It's not about sex.

I really didn't think I'd be back to writing about singleness, but blogging is funny.

I went to a private school up through 8th grade. We had all the talks about no sex before marriage and STDs and teenage pregnancy. Twenty years later in life and the discussion around sex for single adults doesn't seem much more sophisticated. I've seen rejections of the idea that the Bible prohibits sex before marriage, and thankfully, have read more personal discussions of the reality of chastity. Still though, when I think of actual, applicable advice in navigating potentially sexual relationships, I'm not coming up with much advice...sad, because married and committed folk could likely benefit from a more honest discussion too.

I train in a martial art. Brazilian jiu jitsu to be exact. If you talk to anyone that's stuck with it a while, they'll mention the difficulty, the physical closeness, MMA, but universally, you'll hear about the bonds. Father to son, woman to woman, stranger to stranger, everyone mentions how training has helped them connect with a spouse, reconnect with a child or find a new or second family. None of that is accidental. BJJ, in all its closeness and difficulty, provides an environment of physical and emotional openness that fosters fast bonding. Safety+Vulnerability=Connection. It's just how humans work. It's why people in this photographer's experiment felt closer after just ten minutes of posing together. It happens even with people you don't like.

The sport is 90% male, so as a single, heterosexual female of reproductive age, all of that has created some interesting circumstances--particularly with three guys on my team. Like I mentioned before, BJJ puts you in a position where you develop a physical, non-sexual as well as an emotional intimacy with your training partners. You learn to listen to their breath and heartbeat to read their physical state and intent. I still remember the first time I sat with my ear on a teammate's bare chest, listening to his breath, trying to decipher when he might attack. I've come to accept that they squeeze, grab and touch all the parts of my body that I hide and accentuate with clothing. The bodily functions of gas, odor, sweat, bleeding, drool, menstruation, shedding hairs...they're all out there and everyone has to accept them, and the vast majority of the time, it's done in acceptance. It's all honestly one big study in breaking down cultural norms. There is no personal space. Respectfulness comes from behavior, not so much from restraining bodily processes. You watch each other get angry, frustrated, cry, lose, win, fall down, get back up, and again, and almost always do so with an attitude toward personal growth. You're left, stripped down of all sophistication and pretense, to be beaten down and humbled, again and again; and in that humility, accepted, again and again. It is almost impossible to do that...to be vulnerable and hurt and then met with safety and acceptance, and not connect with someone. Which brings us back to the three guys.

Four years into training and I haven't been involved with anyone at the gym. (It's advice I give to any woman training, regardless of her attitudes toward sex because, if you want to continue training in an already difficult and delicate environment, sex makes things tricky.) That said, sexual intimacy is just the icing on the cake. Things can go WAY awry before then...

• Hot Guy: No need to beat around the bush...this is the guy that EVERYONE notices. Not one straight woman in the gym, single, married or otherwise, hasn't commented on his physique. I remember when I first signed up and saw him walking across the parking lot...he has an intensity about him that's almost audible. He is very alpha and I noticed him noticing me. I decided immediately that this would not be an issue--not "I won't sleep with this guy" but instead, "I will not interact with him on a level that conveys interest". So no flirting, kidding, playful touching. The third class, I was working technique on the mat and heard a loud "snap". I looked up and saw him, just having whipped a towel, standing in his underwear, staring at me intensely. Considering the environment, that's not quite as out of place as it sounds, but his message was clear. Didn't matter though. Didn't matter that he was single. My lines were drawn well before he decided to flaunt his abs. Friendship happens though, and today, we talk, both at the gym and outside, but that's it. I've learned to not be so extreme as to not connect with men who I may be wary of, but I know the lines.  
• Married Guy: He's basically Hot Guy, but taller, more muscular and with a more engaging personality. Everybody loves him. I was instantly attracted to him, but kept my distance...not because of some extreme holiness, I just know that you never know the circumstances of anyone in a gym. A couple of months after he started training, he awkwardly introduced me to his wife. I'm very glad he did, because while he may be married, his door is quite open. Men who aren't directly open to cheat on their partners...you can feel that a door is closed, even if there's an attraction. I haven't known Married Guy as long, but I limit my interactions. While I'm open to having and have had long phone conversations with Hot Guy, Married Guy isn't something I can toy with on that level, precisely because there is attraction from my end too. 
• Buddy: A constant conundrum. He's not my type physically and vice versa, but he is a fellow INTJ and we clicked instantly and easily, which, for our personality type, is rare, so it results in a honeymoon of friendship. It's a relief to meet someone who thinks, feels and processes the world like you do, so you begin to share in and celebrate that relief with each other. We've spent hours on the phone discussing frustrations, food and music (he's a foodie and musician too), school, business, life and BJJ. We text literally every day. When I met him, he had a girlfriend...one I didn't like much. That aside though, I know myself and my natural penchant to playing semi-girlfriend and the personal pain that comes with that. I've managed my connection with him very carefully. When he first broke up with his girlfriend, I was reluctant to accept invitations to dinners that would have been innocuous with anyone else. They've separated again, likely permanently, but for my own sake, I didn't allow myself to be a support system. When he came to me asking advice as to whether he should stay with her, I remained neutral on the subject. I believe it's part of the reason that now, we have a viable and growing friendship. While there are still awkward moments, I very much appreciate our relationship for what it is. 

I wrote this post mostly for myself, but also because I've met many Christian women struggling with relationship statuses with the men around them. These struggles are the pre-cursors to many of the affairs, pre-marital sex, bad relationships  and out of wedlock children that the church bemoans so, but seems to be missing the mark when it comes to getting at the root of the problem. It ties in a bit to my previous post about churches not offering much emotional safety or support to single women. Without that, many women find themselves looking elsewhere for this support, and it's a difficult field to navigate. 

Churches as a safe place

I was thinking this weekend how important my gym is to me. Being single means that you definitely have to fulfill your need for safe, supportive interactions in places other than romantic relationships. For me, one of those places is my gym. One of those places is not my workplace. When there is an upset at the gym, or the guys are off because of a loss, it disturbs me. I expect safety and a measure of  support. I've come to realize I've learned not to expect that at church.

We're reading the book Boundaries in the college group, and the chapter we did last week talked of how important it is for the church to be a safe place to singles and widows/widowers. Tonight, only one girl was able to make it. She's an obvious introvert. She told me about how she was teased to the point of tears about being quiet. This just shouldn't happen. I have a lot to say on the matter, but I think it's all summed up by saying that churches don't spend enough time teaching/encouraging people to be decent and not be bullies. It shows in our behavior both inside, and outside of the church walls. 

Anti-institutionalism and the Church

I was talking to my father the other day, who mentioned that one of the main reasons young people leave the church is because of evolution being taught in schools. This idea--the thought that the great forces of the American educational system are pulling people in droves from the pews--is one that's come to ring a bit misguided on my ears. I honestly don't believe most people think that deeply about their existence for evolution vs. creation to be the make or break decision that keeps people in bed on Sunday mornings.

I was talking to a friend at the gym yesterday--one who used to attend church but no longer does--about the concept. He said he didn't go because he never left with anything useful. I really had to think about that, since so many people I know who no longer attend church...well...they're not doing a lot of deep thinking about the origins of life. Most people are working their way through every day life the best they can and a result of that in the US has left a large number of people turned against institutions, all institutions. 

It started back in the 60s and 70s. People stopped trusting business, government, the police, the church, marriage...the list goes on. I've been reading Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites, and well, I think he's hit on something. The the moral leaders, the sports heroes, politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers,  priests, police officers, ambassadors...they've all let us down. The bond has been broken and I doubt will be easily rebuilt, if it can be at all.

That lack of trust in the institution and the very concept of hierarchy is what I believe the church is seeing manifested in its dropping attendance numbers. These days I don't believe most people will even get close enough to the church to reject its teachings. They mistrust the structure itself--a structure I don't believe is even necessary to the faith (especially considering the structure of the early church). 

The big problem there though, is what the alternative is. I've had this discussion with my best friend before--both of us being single, childless and unmarried. Society, religious or secular, has no connection points for us. No home base. We are not married, we are not mothers and therefore we are not. The church also reflects that. I don't know if any society has been able to promote connection based on anything deeper than demographic check boxes. I believe most societies actually discourage it for the sake of their own preservation.

So yeah...no one knows how to answer our question and our question is spreading into the world of the non-singles. How do people bond if marriage, procreation, family, home and career are no longer a trustworthy? Until that question is answered and the answer applied within church walls, those outside the church, those coming up as children in the church and those considering leaving will find little reason for connection beyond commandment. 

Hurt feelings and an off morning

Sundays sans church have become weird for me. My alarm went off this morning and was greeted by a lovely case of vertigo. By the time I stumbled out of my bedroom, Melissa Harris Perry's show was on MSNBC.

I'm really enjoying it and hope it has a long life on the channel...it's simultaneously smart, deep, relevant and light, covering everything from the impact of the death of the Notorious B.I.G. to economic policy reform. Harris-Perry, a professor at Tulane, is openly Mormon and liberal. One would expect to to hear explanations of Palm Sunday and quotations from the book of Samuel from more conservative stations, but no, this was happening, and does happen, on the most liberal of the cable news stations. 

I believe Harris-Perry is a bit of a special case...being Black, the world expects her to be a member of the faithful, despite political alliance...and I think she opens up an important door in Christianity. The one labeled "Liberal Christian"...or at least "not-Republican Christian." She facilitates the discussion of faith in politics from a seldom-heard perspective and has kicked off the discussion of how liberals can frame political discussions around faith, an area where they are particularly weak. 

I've watched the Christian Left since their inception as an organization jump, dive and parry with the Christian right over many issues, hoping that, even in their occasional misguided steps (there are quite a few issues and concepts I disagree with them on), they would redirect the focus of what it means to be Christian in America toward something deeper than a shared cultural expereince. I saw this morning's show and discussions of climate change policy as a function of Biblical stewardship as a step in that direction. 

One point she made was in reference to the way Rick Santorum, the candidate with the most religious platform, speaks. She made the very accurate observation that his speech is very much centered around his own people and protecting his own kind. I knew exactly what she was saying.

Why does it ring true for me? Well, I feel a lot of personal dislike for my kind and widespread disregard for humanity in general from the Right. I'm no Democrat, but the all-too-frequent cries of pro-life in the same breath as being pro-war and pro-death sentence strikes me leaves me questioning the party's true overreaching values and unable to see ties to some of the most important and self-sacrificing tenants of Christianity. 

That point though, is still a bit removed. I get reminders every now and then of the hearts of some of those who claim the title of Christianity in my life. Those reminders hurt on multiple levels. The Trayvon Martin case has been the most recent instance. I saw too many people entirely too willing to bear false witness in the form of doctored articles about the dead teen passed around Facebook. Normally, I stay out of these frays. Good seldom comes from detached arguments in cases like these, but one of the pictures passed around was an outright lie and had been outed as such by the creator. I responded briefly to one post, mentioning that it was a fake, and saying that I had learned a lot about all the people around me, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Black, White, Asian, Gay, Straight and otherwise, by how they responded to the case. The response was that I was too hastily judging and that I couldn't know people's hearts (mind you, I didn't post what I actually thought of anyone). 

I gave that some thought, and I quite confidently believe that to be untrue. Luke 6:45 tells us that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". That is where my issue with the Republican party lies...it's deeper than seeing general disdain for people who have my skin color. It lies in the core of policy and attitudes. I still though, do not measure individuals by the groups they align themselves with...people's reasons for joining things are just too broad, and anyone could find many faults with me for being a contributing member of the Christian church...my problem, is that I see callousness in policy and that same callousness in too many Christian individuals who are members of said party. 

I say all that to say that all churches and individuals, The Christian Left and The Christian Right, need to put down the political box they want to put God in. He's much bigger than either side. 

Fleeing from Temptation

So in small group, we're taking turns leading. Tonight, one of the guys covered the topic of temptation. I always like hearing him talk...he's honest and open and has some perspective on the Christian life that I don't often get to see. He said a LOT of stuff that had me thinking and reviewing and remembering (and preparing because I'm up next)...but when he got to the part about fleeing from temptation, I thought immediately that I've never really been in a position to do that...then I remembered the most recent "Hot Guy" (from high school to salsa lessons, there always manages to be one around somewhere).

This one was at my gym--and as I'm writing this, I'm terrified that somehow, he might run across this post because that's just how my life works--I saw him before I even made it in the building...he's just one of those guys where you can hear the hotness. Anytime a woman comes in, he's the first thing they notice...even the straight men have crushes on him. Anyway, considering his demeanor, appearance (looks a lot like an old crush from middle school days) and the bond-inducing nature of the martial art I practice, I was on guard right out of the gates. I could easily see myself falling for him and I think he knew too. Sure enough, he offered his body up. Now, I'm not saying that as churchly euphemism for him wanting me to sleep with him. The way he approached me was a subtle, but almost a literal offering of his body.

Sexual temptation isn't a huge issue of mine, but there was something about him...something I knew could draw me in with little effort. I'd felt a calling from God a few months before I joined his gym to get focused on my spiritual growth and I genuinely believe this guy was the reason. I needed to be able to "flee" when the time arose, and flee I did. And it caused issues. Negative reactions on his part that had to be ironed out. Difficulty in scheduling lessons trying to keep optimal distance. I felt nutty at first, questioning whether I was going overboard or overreacting, but I don't think I was. I could have easily positioned myself as Hot Guy's "friend" (something I had a habit of doing earlier in life), but that would have been the equivalent of my walking into an all you can eat dim sum spot while on a diet and promising myself I'd only have two soup dumplings...guaranteed defeat.

From dieting to emotional peace (struggling with that now) to situations like this, it amazes me how far in advance you need to say "no" to avoid temptation. Forget not dipping a toe in the water, sometimes you can't even go to the beach.

White Hug, Black Handshake

So it's time to shift this blog. I kinda knew it was coming since my Brazilian jiu jitsu blog has shifted recently too to more of a business focus.

I'd still like it to stay relatively focused, so I'm taking a step back from one topic that I think doesn't have much left for me to explore personally...singleness. Not that there isn't more to discuss, but I've come to a few "conclusions" that don't think merit too much more writing...

• God doesn't intend for everyone to be married, regardless of what family, national or church culture says
• The social and church focus on marriage flies directly in the face of the many Biblical examples of singles serving God
• Christians are just as susceptible to marrying for social, superficial and downright stupid reasons as non-believers, and we're subject to the same repercussions (though God can help you through)
• Neither status is inherently morally superior to the other and both offer special opportunities for growth
• We segregate too much
• Neither understands the other well and everybody needs to talk more 

In its place, I want to address race. Why? Because churches are insanely segregated (something I think is culturally based, but I think we as Christians should be able to grow past) and I have some unique experience in the area. For the past 25 years, I've been "the Black one". I now attend a predominately White church and went to predominately White, Christian elementary and middle schools. I hung out with some Christian groups in college and again..."the Black one". At the same time, I attended predominately Black churches for the first 25 years of my life, and got to see "the White one"...the converse of my experience...played out a couple of times.

Second "Why"? Because I've heard the whispers and comments and assumptions that easily could drive people away. Both groups believe their cultural take on Christianity is outlined in some unknown book in the Bible, and both go to extra effort to maintain those "scriptures", speaking their prejudices openly and alienating (sometimes I think intentionally) those that are different.

I've thought about it since I started this blog and while I didn't intend to write on race when I first started, I've always wondered how I would kick something like that off if I did. I figured...why not start with the first thing an outsider would experience entering a church? The greeting.

I think it's pretty common knowledge, but greetings (and the inherent personal space) are highly cultural. From contact-less Japanese bows (best greeting ever IMO...but I'm not a big toucher and am a bit of a germaphobe) to Latin kisses, they run the gamut. The tricky part? Perception and adjustment. If you're not used to contact, you will see higher contact cultures as invasive. If you're used to more contact, you'll see a group as cold and removed.

So yeah...the hug. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I don't think White Americans were always universally huggers. I'm sure there's some corner of the country out there that makes a habit of hugging people they've known for all of five seconds, but I'm going to say it's a relatively new development. I noticed it popping up in churches the same time I saw it in business (the day my CEO hugged me totally caught me off guard). I've accepted them as one of those things minorities learn to adapt to. Part of the whole "minority rights, majority rule" or "when in Rome" deal.

Just as I learned the cheek kiss during my days dancing salsa, I've learned to bow when visting my brother in Japan. Neither though, like the hug, will ever be comfortable or natural. I was raised in a Black family and a Black church, and hugs for me will always be reserved as a signal of familiarity...not necessarily deep, long-term or profound, but I still find it weird to hug someone I've never said more than "hi, how are you doing" to. When I started attending a Black church in Orlando during college, there were very few hugs because hugs are "special" for Black people (I'd dare to say even outside of the US). We're more handshakers until we've talked a bit.

So what's that mean? Nothing and everything. Religion and faith are highly personal and comfort is a big deal...but...

I read a piece a while back written by an organizational consultant who was called in to a women's organization who wanted to attract more racial and economic diversity. The consultant made suggestions about making meeting times that were accessible to women that worked. She recommended opening health and beauty discussions up to racially diverse products and health conditions that affected Black, Latina and Asian women. After acknowledgement of their validity and brief discussion, all suggestions were politely and softly rejected. Why? Because the board was concerned that their current members would inconvenienced and uncomfortable.

And that's what I think almost any discussion of race in the church comes down to. Comfort.

New people are uncomfortable walking into a strange church. Current parishioners are uncomfortable with demographic shifts. I've heard it all. "You know she's just here to get a Black man." "Every time I come there's more of them here." Statements of discomfort and fear of change. Since there is such a strong social component to church attendance, I don't think it's possible for an organization, or individual visitors to get past those issues unless the possibility of discomfort is accepted or even embraced as a component of Christian growth.

The married people in my single life.

Slightly off topic, but still on, I just read a quote from a great blog that sums up so much of my wonderment at the church's focus on marriage and procreation...


"but I’m also wary of the church’s intense focus on coupling up, as if getting married is the pinnacle of Christian life. That seems odd for a faith that follows the example of a homeless bachelor." 


My theory on that is the church has WAY more of a Victorian influence that we'd care to admit, but I digress... 

I gotta say, I am genuinely thankful for a few of the married Christians in my life. Why? Because talking to them, you can tell they haven't chosen "a team". They're focused on their marriages, they talk to you as an equal, they're dedicated to their spouses, and you can tell that they don't worship their marital status...that their individual relationships with God take ultimate precedence. And while I'd rather get a cavity filled than sit through a romantic comedy or romance flick (I'm dead serious), when I see couples in movies working as teams to accomplish something bigger (The Mummy, Harry Potter) it does make me feel all warm and snuggly.

I've come to believe that people choose a team (married or single) well before marrying age and it's completely independent of their actual marital status. Some singles worship their freedom just as marrieds worship their wedding bands. People that worship neither, but appreciate the status for the role it plays in their lives? ...them I really enjoy. 

Are some people just inherently religious?

So there's been a lot of talk on the faults of religion lately. It's been unfairly blamed for starting every war the planet's ever seen, enslaving races and basically being the root of everything bad on the earth. I hold on to the relatively common belief that religion is a construct of man, different than faith, and is therefore subject to all the weaknesses and faults that we carry within ourselves...I also understand that that theory is only palatable if a person believes that humans are, in fact, inherently flawed.


My cousin posed the title question to me the other day, after observing the behavior of a friend. He's agnostic, educated, works a job in business and is, like me, a foodie. She described how dogmatic he is about the uses and presentations of food. How he tries to "convert" people to his gastronomic choices and spread the gospel of his culinary experiences. How, when in his presence, she sometimes felt she got insight into the experiences of those who complain of the overbearing approach of some Christians. If you put his behavior into the context of the concept of non-theistic belief, it very much mirrors devout followers of any religion. 

I do not believe that a person has to believe in a deity to be religious...especially if you take the definition of religion to be a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. I believe that people worship at the temple of science, food, sex, pleasure, and even in Christianity at "sub religions" of leaders, churches, spiritual experiences, causes, earthly Biblical figures and even buildings. 

My first exposure to the concept came on the back of rapper KRS-One's "I Got Next" album. It included a brief introduction to the Temple of Hip Hop. If you read up on it, you'll see that it's not actually presented as a religion in the traditional sense...I believe the effort of the organization is one toward awareness and understanding of an often misunderstood form of music...but...it, like many things, could satisfy the needs of a person who is inherently religious, or who wants to be a religious leader.

I see vegans and vegetarians elevate their set of tastes, health and dietary choices to the level of a moral code, berating, condemning and judging those who have "sinned" against their religion. We're all aware of judgmental behavior of some members of organizations like PETA, or we have a friend or friend of a friend who protests loudly against the consumption of meat or treatment of animals (things I actually disapprove of on a certain level myself). 

From dietary choices, to treatment of hair, patriotism, chosen art, science and everything in between...Yes, I do believe there are those of us that are more prone to "religious behavior" than others. Myself, I believe that I lean toward inherently non-religious. I've often said that if I weren't Christian, I'd likely be a Nihilist...not because I'm a naturally hopeless person, but because I simply don't see evidence of the inherent good of humanity, the infinite virtue of caring for family, and friends, nor do I have faith that all of our advancement over the short time we've been on this planet has done anything to solve any of our real issues. I've never understood people that come to church on a regular basis, yet openly confess that they do it out of pure ritual. That, however, is easy to say from this side of the fence. I really don't know how I would react to life if I didn't have the hope and purpose that God has blessed me with.

I do believe though, that religion has a purpose, and feeds a need that we as humans, at some level, all carry within ourselves. As Christians, I believe it gives us context for many spiritual concepts and a framework for the practical application of many forms of discipleship.  

Generational Differences

With Facebook and other entities becoming larger and larger parts of our lives, there's been a lot of talk of the death of privacy. At the same time, in church lately, I've heard a lot about people becoming more isolated.

I think a friend of mine said it best yesterday, explaining that anyone who lived through the 70s or McCarthyism is used to hiding. My age on down, I believe we're on the other end of the spectrum. I believe we have a tendency to over-share to the detriment of genuine, personally enriching relationships.