[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.

Thoughts on gender hierarchy and roles.

I watched a John Piper video once that so inspired me to throw a hanger across my bedroom.

Oh how it made me angry, his promotion of gender hierarchy, of perpetuating marriage protocol based on rigid gender roles. Of one gender better, stronger, smarter than another. Piper, who was Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis for more than 30 years, is a proponent of hierarchical marriage (he calls it “complementarian”), a source of stress and indigestion for egalitarians.

In marriage, according to the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (the CBMW, of which Piper is a member), “wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership.” “Adam’s headship in marriage,” according to the CBMW, “was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.”

And then there are gender roles.

“Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order,” says the CBMW, “and should find an echo in every human heart.”

These are thoughts about that:

  • “God did not command men to dominate women. He predicted it as the sad consequence of original sin.” -Sr. Helena Burns
  • In “Barne’s Notes on the Bible,” Barnes says women are “more subject to infirmities and weaknesses; less capable of enduring fatigue and toil; less adapted to the rough and stormy scenes of life” and “the God of nature has made her with a more delicate frame, a more fragile structure, and with a body subject to many infirmities to which the more hardy frame of a man is a stranger.” (Cue stress and indigestion.) But is a woman’s being less capable of enduring fatigue and toil and less adapted to the rough and stormy scenes of life innate, or is it learned? Most adults coddle female toddlers who trip and fall, and tell male toddlers to shake it off. Is that because girls innately can’t take it and boys can, or because girls are set up not to take it and boys aren’t? Is it because men have more “muscles” than women, or because husbands – under whose authority women exist in hierarchical marriage – let their wives lose the ability to use certain “muscles” because they don’t permit their wives to use them?
  • In a YouTube video about how women are to submit to husbands who are abusive, Piper says it’s ok for a wife to say no to her husband. But before she can say no, he says, she has to say this: “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership.” It is, then, the very men who assert females are weak and males are strong who can’t take “no” from a woman unless she strokes his ego first.
  • Indeed it stings when somebody says “no” or “I disagree with you.” But it is not proof a man isn’t masculine. It is proof he is human. That a wife never just says no to her husband when no is appropriate doesn’t say he is manly. All it says is he can’t take no. Not saying no (or refusing to take it) enables a person to avoid conflict, and pain and emotion, and as a result, to avoid growing (as a human, and as a spouse).
  • I am not hostile to submission. I am hostile to complicity in the maintenance of fragile egos, to the forfeiture of authenticity, and to abuse.
  • A wife has to trust that the decisions her husband makes will not violate respect for her, for life, for love, for God, in no particular order. In that light, “submission” is not a burden. It’s relief of a burden. A woman can make decisions, but in marriage, she ought to be free because of trust to share the load with her husband, to let him handle some of the stuff so she can handle the other stuff.
  • Teamwork, not dominance.
  • It is inefficient, in my opinion, for a married couple to have a completely inflexible set of gender roles. Do what you’re good at doing, and what you like doing. (Dear future husband: Please like to cook.)
  • Love trumps protocol. Every time. And if it doesn’t, it isn’t love.
– – – –
Click here to read the rest of the CBMW’s core beliefs.
Click here to watch John Piper’s video on submitting to abusive husbands. (Trigger warning.)

On dating the wrong person, and the right one.

Big thanks to my friend and fellow blogger Edmund Mitchell for sharing the below vid with me today via Twitter. It’s a poetic performance by poet Janette-icks, and if you’re single, ever dated somebody who wasn’t the one, worry you’re growing too old to meet the one (or have friends or family who do that for you), this is for you.

Excerpts:

On dating the wrong person:

“He had a form of godliness, but not much. But hey, I can change him, I mean he’s close… enough.”

“…arteries so clogged with my will it blocked His will from flowing through me.”

“…he didn’t even sound or shine like your Son.”

On waiting for the right one: 

“I will no longer date socialize or communicate with carbon copies of you to quench my thirst and desire for attention and short lived compliments from sorta kindas. You know, he’s sorta kind right, but sorta kinda wrong… his first name Luke, his last name Warm…”

“I will no longer get weighted down from so called friend and family talks about their concern for my biological clock when I serve the Author of Time…”

Watch below!

Sex! And other stuff. | 03.25.13

This post is part of the Sex! And other stuff. series. Click here for more information.

– – – –

Love and Responsibility: I am VERY excited to report an advanced copy of Pauline Books and Media‘s new translation of my favorite book arrived last week. Love and Responsibility is a brilliant book written by Pope John Paul II before he was pope. Anybody who ever intends to get married ought to read it. The publisher releases the book for real in April. I’ll try, try, try to read it all before it’s released. Might not happen. But since my hunch is I am gonna love it, click here to pre-order your own copy.

Sex outside marriage v. sex inside marriage: Fellow blogger Jamie the Very Worst Missionary wrote a fabulous post in favor of loving instead of shaming the people who haven’t saved sex for marriage. Best part of the post, though, is this: “Sex matters. It’s the most vulnerable thing you’ll ever do with another human being. Commitment breeds intimacy, and intimacy is what makes sex freaking amazing. I’m not gonna lie, you can have hot sex outside of a committed relationship – but mostly it’s gonna be like… clumsy… and goopy… and ew. The better you know your partner, the better your sex will be. So basically what I’m saying is that wedding night sex is kinda “Meh.”, and five years sex is all “Yes!”, but 18 years sex is like “WOAH!!!” So go ahead and wait. Wait and enjoy the waiting, and then bask in all those learning experiences with your most trusted friend.” Click here to read the whole post.

Virginity in Tampa: Stumbled upon a story in The Oracle, my university’s student paper (for which I worked for a year while I was an undergrad!). First line says this:  “A recent survey has found that women are choosing to lose their virginity later in life.” By later in life, The Oracle means age 20. Sigh. The study it cites surveyed 77,000+ women, including 4000+ in Tampa. “While a study from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University says the average age women lose their virginity is 17,” the story says, “Tampa women say the ideal age to lose it is 20.” Click here to read the story.

[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.”