Boundaries in Dating: He was nice

Gaston sits with his dirty boots on top of Belle's book, while Belle looks on in horror. Image source.

In chapter 12 of Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships, we read the story of Debbie and Nick. Debbie was totally in love with Nick, and started spending more and more time with him, neglecting her friends and her other activities. But it didn't matter to her, she was just so happy to be with Nick. But then, there were some problems. Let's read what happened:

Things continued like this until two things happened that served as a wake-up call for Debbie. First, she began sleeping with Nick, something that she had vowed not to do again until she was safely married. Her vow was part of her spiritual commitment to God and also wisdom she had learned from her previous breakup. [She had been engaged the year before.] What had looked like it would be "forever" had not been after all, and she felt devastated that she had given herself away to someone who had ultimately used her. Now, she found herself doing the same thing again, although this time, she had assured herself, was really going to be forever. But as time went on, her duplicity was beginning to gnaw at her. And she also didn't like how casually Nick was taking their sex life. In the beginning, he had seemed so spiritually committed. But, as she was finding out, his spirituality did not have very deep roots.

The second wake-up call was one day when Nick asked her if she would be interested in looking into cosmetic surgery. At first she thought he was kidding. But when she laughed it off, he did not and pursued it further. "I just think it would help your overall looks," he said.

Debbie was devastated, but more than that, she began thinking. She began to remember other conversations that she and Nick had had about her. Some were about her looks, her hair, at times her weight. (She was a very normal and attractive weight.) Others were about her wardrobe and style, and as she thought more about it, others were about significant areas of her life. She remembered his criticism of sailing when she first shared her excitement about her new passion. He thought it was boring and not where the real action was. That is how he ended up surfing a lot with her watching. Surfing was not boring, according to Nick. But as she really began to think about it, watching surfing was not that exciting either. She had just been so happy to be near Nick that she had lost touch with her interests.

There were other subtle criticisms as well about her other interests. He was not mean at all about them, which is probably why she did not notice that it was happening. It was more of a combination of thinking that things she liked or wanted were not really that great, or more often, he just had a better way of doing things or better things to do.

The same thing had been true about her friends. He had not really clicked with them that much, and that was part of why she had gotten so separated from them. He would say things about her friends like, "she's a little too artsy for me," or other comments that were not really put-downs, but enough to show that he was not interested in the people that she loved. But, again, she had missed it because being with him was what mattered to her. She just felt so good to be with him that pushing him into things or people that he did not like was not a priority to her. She loved being with him. And, this was the subtlety, he was great to be around.

Okay, a lot of things to talk about here. Let's start with the sex part.

First of all, I am totally squicked out by the phrase "safely married." That is a HUGE red flag. Because that is EXACTLY how I thought about it when I was in purity culture. When you're dating, that's the dangerous part, that's the part where there's a risk of breaking up, and if you break up, you lose all the purity and pieces of your heart that you "gave" to your partner over the course of the relaltionship. That's why the dating part has to go as fast as possible- get committed for life as soon as you can, so you don't have to face that risk of breaking up and losing your purity anymore. (This is purity culture logic. I'm totally confused about the extent to which the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" agree or disagree. In the previous chapter, they emphasized how it's absolutely necessary to take the time to get to know someone and not rush into a commitment.)

Continuing along this line of purity culture logic: Sex before marriage is the most dangerous and bad thing you can do. But once you get married, you're safe. Sex in marriage is the most wonderful, amazing, perfect gift from God. When you're married, there's absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of sex. There will be no problems. Honeymoon sex is the best thing ever- that's the reward God gives you for your abstinence. Marital rape doesn't exist. Etc. Don't have sex til you're "safely married."

Now, we know that the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" are definitely NOT part of purity culture. There have been SO MANY things in this book that have completely shocked me because of how not-purity-culture they are. And it really comes across like the writers don't even realize how "controversial" they are, how any good purity culture girl who reads this book is going to be astonished, confused, and horrified at statements that these writers seem to just take for granted, like "we suggest you be open to casually dating anyone of good character" (page 96). So when they use terms like "safely married" and "give herself away" as a description of what sex is, I don't really know what they mean. I've only ever heard these kinds of terms in the context of a "premarital sex is the dirtiest sin ever and will ruin your life forever" worldview. Is that what these writers believe?

I mean, I know they believe premarital sex is a sin, but I don't see how that fits in with the rest of their advice. For example, the previous chapter, which was all about how you should take the relationship slow and not rush into making a commitment. If you really think premarital sex is a dangerous, destructive, life-changing sin, you wouldn't give that advice. So it seems that they believe premarital sex is a sin, but not really a big enough deal that the whole dating process needs to be structured around avoiding "temptation" and getting you "safely married" as soon as possible. But that doesn't make sense to me. Like it's a sin, but it's not really that bad? Huh?

And actually, in the rest of Debbie and Nick's story, which is later in the chapter, the sex part is only mentioned a little bit. I'll give you more details later in the post. But my point is, this book doesn't make a big deal about "oh isn't it terrible how she had sex with him and lost her purity and she'll regret it forever?" Instead, it says Debbie's story has "a good ending"- she ends up talking to her friends about what's going on, and they support her when she stands up for herself and eventually breaks up with Nick. We'll see the details later in this post. But anyway, my point is, the book is very clear about how it's so GOOD that Debbie had wonderful friends to help her and she got out of the relationship. This is a story with a happy ending! Hooray! And not one word is said about "but still, she had lost part of her purity that can never be restored" or any crap like that.

So... I'm very confused about the writers' view of premarital sex. Like, they say they believe it's a sin, but ... really? Then why don't they make as much of a big deal about it as purity culture does?

Moving on. Let's talk about how Nick treated Debbie, how he always acted like her interests weren't that great, so they ended up always doing what he wanted. You guys, this really creeps me out. A guy like that is dangerous. He was isolating her from her friends and slowly convincing her that her own wants and needs didn't really matter. But he was so nice about it. And he was fun! And attractive! She really loved him, and she really was happy with him. Until she noticed what he was doing.

(And this story is a good example of how a person can hurt you emotionally, and you don't even realize it when it happens. When they're doing it, you're happy- maybe you make excuses for them, or you don't want to believe it's really happening. But when you actually realize the reality of what's going on, that's when you see they've been hurting you all along. I don't have experience with abuse, but it really seems intuitive to me that abuse would work this way. A victim might actually feel really happy and like everything is okay in the relationship- until they realize what's happening, and realize that the whole time, their partner has been treating them horribly and actually causing emotional trauma. And then people don't believe the victim because they said they were totally happy before.)

So Debbie told her friends about what Nick had said, and they weren't having it. They said it's not okay for him to treat her like that. And she realized they were right.

Well I told you guys I'd let you know when sex was mentioned again, so here's the next bit:

Slowly she began to get it. And she did what she should have done earlier. She used her support network to ground her, and from that position of strength she began to get stronger and more direct with Nick. She returned to her strong stand on the limits of their physical relationship, and she said that it was important that he do some things with her friends, as well as go sailing with her.

See what I mean about how sex isn't treated as a huge, life-ruining sin? It's just like "oh, they were doing it, but now they're not, so everything's getting better." No mention of anybody's purity being permanently lost.

Nick said sorry, he didn't realize she was unhappy about the things he said and did. Things were good for a little bit, but then he went back to treating her the same way. But Debbie had her friends to support her, and with their help she was able to stand up for herself, and finally they broke up.

Sound like a good ending? You bet it is. Debbie was spared much heartache that would have been certain if she had gone forward. Without the support of her friends, her need for a relationship just might have driven her to continue, even into marriage with Nick. Friends gave her several important ingredients that every dating relationship must have in order to be based in reality. Let's look at those ingredients here.

Yes, really. We're just going to declare this an unambiguously happy ending and move on to talking about why friends are important. Nothing about "oh isn't it terrible how she lost her purity, oh if only she had never started the relationship in the first place."

So yeah. Definitely not purity culture, but I'm baffled as to what it is, then.

But anyway, the main point of this chapter is that you need to stay connected to your friends so that if you have a dating partner who's treating you wrong, your friends will be able to help you realize what's happening. And that's really really good advice. Yes.

When people are in love, they tend to see their partner in an idealized way, and ignore problems in the relationship. This isn't necessarily bad- but it's bad when those problems are things that are actually a big deal and actually really unhealthy. We need people who can help us see the reality of the relationship and to deal with it. We need people who can support us and give us the strength to set boundaries and stand up for ourselves- and even break up.

But... hmm. I'm thinking about how good and healthy this all is, in a theoretical sense, but also about how, in my experiences with dating, I haven't really had that. I'm engaged now, and I have dated 2 other guys in the past [you all can do the math on your own, estimating upper and lower bounds for my current purity level based on those stats], but I have never been in a purity-culture-approved relationship. In every dating relationship I've had, I've struggled with guilt over how I wasn't following the purity rules- and I don't mean super-impure things like kissing or having sex, I mean things like dating a non-Christian, texting my boyfriend at night to say I missed him, me being the one to say "so are we boyfriend and girlfriend?" instead of letting the guy "make the first move", choosing to be in the relationship even though God hadn't given me a "yes" despite my many nights of praying, etc. And because of that guilt, it was always hard to be honest with my friends about how the relationship was going. I'm glad I always have had a few people I could talk to. But... it would have been much easier- and I probably would have had much healthier relationships- if purity culture hadn't made me feel like I was the worst sinner and should be ashamed of what I was doing, and therefore I probably shouldn't tell anybody. (And then I also could have been honest with myself about what I wanted- instead of ashamed of even having desires in the first place.)

Purity culture talks about "accountability" a lot- and when I was single, I totally told close female friends about my "struggles" with liking boys, and I had that "accountability." But when I was dating... when you already know you're breaking the rules, you don't really want accountability. Maybe if I hadn't felt so ashamed over things that didn't actually matter, I might have been able to get real, actual, healthy advice from people.

So another thing "Boundaries in Dating" says is that friends help you stay connected to all parts of yourself. In Debbie's case, she was losing touch with her own interests, her spirituality, and even her "full range of emotional responsiveness."

Because she was losing touch with her life, she lost her ability to feel a lot of life's passions and emotions- her anger and her sense of protest had given way to dullness.

I really like that bit. Well, I really like anything that tells us it's good and healthy to experience a "full range" of emotions- because too often, Christians act like it's a sin to experience anger, to not just "forgive" and get over it, etc. But "Boundaries in Dating" seems to be saying that Debbie SHOULD HAVE felt (and expressed) "her anger and her sense of protest" when Nick said mean things to her. Yeah. Don't submit to that crap. Stand up for yourself. This is so unlike any Christianity I ever heard of when I was growing up evangelical.

I also like this part:

The other side of this is that friends notice personality changes, for the better or the worse. How many times have you heard someone say, "Oh, she has grown so much since she started dating _____. He just brings out the best in her." It is a beautiful thing and your friends will be able to see that. And how many times have you heard, "She has changed so much since she started dating _____. She is not herself. I don't even like to be around her anymore." Sometimes a dating relationship can change someone for the worse, too. Relationships have that kind of power when someone does not have good boundaries. It is up to friends to help give you that feedback if it is happening.

And then there's a section about "spiritual values", and, well I told you I'd let you know every time the sex between Debbie and Nick was mentioned, since it's mentioned so few times, so here you go:

If we value things like honesty, purity, compassion, sobriety, kindness, responsibility, and on and on, life will take on a certain shape that has a good end. However, when we begin to let our values slip, our life takes a different direction that does not have a good end. When Debbie began sleeping with Nick, she had lost a value that was very important to her and which also protected her from losing other aspects of herself. The pseudo-intimacy that they were having in sex was blinding her from seeing the lack of real intimacy in the relationship. That is one way that purity protects single people.

For real, you guys, the first time I read that sentence that included "purity" in a list of values, I thought to myself, "I wonder what they mean by 'purity', since in my mind it has always meant 'not having sex' but I don't think these writers hold that view." But then I read the rest of the paragraph and, wow, they DID mean "not having sex."

(And I'll repeat what I said earlier: the language about "losing other aspects of herself" freaks me out. As if sex is some kind of transaction. I don't know of any healthy view of sex that uses language about giving, taking, losing, etc to describe consensual romantic or sexual actions.)

I don't know if the writers would agree with this or not (I'm very unclear about how/why they believe premarital sex is a sin) but this paragraph shows that the sex was not unhealthy in and of itself. Purity (which purity culture defines as a lack of experience) is not an intrinsically good thing. There's no point in not doing stuff solely for the sake of not doing stuff. Yes, abstinence can be a very good thing. But it's good because the relationship isn't emotionally deep enough yet. Or it's good because you're not comfortable with the risks that come with sex. It's a means to an end- it's not intrinsically better or more moral than other choices. And I don't know if the writers realize this or not, but the way they wrote this paragraph, they are saying "purity" is a means to an end, not simply a good thing by itself. They say "purity" can "protect single people" by enabling them to clearly see the level of emotional closeness that exists in a relationship, so they don't fool themselves into thinking the relationship has such a deep connection just because they're having sex. So really, the important thing is the ability to honestly look at where the relationship is. Not having sex can be a tool to help you do that. But if this- or any of the other reasons that abstinence can be a good choice- isn't applicable to your situation, then there's nothing wrong with having sex. (That's my view- probably the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" disagree. But again, I don't understand how.)

Next, the book talks about how, when you're in a relationship, you should still have your own life separate from your partner. It's not healthy to spend all your time with them and lose your connection with your friends and your own interests. And, if you grew up in purity culture, better be sitting down when you read this next part, because WOW:

This is where dating other people can be very helpful. Especially in the early stages of the relationship, it is usually important to stay open to other people. That keeps you from getting caught up in some idealized fusion with someone and can keep you objective. You will notice that other people are different, for good or bad. And that comparison is helpful. It also reinforces to you that there are other fish in the sea and you won't feel like you "have to" land this particular one or you will be hopelessly alone. Keep your phone line open until you are sure who you are dealing with and that you really want to cut yourself off from other dating relationships.

Oh my goodness, every single thing about this is so completely opposite purity culture, it's hard to know where to even begin.

First of all, as I've said in previous posts, the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" define "dating" in this way: You casually go out with a lot of different people, no commitment, until you decide to be exclusive with one person. I've heard of this definition before- seems like it was common for my parents' generation?- but I don't think I've ever seen how it works in real life. When you're a student, you naturally have opportunities to make friends and find potential romantic partners without putting in a lot of effort, without needing to ask someone on an official date. But as an adult, I guess dating would normally work the way they're assuming here- you go on dates with people you don't know that well, just to try, no commitment, and then if you like them, you can decide to be in an actual relationship.

Of course, purity culture would be horrified at this. Actually taking initiative and making an actual decision to go on a date with someone, when you're not committed to them at all? Oh dear goodness, how will your future spouse feel? If it's just someone you happen to interact with a lot, and then the relationship "just happens", then that's understandable. But if you actually made a deliberate effort to go on a date with someone you don't even know if you'd want to be boyfriend/girlfriend with- wow. Wow. Pretty reckless.

(I remember back in college, people would talk about "is it okay for Christians to do online dating?" Many of us thought it wasn't okay, because we're supposed to just wait for God to "bring us together", and taking initiative to get involved in online dating means you don't trust God.)

Additionally, the paragraph I quoted above says it's good to date different people so that you can compare them. Wow. WOW. You guys, one of the MOST IMPORTANT goals of purity culture is making sure you never ever ever have the opportunity to compare your spouse to an ex. This is one of the reasons why it's bad to have sex with someone you don't marry- because then what if you get married to someone else, and whenever you have sex with your spouse, you end up thinking about the ex? What if your spouse isn't as good in bed as your ex was? What if you can't force yourself to believe that your spouse is the hottest person in the world? According to purity logic, this is an insurmountable problem. There's no way to address it, if it happens- all we can do is make sure everybody only ever has sex with 1 partner, so this terrible unsolvable problem of comparison never arises. (This is also why masturbating is a sin- because what if your spouse isn't as good at sex as you are just masturbating yourself? That would definitely be a hopeless and unsolvable situation, better just never masturbate, just to be safe.)

And it's not just about sex- really anything related to dating might leave you with memories that come up again in the future when you're married. And oh, wouldn't that be horrible, if you ever had a fleeting thought comparing your spouse to an ex.

So when "Boundaries in Dating" says it's good to date several people because then you can compare them and you won't end up with an awful partner because you thought there were no other options- wow. I... wow. That actually sounds like a really good idea. Mind-blowing though. Completely mind-blowing.

Also, this part: "It also reinforces to you that there are other fish in the sea and you won't feel like you 'have to' land this particular one or you will be hopelessly alone." In purity culture, you have to be super-committed from the beginning. Other bloggers have written about how starting a courtship is basically like getting engaged. When I was in purity culture, I didn't use the term "courtship" but I did see a first date as a bigger decision than getting engaged. When you start the relationship, you DO "feel like you 'have to' land this particular one or you will be hopelessly alone." Every dating relationship you have before before marriage reduces your purity- you NEED to keep the number as low as possible. If you don't marry your current partner, if you break up, you'll have to start all over, but you'll have more experience, so you'll be less pure, less worthy of finding a good partner.

In reality (not purity land), there's nothing wrong with having a big or small number of exes. And getting out of a bad relationship can be a very very GOOD thing that leaves you much BETTER OFF. And experience is not intrinsically bad- actually, why would it be bad at all?

And the last bit of this chapter is subtitled "Safe Dating", which means you have to stay connected with your friends in order to have "safe" relationships- you'll have people to support you, who can tell you if something seems wrong. Again, so not how purity culture uses the term "safe." In purity land, "safe" means you're guarding your heart and you're keeping very very strict physical limits. "Safe" means you're not losing physical or emotional purity. But no teaching from purity culture on what a healthy relationship actually looks like.

Anyway, there are 2 main things to learn from this chapter: First, it's possible for a partner to be "nice", attractive, and fun and also be treating you wrong. And it's not your fault if it takes you a while to notice. It's definitely NOT OKAY for them to disrespect you like that- you have the right to stand up to them, to say no, to protect yourself, to break up with them. And second, it's really really important to have friends you can talk to about the relationship. They can help you realize when something is wrong- because it's hard to realize it on your own when you're in love.

-------------------

A blog series reviewing the book Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships (introduction post is here)

Previous post: Too Fast

Next post: Know when to give up hope

Blogaround

Image description: That scene from "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" where Rey, Finn, and BB-8 are running from the explosion, except it's been photoshopped so Hillary Clinton is Rey, Obama is Finn, Tim Kaine is BB-8, and Trump is the explosion. This is the best thing ever. Image source.

1. I've never donated to politicians before, but I decided to donate to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Because Trump is a hateful, racist, misogynist jerk who's constantly finding innovative new ways to hate people. He's a threat to the very concept of freedom and democracy. We gotta stop him. (And yes I also believe Clinton is qualified and I agree with a lot of her positions and she will be a great president- if it was Clinton vs an average Republican, Clinton would have my vote. But because it's Clinton vs Trump, she has my vote and my money.)

2. ‘Vote for the crook. It’s important.’ (posted August 3) "So Pennsylvania Democrats did the only thing they could do: They put up billboards and bought radio advertisements urging Democrats to vote for Richard Schulze. The Democratic Party in Pennsylvania endorsed and campaigned for the Republican candidate because their nomination process had been hijacked and supporting the opposition’s nominee was the only way to keep that hijacker out of the party’s congressional delegation."

3. On Being Right vs. Being Loved (posted August 4) "Purity culture required perfectionism. You were supposed to get it right the first time and every time. And that is the most absurd value of all."

4. South Florida therapist sues officer who shot him even though he was unarmed, says civil rights were violated (posted August 4) "All officers, including Officer Aledda, were close enough in proximity to hear Mr. Kinsey's statements, and one officer even announced over the police radio, 'It's a toy truck. He's saying it's a toy truck.'"

5. I'm feeling some Christian-music nostalgia for the song "Secret Ambition" by Michael W. Smith. [content note: the video has a crucifixion scene appear for one second at 2:30, and then gets really gory starting at about the 3-minute mark]


6. Wayne Grudem and the evangelical double-standard of sin (posted August 5) "On the one hand, evangelicals believe human sin is so profoundly wicked that it deserves eternal torture as punishment. On the other hand, if you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and savior, no sin is grave enough to disqualify you from entering heaven."

7. Joshua Harris, I Want My Teens Back (posted August 3) "Instead, they started learning how to date in their mid-twenties, when marriage was a real possibility — and the stakes were infinitely higher. Now, mistakes that were simply the result of inexperience, ones that would have been understandable in high school — like not calling when you said you were going to — were interpreted as character flaws, red flags, dealbreakers."

8. It Was Only a Kiss (posted August 6) "I now know I’m not the only young women who felt obligated to marry someone for such silly, simple reasons."

9. In other news, Chinese Olympic swimmer Ning Zetao 宁泽涛 has been causing me to stumble.

Magazine cover featuring Ning Zetao.

Ning Zetao 宁泽涛 in his swimsuit. More images here.

10. I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton. And also: George W. Bush administration official announces support for Clinton over Trump. Also this: Trump's Mormon Problem

11. Rio 2016: The Refugee Olympic Team doesn’t need your cheers. They need countries to fix their crisis. (posted August 5) "This is the first time refugees have had an Olympic team. Arguably, it’s the first time they’ve needed one."

12. Tales from the Dark Side (posted August 7) "The Bible mentions a word that our English translations present as Hell. We read that word not just in translation, but filtered through centuries of agglomerated lore and legend and sheer Barnum-esque razzle-dazzle."

13. Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think (posted August 9) "In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism."

Also: Trump’s Wink Wink to ‘Second Amendment People’ (posted August 9) "And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin got assassinated."

14. Baltimore Police Used Force 2,818 Times In Six Years. They Found One Violation. (posted August 9) "The Justice Department report, to be formally released on Wednesday, confirms what some Baltimore residents already know ― that Baltimore police routinely and disproportionately stop, frisk and arrest poor black residents without legal justification."

15. Response to Julia Serano: Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation (posted August 9) This is a video where a detransitioned woman talks about her experience.

16. When God Reveals You Prefer Whiteness: A Response to Gaye Clark (posted August 10) "What does it tells us when our daughters come home accompanied by black people and it requires a re-examination of what we believe God?"

Prayer Rates Don't Correlate With Actual Risk

Image text: "Pikachu's ketchup broke. 1 like 1 prayer." Poor Pikachu. Image source.

I'm kind of afraid of flying. I know the statistics, I've heard how it's "the safest way to travel" and I'm a math person so I believe that and I buy plane tickets and fly domestic and internationally several times a year. (See this article and this one for some information- basically when you get on a plane, the odds of dying in a crash are around 1 in several million.)

But I still worry about it, whenever I'm on a plane. I bring books and force myself to concentrate on reading so that I don't think about the fact that I'm scared of flying. I take a lot of deep breaths and try to think about all the happy things in my life, instead of imagining the plane suddenly falling out of the sky. And sometimes I even pray. Yeah I don't normally pray, but when I'm on a plane, sometimes I'm scared enough that I do.

But logically, it doesn't make sense to pray for safety when I'm on a plane and not pray for safety when I'm in a car. Riding in a car is much more dangerous than flying (this article says you have a 1 in 98 chance of dying in a car accident at some point in your life, and a 1 in 7,178 chance of dying in "air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights)" in your lifetime.)

If we believe prayer actually has an effect on the real world- an effect outside of psychological benefits, I mean, an effect that occurs because my prayer activates some external force that can influence situations that I'm not involved in at all- then shouldn't we figure out which things are the most dangerous, and pray about those? Let's see, let's go find some statistics on the biggest causes of death in the United States. Here's an article from 2015 called The top 10 leading causes of death in the US:

1. Heart disease: 23.53% of deaths
2. Cancer: 22.52%
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease: 5.74%
4. Accidents: 5.02%
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 4.97%
6. Alzheimer's disease: 3.26%
7. Diabetes: 2.91%
8. Influenza and pneumonia: 2.19%
9. Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis): 1.81%
10. Suicide: 1.58%

So really, if we believe that prayer actually changes things external to ourselves, we should adopt the following strategy to maximize the impact of our prayers: Spend 23.53% of our prayer time on heart disease, 22.52% on cancer, 5.74% on chronic lower respiratory disease, etc. Or, perhaps, rather than using statistics about all Americans, you might want to just focus on certain demographics. For example, if you are a teenager and you want to maximize your prayers' effect on the safety of you and your friends specifically, maybe you want to pray against the biggest risk factors for teenagers' deaths. In that case, you should spend 48% of your prayer time asking God to prevent fatal accidents, 13% for homicide, 11% for suicide, 6% for cancer, and 3% for heart disease. (And maybe prayer is more effective when it's for a person you're close to, so this strategy of praying against the biggest risk factors for the demographics best represented among your loved ones may be the optimal way to go about it.)

Or, perhaps, you want to pray against other things besides death, maybe other negative things that are more likely to happen- things that, realistically, pose more of a risk in your day-to-day life. Okay, go find statistics on those, and maybe multiply each risk rate by some weighting factor according to how much it would screw up your life if it happened.

(OR MAYBE flying is the safest way to travel BECAUSE a lot of people are nervous about it and therefore it gets a disproportionately high amount of prayer, and therefore God makes it safer than other less-prayed-for modes of transportation. If this is the case, then really we need to establish some kind of feedback system for our prayers- we should expect that, if we can get enough people to focus their prayer power on one thing, then we should see a real-world response in the statistics about the danger of that thing. At that point, we should re-evaluate our strategy and re-direct that prayer power at whatever the new biggest danger is. And no, I don't believe this at all.)

If we believed that prayer actually makes a difference in the world, and sheer numbers of prayers translate into a bigger impact, this would be the way to best use that power. [I think? Any other math nerds out there with a different strategy? Show me the math and we can discuss it.]

But that's not what Christians do. At church, they share their prayer requests with each other, and those prayer requests relate to their current problems or worries, rather than the things that, from a statistical point of view, have the biggest potential to screw up their lives. They pray for God to give them safe travels on their vacations- but did you know that 69% of car accidents happen within 10 miles of a person's home? Have you ever heard anyone share this prayer request at church: "Please keep us safe all this week while we go about our usual, mundane errands, driving from place to place"? And really, if you were praying for that, I would be concerned for your mental health. (And I'm saying this as someone who has a lot of trouble with anxiety- I'm not using "mental health" as some kind of insult, like people commonly do.) If you're regularly thinking about the fact that you're not safe from car accidents as you go around to all the places you normally go to, well, dang. I really hope you can relax and not think about that. I really hope you can feel safe. I really hope you feel so safe that it never even occurs to you to pray about it.

And I really hope the God that exists isn't one who would use that feeling of safety and lack of prayer as an excuse to let bad things happen to you. I really hope the God that exists isn't one who only protects people overrun with anxiety, people who constantly imagine all the bad things that could happen and pre-emptively pray against them. I really hope living in a constant state of panicky desperate prayer is not the key to lowering your odds of dying a violent death. I really hope that God doesn't take mental health as a sign of sinful pride, like you're defiantly insisting that you don't need God every second of every day- and God's going to make you suffer in order to teach you a lesson.

People pray that God would keep us safe from terrorism. Have you ever heard anyone pray that God would keep us safe from falling in the bathtub? (This article says that 13,000 Americans died from falls in the year 2000- not sure how many of those fell in their bathtub.) Then again, here's an article that makes a case that it's not really fair to compare the number of deaths from terrorism and the number of bathtub deaths [the article is specifically about government spending], because a single terrorist attack with a "small" number of deaths can have a huge, society-wide impact. Okay, maybe you agree with that writer and you want to factor that into your prayer rate calculation.

People don't pray for the things that actually pose the greatest risk to themselves. They pray for the things that they're currently worried about.

But. I very much OPPOSE adopting this calculate-the-risks-and-pray-proportionately strategy I'm presenting here. Oh dear goodness, can you imagine the anxiety that would cause? In my normal life, I never think about things like heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, etc- but what if I made myself think about them every day, so I could pray against those things? What if I made sure I was always aware of death rates from various causes, so that I could pray in the most efficient way? What if, every time I got in a car, I reminded myself that I have a greater chance of death from a car accident than a plane crash, and, logically, I should pray for my own safety now at a rate that's a thousand times higher than the rate I pray on an airplane? What if I continually imagined terrible things that could happen, and estimated probabilities for them, so that maybe my prayers could keep them from coming true?

HOLY CRAP that sounds like a TERRIBLE way to live.

And even if you're not a huge math nerd like me, even if you don't look up all these statistics and calculate weighted assessments of risk- even if you don't think about the math, the fact remains that if prayer has an effect on the real world external to yourself, then if something bad happened, and you didn't pre-emptively pray that it wouldn't happen, then it's sort of your fault. Or, not exactly your fault, but that you could have done more to prevent it, and in the future you should do more.

Wow, oh my goodness, wow. DO NOT try this at home. I wouldn't wish that kind of guilt and anxiety on anyone.

One way to get around this problem is to just pray very vague, generic prayers, which don't conjure up horrific scenes of death. Just pray "God, keep everyone safe" or something like that. But, is a general prayer less effective than a specific prayer? Would "God, keep everyone safe" do more than "God, keep everyone safe from fatal car accidents"? Hmmmmmm that doesn't really seem fair, seems like it's too easy. Maybe the power of a single prayer gets spread out over all the affected people. In that case, maybe you can still equal the prayer-power of the imagine-specific-awful-tragedies strategy while avoiding the anxiety, by praying "God, keep everyone safe" over and over and over again, until you've done it enough times that it equals the prayer-power you would have produced if you'd prayed for specific problems one time each.

But damn, imagine the anxiety from THAT. You'd be all like "every day I have to pray 'God, keep everyone safe' 150 times." Then you'd think "but wait, maybe I should do more, maybe every spare second I have, I should repeat that prayer." The more you do, the more you save the world. It never ends- if you're a good godly person who really wants God to keep everyone safe, there is no logical reason to ever stop repeating that prayer. OH DEAR GOD, that sounds like a horrible way to live, that sounds like a mountain of guilt. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

At this point, I know that good Christian readers probably have some objections with the way I'm quantifying the power of prayer. Let's try to answer some of those:

Objection 1: "No, the real-world impact of prayer is not based on just the number of times you pray! It's based on your emotions/ if you really mean it. It's based on how close of a relationship you have with God."

Okay, if it's based on "really meaning it", then add that to the heap of anxiety involved in this prayer scheme. Not only do you have to pray "God, keep everyone safe" 150 times per day, but you also have to manufacture certain emotions while you do it. Yeah that sounds healthy. (Or, if we go with the initial prayer scheme I proposed, not only do you have to spend 23.53% of your prayer time on heart disease, you also have to feel some deep sadness over the existence of heart disease and how so many people die from it, or else God doesn't "count" your prayer. Then move on to being deeply emotionally moved about the tragedy of cancer. Etc.)

Or, if it's based on the "closeness" of your relationship with God, okay fine, so each person would have a scale factor for that, just multiply their prayer power by the scale factor. The rest of the math remains the same. Still just as anxiety-producing and unhealthy.

Basically if you believe that prayer does cause real changes external to ourselves, but that my mathematical model is invalid because the amount of real-world impact is based on some other factor I haven't included, then okay fine, just add that other factor to the model. You haven't really done anything to answer my point that it would be incredibly unhealthy to live this way.

Objection 2: "No, our prayers aren't causing things to happen- things only happen if it's God's will. If you pray for something outside of God's will, then it won't happen- there's no 'rate of effectiveness' calculation to make."

Yeah, I actually think this view of prayer makes a lot more sense. It would be really bizarre if God's work in the world was controlled by a popular vote. (God is not "American Idol.") That would mean that God works harder on issues that are generally believed to be big, important problems- regardless of what the real problems are. Should God work harder to free someone who's imprisoned unjustly and gets a lot of news coverage than someone who's imprisoned unjustly but the world never hears about it? (And the team with the most religious fans would win the Superbowl.)

[Or, perhaps we could still hold the "prayer has an effect on the world" belief, but also add a scale factor for morality. Prayers for something that would have a massive positive impact on humanity are more effective. Prayers for something morally iffy might get multiplied by 0.]

But if you take the "God's will" view of prayer, then that means you DON'T believe that prayer has a real-world impact external to yourself. So don't go around saying "prayer is powerful" because nope, that's not what this view says. It says that God is already planning to do or not do certain things, and if you pray for the ones that God was going to do anyway, then good for you, your prayer came true! It should be pretty obvious that in this line of reasoning, the prayer itself did absolutely nothing in terms of causing that thing to happen.

I guess the idea here is that if you have a really close relationship with God, God will give you advanced insider knowledge on what God is going to do, and then you can pray for those things and feel really proud of yourself when they happen.

I guess I don't really have a problem with that interpretation, I just think it's kind of weak. So what's the point of praying, then? But, if you're the kind of person who struggles with guilt and anxiety, it would be MUCH BETTER for you to believe the "God's will" view rather than the "prayer is powerful" view.

However, I do have a problem with how Christians take the "God's will" view when someone asks very tough philosophical questions about how prayer works, but they take the "prayer is powerful" view when it comes to practical application. They're all like "does anyone have any prayer requests?" and they hope to get a lot of answers, they hope that everyone will share some kind of problem so that their Christian brothers, sisters, and siblings can pray for them. They don't ask people to only share things that, after careful listening to God, they have good reason to believe are in "God's will." In fact, if you refuse to give any prayer requests, Christians will judge you- maybe you're too proud and you think you don't need prayer. Or maybe you're not connected enough to the body of Christ and you're not willing to "be vulnerable" and talk about your problems. They never think maybe you're prudently refraining from claiming you know God's will.

Personally, I don't believe prayer has effects in the real world external to the person who prays. I think there can be a lot of psychological benefits- if praying on an airplane helps you feel safer, then that's great. (Conversely, if praying based on the actual statistical danger posed by various things makes you feel all kinds of anxious, then for the love of God, STOP PRAYING!) Also, it's a way that people can show that they care about each other. "I'm praying for you" can be a way that people express love. (And it can also be a way to say "you clearly don't know what's good for you, I hope God convinces you that I'm right." Ugh.)

As for the question of communicating with God and being close to God, I'm not sure about that. It doesn't really make sense to me- seems like that would mean religious people have an advantage that non-religious people don't, and I don't believe in a God who would discriminate like that.

The things we pray for are the things we're worried about, not the things that can actually hurt us the most. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing- if we're honest about the fact that the power of prayer is psychological, rather than God influencing situations the pray-er isn't involved in.

Boundaries in Dating: Too Fast

A scene from the movie "Cars." Lightning McQueen is racing. Image source.

Chapter 11 of Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships is called "Too Much, Too Fast." It warns us not to go "too fast" in a dating relationship, but this book's understanding of "too fast" is very different from purity culture's.

When I was in purity culture, here is how I understood dating should work: If I have a crush, then I pray about it. And pray about it more. And pray about it a lot. I must never "act on" my feelings until God gives the signal- and "act on" includes any tiny little action that's motivated by my interest in this person- like daydreaming or talking to them for longer than I would talk to other friends. I had to "trust God", that's why I couldn't "act on" it without God's permission. I assumed the guy would have to be the one doing the actual asking-out, but there were things girls could do, like hinting and trying to show they're interested- and I must not do any of that without God's permission. (Later I changed my mind on the whole "the guy has to make the first move" thing.) Then, finally, if God gave us the go-ahead, we could start dating. But the decision to start dating was a super huge big deal. If we break up, we will have lost that purity forever. You shouldn't get in a relationship unless you're pretty sure you probably want to marry this person.

Then you date for a while- and I heard somewhere that you should date for 2 years before getting engaged, so that's what I assumed was right. (I don't know of any official purity-culture rule about this though.) The time from the first date to the proposal is the dangerous time- this is the period of time where you don't know if you're going to break up or not. I figured the best strategy would be to try not to talk about any big issues that might cause conflict until you were safely engaged or married. (OHHHHHHHH MY.) Also, because there is the possibility of breaking up, you need to guard your heart. That means try not to have deep feelings about your partner. Try not to care so much about the relationship- so if you break up, you won't be too sad. But mainly you should always worry about whether you're "too emotionally attached."

And as for the physical part, that should go as slow as possible. I believed that every step in the physical part of the relationship would make you want more and more. It was a slippery slope. First you hold hands, and then holding hands isn't enough, you want to side hug. Then side-hugging isn't enough for you, you want to hug like normal people. Like an addiction. Every new type of physical contact would soon get boring and you'd want to keep going farther and farther- and the highest level was sex. So, as much as you're able, progress from one type of physical contact to another as slowly as possible.

So in purity culture, "going slow" meant not being too close physically or emotionally until you're really really committed. We will see that this is almost the opposite of how the "Boundaries in Dating" writers use the term "going slow." Here are a few excerpts from "Boundaries in Dating", to give you a general idea:

The problem of premature commitment and overinvolvement in a dating relationship is a common one. Two people find that they have strong feelings for each other. In a short period of time, they begin investing enormous amounts of time in the relationship. They suspend or neglect other people, interests, and activities. They quickly start dating exclusively. They feel intense passion for each other, and miss each other deeply when they are apart. They may marry soon thereafter, or they may break up, only to repeat the fast pace with someone else.

...

Or some couples will take the requisite year or two to date, but will have a problem in "frontloading" the relationship: they become deeply committed very soon in the game, and never go through a process of gradually becoming closer over time.

...

Here are some ways of determining if you are committing too quickly:

• You "know" each other emotionally more than you "know" each other objectively.
• You find yourself more invested in the relationship than in areas of your life that are important to you.
• You abruptly stop dating others.
• You get feedback from friends that this seems to be going quickly.

In purity culture, moving "too fast" is a concern for the physical and emotional aspects of the relationship. In "Boundaries in Dating", it's about the emotional part, spending too much time and neglecting other things in your life, and being too committed. Going "too fast" in a physical or sexual sense isn't really mentioned at all. (Well, kind of? Tangentally? We'll get to that.) It's shocking to me that the "Boundaries in Dating" writers don't warn about the dangers of too much skin-to-skin contact, when that's pretty much THE ENTIRE CONCEPT of "going too fast" in purity land. Instead, they keep coming back to the idea of being very committed very fast.

In other words: "Boundaries in Dating" warns that it's bad to be super-committed to someone before you've taken the time to really get to know them. Purity culture warns that it's bad to take the time to really get to know someone before you're super-committed to them.

Completely opposite understandings of "too fast."

And okay, here's the part about sex:

Why Wait?

Youth specialist Josh McDowell asked that question to millions of teens about saving sex for marriage. The same question applies to the issue of pacing how quickly to get involved in your dating relationship: why should you wait, take time, and become closer in a gradual manner, to a person to whom you are enormously attracted?

Wait, what? No no no no no no, what the "Boundaries in Dating" writers are presenting in this chapter is OPPOSITE the whole "wait til marriage to have sex" thing. They are advising people to take a lot of time to get to know each other before making a big commitment and getting married. The abstinence movement says you can't have sex until you make that commitment and get married. In other words, we have one ideology saying "you should go slow, wait longer, make sure you're pacing the relationship and taking the time to make a good decision about marriage" and the other saying "you should get married faster so you don't have to struggle with the temptation of premarital sex." (And purity-culture advocates would ALWAYS deny that they're saying people should rush into marriage, but when you teach that premarital sex is The Worst Thing Ever and will Ruin Your Life and don't really say much about how it's bad to end up married to someone who's not right for you, then YES, you are teaching that people should rush into marriage.)

So it's really bizarre to me that "Boundaries in Dating" is basically saying "what we're talking about here, about not going too fast, not being committed too fast, is similar to the concept of waiting til marriage to have sex" because NO IT IS NOT. It is a force pushing in the exact opposite direction. Let me ask you this: Is it better to err on the side of rushing into marriage, or having unmarried sex and taking the time to make sure you're really really sure you want to marry this person? The way that a Christian of the "premarital sex is a sin" persuasion answers this question will tell you a lot. And I suspect the writers of this book would answer it differently than the loudest purity-culture promoters would.

And also, this:

First we have to understand the nature of relationships as God designed them. This applies not only to dating, but families and friendships. Relationships grow in a healthy manner only as they undergo experiences, and there is no shortcut to experiences. In other words, we only "know" each other to the extent that we have experience with each other. We can know facts about the person we are dating: their friends, job, hobbies, and so forth. But that doesn't mean we "know" them as a person. That kind of "knowing" cannot come from reading a file on someone. For example, when Adam "knew" Eve (Genesis 4:1, in King James language), he was knowing her in experience, in the deep intimacy that comes in healthy sexuality.

Wait, WHAT?

I was totally on board with this whole thing, nodding along at how healthy it all is, until the "Adam 'knew' Eve" bit. Like, what? The whole point of this section is that there's no "shortcut" to "knowing" someone... so ... just following what I think their logic would be ... for example, having sex with someone doesn't mean you actually know them, and isn't that just an awful euphemism? So I just, like, WHAT? They're claiming that the King James' use of the term "know" as a euphemism for sex somehow illustrates their point that you really have to spend a ton of time with a partner to truly know them?

Ugh, yeah, so I don't know wtf is going on with that paragraph, but the next part is really really good so I'll type it up:

Here are some examples of necessary time-consuming dating activities on the road to becoming committed to someone:

• Having enough talks to safely open up with each other
• Entering each other's worlds of work, hobbies, worship, and service
• Meeting and spending time with each other's friends
• Understanding each other's strengths and weaknesses
• Going over basic values of what is important in life to each other
• Getting to know each other's families
• Spending time away from each other to think through the relationship, alone and with friends
• Learning your best style of disagreement and conflict management

Yes. Yes. All of this. (And notice that "pray" is not on the list. No mention of spending significant amounts of time trying to figure out if God wants you to marry this person or not. Or, at least not in a way that involves asking God directly.)

And here's another story that serves to illustrate very well that the authors' concept of "going too fast" is completely opposite purity culture's. The book mentions that sometimes relationships that go "too fast" can be successful, but the reason for success is definitely NOT the fact that they went so "fast":

For example, my Aunt Jonnie and Uncle Walton have been married over fifty years. I have seen his framed proposal of marriage to her. He wrote it to her when they were both in kindergarten! I guess they both knew each other was "The One" pretty early on in life. But I don't think they would attribute their successful marriage to how early they committed. Knowing and observing them all my life, I think they would instead talk about love, the right values, their faith, and being able to go through good times and bad together.

So I read this and I was like "......... wait.... this seems to me like an example of going incredibly slow." They had known each other since they were children, and even talked about marriage in kindergarten- I mean obviously that's not really serious, it's not like it counts as actually being engaged when kindergarteners announce they're getting married- but still, they had always been interested in each other, and then as adults they finally got married... you guys, this sounds like the SLOWEST, most likely to be purity-culture-approved romance there could be. And yet "Boundaries in Dating" presents it as an example of a couple who did NOT follow the "not too fast" principle, who was super-committed really early, but DESPITE that, it all worked out, but it worked out because of their character and love, not because they committed so early.

Wow. I don't even know what to say about that. Other than, yeah, if you didn't notice before, the authors of "Boundaries in Dating" DEFINITELY think being super-committed really early is not ideal.

Then there's a section called "Why We Don't Wait." The first reason is loneliness, and that's pretty much been covered in previous chapters, so we'll move on. The next reason is "difficulty in leaving home" and WOW YOU GUYS, this one was mind-blowing to me.

Sometimes a couple seems to "couple" very quickly because they have not finished the task of emotionally leaving home. They are unable to navigate single life and find that it is not working well for them. Thus, they are opting more for the marriage state than they are for the person.

One of the descriptors of an adult is a person who has effectively left home. It has to do with moving out of dependency on one's family, and becoming autonomous and responsible for oneself. Everyone needs a transition period in early adulthood in which they gradually take what they have gleaned from home and create a life for themselves away from home. This is why the college and early twenties years are so important: they provide a context to learn how to live life on one's own.

In other words, these writers believe that normally, the way it's supposed to work, is that people grow up and move out of their parents' home and live single and independent for a bit, and then eventually get married.

Wow. I thought "the way it's supposed to work" was the exact opposite. I thought the ideal scenario is that you get married immediately after college, so you never have to live alone.

I believed that because my parents got married right out of college, so I thought that was what everyone does. As for purity culture, yeah it definitely puts pressure on kids to marry as soon as possible, so getting married at 22ish is seen as totally normal. However, the flavor of purity culture I followed was very big on "God will bring your spouse into your life at the right time, who knows when it could be, you could be, like, 50. You have no choice, you just have to wait, God has planned for you to never experience romance until then." It was very important to me to live a happy, single life, devoted to God, not like I had to just "wait" and do nothing, as if my life couldn't start til I got married.

I guess these are 2 competing ideas within purity culture, though I never realized it. (At the extreme, you have the "stay-at-home daughter movement", which says women shouldn't go to college or get jobs, they should just do cooking and childcare at their parents' house until it's time to switch over to cooking and childcare at their husband's house. But I never heard about this in any churches or Christian groups I was part of as a good evangelical.) At any rate, I really did believe the best-case scenario was getting married immediately after college, never living alone. Sometimes "God's plan" was something other than that, but ideally that's how it should work.

And I remember as a little kid, wondering if I'd be married immediately upon reaching adulthood, or if I'd have to live alone. My main concern was, what if there's a spider in my house? I really need to get married so I'll have someone to kill the spiders for me. For real you guys, when I moved to China by myself, the #1 reason I wanted to get a cat was so the cat would protect my home from scary bugs. Turns out I don't need a husband, I just need a cat.

Anyway, back to "Boundaries in Dating." It's ASTONISHING to me that these writers believe it's good and normal to NOT be married straight out of college, that spending a few years single is an important phase of life that people go through. I always thought being a single adult- even when you're still in your twenties- is a kind of "plan B."

The book doesn't necessarily say that it's always bad to get married without having that "single adult" stage of life. In my opinion, it's totally fine to get married "young" if you happen to meet a really good partner. The unhealthy part is when people feel like they NEED to get married. If you choose to get married young not because you've found a really great partner but because you can't imagine living life as a single person, THAT'S A PROBLEM. (And also, all of this advice only applies to cultures similar to the US. In China there are very different norms about adults living with their parents and the extent to which parents and their adult children are dependent on each other.)

The rest of the chapter is pretty much other stuff that's been covered before, like how one's inability to sustain friendships is a really bad reason to date. And then there's some advice about about how you should "slow the pace" and evaluate things if you realize your current dating relationship is going too fast. Yes. Good advice. Do that.

So. Overall, this chapter was surprising to me because they warn about a relationship going "too fast", but their concept of "too fast" is almost exactly opposite purity culture's concept of "too fast." And also, the stuff about "leaving home"- the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" believe it's healthy and normal to spend a period of time in early adulthood living single and independent. In purity land, at worst that means there's something terribly wrong with you, at best it's a back-up plan.

-------------------

A blog series reviewing the book Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships (introduction post is here)

Previous post: Don't submit too much

Next post: He was nice

Blogaround

Two fluffy golden retrievers (a big one and a small one) lounging on a rug. Image source.

1. Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All (posted July 25) "Schwartz says of Trump, 'He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it.' Since most people are 'constrained by the truth,' Trump’s indifference to it 'gave him a strange advantage.'"

2. Police, yet again, refuse first aid for man they shot for no reason (posted July 21) "All you right-wing Christians rushing to cite Romans 13 need to go re-read every time St. Paul invoked his status as a Roman citizen as a shield against the very kind of groveling flattery you insist that black Americans display lest they be to blame for their own fatal shooting. Paul assumed that decadent, pagan Roman emperors had a higher regard for the rule of law than you think police officers with badges should ever be required to have."

3. It’s Time to Say “Abortion” When We’re Talking About Abortion (posted June 29) "Every time democrats and progressive organizations avoid the A-word, they are following rules from an anti-choice playbook. It is far past time for this to end."

4. At the GOP Convention, the Media Went AWOL (posted July 25) "None of this is normal, and certainly not Trump himself. And yet, as I switched from channel to channel, I didn’t hear anyone say, 'However you feel about Trump, this is just plain crazy.'"

5. Ken Ham Isn’t a Big Bad Ogre: Why I Feel Bad About Ark Encounter (posted July 22)

6. Ghazala Khan: Trump criticized my silence. He knows nothing about true sacrifice. (posted July 31) "Donald Trump said he has made a lot of sacrifices. He doesn’t know what the word sacrifice means."

7. Why We Need To Stop Divorce-Shaming Conservatives (And Everyone Else, Too) (posted July 31) "When we drag someone’s divorce into a political MEME, when we make it the butt of a joke, we’re mocking one of the most painful moments of their life. I don’t know how anyone with an ounce of empathy could think it’s okay to mock something so painful and personal."

8. Don't appreciate the significance of Hillary Clinton's nomination? Too bad. This moment doesn't belong to you. (posted July 29)

9. World Reacts to Korryn Gaines' Death at Hands of Police (posted August 2) "Racism is when we ask why she had a gun before wondering why they need a swat team to enforce parking violations #KorrynGaines"

See also: 11 times police successfully disarmed white people without killing anyone

10. Pixar Theory: Cars Are Alive? (posted August 2) "My point is, in 'Cars 2', they are definitely making a nod to this tradition, but they are only successfully doing it if her name is also a double entendre. And they're getting away with it because we, the audience, don't know what would be considered an innuendo for cars. But apparently it has something to do with shifting. Man this is a weird video."

11. why a "Christian testimony" and code-switching don't mix (posted August 3) "If we act one way around our family, another in our church, another while we’re at Wal-Mart, and yet another when we’re on the job, what are we even doing? How can you possibly hope to be “the only Jesus people will ever meet” if you’re not being a shining example of Christian living 100% of the time?"

Purity Baggage

A woman drags around luggage at an airport. Image source.

Purity culture all comes down to this one premise: The less experience you have with anything romantic or sexual, the greater your potential to be a good spouse. They said that having exes and break-ups in your past is "baggage", and that "baggage" will haunt you forever. They said you can never really get over it. Your marriage will suffer, your spouse will be hurt over and over by the knowledge that they don't own all your romantic/sexual experiences.

All the rules- abstinence, not kissing, worry over whether it's okay to hold hands, emotional purity, guarding your heart- it's all about avoiding "baggage." If you never experience the heartbreak of a failed romance, then you won't have anything to be sad about, and your future marriage will be GREAT. That's what they said, anyway.

Baggage. Let me tell you about baggage.

Long long ago, when I was dating my first boyfriend, there was one night where we were sitting on the couch together, and he leaned over to kiss me on the cheek. I dodged it, suddenly fully alert and horrified at what had almost just happened. He had almost STOLEN my first kiss. Oh wow. My first kiss- I only have one, and it's so incredibly valuable, and HOLY CRAP I almost just lost it, oh dear goodness, what would my future husband think?

My boyfriend felt terrible and apologized so many times, but I don't know if he really understood or not. He didn't have a background in purity culture. He probably wasn't aware that I believed every moment of physical or emotional closeness between us decreased my value. And I never would have thought to explain that to him because isn't it obvious? Purity culture says this is the way it works, and to watch out for guys because they just want to take and take and take.

I didn't know there was any other way to conceptualize what dating was. And so I saw him as just trying to take and take, to rob me of my irreplaceable purity, because that's what guys do. I even told him directly, "I don't trust guys." And that hurt him a lot, and I couldn't understand why- isn't it obvious that guys are like that?

Baggage.

After that relationship ended, I embraced purity culture even more. Lived that way for a few years- you know, the whole "having a crush is a huge crisis I need to desperately pray about", the whole "can't make even the tiniest of moves indicating interest in a guy without clear approval from God", the whole "daydreaming about a crush is the start of a slippery slope into lust and idolatry." Eventually I started questioning, and I made the completely rebellious decision to ask a guy to be my boyfriend even though God had not answered "yes" or "no" to my many prayers about him.

So he was my second boyfriend. And every single tiny bit of affection I showed him brought shame along with it. I was losing my purity, and for what? Purity isn't something you should just give to someone, out of love or some crappy reason like that- no, it is a currency you use to buy information on whether you should marry your boyfriend. But there I was, texting my boyfriend just to tell him he was cute, knowing that the act of sending a text message brought me no closer to making a decision on marriage, and yet doing it anyway because I had decided I didn't believe in purity culture any more.

I knew I was doing what was best for me, not living in fear anymore, but ... there was so much guilt. And my boyfriend was sometimes patient, listening and wanting to help me feel better, and sometimes he wasn't. He said "just be a normal person" while I tried not to cry about how shameful I felt.

Baggage.

I never kissed him. I had kissed my first boyfriend (after a ton of careful consideration) but I never kissed my second boyfriend. I kind of wanted to, but it wasn't an overwhelming temptation, so I figured it was best to just not- just to be safe, just in case purity culture was right when they said I would regret it forever. I was afraid, actually. And when I moved to China, I was a little bit relieved- now there were thousands of miles between us, now I wouldn't have to make a decision on whether to kiss him or not.

Baggage.

I dated him for over a year, which was longer than I should have. But when he started treating me badly, the idea of breaking up was just way too scary. Even though I told myself I don't believe in purity culture anymore, the fear was still there. They said breaking up is The Worst Thing Ever and you can never really get over it. They said there will always be baggage.

And even though I didn't believe it anymore, the fear still haunted me. Hmm, but wasn't that what purity culture was meant to avoid- you know, something in your past, that you don't even want or care about anymore, but it still makes you feel bad, and those feelings push you to make bad decisions. Baggage.

My third boyfriend, I kissed before we even started dating. (But maybe that's a story for another day.) When we did decide to date, I asked him whether we were going to tell each other exactly "how far" we had gone with previous partners, so that we would each know the other's current purity level. Purity culture says you have to do that- you have to "confess" all of it to your spouse. My boyfriend said we didn't need to, that he didn't really care what I had done with other guys in the past (and it would probably upset him if I insisted on telling him details).

I didn't know what to think. I didn't know if I should ask him about his past. I didn't know if I should care. Purity culture said I should be really hurt about him being "experienced"- I had rejected purity culture, but what on earth am I supposed to replace it with?

Baggage.

And I felt so much shame. Many times I went through a cycle where we did something "impure" and it was very exciting, but then later I felt so bad about it, and I told him we can't do it anymore. So we would stop for a few days. But then do it again- and not because of "temptation", not because we "couldn't control ourselves" or any BS like that- it was because I had made a decision to not believe those things were sinful, and so I chose to do them, consensually and not by accident. But still, I felt so bad- there were many times I thought "I deserve to get pregnant" as punishment for doing something so bad- even though it was all stuff that you can't actually get pregnant from. (And that's as much detail as I'm going to give you.)

Baggage.

And we moved in together, and I told him over and over "we are bad", and I didn't know I had depression- purity culture said that when you sin, you should feel overwhelming shame, so the way I felt was right and normal.

People who date ex-purity-culture girls are taking on a very hard task. Those of us who have rejected purity culture need to unlearn everything we ever knew about dating. We are starting from square 1, with no real understanding of what a healthy relationship is, what consent is, what a vulva is.

Baggage.

I'm now engaged to that third boyfriend I mentioned. He must really love me, because he's willing to sit through one conversation after another where I'm like "but purity culture said..." and I try to figure out how to have a healthy view on whatever topic it is.

Yes, it's true that the pain from failed relationships can last for a long time. But the attempts I made to avoid this pain and "be pure" only caused more dysfunction in my dating relationships. Purity culture left me with stereotypes about men and women, didn't teach me anything about healthy relationships, and told me I was damaged and unworthy of love. That's the baggage I've had to work through- that I'm still working through now.

Purity culture would look at my history, see the two ex-boyfriends and how I had my first kiss and said "I love you" before I met the man I'm going to marry, and count all of it as "baggage" that will make marriage hard for me in the future. Ha. Nothing could be further from reality. I have far more baggage from working so hard to be a good, pure girl.

--------

Related:
"How Far Is Too Far?" My Story, And What I Wish I'd Known
I’m Really Really REALLY Glad I Had Sex Before Marriage

--------

This post is part of a synchroblog hosted by Life After "I Kissed Dating Goodbye"

Boundaries in Dating: Don't submit too much

A steamroller. Image source.

[content note: this chapter has an example of a dating relationship where one partner is really controlling and can't handle it when the other partner prioritizes their own needs and desires]

Chapter 10 of Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships is called "Adapt Now, Pay Later," and it warns us not to always give up what we want in order to make our partner happy. Because if you do that, you might end up with a partner who's selfish and controlling and doesn't care about your needs at all.

"Boundaries in Dating" presents the story of Keri and Steve. Because Keri was so attracted to Steve and wanted him to like her, she would always say yes to whatever he suggested, even when it was something she didn't really like. He asked her to go out and she said yes, even though she already had plans with friends that day. He asked her to go for a walk in the evening- she was tired and had to get up early the next day, but she said yes anyway. He suggested getting Chinese food for dinner...

"Sounds great," Keri said. Inside, she cringed. She hated Chinese food with a passion, kidded her friends when they ate it, and had all sorts of derogatory names for it.

o_O Uhh well thanks for not printing them, I guess.

Eventually, though, she found she was spending too much time with him, and she wanted to do her own things sometimes, like see her friends and work at her job (she's a freelance writer). She started to say no to Steve sometimes, and he couldn't deal with it. He got angry, he told her she shouldn't go on a trip for her job, that it wasn't right to always put her career before him. And Keri believed him. She thought she was the one being unreasonable by sometimes saying no to him. Fortunately, she talked to her friend Sandy about it:

But as Sandy listened to the story, and had witnessed some of it over recent months, she was seeing a pattern. As long as Keri had been adaptive to Steve and his wishes and wants, things went smoothly. But as soon as she had begun to be a real person with needs and desires of her own, he was unable to deal with the equality. It was his way or the highway.

Sandy told her she had to stand up to Steve. She needed to find out if he was the kind of person who could compromise, or if he would always need to have his own way.

The truth was hard for Keri to hear. But she stood her ground with her friend's support and Steve did not like it. When she told him that there were going to be times that she would have to work and that she might not be there as much as she had been in the beginning, he could not take it. He said that it proved that she did not really care about him and their relationship, and that they did not want the same things after all.

Keri was devastated at first, but through the help of friends like Sandy, she realized that she had avoided a train wreck. Better to find out in the early months of a relationship that you are with someone who cannot adapt to your wishes than to find out much later, or God forbid, after marriage. She was grateful, and she had learned a lesson: don't be someone you are not just to gain someone's love. If you do, the person that your loved one is loving is not you. It is the role that you are playing and not your true self who is being loved.

A few things to say about this. First of all, if someone told me "this proves you don't care about me" when I said I can't always do everything they want, I would be SO ANGRY. Like, so angry that I would then want to keep submitting to them, just to prove them wrong. Which doesn't seem like a healthy response.

Also, the bit about avoiding a train wreck. It's hard to say, exactly, what purity culture's position is on this. I've often heard people (Christian adults) say it's better to break up than to be stuck with someone who's bad for you, but this advice doesn't really fit in with anything in purity culture. [And I've heard many testimonies about how "God told me to break up with my boyfriend" and they did and God helped them through it- that narrative was an important component of the flavor of purity culture I learned, but I haven't personally analyzed how it all fits together.] You lose the biggest chunk of your purity when you do something for the first time. Your first kiss is a super huge big deal. Ever hear anyone make a big deal about their second kiss? No. And the first time you have sex, that's ALL your purity right there. Such a big deal that there's even a special word for it- "virginity." In purity culture logic, after you have sex once it really doesn't matter how many times you do, because you've already lost all your purity.

Really, it's only the experiences that are your first that cause a loss of purity, because "pure" means inexperienced. When I believed in purity culture, I would have argued that a second kiss does translate to a further loss of purity, because the circumstances and emotions surrounding it won't be exactly the same as the first kiss (even if it's with the same partner). To the extent that it's a different experience [in terms of emotions or physical touching], you are losing purity. (But having sex multiple times doesn't translate into a further loss of purity because you've already lost it all. In Purity Land, every instance of penis-in-vagina sex is pretty much the same.) And as for a long-term relationship, where you do the same "impure" (physically or emotionally) things many times, the emotion gets deeper, gradually, and you feel closer. (ie you are gradually losing more and more purity)

All this is to say, in purity ideology, it is important to get out of a relationship as soon as possible, if you know you can't marry the person. Because as your connection gets deeper, you lose more and more purity. But slowly. Really the majority of the purity was lost at the first times you did various things with this partner. (Like how the new car depreciates in value the minute you drive it off the lot.)

But here's the thing- that purity isn't exactly "lost." Rather, you "gave" it to your partner. ("I gave him my first kiss", "he took her virginity" and all that. Yeah I'm not really okay with that kind of language.) So as long as you are still with that partner, you haven't lost the purity. But if you break up, it's gone forever.

My point is, under the logic of purity culture, it would be very hard to make a choice between ending an unhealthy relationship (and suddenly losing ALL the purity that had been transferred to that partner over the course of the relationship) and staying in the relationship (which erodes your purity slowly, but actually if you end up marrying that partner and being with them forever, then you never lose that purity). Yes, I occasionally heard Christians say it's worse to be stuck in a bad marriage than to experience a breakup, but there were no over-the-top scare tactics about that. The scare tactics were all about losing your purity and being damaged goods, unworthy of a good husband. They never told us to fear being in an unhealthy relationship you want to leave, but can't.

(Samantha Field has written a really good post about how purity culture taught her that she shouldn't leave her abusive partner. I'm sure purity culture advocates would deny that this is what they're teaching, but seriously, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TEACHING.)

(And, in case it's not clear, I don't believe in any of this purity stuff. And neither do the writers of "Boundaries in Dating.")

But anyway, when I read statements like the one in "Boundaries in Dating," about how it was good that Keri got out of the relationship early- she was only with Steve for a few months- it's hard for me to really... agree with it. Err, yes, I definitely agree with it- like, logically, isn't it obvious that being in a bad relationship long-term is worse than being in a bad relationship short-term- but... because of my background in purity culture, I still have an irrational belief that breaking up is The Worst Thing Ever, and I have a really hard time saying that a breakup is less bad than years and years and years of being with a person who doesn't treat you right.

In my opinion, this is one of the most OBVIOUS problems with purity culture. Like if you teach people that the only thing that truly matters in a romantic relationship is how much experience you had before the relationship, OF COURSE they are going to reason that it's better to stay in a bad (or even abusive) relationship, rather than completely lose all that purity and have to start over- they've been taught that the heartbreak of breaking up can never truly heal, and that they've lost so much purity that they aren't worthy of a good partner anymore. Better to stay with the loser you have than to become that worthless piece of chewed gum, right?

There have been times I've thought to myself, I honestly can't imagine any circumstances where I would actually make the choice to break up with someone. Even after I had rejected most of purity culture, I still had thoughts like that. And that is horrifying.

But let's come back to reality: Okay, for real. If your partner doesn't treat you right, and you break up, it sucks at first but things will be better. SO MUCH BETTER. You deserve better. You deserve happiness and love. And there is absolutely NOTHING that is "less valuable" about you because of certain experiences you've had. That's a bunch of crap. (I would even go so far as to call it blasphemous- people bear the image of God, and promoters of purity culture are saying the image of God can be ruined and made worthless.)

OKAY let's get back to the book. I'll just let you read this section, and then we'll talk about what Christianity taught me about submitting.

You are a person, and you cannot go throughout life without pursuing your own wishes, needs and desires, nor should you. Your needs and desires are going to come out, and you had better find out early in the relationship where the person you are dating really stands with the idea of sometimes having to adapt to them.

...

Take it from us. As marriage counselors, we see many, many marriages that get into trouble with this dynamic. One person has very poor boundaries when the relationship begins and the other has all the control. Then after some amount of time in the marriage, the compliant one cannot take it anymore. He or she finally stands up and wants to be a person. And many times the spouse, who is more often than not self-centered, does not like it. The rules are changing and the spouse does not have the tools to deal with the change. And the marriage gets into trouble. Sometimes it grows, sometimes it adapts, and sometimes it does not.

First of all, YES. Wow. This is such important stuff. This is amazingly good and healthy advice about relationships, and it kind of seems like common sense, almost too obvious to even mention, but YOU GUYS, this is completely opposite everything I've ever heard in church.

In the Christianity I learned, we were always supposed to "submit", and it was wrong to value our own happiness and goals. ("Boundaries in Dating" uses the word "adapt" throughout this chapter. In my opinon as a former evangelical, the correct word is "submit.") Really, there were 2 levels: first, all Christians are supposed to give up what they want in order to help other people. You shouldn't spend a lot of effort pursuing something that's important to you- no, you should always work to help others instead. Otherwise you're "selfish." And second, women are supposed to "submit" to men. Now there are variations on this- some complementarians say it only applies to a husband-wife relationship, and a woman doesn't have to submit to any other men besides her husband. But often, they say women can't hold certain leadership positions- sometimes just in church, but sometimes they extend it to all of society and say a woman shouldn't have a job where she is sometimes "in authority over men."

Let me tell you a little story to illustrate the first level- the "it's wrong for Christians to really really want something, other than God of course." Back in college, I had a few friends who liked to cook and used to make a cake whenever it was someone's birthday. One year, I lived on the opposite side of campus from this friend group, and on my birthday, I hoped they would bring me a cake, but I kind of thought maybe it was too far for them to come all the way over to my dorm, maybe they wouldn't come.

But I really wanted that cake. And in the evening, I waited around and hoped they would come, but they didn't. Actually, they didn't forget- I remember one friend asked me if I wanted them to come and bring a cake- but when she called to ask, it was already night and the point was kind of like "we don't really want to come all the way over there tonight, can we give you the cake some other time?" and I pretended it didn't really matter to me.

And then I was sad about it. And I didn't really understand why I was so sad... I thought to myself, "it's because I really wanted a cake, and that's selfish and sinful- I should just always be content with God. I thought that because today is my birthday, it's okay to be a little selfish, to want something, and look, I gave in to the temptation, and now I'm suffering the consequences of my sin. Ahhh lately I've been so happy all the time- I just always think about how I have God, and God is all I need... but today, satan lied and said it would be okay for me to be a little selfish on my birthday, and I fell for it. I wanted a cake, I wasn't fully satisfied with God, and that's a sin and that's why I'm sad now- it's the consequences of sin. If I could be perfectly sinless all the time, I would never be sad, because no matter my circumstances, I would be content with God. Like Philippians 4:12-13 says."

Yes. This is a true story. At the height of my "on fire for God" days, I truly believed it was sinful to feel other emotions besides "I'm SUPER happy because I have God." I truly believed that it was wrong to want something so much that not getting it would affect me emotionally.

And don't tell me I was "too extreme" and that's not what the church was teaching. Don't gaslight me. People at church used to always say "God is all you need" (interestingly, the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" disagree) and I used to always say "God is all I need" when giving my testimony, and church people always told me how I had such an amazing testimony and I was setting a great example with my total devotion to God.

Anyway, it's shocking to me to read the statement "You are a person, and you cannot go throughout life without pursuing your own wishes, needs, and desires, nor should you" in "Boundaries in Dating." Because that's what I thought we WERE supposed to strive for. That's what I learned in church. I thought that the more you submit and give up what you want, the better. But, in a practical sense, if you submit over and over and over, at some point you'll get fed up and probably get in a big fight with the other person, which is a worse result than if you had just told them what your needs were in the first place. You can't submit forever, you're only human, you're sinful, you can't be perfect- so it's best to try communicating nicely before you get to the point where you blow up at somebody. That's sort of a compromise- we know the ideal case is one where you can always give up what you want and keep your mouth shut about it and stomp down your emotions, but realistically, that's not going to happen. Communicating about your needs is second-best.

Now, I don't know if I've ever seen Christians spell it out so directly, like I just did there, but over and over they say "put others first", and they NEVER say "you should care about your own wants and needs, you shouldn't always put others first" so basically, that's where it leads. The only exception is Debi Pearl, who literally says that it's wrong for a woman to ever tell her husband that she doesn't exactly agree with something the husband is doing. (I was shocked when I read that Debi Pearl said that in "Created To Be His Help Meet"- I definitely always believed that Christians were required to believe "wives, submit to your husbands", but the definition of "submit" always included expressing your opinion first, then being okay with being rejected. I never personally came into contact with a variety of Christianity which explicitly said such nasty things.)

And speaking of complementarianism- yeah, not only do Christians have to "submit" and give up their own desires and needs, but Christian women have to submit even more. And, you guys, in this story about Keri and Steve, I can totally imagine Steve telling Keri she's doing a bad thing, not being a good submissive woman, when she stands up for herself and says she can't just do whatever Steve wants all the time. And if she had grown up in a Christian culture that taught complementarianism- even if it was super-vaguely defined, like it was for me- she would believe him. In that context, it would be so easy for Steve to convince her that she was the one being unreasonable.

It's mind-blowing to read "One person has very poor boundaries when the relationship begins and the other has all the control" like it's a bad thing. "Very poor boundaries" means they always gave up what they wanted, they were never selfish, they always put others first. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

And no, I no longer believe that's what we're supposed to do. I now believe in a much more feminist version of Christianity, which values equality and is very much NOT OKAY with telling victims to just try to submit more, rather than fighting for justice. But the writers of "Boundaries in Dating" don't seem to be coming from a Christian feminist perspective. Instead, they're looking at these topics as psychologists- their job is to help people be more emotionally healthy and have good relationships. Really, the whole aim of this book is incredibly "selfish", from an evangelical Christian perspective. It's not presented as "here are God's rules that you MUST follow or else you're a horrible sinner"- instead, it's like "you should do these things because here are the potential positive and negative results of doing or not doing them." It's all about you. They don't talk about how making bad choices hurts God or your future spouse that you haven't met yet.

It's very bizarre- I have never encountered a variety of Christianity which advocates doing things that are good for ourselves, without external motivations like "this is what God said you HAVE TO do"- with the exception of Christian feminism, which is what I now believe. I know why Christian feminism doesn't believe in always putting others first. I really would like to know why Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend (the writers of "Boundaries in Dating") don't believe in always putting others first. Well, as the many examples in the book show, they don't believe in always putting others first because it's not emotionally healthy to let other people have that much control over your life. But why do they believe our own emotional health matters? No church I've been in has ever told me that my emotional health matters. I want to know how Cloud and Townsend justify this, from a Christian point of view. I know why I believe it, as a Christian feminist- in short, because a good tree cannot bear bad fruit- but why do they believe it?

This book confuses me so much. I totally agree with the majority of it, and strongly believe that what they say about relationships is SO GOOD and I wish everyone knew about it, but... but how is it related to Christianity?

And speaking of things that are not about Christianity: The word "God" only appears twice in this chapter:

[Steve] was everything that [Keri] had been looking for, and she could not believe that "God had brought him" into her life.

...

... Better to find out in the early months of a relationship that you are with someone who cannot adapt to your wishes than to find out much later, or God forbid, after marriage.

That's it. And neither of those really "counts" as being "about" God or Christianity. Beyond that, there is absolutely nothing religious at all in this chapter. Not one bible verse, not even one Christianese word like "discipleship." Again I must ask, how is this a Christian book? It's not, really, it's just good, solid advice, grounded in reality, with an occasional bible verse or Christian cultural marker added.

Anyway, here's one more really good quote from this chapter:

People who are selfish and controlling can only be that way if they are in relationship with someone who is adaptive. If someone stands up to them and is honest about his or her wants and desires, then the controlling person has to learn to share or gets frustrated and goes away.

That right there is one of THE BEST arguments against complementarianism I have ever heard.

Basically, if you're a good, godly, submissive woman, then there's really nothing to keep you from ending up in a relationship with a man who's selfish, controlling, and doesn't care about what you want. (I am aware that complementarians would say that God will protect you- you're not supposed to stand up for yourself, you're supposed to obey God by submitting to your husband, and then God will stand up for you. Yeah okay. Tell that to the victims who stayed in abusive relationships until their abuser finally killed them.)

But "Boundaries in Dating" never mentions complementarianism, or "wives submit to your husbands" or God-given gender roles, or anything like that. It's like they don't even know that complementarianism exists, and I continue to be completely baffled by this. A Christian book about dating, and it never acknowledges that some Christians believe men and women are so different and that these differences are absolutely essential to a healthy marriage?

None of the advice I've read so far in "Boundaries in Dating" is gendered. There's no "if you're a man, you need to do this, if you're a woman, you need to do that." Their advice about what is and is not healthy in a relationship applies equally to all genders. I don't get it.

But I'll sum up this chapter by saying this: Don't submit too much. A relationship needs to be based on equality. If you always submit to what your partner wants, you might end up with a partner who is selfish and can't stand compromise. And that's bad because you matter. Your emotions matter. Your needs and desires matter.

-------------------

A blog series reviewing the book Boundaries in Dating: How Healthy Choices Grow Healthy Relationships (introduction post is here)

Previous post: Definitely Not Complementarian

Next post: Too Fast