Posted on

[Q&A – Dating] Doesn’t dating serve the same purpose as cohabitation?

The Q: “You called cohabiting a litmus test, like a litmus test is a bad thing. But don’t we do the same thing when we date? We kind of are ‘trying out’ marriage. What’s the huge difference?” -Alexandrea

The A: The short version of my answer is this: If in dating we are “trying out” marriage, we better hope we are dating right. But here’s the long version:

To quote what I wrote in the essay on DevotionalDiva.com that sparked this question, “For (some), cohabitation is a litmus test. If it works, you get married. If it doesn’t, you don’t. Because it’s better to say ‘I’ll love you if…’ instead of ‘I’ll love you despite what’s yet to come…’ For others, cohabitation is like a practice run. If you like it, you commit. If you don’t like it, you call it quits.”

In our culture, dating largely involves rose colored glasses and committing because “I think you’re hot and I kind of want to have sex with you.” Our relationships can live or die by how constantly we’re warm and fuzzy. We live together (until it’s difficult) and sleep together (unless in doing so we learn that achieving sexual compatibility will take work). There is more thought dedicated to text messages you intend to send a guy (based solely on your friends’ answers to questions like “What would YOU think of this phrase if you were him?”) than there is thought dedicated to whether his skills are transferable to, say, parenting.

In our culture (and in my observation) there is no huge difference between why many couples decide to cohabit and why many couples decide to date (and why most couples don’t wait until after the wedding for sex, while we’re at it).

This is a problem.

This is not a problem because it renders chaste daters’ decisions not to cohabit or have sex totally moot (it doesn’t).

It’s a problem because of what it says about how we date.

Alexandrea is right: In dating, we test for stuff. If we didn’t test for some things, I would have married the first guy I dated (and he wore eyeliner, so…*). This is really to say that litmus tests aren’t necessarily bad (i.e., “You can’t save sex for marriage? Then I can’t marry you.”). But our culture tells us to use the wrong methods to test for the wrong stuff.

Our culture says cohabitation and premarital sex are the best tests.

Our culture also says “test for how constantly and consistently you feel warm and fuzzy” instead of for how constantly and consistently he or she does what he or she says he or she’s gonna; “for how easy it is to live together” instead of for how willing and able he or she is to work through conflict; “for how effortless gratification is” instead of for how patient he or she is.

It is good to “test” in dating, but we’ve got to test for the right stuff. When we test for the right stuff, we create a huge (and important) difference between cohabiting and dating.

– – – –

This post is part of an occasional series called Q&A. Click here to read all the posts from it.

*In the event he stumbles upon this, JK. You were a in a band. It was acceptable.

Posted on

[Q&A – Dating] How do I know if the feelings are mutual?

The Q: How do I know if the feelings are mutual when I’m interested in someone?

The A: The short answer: You’ll know by the time you need to know.

The long answer: Sometimes we want to know now whether he or she likes me or he or she doesn’t, that our expectations align, that the meaning I attach to my experience is the same as the meaning he attaches to his.

In either case, we might over think, or dissect and diagnose. We poll our friends for their opinions about what it means that a guy didn’t respond to your text, or that a girl didn’t favorite your tweet. We want for Action A + Action B to = Best Case Scenario (as far as our opinions are concerned).

But your friends aren’t mind readers (and neither are you). There is no formula.

Our pursuit of one – or of “signs,” or of a friend’s opinion that turns out to be fact – might be fruitless. In it, a person eludes the only two reliable sources for the answers to his or her questions:

Time, and the person we want to date.

When you aren’t sure the person you like likes you back, consider this:

“Wait and see” isn’t as bad as it sounds. Patience is not the antithesis to persistence. Patience is part of persistence.

And if you really need to know now…

Ask.

– – – –

This post is part of an occasional series called Q&A. Click here to read all the posts from it.

Posted on

[Q&A – Dating] Can a guy be persistent but not annoying?

The Q: “How does a guy be persistent without being annoying? Possible?”

The A: Short version: Totally.

Long version: Persistence is pursuit despite difficulty. Dedication in the face of opposition. Most relationships require some of it. Some relationships require more of it than others. In dating, persistence isn’t necessarily bad if what’s “opposed” to your pursuit is, say, time or money or distance. It is bad, however, if what’s opposed to it is the person you’re trying to date.

Ultimately, only she – the woman with whom you’re persistent – can discern the difference between persistent and annoying. This is because for most of us, you’re “persistent” if we like you and “annoying” if we don’t. But for some women, “persistent” and “annoying” are synonymous.

There is only one way to find out.

In the process, we learn a lot about each other. What we do and don’t want in spouses. We discern what all of us must:

Whether getting together makes sense. Whether we’ll make good spouses and parents. Whether the world needs a kid who could turn into one of us. Whether the pursuit, establishment, and maintenance of this contributes to the greater glory of God.

And regarding a guy who pursues a woman despite difficulty, she must discern whether his pursuit is persistent or annoying.

If you like her…

let her.

#WorthIt. 🙂

– – – –

This post is part of an occasional series called Q&A. Click here to read all the posts from it.

Posted on

[Q&A – Marriage] Doesn’t pre-marital living together work for some people?

Last week, in a guest post called “On Moving In Together” on Devotional Diva, I challenged the practice of pre-marital living together.

For some, I wrote, “cohabitation is a litmus test. If it works, you get married. If it doesn’t, you don’t. Because (for them,) it’s better to say ‘I’ll love you if…’ instead of ‘I’ll love you despite what’s yet to come…’ For others, cohabitation is like a practice run. If you like it, you commit. If you don’t like it, you call it quits.”

A response to the story sparked this, the latest installment of Q&A:

 The Q: “What about couples who live together, get married, and are together the rest of their lives? Couldn’t you argue that it works some, but not all, of the time?” -Corinna

The A: I am certain there are couples who cohabit, marry later, and live as happily ever after as humanly possible. But I won’t argue that it therefore works for some and not for others. This is because “living together before marriage” is not the “it” that works for the couples whose marriages last. Love is the only “it” that works. Some couples who cohabit have it, and others (I’d argue most) don’t.

Click here to read “On Moving In Together.”

Posted on

[Q&A: Weddings] How do you feel about the garter toss?

The Q: “How do you feel about the garter toss?” -Eddie*

The A: Short answer: Not good.

To the husbands whose wives tolerated (dare I say enjoyed?) the garter toss: This is not to say I hold that you tossed it against you. It is to say there will not be a garter toss at my (so far hypothetical) wedding.

The reason for this is manifold, but I’ll sum it up in these three ways:

1. Um, awkward? I tried, but could think of exactly zero things that make me feel ok about having my husband crawl up my dress on a dance floor under a spotlight in front of all our closest friends and relatives.

2. It makes a mildly degrading spectacle of a woman, and other stuff. While it’s never not funny to watch a man dance to “I’m Too Sexy,” the retrieval of the garter that comes before the toss is often chock full of raunch. It usually boils down to a guy feeling a woman up in front of a bunch of people. And while they are married, they are not married to everyone in the room. I have a couple hunches, re: what could pop into a person’s head while he or she watches my husband stick his hands up my dress. Do we really want to encourage that thought?

 3. What’s the point? ‘Cause I kinda can’t come up with a good one. It’s a tradition, yes, but one that has no meaning for me. FYI: Odds are also bad I’ll toss a bouquet (no point there, either!). Maybe I just don’t like to throw stuff.

– – – –

Q&A is an occasional feature. If you have a Q, I can come up with an A (and if I don’t have an A, I’ll find somebody who does). To submit a question, click here. No topic is taboo (although I can’t promise I will answer every question).

*Real person, fake name.

Click here to read all the posts in this series.