce the concepts that females are receivers and males are initiators, that it is not feminine to be assertive and straight forward, but rather it is masculine, that women should follow and men should lead, that men are intimidated by smart women and that women are not as good as men. I believe that the only reason my daughters don’t feel as though they are less than men is that I have been very intentional in their upbringing to impart that they are equally called by God for his work and that no one has the right to override God’s call in their lives. One of the things we have done is to learn what is being taught at church camps and youth group. In fact, our children have not attended church camp because of the teaching on gender that they would receive. When they did come under the influence of negative gender teaching we have been quick to discuss the things they learned and compare it to scripture. Another thing I did was I got involved with the youth group and communicated with the leaders my beliefs. We have been fortunate in that the leaders have respected our viewpoint. But there are still occasions where our daughters are exposed to situations that communicate that they are “less than” such as when the youth do community work projects and the kids are asked “who wants to run the power tools?”, the girls who have raised their hands aren’t chosen. (By the way, my husband is a contractor so our daughters are familiar with power tools). This type of thing also communicates that girls are “less than” to the boys. One of my daughters, who attends a Christian college, came home and told me about two of her friends who are engaged and preparing for marriage by reading some books. All of the books promote the complementarian model of marriage and her friends were sharing with her what they were learning. They were so excited because it sounds so romantic and on paper it looks perfect.

Which brings me to another reason for the problems you are experiencing—there are no good resources available to youth leaders and parents that teach youth an egalitarian model of dating and marriage. All that our youth will find out there are resources that teach that girls are followers, shouldn’t be assertive, should dress modestly, and wait for the boy to lead. Even worse, some of the books, as mentioned in the current issue of Mutuality, state that girls should respect their boyfriends unconditionally. That kind of teaching is fodder for abuse and I would NEVER tell my son or my daughter that they should respect a boyfriend or girlfriend unconditionally. That kind of respect and loyalty are to be given only to those who you know well and have proven trustworthy. Probably most of the women you meet have been steeped in this kind of thing all their lives and don’t even realize that there might be something wrong. They have never heard anything else. I remember the first time someone suggested to me that the bible taught mutual submission and not one-way submission—I was thrilled, but scared at the same time. I had literally never heard such a thing.

I realize that the things I have said haven’t given you a definitive answer to your questions, but it may give you patience to keep pursuing relationships. There may not be a lot of them, but there are women who do say what they mean, initiate friendships, have dreams and goals (which may include marriage), and are looking for a partnership. I don’t intend to be presumptuous, but who knows, she may start out complementarian, but change her mind because of you. I agree with Deb, in her post 91085 and Liz in 91084. There is a lot of wisdom there.

RE: Deb, #91080—I also, had many male friends from childhood on up. We just seemed to click. A couple times, I ran into the issue of being misread as to my intentions, but in those situations I tried to be straight forward and plain speaking and most of the time, the friendship continued. I just couldn’t see the point of being vague or saying something that I didn’t mean. I really genuinely valued those friendships.

I apologize for the length of this post.

Comment by Liz

April 3, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

No need to apologise Liz – it’s very encouraging to hear of a family who are proactive in their teaching about gender. This draws attention to the fact that many families are not proactive about gender no matter what they believe – many just go along with the status quo.

Also good that you mention that young women find the current material ‘romantic’ and also it is written in such a way that it ‘seems’ biblical and God-honouring which to a devout young person is very appealing.

One of our daughters-in-law leads a small group of 15/16 yr old girls and gave them the choice of choosing a book from the leading Christian bookshop’s catalogue (Australia) Predictably they chose “Datable Rules” and when we told our daughter-in-law what the book contained she had no idea…..just thought it would be good discussion material. Fortunately she and her husband read Mutuality and I was able to tell them to look out for the next issue and we were able to warn her of the content of the book. She was most surprised but said it will be good to promote discussion and then she can put across another viewpoint.

This just shows how easily these concepts can be absorbed without much thought and how available is this kind of book. We tried to have some influence with those who order the books for this particular chain of bookstores, but were told that they just order whatever is popular in America!!

Comment by Trevor

April 3, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

I would just like to add, concerning Liz’s comment about our daughter-in-law’s having given the choice of a book for study, to the girls themselves. Ostensibly it is to promote discussion in their youth group but these books are written in such an authoritative and compelling way that they leave one with the impression that this is the only ‘godly’ way to conduct a relationship.

I mentioned this point to our daughter-in-law because it is so very subtle. Granted the authors are committed to that viewpoint and you would expect nothing less from their material, but I’m concerned that it is difficult for young, inexperienced (with life) folks to handle, even with our guidance. The ideas are presented, because of the author’s cultural and religious bias, as romantic idealism that is pleasing to God and are therefore unhealthily alluring.

Some of our Australian CBE fraternity have found that their children, who have been nurtured in egalitarian marriages and homes, have been enticed to embrace ‘headship’ oriented relationships after reading this type of literature. For them (our CBE friends) it has become a real worry and it is precisely this issue of how the material is ‘packaged’ to make it appear as if this is the only way to truly bring honour to God.

I am exceedingly frustrated that there are so few alternatives, so the following post and discussion, on dating book materials is proving most interesting.

Comment by Marjorie

April 3, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

Liz B.(#91097) alluded to “fodder for abuse,” and I must respond to that. I feel quite sure, from my own experience and that of others with whom I’m acquainted, that the cultural teaching which girls and women receive about being quiet and deferential makes some of them particularly vulnerable to abuse—physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual. Especially when submission is taught as a Scriptural mandate, Christian women can be trapped in awful situations. Many women will be blessed with respectful and loving boyfriends/husbands who actually treat them as equals, even if that has not been the explicit message of their upbringing. Others, though, are going to be subjected to demeaning and hurtful words and dangerous actions—by men who claim to be acting on the authority of God’s Word. I’m afraid we sometimes are careful to warn our children (both boys and girls) about “stranger danger,” but fail to show them what wrongs are done by ordinary people whose desire is to subordinate others.

Comment by Christensen Low

April 4, 2010 @ 2:05 am

@Liz Beyer…very encouraging words! I am only saddened by the fact that many Christian women don’t have a mom like you :) It saddens me that so many women grow up with this idea of what a “godly woman” looks like – which is a submissive person. I didn’t grow up in the church, so that is possibly why I am able to look beyond this. However, I know it is also something that the general culture in many countries “preach”.

To open a bit up about what made me look at the Scriptures more closer and question the prevailing ideas on gender roles, I grew up in an abusive home. Besides the abuse I underwent, I saw my step-mother and mom wither under the abuse of my father and step-father. So, my “male” influence was pretty much the typical Alpha-male. Yet, as a young boy, I decided that that was wrong. This caused me to examine the whole issues around genders. Was it my father’s right and duty to be “strong” and demand that my step-mother wait on him hand and foot? Why didn’t my mom value herself and instead allow the men in her life to take advantage of her? So, I definitely think that the “submissive” messages taught to many Christian (and non-Christian) women lead to abusive relationships. Not always…but there is the potential when the “help-mate” is not valued as an equal partner. It is the curse in Genesis taking over. Right?

PS: I loved your story about the power-tools. I tended to be the guy who volunteered to do “womanly” things and was denied this. As I mentioned, I tended to have mostly female friends, so, for me, hanging out in the kitchen with the girls during SuperBowl was more enjoyable! :)

Comment by Deborah

April 4, 2010 @ 9:30 am

Liz Beyer–thanks for the affirmation and further ideas.

Liz and Trevor–I’m so glad you are being “watchmen” for this. As I read these posts I get frustrated b/c I am a writer and would like to be helpful in this area. But I don’t really feel that I can. I grew up very isolated and just haven’t ever been really immersed in the dating scene. It is definitely worth praying about these materials coming forth for somewhere.

Marjorie–absolutely, it does. Compism is stronger in the south than when I lived in the north (U.S.), and the in-church abuse is also much stronger.

Christensen–proud of ya.

Comment by Christensen Low

April 8, 2010 @ 7:22 am

thanks, deborah :)

Comment by Christensen Low

April 8, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

So…a few of us have been talking about starting a facebook group for Christian egalitarian singles (we are looking into making a website too). And it is now up and running! So, if you are interested in joining a facebook group where Christian egalitarians can meet and support each other, go to facebook and look for “Christian Egalitarian Singles”.* Yeah…pretty simple. :) Or follow this link – http://www.facebook.com/christensenlow?v=wall&story_fbid=662802331871#!/group.php?gid=109880169043102&ref=ts

*The group isn’t a “dating” group, but that wouldn’t be a bad outcome, too! :)

Comment by Sarah

April 23, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

Popping in late to this thread…the comments about girls (particularly Christian girls) being trained to be passive and submissive sparked a memory. A few years ago I heard a self-defense expert talking about training women to protect themselves in dangerous situations. He said that cultural norms of the “nice” woman made them even more vulnerable: “nice” women aren’t aggressive, “nice” women don’t hit, “nice” women aren’t loud. The last one was especially noted; he said it could take quite a bit of deprogramming to get women comfortable with yelling at an attacker, or even screaming for help. Lambs to the slaughter… nice women who won’t rock the boat, even when the boat so desperately needs it.

Comment by Christensen

July 1, 2010 @ 8:15 am

@Sarah…sorry for the VERY late response. I just moved to Korea, so I have been busy for the past few months. I agree with you that our society has programmed both men and women to act in certain ways. Even today, my fiancee, who supports equality, expected me to carry the “heavy” guitar home while she carried nothing. She is Korean, and I know that her programming is even stronger than for American women (men really “baby” women here, and there is even a romantic way that women act that is called “acting like a baby”). We talked about it, and she simply pointed out that clearly men and women are physically different. I agreed with her, but then pointed out that there are many societies (i.e. Russia) where women are allowed to have physical strength. It is only when women choose to follow society that their muscles atrophy and they become weaker. But then again, society conditions men to like petite women who will expect them to show their masculinity by carrying the heavy bags. Hmmm… Catch 22 :) But what does the Bible say? I don’t think it states men should be stronger than women…nor scarier or braver.

Comment by Liz

July 1, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

Good points, Christensen and happy for you that God has granted you an egalitarian partner with whom to share your life. As regards carrying things, surely the same rule applies as with all things……whatever is suitable for each person.
It doesn’t matter who carries heavier things so long as it is the person who has the greater capacity. Even if a man is generally stronger, there may be times in his life where he is the weaker one, due to injury or illness.

And…I don’t read anything in the bible which suggests that men should be stronger or more brave etc. Some women did some incredibly brave and strong things like Jael who drove a wooden peg through a man’s temple! Not the expected ‘norm’ for a woman of those times or even now – desperate situations call for desperate measures.

Comment by Christensen

July 1, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

@Liz…I view it as this. Yes, there are physical differences between men and women. Yet, we should never put limitations on any person. If any person desires to achieve anything, then they should be given the full chance to do so. There are many men whose physique is more akin to what is societally perceived as “womanly” (come on! I’m in Korea! The whole nation is less “dominating” physically than in the US). Are these men less “manly” because of their own personal physique? No! So, I agree with you. Though, I would add the caveat that any person should be given the chance to achieve (or help out) in whatever capacity they so desire.

I loved it how my fiancee’s little sister was eager to help me with my luggage, even though it was clearly too heavy for her young age of 12. But I didn’t stop her! I enjoyed that she was showing me her love by doing so.

It just bothers me that society expects me to show love in these prescribed ways. I must grab my “girl’s” bags from her in order to be manly. I’m viewed as a jerk if I allow her to carry even a slightly heavy object. It’s just silly…but I do have to be mindful of it because I do want to show my fiancee that I love her and not confuse her in this.

Please pray for my fiancee and I. We did get into a difficult situation the other day when we went to Seoul and she didn’t bring any money. Even though she believes in equality (in theory), she had expected that I would pay for everything. Men here throw money at the women they love (or are pursuing). Similar to how it is in Texas (where I’m from)! And sadly, there are some awful consequences of this thought paradigm. More so, she is still a student, so there are societal rules that she wouldn’t pay for anything. After more than 24 hours of paying for everything, I grew very frustrated. I had wanted to talk to her back at her home, but I let a comment slip out that really embarrassed her (and losing face here in Korea is a VERY big deal). A good thing is that we discussed things, learned more about each other’s cultures, and hopefully our love grew stronger. But, even though my love is as an egalitarian, she still operates under the dynamics of her culture that are strongly embedded…and I desire to trash them all and just stick to what I think the Bible says. Well…prayer is definitely appreciated :)

Comment by Christensen

July 1, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

@Liz…one thing that I’m glad that my fiancee did that doesn’t conform to her culture nor mine is that she pursued me. :) When we first met, I didn’t want a long distance relationship, but she made it clear that she liked me and wanted to date me. She was the one who asked me out! There is some confusion about the proposal…but I think she was also the one who first proposed. We had a number of times where we both proposed, so it is a bit confusing :) In the end, I did propose to her with the rings (yes, we are both wearing rings. This is fitting with the Korean culture). But when I did, both of us were sitting next to each other, and I said, “honey, most men get on their knees to propose. But I don’t want to do that. You are my equal. So, I am sitting next to you. Together, I want us to seek God and enjoy this life. I want you to be my helpmate” Something like that :) She loved it even though she had peeked at the notes I had written to her mom and sister asking them for help. In the end, it was more romantic that it wasn’t the traditional surprise!

Comment by Liz

July 1, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

Sounds all very interesting. Your experience shows that we are all on a journey of learning and knowing what it is to give and take in all things, even our beliefs about mutuality. May you both have many years to become ‘one’ and be an example to others along the way.

Comment by Natasha

November 26, 2010 @ 2:10 am

I don’t know if it is too late to enter this conversation, but it is very interesting and I would like to join.
1) Who initiates/how should a person initiate if it is not automatically assumed that the man will?
Either the man or the woman should initiate, depending on who decides to act first. However, I think that in most circumstances, the man might not know the woman well. If she initiates, he might be surprised. It might be easier for the woman to initiate a more casual time to visit or get a cup of coffee…if a woman asked a man to date her or to go to a fancy restaurant, that would be pretty dramatic given our cultural norms.
2) Who—the man or the woman—should plan and pay for dates?
I used to think that I should just go along with the cultural norms and let the man pay for dates. However, I have regrets about dating someone who paid for every meal, sometimes at fancy restaurants, and I never paid for any meal. Now I have this weighty feeling of “maybe I should still be dating him–he did pay for so many dinners.” So now I feel guilty. If men and women could share the expenses of outings, then perhaps it would be easier to keep the emotional ties light.
3) Isn’t it simply a desire to be lazy and passive when men want women to initiate?
Not any more than it would be lazy and passive for women to want men to initiate. As I mentioned in the question above, I used to date someone who was extremely proactive about planning every event. I don’t think I even suggested one even casual visit or homework study time myself. Because he was always coming by to say hello. So it probably made him extra disappointed when I decided that I no longer wished to date, and I felt very bad for taking up so much of his time and energy. So my point is…men can be diligent and proactive to a fault.
4) How can relationship conflicts be resolved when there is no designated head?
I don’t know, but it looks like some other people contributed helpful answers before me.
5) Doesn’t every man want to rescue a beauty and every woman want to be a beauty to be rescued?
I used to wish for this kind of fairy tale. Well, some. But anyways, the more I realized that the damsel in distress makes women passive, helpless, and somewhat objectified in the fact that they are the end prize of the knight’s mission….I find the analogy no longer attractive. Besides, I have come to realize that the ideal relationship for me would be to meet a man who I could share discussions, debates, and genuine thoughts and life experiences with…a true friendship. That kind of picture I could see as a lasting picture of marriage…if I got married now and grew to be a very old person, the image of true friendship would still be bright. Whereas the knight/princess analogy ends once he/she get married.

Comment by Liz

November 28, 2010 @ 1:16 am

Hi Natasha

Thanks for your thoughts on these questions. I hope others take the time to read your thoughtful answers. Your idea of marriage is not an impossible dream – sounds wonderful and I’m sure there are many (like my husband and I) who can testify to it being just that – a long-lasting friendship.

Comment by TL

November 28, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

“5) Doesn’t every man want to rescue a beauty and every woman want to be a beauty to be rescued?”

This is a disappointing concept. To me it brings to mind an ornament, a prize, a thing. Not many women these days want to sit on the sidelines and watch all the activities of men.

Even when I was young I wanted to participate in whatever I was able that looked like it was fun and beneficial. And I was a beauty when I was young. But I didn’t want to be someone’s prize. What became important for me was to be known for who I was, to have my abilities appreciated and valued, and not to be restricted from exercising my abilities. It’s called living life. And being someone’s beauty or prize is not really living life to the fullest in my estimation.

Now that I am a retired young senior, I am glad that I didn’t settle to be someone’s prize to be rescued, but instead went out and fully lived my life under God’s guidance participating in everything I was able. I’ve so many adventures to share, so many dreams God fulfilled, so much joy from doing the things Cod has gifted me to do.

Comment by Don

November 28, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

Holy Mackerel?

Comment by Liz

November 28, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

Don, I don’t understand your comment

Comment by Don

November 28, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

Hint: Read TL’s last sentence carefully.

Comment by Deborah

November 28, 2010 @ 7:03 pm

Lol, good “catch” Don!

Comment by TL

November 28, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Maybe Holy Ahi and Ono, but not Mackeral. :^)

Comment by Liz

November 29, 2010 @ 2:27 am

Ah..well at least it wasn’t a red fish :-)

Comment by diamondnell

November 29, 2010 @ 8:30 am

*giggle*