limited options
So, I had a date on Friday night. It was a lovely date. The gentleman's conversation was fairly interesting, his company pleasant, his manner easygoing.
But here's the thing. I know not many people share this particular preference, but what I really hate about getting to know a stranger in a dating context is the expectation of physical contact -- holding hands, kissing, cuddling. Now don't get me wrong; I love touch as much as the next person. But I hate the push for it. I don't like to touch people I don't know, and I certainly don't like to climb the steps toward intimacy with someone I've met twice.
Call it dignity, self-respect, anal retentiveness, mistrust of humanity, whatever you like. With the last guy who took me out, back in May, I allowed a little too much too quickly, and the result was extremely uncomfortable -- he expected right away what I am not willing to give (and we never went out again). Ever since, I've been sort of gunshy when a new guy inclines himself more toward the physical, because without knowing me well, it's an expression only of desire, not of trust, knowledge of one another, mutual admiration, and affection, built on the basis of the necessary chemical attraction.
And I prefer touch to come from the latter. Call me crazy, but what I want when I meet a guy is to get to know him, and to be known by him, for who he is and for who I am -- as a full person, not just a body. I'm sorry, but spending three or four nice hours in conversation with me does not give a man the right to expect a make-out session. That reduces the whole thing to a very short-term exchange of dating capitalism: You want conversation, so I'll give it to you, with the expectation that it's purchased with physical interaction at the end, so that I get mine too.
No thanks.
Now, I'm saying all this incredibly reactively; George was exceedingly nice and non-pushy. But the expectation was still there. And when I talked to him last night on the phone and explained my reservations, he was still willing to hang out with me in group settings as friends while we got to know each other...until he found out my voluntary and unbending limitations on sex. Then he politely told me he would leave the ball entirely in my court. Respectful, certainly; but it also revealed, however interesting and cool he found me, what he really wanted.
And I'm sorry, that exchange isn't good enough for me. I'm not satisfied with dinner, a movie, and three or four months of dating, before I yield up the greatest physical, spiritual, and symbolic intimacy one human being can have with another. To me it's not recreational, or a mere expression of warm feelings, or even an expression of real love with intent to marry; it is the thing itself, it's part of the heart of marriage and human companionship and love, and something infinitely worth the wait.
I know that I probably sound like a raging psychopath to a lot of people. I don't really discuss this very often, but for some reason I'm upset about it, and I have a fairly receptive audience here.
It all comes down to: This is what makes dating people who don't share the faith so difficult. At least you can expect a Christian guy to anticipate your principles, even if he'd be willing not to share them. Men who hold differing perspectives might go along with me (and this is one of the highest forms of respect), but I still feel like they're thinking I'm weird, some walking museum display of Victorian womanhood who, they can only hope, can be coaxed one of these days into the twenty-first century.
And with, as Jennifer has noted, the glaring lack of actively dating men in the Christian church, our options are sharply limited. But there's just not much we can do about it. I struggle with feelings of frustration and hopelessness quite often -- my standards tend to doom me to my single status. But ultimately I don't regret it. The message in church yesterday was, essentially, that it's easy, sometimes, to be a Christian. But at other times it's hard. And that's when you have to stick it out. It builds perseverance, and eventually reaps the harvest we were looking for. But you can't plant corn and pick it the next day; you have to work, and, hardest of all, wait.
I still maintain that it will be better in the end never to have the companionship or the physical joy that I want so badly, rather than sell out cheaply for quick and momentary happiness.
Next week you may find me weeping and gnashing my teeth at still being single, absolutely and without abate, at the verge of twenty-five. You may pity my old-fashioned scruples. And please don't think I scorn or disrespect those whose viewpoints in this arena differ slightly or greatly from mine. But this is my choice; I've made and continue to maintain it. I have a string of pearls, and I'm keeping it firmly away from the pigsty, because I'm looking for more than just the fun of wrestling in the mud.
But here's the thing. I know not many people share this particular preference, but what I really hate about getting to know a stranger in a dating context is the expectation of physical contact -- holding hands, kissing, cuddling. Now don't get me wrong; I love touch as much as the next person. But I hate the push for it. I don't like to touch people I don't know, and I certainly don't like to climb the steps toward intimacy with someone I've met twice.
Call it dignity, self-respect, anal retentiveness, mistrust of humanity, whatever you like. With the last guy who took me out, back in May, I allowed a little too much too quickly, and the result was extremely uncomfortable -- he expected right away what I am not willing to give (and we never went out again). Ever since, I've been sort of gunshy when a new guy inclines himself more toward the physical, because without knowing me well, it's an expression only of desire, not of trust, knowledge of one another, mutual admiration, and affection, built on the basis of the necessary chemical attraction.
And I prefer touch to come from the latter. Call me crazy, but what I want when I meet a guy is to get to know him, and to be known by him, for who he is and for who I am -- as a full person, not just a body. I'm sorry, but spending three or four nice hours in conversation with me does not give a man the right to expect a make-out session. That reduces the whole thing to a very short-term exchange of dating capitalism: You want conversation, so I'll give it to you, with the expectation that it's purchased with physical interaction at the end, so that I get mine too.
No thanks.
Now, I'm saying all this incredibly reactively; George was exceedingly nice and non-pushy. But the expectation was still there. And when I talked to him last night on the phone and explained my reservations, he was still willing to hang out with me in group settings as friends while we got to know each other...until he found out my voluntary and unbending limitations on sex. Then he politely told me he would leave the ball entirely in my court. Respectful, certainly; but it also revealed, however interesting and cool he found me, what he really wanted.
And I'm sorry, that exchange isn't good enough for me. I'm not satisfied with dinner, a movie, and three or four months of dating, before I yield up the greatest physical, spiritual, and symbolic intimacy one human being can have with another. To me it's not recreational, or a mere expression of warm feelings, or even an expression of real love with intent to marry; it is the thing itself, it's part of the heart of marriage and human companionship and love, and something infinitely worth the wait.
I know that I probably sound like a raging psychopath to a lot of people. I don't really discuss this very often, but for some reason I'm upset about it, and I have a fairly receptive audience here.
It all comes down to: This is what makes dating people who don't share the faith so difficult. At least you can expect a Christian guy to anticipate your principles, even if he'd be willing not to share them. Men who hold differing perspectives might go along with me (and this is one of the highest forms of respect), but I still feel like they're thinking I'm weird, some walking museum display of Victorian womanhood who, they can only hope, can be coaxed one of these days into the twenty-first century.
And with, as Jennifer has noted, the glaring lack of actively dating men in the Christian church, our options are sharply limited. But there's just not much we can do about it. I struggle with feelings of frustration and hopelessness quite often -- my standards tend to doom me to my single status. But ultimately I don't regret it. The message in church yesterday was, essentially, that it's easy, sometimes, to be a Christian. But at other times it's hard. And that's when you have to stick it out. It builds perseverance, and eventually reaps the harvest we were looking for. But you can't plant corn and pick it the next day; you have to work, and, hardest of all, wait.
I still maintain that it will be better in the end never to have the companionship or the physical joy that I want so badly, rather than sell out cheaply for quick and momentary happiness.
Next week you may find me weeping and gnashing my teeth at still being single, absolutely and without abate, at the verge of twenty-five. You may pity my old-fashioned scruples. And please don't think I scorn or disrespect those whose viewpoints in this arena differ slightly or greatly from mine. But this is my choice; I've made and continue to maintain it. I have a string of pearls, and I'm keeping it firmly away from the pigsty, because I'm looking for more than just the fun of wrestling in the mud.
6 Comments:
At 4:24 PM, August 28, 2006, Jennifer said…
In my experience, I've been surprised also, at how far many Christian guys are willing to go physically. Many of them would have sex if given that option. What's with this? A friend recently asked me if I would marry a non-virgin. I said 'yes' for several reasons... and sadly, one of them being the fact that way too many Christians ARE non-virgins.. so ruling them out would again, as you said Sarah, sharply limit my options. It's a no-win situation.
At 4:19 PM, August 29, 2006, Jennifer said…
Hi Meg! It's really good to see your presence on here. A few months ago, on the recommendation of a friend... I read the book 'Real Sex' by Lauren Winner and I finally understood why the Bible commanded Christians to practice abstinence. To us, premarital sex is not the full experience.. the whole enchilada.. have you. There have been many, many occasions where I've questioned this part of my life. It's incredibly difficult in a world full of pressures, and believe me, I know them well. Churches aren't just filled with happy people with Stepford-like lives, they're full of people with secrets... with shame. Somehow, I don't think that's what God meant for the Christian church. It's deepy flawed in our 21st century, and it's sad.
At 8:56 AM, August 30, 2006, The Prufroquette said…
The full experience...I like that.
Well, I don't think that George was a sex-crazy pig, per sae. I appreciate your insight into that matter...and it's always an awkward conversation to have with someone. The thing that bothered me the most, in all honesty, is his first-date goodnight kiss. I gave indications that I wanted to avoid it: When he bent toward me, I turned my cheek toward him. So he tried again, and I "turned the other cheek" (hahaha). Then he tried a THIRD time and I gave up and allowed a peck on the mouth.
That made me uncomfortable, and a little irritated. While I wasn't going to make a big deal out of it and shove him away, I mean, really: How clear can I make it? Without telling him, as I finally did on Sunday, that the physical aspect of dating a stranger isn't for me. (Which he told me he picked up on, so it can't be attributed just to him being a little dorky and bad at picking up people signals.)
So you're right: I think we both realized that our beliefs made a serious relationship incompatible. Which is a shame, in a way, because he was nice, and easy to talk to. And while he wasn't urging, or even suggesting, me to stay the night or anything remotely along those lines (unlike 35-year-old Radio Guy), I still didn't like the push for a kiss.
And for me, I endorse chastity until marriage not only (though primarily) from religious principle, but because I know that, however much I love and trust someone, I can't trust him completely with the most vulnerable part of myself until I KNOW he can't change his mind and walk away (not without considerable expense, anyhow). I struggle with deep-rooted insecurities as to my own worth in regard to other people, and to fear losing someone after yielding up my body to him would nag, depress, and devastate me. Plus, I've held out for so long, that to back down would burden me with a huge degree of self-disgust and self-disrepect, and I would have a difficult time trusting myself again.
And I comprehend why a person would elect non-virginity (this decision isn't always easy), not because of impatience but because of wanting, as Meg said, to make sure that aspect of the relationship works as well as the rest, I find myself looking forward to having all the time in the world, post-marriage, to discover each other. Perhaps it will be a little scary, and we'll have to take it on trust that we'll figure out how to make it work; but I think it's good that way, to know that you're not going to get rid of each other just because the sex isn't fantastic at first, but relying instead on each other's companionship and love to persevere through ignorance and uncertainty and so arrive at a deep understanding of each other's hearts, minds, and bodies.
I know it's not exactly the same thing, but I do pay attention to chemistry, and if it's not there, it's much harder to consider a committed relationship, because sensitivity to the chemistry is part of taking it on trust. And if at first I don't go gooey all over when I see him, but grow to love and find him attractive the longer our friendship lasts, then that can work too.
And when that day finally comes...
Meow.
Oh goody.
At 2:49 PM, August 31, 2006, Lovely Lady said…
I agree! I hate when guys I don’t know touch me. It makes me so uncomfortable. I don’t know you and one or two dates really doesn’t make a difference. So now, I’m just frank with guys and let them know from the first ‘unwanted’ touch that I am not the ‘touchy feely’ type, at least with guys I don’t know. Hehehe!
At 2:02 PM, September 02, 2006, Anonymous said…
I think it's frustrating that so many Christian women and men think premarital sex is okay. The Church needs to do a better job examining this issue.
At 4:47 PM, September 03, 2006, The Prufroquette said…
As in, addressing it at all. I've been appalled pretty consistently for a good number of years with how little the church as a whole talks about sex. "Real Sex" by Lauren Winner discusses this problem, saying that the church seems to assume that the "True Love Waits" conferences contain all that needs to be said, and leave it at that. Very Victorian, very unrealistic, and very irresponsible, because while people are signing pledges and wearing promise rings, there's an entirely different reality between the sheets for many, many people, and it has less to do with strict definitions of morality and more to do with shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, unadressed questions, and living in a culture that is extremely open and free about sexuality; and when the church is silent on nearly every variation on the topic, Christians receive their sex education elsewhere. And there are extremely understandable reasons for having premarital sex; so, if the church wants to uphold its standards and encourage its constituents to maintain them, it needs to come to where the questions are, and be ready to answer some really difficult ones, gently.
Post a Comment
<< Home