|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "I kissed dating goodbye" author has second thoughts
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's also a symptom of the manner in which a relatively small number of books become the "must reads".
To be sure this is the case in virtually any subculture. Nobody can read all the books, so a few rise to the top and become the sine qua non of the universal reading list.
_______________
*without which not
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Christianity, along with other religions, has taken it upon itself to obsess about sex for a very very long time. Maybe if we could jump into a time machine and see what sexual excess did to end Roman civilisation we might find some merit in it.
Living as we we do today, with the luxury of medicines to control STI's, contraceptive and off-the-shelf abortion, it strikes me that religion would do better to leave people to do as they wish with their parts.
I doubt that 'religion' as a whole will ever be uninterested in people's sexual behaviour. Not as long as humans remain sexual beings. And not as long as sexual behaviour creates the next generation of potential believers. Not while faith is generally transmitted in stable families headed by heterosexual couples. And not while men remain concerned about paternity, as I said on the 'Who gives this woman?' thread.
As for the author mentioned in the OP, the influence he apparently had is very impressive, though scary, but I'm assuming that his book represents a certain type of Christian hysteria about the normalising of sexual license in contemporary culture.
Previous generations of American Christians must have been less worried about crushes and passing fancies, either because these were less likely to lead to illicit behaviour, or because if such behaviour occurred and led to pregnancies the wider community would apply effective pressure on the couple to marry. Neither outcome could be assumed today.
OTOH, googling suggest that religious colonists in America, Puritanism and Great Awakenings notwithstanding, faced numerous challenges when it came to regulating sexual behaviour, so perhaps some things never change.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course ...
And as we've been reminded by the interesting post about how the Kirk operated in Scotland, the wider societal issues need to be taken into account as well - and in the case of 17th-19th century Scotland we're talking about a society largely shaped by Reformed versions of Christianity ... for all the residual or continuing RC influence in the Highlands or in Strathclyde.
I'm not quite sure, though, to pick up on Kaplan's earlier point, that anyone's playing the victim-card here. I don't see anyone here queueing up to sue Harris nor anyone taking out law-suits against the Brethren, the various house-churches or against Rome or whoever else might have told them not to twiddle their dangly or wibbly bits at one time or another.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is there any period of time, culture or element in current society that hasn't got some sort of a hang up about sex? That has got it all sorted?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
No. Any more than human beings have resolved the issue of governance and power. Sex and power is all there is to us, when you scratch everything else away.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
No, but just because no one has it sorted doesn't mean that it's therefore OK to totally screw up our lives and the lives of our children and other young people in our care. Even without reading anything by Huggett, or similar advice to young Christians, I absorbed that whole ethos. I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster. That sub-culture, even though I was on the edge of it, has screwed up the lives of many. There's no one person to blame, no single author who created it, it's bigger and less well defined than that. And, it'll take more than a few apologies to make things right - it won't every be right for us, but let's not make the same mistakes with our own children (I know, life being what it is we'll make a whole new set of mistakes).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, but just because no one has it sorted doesn't mean that it's therefore OK to totally screw up our lives and the lives of our children and other young people in our care. Even without reading anything by Huggett, or similar advice to young Christians, I absorbed that whole ethos. I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster. That sub-culture, even though I was on the edge of it, has screwed up the lives of many. There's no one person to blame, no single author who created it, it's bigger and less well defined than that. And, it'll take more than a few apologies to make things right - it won't every be right for us, but let's not make the same mistakes with our own children (I know, life being what it is we'll make a whole new set of mistakes).
Every sentence of the above applies to my own situation, and more concisely than I could have put it. Particularly I am keen not to pass the mistakes on, but jeez, what advice can I give, as one who knows basically nothing - other than 'Don't do what I did'. I guess I needn't worry about that, most teenagers are pretty keen to differentiate themselves from their parents.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The only thing teenagers would be keener on is not hearing about their parents love life, including the mistakes we made that we want them to avoid.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster.
Are you saying you needed other women to provide you with a few trial runs, so to speak? Fair enough, but that means you would've shared disastrous times with them instead. So someone, somewhere would still have had to put up with your ineptitude!
Part of the problem is that popular culture has given us a fantasy of what true romantic love should be like, in which every gesture and turn of phrase combines perfectly to create a sort of fairy tale experience. In reality, those expectations are merely cultural. They're not set in stone anywhere.
Maybe some of the evangelical subcultures ought to inculcate a more realistic set of expectations in their young people rather than playing along with the fantasy and setting them up for disappointment. But that would be even more counter-cultural than encouraging 'dating'.
[ 30. August 2016, 00:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster.
Are you saying you needed other women to provide you with a few trial runs, so to speak? Fair enough, but that means you would've shared disastrous times with them instead. So someone, somewhere would still have had to put up with your ineptitude!
Obviously I can't speak for Alan, but seeing as I identified with the substance of his post, I think I can reply on my own account. (I'm female, by the way, so I would have needed a few men to provide me with 'trial runs' to work off my ineptitude). Or not, as the case may be, because I note that Alan didn't say 'no experience of sex to build on' - he said 'no experience in relationships to build on'. Obviously the first time anyone has sex there's going to be fumbling and let-downs. For my part, at least, that's not a huge worry. What I wish we had done differently is live together before getting married. We didn't because - well, living in sin and all that. But it was the most enormous shock to the system for me to go from spending time with my boyfriend/fiancee, where when we were together, we were actively, you know, being together,* to be plonked straight into a situation where we were actually together a great deal of the time, and I learned just how much of his time he spent playing online RPGs and just how different his body clock was to mine, and just how difficult it was to sleep in the same bed as a snorer** - and all this came, all at once, it was all so big, and everything mattered so much because this was it, for the rest of my life, the big one. Whereas most of our non-churchy friends, so far as I can make out, and flatmates, sort of started seeing someone on a let's see how this goes basis, then started seeing them more seriously/shagging them a month or so later, then another month or so and the girlfriend or boyfriend would be staying over every now and then, and a few months after that the rest of the flatmates would be starting to get pissy about how much hot water and food this non-paying-non-tenant was using, but they'd still only be there half the time, tops, and doing their laundry and so on back at their own flat. Then after I guess about a year or so the couple would either move in together and relieve some grateful ex-flatties of their antics, or they'd call it quits and start the process over. I know that from a purity culture perspective this is all Wrong. WRONG. WRONG., but it seems so very sensible to me, in retrospect, getting to know someone in stages, seeing if you can cope with it, stage by stage. You don't really know what a person is like, until you've lived with them. Anyone who's had flatmates knows that.
*and no, that's not a euphemism for anything sexual
**and that's just from my perspective - I suspect he found me a bit panicky and clingy as I tried to absorb/work around those things.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster.
Are you saying you needed other women to provide you with a few trial runs, so to speak? Fair enough, but that means you would've shared disastrous times with them instead. So someone, somewhere would still have had to put up with your ineptitude!
Sure, but a disastrous relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend is a hell of a lot better than a disastrous marriage.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
they'd still only be there half the time, tops, and doing their laundry and so on back at their own flat.
I have heard "doing laundry loads together" described as today's unofficial hallmark of a long-term relationship.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you saying you needed other women to provide you with a few trial runs, so to speak? Fair enough, but that means you would've shared disastrous times with them instead. So someone, somewhere would still have had to put up with your ineptitude!
It would not need to be disastrous. Dating, as opposed to the courting for marriage BS, gives the opportunity to end the process before disaster strikes. It can also teach one about oneself, so to be a more tolerant person for the one you marry, as anoesis illustrates.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Part of the problem is that popular culture has given us a fantasy of what true romantic love should be like, in which every gesture and turn of phrase combines perfectly to create a sort of fairy tale experience. In reality, those expectations are merely cultural. They're not set in stone anywhere.
They are not realistic in any culture. relationships are work. But that does not mean any relationship can work. We expect practice and experience before any important job or endeavour, why should marriage be different?
quote:
Maybe some of the evangelical subcultures ought to inculcate a more realistic set of expectations in their young people rather than playing along with the fantasy and setting them up for disappointment. But that would be even more counter-cultural than encouraging 'dating'.
Getting rid of "God's perfect match" rubbish, accepting that sex before marriage doesn't ruin a person,
.................................................
And, screw you, new snarky Preview Post message. I always use preview.
However, errors will occur even so. When one writes substantive, weighty posts, little things like spelling and code might be missed. Something I do not expect you to have encountered.
[ 30. August 2016, 06:58: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was looking for The One™, my perfect partner, keeping myself pure until then. And, when I met her I had no idea what I was doing, no experience in relationships to build upon. Which is a recipe for disaster.
Are you saying you needed other women to provide you with a few trial runs, so to speak? Fair enough, but that means you would've shared disastrous times with them instead. So someone, somewhere would still have had to put up with your ineptitude!
Sure, but a disastrous relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend is a hell of a lot better than a disastrous marriage.
My problems included a shyness and a lack of confidence, which the supposed norms of the subculture built on. Most of the people I knew at university were forming relationships, though very few of those broke up during their time at university. But there was that niggle that wanting to go out with someone was wrong (is that a form of lust?), they may not be The One™, and therefore asking someone was a bit naughty and some confidence was needed to overcome that "is this right?" feeling.
The problems this gave later in life ranged from the very start all the way through to everything about living together. When two people who like each other have a meal out, what do you talk about? When you live with someone (and, unlike student digs you don't have your own room, a private space you can retreat to listen to your music, read a book, maybe even have your own TV) how do you manage deciding what to watch on TV, what to cook ... ? When you're in the same room, which is most of the time, is it OK to be quiet with your own thoughts, or should you find something no matter how trivial to talk about?
Two people spending a significant proportion of their waking hours together (and, not in a group with others) will gain at least some insight into these sort of issues. There's no guarantee it will make a future marriage perfect, but at least you won't be learning all those lessons at the same time as you worry about money with a joint account and mortgage, struggle to find the sleep pattern that works for both, find that the bathroom is now your only private space, and do all that first time fumbling with sex.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My problems included a shyness and a lack of confidence, which the supposed norms of the subculture built on. Most of the people I knew at university were forming relationships, though very few of those broke up during their time at university. But there was that niggle that wanting to go out with someone was wrong (is that a form of lust?), they may not be The One™, and therefore asking someone was a bit naughty and some confidence was needed to overcome that "is this right?" feeling.
My son was at university about 10 years ago and attended a Well-Known Evangelical Anglican Church. On a number of occasions he asked girls out for meals (and nothing more than that) simply with a view to getting to know them as friends. But he soon found that doing so was earning him a bit of a negative reputation among some of the student Christian leaders. There were other issues too (he wasn't at the "posh" University in town that most of the other students at the church belonged to) so he switched his allegiance to a Much Less Favoured Baptist church, which he enjoyed.
BTW I can identify with Alan's own experience - I had no idea of how to respond to Girls - I was gawky and terrified. Being a late developer and attending a single-sex school didn't help! Having said that, I've now been happily married for nearly 35 years!
[ 30. August 2016, 07:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I was a 70s girl in every sense of the word. I went to university as far away from home as I could, lived in a squat and attended as few lectures as I could get away with. I tried everything there was to try and enjoyed the boys too. I used to ask them out as shy boys don't only roam Christian circles!
Do I regret it? Not in the least.
I lived with my husband for two years before we married, which certainly gave us an idea of each other's foibles. The only time we didn't cope was when we moved in with his mother (disaster!). We've been together 40 years now.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problems this gave later in life ranged from the very start all the way through to everything about living together. When two people who like each other have a meal out, what do you talk about? When you live with someone (and, unlike student digs you don't have your own room, a private space you can retreat to listen to your music, read a book, maybe even have your own TV) how do you manage deciding what to watch on TV, what to cook ... ? When you're in the same room, which is most of the time, is it OK to be quiet with your own thoughts, or should you find something no matter how trivial to talk about?
Two people spending a significant proportion of their waking hours together (and, not in a group with others) will gain at least some insight into these sort of issues. There's no guarantee it will make a future marriage perfect, but at least you won't be learning all those lessons at the same time as you worry about money with a joint account and mortgage, struggle to find the sleep pattern that works for both, find that the bathroom is now your only private space, and do all that first time fumbling with sex.
This is actually kind of getting freaky now. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Hey there [waves], man on the other side of the world - you have a female doppelganger down here in the antipodes. How very symmetrical and all that...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've now been happily married for nearly 35 years!
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We've been together 40 years now.
Two different experiences. The same (give or take a few years) outcome. And, of course, we could line up a whole load of people who took more or less the same approach to relationships with very different outcomes. That's life, it's complex, uncertain, a good dash of chance thrown in.
Which I think illustrates another one of those problems that face some sections of the church, to add to my list earlier. There is a tendancy within parts of Evangelicalism to become programme oriented. For someone to devise an approach which which becomes The Only Method™ for (whatever). The "I kissed dating goodbye" book, or the books by Huggett etc, became The Only Method™ to Ensure a Godly Perfect Marriage. Whichever of these your particular group adopted had a monopoly on how young people were taught to approach relationships (and, as I said that spread beyond those who were actually teaching this and reading the books as the culture conformed to that). Even if that method worked for the authors of these books, even if it works for the majority of people, it isn't going to work for everyone - and, when it fails there isn't the support network available that would exist with a broader base of approaches to the subject. Plus, of course, the guilt that goes with "it didn't work, it should have worked, therefore I did it wrong".
Of course, it's not just relationships for young people. We too easily fall for the same error in just about everything else. Congregations blindly follow the latest book by the pastor who turned a congregation of 20 into a network of churches with thousands of members, or the way to organise a praise band, or the latest method to tell people about Jesus that will have your church bursting with new converts ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We expect practice and experience before any important job or endeavour, why should marriage be different?
Well, it depends, I think. Some jobs just require you to have had a good education, or an appropriate attitude. You don't need to have had experience of that particular line of work before. Similarly, not everyone who goes on an adventure has had specific experience before, just good health, a positive attitude, a guide book, advice from friends, etc.
Knowing how to talk to your wife over dinner shouldn't require all that much practice with other girlfriends if you come from a culture where people are simply in the habit of talking to each other. A romantic agenda with a few other people beforehand isn't required for that, is it? Maybe in reserved, Anglophone cultures.
Mind you, I'm somewhat confused about the evangelical subculture I'm reading about here. Are young men and women not even allowed to talk to each other as friends? If that's the case how on earth would you even know if the person you're attracted to is compatible with you?
If the subculture here is that young people should get engaged based on physical attraction but not on personality, shared interests or a compatible outlook on life, then that's what I'd find distasteful.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've now been happily married for nearly 35 years!
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We've been together 40 years now.
Two different experiences. The same (give or take a few years) outcome. And, of course, we could line up a whole load of people who took more or less the same approach to relationships with very different outcomes. That's life, it's complex, uncertain, a good dash of chance thrown in.
This, 100% this.
Chance plays an enormous part, far bigger than any of us like to think imo. The same with having happy, healthy children - it's not often what we do as parents which has much bearing one way or the other (except in extreme cases, of course) yet folk agonise and write endless books about it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mind you, I'm somewhat confused about the evangelical subculture I'm reading about here. Are young men and women not even allowed to talk to each other as friends? If that's the case how on earth would you even know if the person you're attracted to is compatible with you?
As I said, there was (probably still is) a small sub-culture, or a set thereof, which developed some extreme ideas which then filtered out to the wider evangelical culture. But, the central sort of ideas that meshed into most of these approaches to relationships were/are:
- It is not good for a man (or woman) to be alone, therefore God has created the perfect partner for each of us
- God has plans to prosper us, therefore He will will lead us to that perfect partner
- When we meet them we will know (I've never quite figured out how we are to know ... and that is probably part of the differences between approaches).
- Having met our partner, and known that, we will then live happily ever after in perfect bliss producing lots of children who will be raised as good little evangelicals to lead the church into revival.
Of course, we were to keep ourselves pure until lead to the partner God had prepared for us. That included lustful thoughts about others who were not that partner. Which, until we knew we'd met him/her meant everyone. The difficulty was distinguishing lustful thoughts, the desires of our flesh, from the call of God that this was The One™. I guess that one of the attractions of "I kissed dating goodbye" is it provided a mechanism for that discernment - approaching the father (or equivalent male guardian).
For those who didn't go for the whole "no dating at all" thing, there was still always that concern hanging over: if I get this wrong, do I miss meeting The One™ and hence not live the perfect life God has planned for me? Even worse, if that happens then my mistake has also doomed The One™ I should be with to a less perfect life as well. So, play it safe, don't take chances dating someone who may not be The One™ and wait for whatever means God will choose to make His plans clear to you.
Talking as friends was OK. But, probably best to stick to safe subjects like Paul's teaching on justification. Though, in some churches, make sure that the girl doesn't stray into the territory of instructing. But, best not to be alone to avoid the temptation of lustful thoughts. And, certainly no physical contact.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Talking as friends was OK. But, probably best to stick to safe subjects like Paul's teaching
Even that's not safe. Mrs-Eutychus-to-be and I were having an argument on that very subject, as friends, when things suddenly took a very different turn.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
I see.
As I thought, it seems to be the evangelical version of the secular 'happily ever after', in which everything is meant to be perfect once you've met your 'soulmate.'. The difference is, of course, that in secular culture one is expected to trawl through a lot of frogs in order to find a prince/princess.
[ 30. August 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I do think a lot of this rubbish derives more from Holywood romantic movies than Christian theology.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I do think a lot of this rubbish derives more from Holywood romantic movies than Christian theology.
I think the expectations of the life thereafter certainly do, the initial stages you laid out above are highly down to the particular way Christian theology is worked out in evangelical circles.
It's a toxic combination of the idea of a 'soul mate' tagged onto the concept of 'The One'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
It does sound like that.
I doubt that Christians in earlier centuries had such grand ideas about 'The One'. Members of small evangelical denominations would have had a restricted pool of potential mates to choose from in any case, and appearing to be too picky in a fairly homogeneous community wouldn't have made much sense.
Nowadays, surrounded as we are by so many people, it must be hard for anyone, Christian or otherwise, 'experienced' or not, to feel that there isn't someone else out there who might really be The One, rather than the one in front of us.
[ 30. August 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The first time I spoke to my wife, I was talking to a friend about a (well known at the time) book which suggested that unmarried people should not even lie down next to each other. I turned from my friend and asked my wife what she thought about this. I can't remember what she said, but knowing her I suspect she just looked at me quizzically.
I resemble a lot of the things others have said above due to my rather closeted single-sex schooling, the efforts of my mother - and church - and general lack of social skills. Looking back, I wonder what on earth my wife saw in me.
In contrast to me (two girlfriends in my life, second became my wife), I knew of various people who would date widely, sometimes a relatively long chain of semi-serious relationships.
I can't honestly say whether people in my situation are "better" or worse than these*. I know people who I've known since I was a young teenager who married and (apparently, from a distance) seem still happy. I know people who dated and got to about 40 without committing to anyone, though eventually married. I've also known people who married their school sweetheart and eventually divorced after more than 10 years, others who dated and then married and divorced in a short time.
* of course, there is a real question of what "better or worse" really means. In this instance I'm talking about the length and stability of relationships, and I don't think in my generation and circle it really made any difference wrt divorce. On the other hand, my upbringing made me socially incompetent when thrown into a mix of different people. Thanks school and mum.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, the evangelical and charismatic circles in which I moved did promote a pretty realistic and unromanticised view of what marriage entails - often quite graphically with puking babies, morning sickness and so on brought into the equation.
That wasn't the issue.
I was never exposed to the idea that there was 'the One' out there somewhere and if anything there was a refreshingly down-to-earth approach in the outfits I knew best.
The problem was more that the whole subculture fostered a somewhat intense and hot-house atmosphere - and I can relate to what Baptist Trainfan describes of his son's experience at a 'well-known' and large evangelical Anglican church.
People notice what you do, who you talk to and whether you're showing any interest - however 'innocently' in the opposite sex. There's a kind of proprietorial thing going on which is well-intentioned but can be interfering.
But you've got to take the rough with the smooth, and if you want to spend your time in that kind of church culture then it's a case of getting used to the norms or working with the difficulties they pose.
I'm really not sure what the answer is. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There's no point in wondering what would have happened if things had worked out differently - if we'd married someone other than our partners, if we'd had some 'trial runs' with people, if we'd been promiscuous rather than restrained ...
To be fair, the churches I knew didn't pretend that relationships were easy or that it was all a bed of roses and in one sense the reaction - as in the case of Harris - against the whole 'going out' or 'dating' culture was part and parcel of that - they genuinely believed there was a 'more excellent way'.
There were elements of 'anti-dating' in some churches I knew but given that they were part of wider society and not living in a bubble, they couldn't really impose that to any great extent. So some of the places I knew that started to trumpet that they'd found an alternative to the nasty secular way of doing things didn't really follow through on it all because it proved impossible - there was no way they could 'enforce' this stuff.
So, in many ways, as in much else in revivalist or charismatic forms of evangelicalism, the rhetoric belied the reality. The reality wasn't really that different to what was going on anywhere else. They just liked to pretend it wasn't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I wasn't going to say it, but then thought maybe I should: some guy randomly asking young girls out for one-on-one dinner dates is weird. I can understand lots of people thinking that this is strange behaviour.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I do think a lot of this rubbish derives more from Holywood romantic movies than Christian theology.
I think the expectations of the life thereafter certainly do, the initial stages you laid out above are highly down to the particular way Christian theology is worked out in evangelical circles.
It's a toxic combination of the idea of a 'soul mate' tagged onto the concept of 'The One'.
I think what we have is an acceptance of the "happy ever after" myth that is widely followed in society at large. What evangelicals did was to accept that, but then reject the "have lots of relationships until one clicks" model of attaining that point. What then happens is that other models, which share common features such as "don't sleep around", are proposed for young people to find The One™. These are then dressed up in spiritual language, rather than derived from a solid theological basis.
It's another example of Evangelicals copying contemporary culture, and then giving it a spiritual veneer. And, as you say, it is very toxic.
A genuine attempt to develop a theology of relationships drawing on Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason would almost certainly look very different. For a start, I would be surprised if it started with an assumption that there is a perfect soulmate for each of us. Remove that expectation of finding The One™, with all the associated stress of "what if I miss The One™?", would be an enormous help.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there are several strands running alongside one another in contemporary evangelical and evangelical/charismatic subculture that occasionally interwine and fuse and which occasionally create electric shocks ...
One strand carries a kind of 'down-home' folk wisdom - of the sort that the sociologist Dr Andrew Walker identified and praised among the old-school, traditional working-class Pentecostals.
The other carries a kind of populist 'self-help' type of pop-psychology or pop-theology picked up from conferences, from the Christian book-trade and from various fads and fancies promulgated by big-name preachers and writers.
The sort of secular values thing given a spiritual -sounding veneer.
At best, this can represent a fusion that combines the practical and pragmatic with some values that might take you a certain way around the track.
At worst, it can become programmatic and stultefying.
In most instances, I suspect, the practical outworking lies somewhere between those two extremes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I agree: chance, or if you prefer to think of it as the hand of God, totally rules on this.
Cast your mind back to when you first met your spouse or Significant Other. At that exact moment, an infinity of happenings could have prevented you two from clicking -- indigestion. Thunderstorm. They ran out of chicken pilaf in the food line and you got the burrito. Some other guy asking you about the football scores. She could have been one minute early, or one minute late, and stood next to the other guy, and now twenty years later she is sitting with him in front of the telly watching football.
Everything had to fall precisely into place for you to meet and mate your SO. The most powerful tool God has in his kit is not the lightning bolts and the burning bushes. It's the power of circumstance, the tiny incident that kicks off the whole cascade of consequences. They were out of rice pilaf and you got the burrito, so that while standing next to her two hours later the fart was irrepressible and, gagging, she moved over to stand next to him, and now twenty years later they are the proud parents of twins, etc. etc.
Which is of course how the book author and his ilk are able to say that God Has A Plan For You and there's only One who you have to wait and hang tough for.
But ... turn it around. The power of circumstance is irresistible; you cannot evade it. (Suppose you had been at the circus, and she could attribute the odor to the elephants? This actually happened to me; only after the wedding did I realize that no, it was not the elephants.) The power in God's hand is so very great that there is no point in worrying about it. If you meet her, you meet her. You might as well relax. Have the burrito, because if it is meant to be then nothing you can do can evade it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wasn't going to say it, but then thought maybe I should: some guy randomly asking young girls out for one-on-one dinner dates is weird. I can understand lots of people thinking that this is strange behaviour.
BT didn't say "dinner dates" he said "meals." I wouldn't regard lunch (especially if it was in the Student Union!) as a date.
I had one excruciatingly awkward lunch when a woman at church set up a meeting between her son and myself during our lunch hours. I was dating my now-husband at the time and had no suspicion that she had seen me as a potential girlfriend for her son until he told me, right at the start of our meal, that he didn't need his mother to organise his love life, so I needn't get my hopes up!
As far as I was concerned, meeting up with a young man for lunch was just a networking thing, not a date at all.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
BT didn't say "dinner dates" he said "meals." I wouldn't regard lunch (especially if it was in the Student Union!) as a date.
I had one excruciatingly awkward lunch when a woman at church set up a meeting between her son and myself during our lunch hours. I was dating my now-husband at the time and had no suspicion that she had seen me as a potential girlfriend for her son until he told me, right at the start of our meal, that he didn't need his mother to organise his love life, so I needn't get my hopes up!
As far as I was concerned, meeting up with a young man for lunch was just a networking thing, not a date at all.
I very rarely ate alone or went to any kind of meal alone with anyone. I still don't really think it is a good idea.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, they tended to be evening meals at a not-too-expensive Italian place. But he didn't just pick young ladies 'at random' - they were folk he already knew a bit and hoped to get to know a bit better. And I think that the group was sometime bigger than just two, anyway.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, they tended to be evening meals at a not-too-expensive Italian place. But he didn't just pick young ladies 'at random' - they were folk he already knew a bit and hoped to get to know a bit better. And I think that the group was sometime bigger than just two, anyway.
Again, that would have been considered to be weird in the circles I went to university with. "Getting to know" someone was something you did in larger groups. You only get to one-on-one meals with someone when you were actually "going out".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
"Getting to know" someone was something you did in larger groups. You only get to one-on-one meals with someone when you were actually "going out".
For my son, the one-to-one meal was a "sort of perhaps" date, but with no suggestion that they were actually "going out together", at least not at that point. The mismatch of understanding was not AFAIU with the young ladies concerned but with the self-appointed "purity police" of the wider Christian student group.
Anyway he's now been happily married for a number of years!
[ 30. August 2016, 14:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The fashions on this have altered in our lifetime, and are also subject to local custom. A large group of young people going out together is actually a fairly common preliminary in the US. If you pair off with someone else in that large group then you might gradually spin off and do things just the two of you. A clever church works this, and sets up many opportunities for casual groups of people -- college fellowships, young adult groups, canoeing excursions, etc. I met my husband at a college Christian fellowship, and I do not doubt that my son will meet a young woman either at the church young adult group, or at a political meeting. (Although I have warned him that in our blue district a young unmarried female Republican is surpassingly rare, and he had better grab her if he sees one.)
Here, btw, is an article about Christian masculinity and how the unreasonable demands upon Christian men does not work well.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I was at university when this book was a thing. And a rather conservative CU and church. It wasn't so much that dating was thought of as wrong, just not the 'ideal'. I remember a couple of people who got engaged when they hadn't been on any dates, and this was widely held up as being a more virtuous way of doing things. (Incidentally I don't think the couple in question didn't date because of any church/CU pressure, and if anything I could see that for them it was maybe the best way to approach it).
It was yet another thing to be guilty about. And to my mind fed into the hugely negative attitude to sex in that sort of Christianity.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can see how the philosophy of this book might be a relief, if you are a shy and awkward teen. Throw aside all the stresses of actually getting to know young women! Hand off the problem to God! What a vast time saver it must be.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We expect practice and experience before any important job or endeavour, why should marriage be different?
Well, it depends, I think. Some jobs just require you to have had a good education, or an appropriate attitude. You don't need to have had experience of that particular line of work before.
Having worked in, and adjacent to, several fields technical, it is a combination of education and experience that is the most effective. It will vary, but the more important or permanent, the more both come into play. If you think marriage neither, then whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Similarly, not everyone who goes on an adventure has had specific experience before, just good health, a positive attitude, a guide book, advice from friends, etc.
depends upon the adventure. A trip through the civilised world or a solo trek down the Amazon. One is a happy lark with interesting stories to tell, the other is a very tragic outcome. Well, one's decaying body will feed the local flora and fauna, so not all bad.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Knowing how to talk to your wife over dinner shouldn't require all that much practice with other girlfriends if you come from a culture where people are simply in the habit of talking to each other. A romantic agenda with a few other people beforehand isn't required for that, is it?
Romance changes the interaction. Partners are not just friends with whom you have sex. They should be friends, yes, but even the mundane interactions are different.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The difference is, of course, that in secular culture one is expected to trawl through a lot of frogs in order to find a prince/princess.
Not necessarily. The idea is that you do not expect...shimmery halos, butterfly wings, celestial music...The ONE...shimmery halos, butterfly wings, celestial music..., not that you {i]must[/i] experiment madly. It is possible the find a compatible mate right off the starting line, just not crazy likely.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I agree: chance, or if you prefer to think of it as the hand of God, totally rules on this.
Cast your mind back to when you first met your spouse or Significant Other.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Did I say no?
This idea is madness! It is absolutely no different than the lightning bolts.
THERE. IS. NO. ONE.
Soulmate isn't something you are, it is something you become. Some relationships have that chance encounter, that sparkly bit, some develop out of friendship or acquaintance, some out of dating.
Thinking God has a PLAN™ is as likely to end in tragedy as triumph. If God is to be involved, it is in you listening, not God indicating.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They are not realistic in any culture. relationships are work. But that does not mean any relationship can work. We expect practice and experience before any important job or endeavour, why should marriage be different?
I think there are two separate things here. The first is that, like everything else, you get better at relationships and at sex with practice. You are likely to make mistakes in the course of your first romantic relationship, and you're unlikely to show great skills during your first sexual experience. With practice, both will get better.
But there's nothing here to say that the practice has to be with other people. Certainly you can (and hopefully do) learn from previous relationships with other people, but it's just as possible to do all your learning with a single partner, from scratch.
The second thing is the question of compatibility. Again, I mostly agree with you. I don't subscribe to the soulmate claptrap - I think there are thousands of women with whom I could have built a perfectly satisfactory marriage. Had I not met my wife, hopefully I would have met one of the others. Equally, there are many more women who I could never have married. A couple of those are dear friends, who I have known for ages and like very much, but we'd probably end up killing each other if forced to live together.
So I think the question here is what it takes to determine whether you make a compatible couple. (And yes, finding out that your prospective partner smells like an elephant is probably included here.)
I don't think this requires sex, and I don't think it requires sharing a home, but I think it probably must require significantly more time together than conservative Christian "courtship" societies usually permit their members. It's probably also true that this process is harder and takes longer the more differences there are between the cultures and upbringings of the couple.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think there are two separate things here. The first is that, like everything else, you get better at relationships and at sex with practice. You are likely to make mistakes in the course of your first romantic relationship, and you're unlikely to show great skills during your first sexual experience. With practice, both will get better.
But there's nothing here to say that the practice has to be with other people. Certainly you can (and hopefully do) learn from previous relationships with other people, but it's just as possible to do all your learning with a single partner, from scratch.
I do not think that having sex is a requisite part of the dating experience. That will depend on a variety of issues. Sex should definitely be on the discussion list, though. Good sex isn't just practice, there is a considerable mental component and, like any other part of a relationship, there can be incompatibilities.
Frankly, though, if you've never had sex, you do not know what you truly like, but what you think you might like.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Regarding the sudden shock of living together: AIUI in the days when living apart until marriage was the norm, there were lots of books and magazine articles with advice on how to face up to the challenge*. They may or may not have provided good advice but they show that it was acknowledged to be a problem.
Conversely, I get the impression that the 'no sex before marriage' subculture expends much more energy on the 'no sex'.
* I have one such book, Everyday Problems and their Solution, from the 1930s. Full of terrible dilemmas such as 'I fell in love with a factory girl.'
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I was at university when this book was a thing. And a rather conservative CU and church. It wasn't so much that dating was thought of as wrong, just not the 'ideal'.
Though as I pointed out above (over the page) how things worked out in the UK, where the context for the book was set by whatever your regular church context was like was different from how it worked out when you were in the US and/or homeschooled and/or and/or in a church whose leaders promoted CJ and Josh and/or in the SGM itself.
I remember at the time I had more than one female acquaintance tell me that they felt they were being called to marry an SGM pastor (as that was the only type of person who could possibly live up to the picture they had in their mind of their soul mate).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Doctor Johnson: "I believe marriages would in general be as happy, and often more so, if they were all made by the Lord Chancellor, upon a due consideration of characters and circumstances, without the parties having any choice in the matter."
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
At least that gives one somebody to blame.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Bollocks, Brenda. Your 'it had to be' determinism us a load of crap, as is the idea of mating with Republicans. There are too many Republicans already. Perhaps not where you are but every fucking place else. Get over it already. At least until you've come up with a better candidate than Trump.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I don't propose determinism as my own belief. I propose it as something to tell these poor sex-starved teens. Is God in charge? Well, then God is in charge. Don't sweat it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
