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. 

Helpmeets, helpmates and introvert burnout

It's been a rough week as an introvert.

We've had visitors at work, which means non-stop interraction...I'm talking from breakfast to lunch to dinner eaten with 27 other people...14 hour days with no alone time on top of presenting, presentations and discussions. I came home Friday feeling traumatized. Too beaten to even sleep. I seriously felt like I'd been assaulted at some internal level. I skipped the gym, fearing additional injury to a back that had been brutalized with 10 hrs of sitting and looked forward to a weekend of isolation...then it hit me Saturday night. Church. I felt panicked. The idea of bringing myself to talk and say hello again just felt like too much to handle. I prayed and mustered up the courage to go, which I'm glad I did, because it gave me perspective on the whole situation. The world of the corporate is really a modern day Charybdis from which I'm generally and thankfully sheltered. I forget sometimes how it can be. One week down, one week to go.

So yeah...the term "helpmeet"...never heard it until reading the comments of some of Mark Gungor's enthusiasts. It sounded a lot like "help mate", which I haven't really heard since the days in the church I was raised in., and honestly, it makes zero sense as a term unto itself. I've been meaning to get into researching the issue of gender equality in Christian marriage, so I had to do some digging.

From what I can see, it looks like it starts with a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "meet". In the phrase "a help meet for Adam", "meet" most likely takes on its second definition (English) which is equal to "fitting" or "proper", so you instead have "a help fitting for Adam". Makes much more sense.

That said, there's a lot of debate around what that word "help" was translated from and whether it even connotes a subservient position. You have the word "help", taken from the Hebrew "ezer"  which can translate to "aid", "protector" or even "defender", followed by "neged" which can mean "in front of" or "parallel to" or a few other things. Having studied four languages in my life, I'm well aware of where debates over translation can go and this one has some decent legs online (Google "ezer kenegdo). I'm not going to make an argument either way on a language I don't come close to understanding.

...I'm not 100% opposed to the idea of the man being head of household, and that's mostly because I'm a strong believer in the concept of servant leadership...a direct result of my business studies, work experience and most importantly because  of the example set by Jesus (you know...the guy who washed his disciples feet?). I've never been one to equate "leadership" with "dictatorship". Servant leadership is a concept developed by Robert Greenleaf and is summed up well here...

"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature."
"The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"

Greenleaf's book was required reading in a management symposium I took and I think everyone...yes, everyone, not just potential leaders, should read this. As a friend of mine says quite frequently "everyone's leading someone". On top of that though, you learn how to recognize those who are leading or want to lead to assuage and acquire. It's a good way to decide who's worth following.

The VP I work under now has been one of the best leadership experiences I've run across in my work life. I respect him and genuinely know he's on my side and will defend and protect my best interests (which he has consulted me on) when necessary. He's given guidance when he had insight and asked my opinion when he knew I had more experience in an area. I've been frank and open with him about my personality, concerns and fears and have been met with acceptance. He seldom tells me what to do...I say seldom, because I'm sure he has, but I don't remember ever actually being given an order...and I think that's because once a level of respect and trust has been established, his final say no longer feels like force.

Everyone in a household should be submitting to someone..children to parents, wife to husband and God, and husband to God and family. I'm always wary of any church, book, or, person that emphasizes the "help mate"/"head of household" teachings to the exclusion of a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church. That emphasis, I believe reflects a bias that I have yet to see supported by actual Biblical teachings, and not just cultural extrapolations from ancient civilizations. While I don't think the Bible is totally clear on whether so called 50/50 marriages are the way to go, it is, I believe, quite clear, that all out domination is not the intended model. 

Low expectations for men, low standards for women.

I'm going to do something I seldom do on this blog and write from an immediate reaction. Considering the serious and personal nature of my faith (and that of others to be honest), I normally let the topics marinate and stew. This one though...

So today someone close to me sent me a link to the blog at Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage...a marriage ministry headed up by Mark Gungor, something I'd never heard of until today. I'm not going to critique his advice to those that are married--his specialty. This though, was sent to me by a single friend and I WILL critique his treatment of women and men...and before anyone cries "You have to read his stuff and attend his lectures and watch his DVDs 20 times in slo-mo before you really get what he's saying!", I charge that if, after reading 10 blog posts, I don't understand the root of what he's trying to say, the fault is his, not mine.

OK.

The two posts that stuck out to me were

• one explaining that wives should learn to understand that men aren't clean creatures, and constant expectations of them to pick up and keep things neat and tidy are equivalent to efforts to turn them into women. 
• a second citing passages in Ezekiel 16 stating that women who sleep with men for free are "lower" than prostitutes...basically, at least get paid for it (a joke I've made a couple of times myself). 

I'm not going to debate the role of a woman in marriage or how women should conduct themselves sexually outside of the marital relationship (or even within), because in this discussion, neither is relevant. What I want to discuss is the low expectations of men and efforts to lower the standards of women. Why is that bad? Because nowhere in the Bible does it say we're to settle for low standards. 

The first one. To echo a great point brought up by one commenter, how come when men go to the military to become neat, it makes them more manly but when it's at the impetus of someone they're supposed to love like Christ love the church, someone's trying to change their gender? Do we really think Jesus would take the stance that "I just wasn't raised to appreciate these things, so I'm going to ignore your obvious, emotional suffering that you've expressed to me multiple times."? Admittedly, he does, in a few other posts, say that men should pay attention to their wives' feelings and complaints, but what are these frustrated women supposed to do? Just stop feeling? Are they just supposed to ignore the issue because they "imagined" it or because they're "crazy" or just stop because they're wrong for trying to give their husbands the mental equivalent of gender reassignment surgery? I read that he gives techniques for handling these situations in his lectures and seminars, but if that was a commercial, it was in poor taste. 

The second...I...straight up, he doesn't even mention men...men...the gender that is known to be the bigger proponent of sex. The gender that funds the prostitution industry. Are they not prostitutes too when they engage in sex outside of marriage? Perhaps a bigger deal than that though, the nature of the post makes me question his intentions. It's harsh. There's a disclaimer a bit of the way through, but even prior to that, the words and accusations are heavy ESPECIALLY considering that most of his audience will look very harshly on prostitution.

Me personally, I'm not easily offended and am far from one to shrink at satire. I freaked a former boyfriend out at my admiration of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...which I kinda get...joking about roasting young children for dinner is pretty harsh...but through it all, I never doubted that Swift's extreme sarcasm was a direct and proportionate response to the horrible treatment of children in his time. Mr. Gungor though, I have to doubt his intentions. Why? Because he's admitted in other posts that women are sensitive and emotional. If you want to help someone out of a situation you see as damning, you don't do it with language like that. Swift was talking to his enemies. Gungor is speaking to his flock and I see no hint of concern for the heart of the women who may be reading.

After spending some good time on his site, I thought of a video I'd run across in the currently hot but fading "Sh*t X Says" meme. The one in question is "Sh*t Guys Don't Say". (Warnings on a bit of profanity and simulated sex.) Basically, men don't pick up after themselves, talk about their feelings and only eat unhealthy food...tired old stereotypes that I hope more men will be offended by. I also though, found a response from a man who supports breaking the presentation of male stereotypes in the media (both the video and response can be found here). I find the correlation disturbing...the secular and the sacred defending and supporting the same bad behavior.

I find his writing dangerous. Why? Because there are bits of truth mixed in with I think is an ulterior motive. I know there's a movement within the Church now against wives holding jobs (completely ignoring Proverbs 31) and I do believe that the subtext that set me on edge stems out of that same vein.