Roger Morris' Richard Milhous Nixon 8

For my blog post today about Roger Morris' Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician, I'll quote two passages, then I will comment.  The subject matter of these passages is Thelma "Pat" Ryan, who would become the wife of Richard Nixon.  The setting for these passages is the time when Pat was a young woman, before she married Nixon.

The first passage is on page 214: "In her absence Francis Duke at Seton was 'moping around all the time,' an aunt wrote Patricia.  But she made no effort to renew the relationship, and while there were again at USC numerous dates and offers, she kept the distance and freedom that were now her habit...After one date, a young admirer sent her a wistful note about the pleasant yet penetrable hedge surrounding her seductive beauty.  'I was just struck by the thought that I knew so...little about you after being at your feet a whole lovely evening,' he wrote.  'There was so much beneath the surface,' observed a girlfriend, 'and so few had the opportunity to find it.'"

The second passage is on page 216: "'Never talk about anybody in Whittier----they're all related to one another in some way or another,' a colleague knowingly advised her early in the term...'You take a woman as young and beautiful as Pat Ryan was then and put her in a faculty of older women,' a friend would say afterward of the jealousies, 'and you've got certain trouble.'"

These passages bring a number of things to my mind.

1.  I don't date much.  Part of it is that I am shy and rather aloof, as Pat was.  Unlike Pat, however, I don't have a whole lot of popularity.  Regarding my looks, well, she was a better looking woman than I am a man (actually, she was stunning!), but I look all right, I guess.  She probably had more opportunities for dates than I do!  She chose not to date that much, though, because she liked her freedom, and her sense of distance from men had become habitual.  In a sense, I am in that boat.  Unlike Pat, I would like to date more often than I do, but I do enjoy my freedom, on some level, plus I have been the way that I am for many years.  Not only is my romantic aloofness a habit, but I have difficulty imagining things being any different in my life.

I should note that, earlier in the book, Morris says that one reason that Nixon's relationship with a longtime girlfriend (Ola Florence Welch) worked as well as it did was they they were both shy.  (Morris may have said this, or he was quoting someone who said this.  I don't remember.)  I can identify with that: simply being quiet around another person, and both people in the relationship enjoying each other's company, with neither having to perform for the other (by being funny, or witty, etc.).  The thing is, though, there were things about Nixon that attracted her: his looks, his acting ability, his intelligence.  Moreover, she eventually broke up with Nixon because she thought someone else was more fun!

2.  Pat could walk away from a relationship and ignore it.  Why am I so reluctant to pursue or maintain relationships?  Is it because I fear rejection?  Do I believe that socializing with people is a waste of time?  Am I afraid that the relationship will go sour?  Do I fear not being socially-adept within the relationship?  Am I so comfortable being alone, and being able to do what I want in terms of hobbies, that I don't want to clutter my time with people (even though there have been times when I could use somebody to talk to, but I've felt alone due to my failure to cultivate relationships)?  Are there people who annoy me?  I think that all of these are factors behind my reluctance to pursue relationships.  I'm afraid to go too deep in terms of relationships with people.  But have there been times when I have had a good conversation with someone about a topic of mutual interest?  Yes.

3.  People knew so little about Pat.  I know little about other people, since I don't always know how to go beyond the superficial obligatory social niceties (i.e., How are you?).  I suppose that I can ask people what they did on a given week, providing them with an opportunity to share a little about themselves.  I wouldn't want to come across as nosy, but I'd want to communicate that I'm interested in what's going on in their lives.  Would I like for people to ask me about my week?  Perhaps.  The thing is, I usually don't know what to say in response.  I feel that my life is pretty uneventful.  But, come to think of it, maybe I can talk some about my schoolwork, or things that I am reading, or shows that I am watching.  I am often reluctant to do so, since I am afraid that people won't be interested.  Maybe they wouldn't be, but they may politely listen and express concern for me as a person, the same way that I am not always interested in what people talk to me about, and yet I am polite and sincerely wish them the best.

4.  The part about not talking about people in the second passage stood out to me.  There's wisdom in that: You have to watch what you say about people, since those people may catch wind of what you said about them!  The thing is, talking about others is a way many people bond in conversation.  One reason is that talking about people can entail honesty.  If I ask someone what she thinks about her job or a class, if she honestly told me that she didn't care for it, I would feel closer to her, since she's being honest.  The thing is, she can't be that honest with everyone, in every place, for what would happen to her if her boss or her professor learned of what she said and became offended?  I suppose that there are many situations in which things are this delicate.  Many people, however, have someone who is distant from their job or their school, to whom they can vent.

The Don Juan Man, and the Shy Man

For my write-up today on Circle of Life: Traditional Teachings of Native American Elders, I'll quote something that James David Audlin says on page 37.  The context is a story about a Messenger from the Creator who appears as a beautiful woman, and a Don Juan sort of man and a shy man respond to her in different ways.

"Both boys in this definitive moment went to the extremes of their wonted behavior.  The one, overly bold with women to the point of turning them into objects for Conquest, here treats a Messenger from the Creator in a most dehumanizing way.  The other, overly shy with women to the point of denying the humanity they share with him, fails to see the essential goodness of this Beautiful Woman.  There's a particular lesson in all this for men: we men should treat woman in all her individual varieties as if she were the Beautiful One herself, and we also should attempt to get past the outer appearance of a woman to see her essential goodness, her essential humanity."

Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician 1

I started Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician, 1913-1962.  This is the first volume of Ambrose's trilogy about Richard Nixon.  I have two items for today's post.

1.  Richard Nixon's father, Frank, was quite opinionated.  In my first post about Irwin Gellman's The Contender: Richard Nixon, The Congress Years, 1946-1952, I said that Frank was a Republican, and yet his Sunday School class inspired author Jessamyn West to lean towards socialism.  I got that part about socialism from wikipedia, which was basing it on something that West wrote in Double Discovery: A Journey.  In my latest reading of Ambrose, I saw what West said.  On page 18 of Ambrose, we read:

"Frank would express his strong political convictions in his teaching; he was, West declared, 'the first person to make me understand that there was a great lack of practicing Christianity in civic affairs.' He may have voted Republican, but 'what Frank had to say about probity in politics pointed...straight to Norman Thomas,' at least as far as West was concerned."  Norman Thomas was a six-time socialist candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

I got a taste of Frank's political beliefs in Gellman's book.  On page 11 of The Contender, Gellman states: "Frank also believed in the 'little man' and opposed the 'robber barons' who controlled a large portion of America's wealth at the turn of the twentieth century.  Despite the connection between big business and the Republican Party, he remained a staunch defender of the GOP."

Ambrose himself says that Frank could be quite staunch when it came to defending the Republican Party, for Frank alienated customers at his grocery store by debating the Democrats who came in to shop!  According to Ambrose, Frank grew up as a Democrat, but he became a Republican when he was seventeen.  Frank made the switch for at least three reasons.  First, Frank blamed an economic depression on Democratic President Grover Cleveland.  Second, as a hard worker, Frank came to appreciate the value of a dollar, so he supported the Republicans' policy of sound money.  And third, Frank met Republican candidate for President William McKinley, who was impressed with Frank's colt!

But that was not the last time that Frank switched his political affiliation, Ambrose narrates on pages 28-29.  Frank's wife Hannah had a Republican background, but she voted for Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and Frank "chided" her for that (Ambrose's word).  In 1924, however, Frank voted for the Progressive Party after his disenchantment with the Republicans.  In 1928, he returned to the Republicans by voting for Herbert Hoover.  But he voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1936.  Ambrose states that "whoever his candidate, Frank was ardent about him, and politics in general" (page 29).

I identified with a lot of this.  I was once a Republican, but I ended up voting for Barack Obama and other Democrats in 2012.  I had my reasons for being a Republican back when I was one, and they were legitimate reasons, in my opinion, but I got to the point where I was disenchanted with the G.O.P. and thus switched.  I'm probably not as opinionated as Frank was, but I used to be.  Like Frank, who confronted and debated Democrats when he was a staunch Republican, I would start political debates with the liberals and Democrats I knew.  If someone made a harmless, innocent comment about how Bill Clinton was a good leader, I'd be right there, ready to argue!  Come to think of it, I sometimes behaved that way after I became a Democrat!  Nowadays, I don't feel as inclined to get into debates.

2.  Frank's son, Richard, liked to debate as well.  While Frank raised his voice, Richard focused on facts and logic.  And Richard would take a contrary position on an issue simply to have an opportunity to debate.  Richard did not like girls in his younger years, but as one female acquaintance remarked as she thought back, Richard was eager to debate them!

At Whittier College, Richard was awkward around women, yet he went steady with the most popular girl in school.  Why did she like him?  She said it was because she admired Richard's mind, and they'd get into political debates.  She liked Roosevelt, but Richard did not.  Conventional wisdom dictates that we should never bring up politics on a date, and there's probably a lot of wisdom in that: it's better to inquire about your date's family, movies he or she likes, etc.  But, in my opinion, it would be cool if I could have a relationship in which my date and I would discuss substantive issues.  That's part of getting to know what matters to a person.

Being Noticed

At church this morning, the sermon title was entitled "Not About You".  In my opinion, this was the best-delivered sermon that I've heard my pastor give since I started attending this church about two years ago.  It wasn't my favorite sermon of my pastor's, mind you, for that honor goes to his sermon that I discussed in my post here, for that particular sermon really helped me where I was.  But, in terms of delivery, his sermon today was excellent. 

To highlight the theme of today's service, I'll quote from the Prayer of Confession:

"We expect commendation for our act of benevolence; we like others to see us and how well we behave.  Titles and honors are worn with pride, sometimes with envy, when others about us seem to be getting ahead.  O God, forgive our craving to be exalted; help us to be humble in the knowledge that we live by grace alone."

I think that many of us would like to be noticed.  I don't believe that's a bad thing.  It's part of fitting into a community, or getting a job, or attaining professional advancement, or getting a date.  Plus, it encourages and motivates us when people notice our hard work and appreciate what we are doing.  Where I struggle is that I have tended to obsess over being noticed.  I resent when I am ignored, for I then feel alone and alienated.  And I also become fearful, since I fear that I won't have the social skills to become noticed and thus make the contacts that I need to get a job that I may want (to use an example). 

Sometimes, in order to be noticed in social situations, I've tended to go the opposite extreme from my usual practice of being quiet, in that I've talked a lot.  But that has had downsides.  People may resent me for dominating the conversation.  They may feel that I'm being manipulative----that I'm being sociable and trying to get noticed for my own personal advancement (and possibly to the detriment of their own advancement).  And what's sad is that, even though there have been times when I have talked a lot in certain social situations, people don't even remember that I was with them in those situations.  It's like, man, all that work was for nothing!

I don't think that it's wrong to want to be noticed.  But we (or at least I) should balance that out with other things: recognizing that there is a wider and broader world than just me (imagine that!), service to others, and not getting completely bent out of shape if I'm not as appreciated as I'd like----which implies having a strong inner core, or faith.   

The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships 18

For my write-up today on The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships, I will quote something that Sean Barron says on pages 255-256:

"My myopic view of the conversational highway kicked into overdrive when it came to dating. Even into my late thirties, I interpreted a woman initiating a conversation with me as a sign of her romantic interest and failed to see the many other possible meanings. I didn't understand a most obvious unwritten social rule between men and women: friendliness is not necessarily a sign of romantic interest. As a result, my emotions with women fluctuated wildly between euphoria and heartbreak----without taking a break at any points in between. Being so absorbed in loneliness, despair and desperation made it impossible for me to see things objectively. It didn't occur to me, for example, that the female clerk in the store treated me in a friendly manner because that was part of her job. Or that a waitress might stop and chat for a few moments because she had a gregarious personality. I didn't stop to reason that women I met might have full lives of their own, and I had yet to learn that when I approach a woman I should look to see if she has an engagement or wedding ring on her finger. The unwritten social rule that you look for signs that a woman is married before you ask her out on a date, wasn't yet part of my natural social functioning."

The context of this is the rule that not everybody who is nice to me is my friend, for people can have an ulterior motive to exploit me, or people may be nice to me because that's their job, or they simply have a gregarious personality. I identify with a lot of what Sean says----especially the part about realizing that women I may have a crush on have lives of their own. Regarding the rule that "friendliness is not necessarily a sign of romantic interest", yeah, he's probably right on that. But I think that it can be a sign of romantic interest, especially when the friendliness leads to actual conversation. But I'm sensitive to the possibility of being shot down if I ask a woman out, which is why I identify with some of what Sean is saying.

Jittery, Fresh Start, Not Jesus, Keep It Cool

I have four items for my write-up today on Stephen King’s Needful Things:

1. Nettie Cobb is a woman who killed her abusive husband and spent time in an insane asylum afterwards. After her release, she worked at Polly Chalmer’s sewing shop as part of a program. Nettie is really jittery around people, even when they try to be extra friendly to her on account of her nervous disposition. But Leland Gaunt, the owner of the new store in town, manages to win her confidence through his soothing and charming personality, beginning with his compliment of her for a cake that she made. I can somewhat identify with Nettie, not because I am insane, but rather because I myself have had a nervous disposition in the past, especially around people. I’m glad when there are people who take that into consideration and are still friendly to me, but, often, me being nervous makes other people nervous, or they don’t know how to interact with me. But I will say that my nervousness has gone down over the past couple of years.

2. Hugh Priest is the town drunk. At one point in the book, he actually contemplates getting a fresh start in life: becoming part of AA, having “no more paydays spent in terror that he would find a pink slip in his envelope along with his check” (page 73), etc. But he quickly abandons that dream and concludes that he has no future, for he is fifty-one years old, and that is an age to run from the avalanche of one’s past, not to have dreams about the future. I found this part of the book to be intriguing, since I know (or know of) people who become sober late in life, and the twelve steps are considered to be a way both to have a good future and also to deal with the wreck of the past. Why would one ever be too old to get a fresh start and to pursue a quality of life, in whatever number of years one has left?

3. Sheriff Alan Pangborn gets into a slight argument with Reverend William Rose (who is played in the movie by Don S. David, of Stargate SG-1 fame). Rose wants Alan to put a stop to a Catholic raffle (or something like that), for he considers that to be gambling. But Alan says that the Catholic church is breaking no laws and that living in a democracy means that we sometimes have to put up with things that we don’t like, since people in a free society will do some things that rub us the wrong way. Rose then appealed to the example of Jesus, who drove out the moneychangers defiling the temple, implying that he was about to do something similar. But Alan responds, “Yes…but you’re not Him.” That’s how I feel about many Christians who appeal to Jesus driving out the moneychangers to justify their own douchiness: they’re not Jesus. In my opinion, they’re not even in the same ballpark as Jesus.

4. Alan is dating Polly, who is gushing about how Leland Gaunt is a dream-boat and will be attracting the women in Castle Rock. Alan jokingly remarks that his jealous muscle is starting to twitch! Alan may not feel that Leland Gaunt is serious competition, since Gaunt is rather old. But some dating gurus have suggested that we do what Alan did (though they don’t mention Alan) when a woman we like seems to be interested in someone else, or when someone else is interested in her: keep it cool, be light and funny, be easygoing, etc.

Larry, Alex, and Relationships

Last night, I read Chapter 27 of Stephen King’s The Stand: The Complete and Uncut Edition. One of the topics in that chapter was Larry Underwood’s love life. Larry met a lady named Yvonne at a movie theater, when he helped her to find her purse, and she treated him to dinner to celebrate. She treated him to dinner (rather than vice versa) because he said that he was really strapped for cash. You’d think that a woman wouldn’t go for a man who is strapped for cash, but maybe women do, when the man is fun to be with. But there are probably no absolute laws on this.

Larry thinks back to his time with Yvonne, when they had their own place, which Yvonne decorated. He remembered Yvonne bringing him a can of beer while he was watching television, sitting on the arm of the chair, and rubbing his neck. He also recalled her home-cooked meals. But Larry and Yvonne had a falling out, and (as far as I could see) the book did not detail what that was about, unless it was implying that Larry was putting his girlfriend on hold so he could watch the World Series. But Larry looks back on that relationship with nostalgia. Page 236 says: “It had all seemed right, it had all seemed his. There hadn’t been one single thing hassling his mind. Nothing had been so good since then. Nothing.”

This reminds me of what I’ve heard from a dating guru, Doc Love, who says that men should look for a woman who is a giver. He even said that we (we men, that is) may find that we want to stick with a woman whose physical appearance is a 6 out of 10, since she is a giver. I think that is good advice, myself. But is it idealistic? I watched an episode of Family Ties recently, the one in which Alex met Lauren, a pretty psychology student, for a study she was doing on overachievers. She asked Alex what he was looking for in a woman, and Alex responded that he would like someone who is warm and supportive. Lauren replied sarcastically, “Do you want a woman or a cocker spaniel?”

Perhaps I could look for what Larry had when his relationship was good, and also the sort of relationship that Doc Love recommends. But what happened to Larry’s relationship in the end and that episode of Family Ties present an additional facet: that a relationship involves people, and, that being the case, things are not always ideal!

Love, Loved, Salvation by Works in Dating, Etc.

Someone I know on the Free Believers Network wrote:

"A friend told me that one of the things she's looking for in a guy is that 'he must love the Lord.' Whereas I'm looking for a girl who knows she's loved by God."

I struggle both to love the Lord and also to know that I'm loved by God. But I still like this comment because I get sick of reading the same thing over and over again on Christian dating profiles. "Ooooh, I want a man who is on fire for God!" But what do you expect? The dating game is salvation by works: I have to prove my worth to somebody else. How much grace is truly in it?

Good Dating Profile, Desolate, Method Writing, Origen’s God Is More Merciful Than the Mishnah’s, Theodotian

1. Zosia Zaks, Life and Love: Positive Strategies for Autistic Adults, page 195:

On writing your profile for an Internet dating site: Try to make a favorable impression. If you do nothing in life but sit in front of the television, at least talk about your favorite shows. It is O.K. to acknowledge your faults and weaknesses, but do so in a positive light. For example, instead of saying you don’t do much, say you prefer to hang out at home. Then talk about what you like to do at home—read, play with your dog, cook. Instead of saying, “I hate sports and I’m totally not athletic at all,” try, “I am more interested in reading, taking quiet walks, or playing computer games. I’m a whiz at Tetris.” Remain honest but positive when describing your personality traits. For example, instead of saying, “I have no tolerance for people interrupting me when I’m doing something,” try, “I have a very intense focus and enjoy long periods of time to concentrate on my projects.”

2. Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, page 373:

The book of Chronicles takes the account of Israel’s exile and destruction and associates these disastrous events with the tribes who lived east of the Jordan—the two and a half tribes were all sent into exile for a very long time. With respect to the land west of the Jordan, in both the northern and southern kingdoms, the effects of enemy invasions are minimized. Foreign armies come and go, but the people’s presence in the land remains uninterrupted.

I wonder what Japhet does with II Chronicles 36:21, which says that the land enjoyed land sabbaths during the seventy years of its desolation. I looked in the Scripture index, and I couldn’t find a place where she addresses this question.

3. D.A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity, page 162:

Aristophanes’ Agathon states the following: A poet ought to have manners related to the play he’s writing. For instance: if he writes a feminine piece, his person also needs its feminine side…A masculine piece needs masculinity. And where we’re lacking, imitation then supplies the want.

There’s method acting, in which an actor tries to become the character he plays in his day-to-day life (see Good Doctors, Tension in Chronicles on Northern Israel, Generating Emotions, Hebrews Vs. Philo on Cult, MT and LXX for Jeremiah). Apparently, there’s also method writing.

4. R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event, page 140:

To the Marcionite objection to the punishment inflicted by God in the Old Testament [Origen] usually replies that such punishments were not vindictive or purely retributive but remedial and reformatory. Those who perished in the flood were given a second chance after death (I Peter 3.18-21). As for Sodom, God proposes to restore even that, for Ezekiel says, ‘And thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate’ (Ezek. 16.55). Again, those who fell in the desert were forgiven and restored after death; Ps. 78 says ‘when he slew them, than they sought him’, which means that they sought God when they had been slain.

What’s interesting is that rabbis in Mishnah Sanhedrin 10 declare that the generation of the Flood, Sodom, and the wilderness generation have no place in the World to Come. There’s some debate on the wilderness generation, though (see here).

5. N.F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, pages 142-144:

Theodotian made a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The church father Irenaeus (second century C.E.) says Theodotian was a Jewish proselyte. Jerome (fourth-fifth centuries C.E.) said he was an Ebionite, a Jewish Christian with views considered heretical. Yet, the church fathers use Theodotian’s translation. Origen and Clement of Alexander quote it out of respect for church tradition, and Justin, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, Hebrews, John’s Apocalypse, and the synoptics employ Theodotionic readings, primarily of the Book of Daniel. Some say that Theodotian lived in the first century C.E. Others say he revised a previous text, which the New Testament cited.

Monogamy

After my post on 500 Days of Summer, I thought more about the search for "the one," or a "soul mate." A lot of times, I feel American society is a moral cesspool, in which people have casual sex without much regard for love or human relationship. Although my attitudes on sex can be quite worldly (maybe because of the culture, or my appetites, or a combination of both), there is a strong part of me that believes sex should be reserved for marriage. As the slogan goes, "Abstinence before marriage, fidelity thereafter."

What's interesting about the search for "the one," though, is that it shows a strong regard for monogamy in our culture, notwithstanding our promiscuity. Many people aren't just interested in sex, sex, sex, as they move from one partner to the next. Rather, they'd like to meet one person with whom they're compatible. Why? I don't think it's just because our society outlaws polygamy, for, in our society, people can be sexually active with multiple partners without committing to one particular person. Yet, why do so many people prefer commitment to "the right person"? Is it a desire for predictability, or security, or the fulfillment of being "the only right person" for somebody else?

Something else I wonder: Does anything short of monogamy devalue people? What I mean is this: Many Christian advocates of abstinence before marriage argue that promiscuity or pre-marital sex treats others as means to satisfy ourselves. We're trying to manipulate others to gratify our own desires, without loving someone enough to commit.

Maybe. I admit that there are people who seek sex without regard for other people. It's a game for them. To tie this to my weekly quiet time on II Samuel 13, I think of Amnon, who lusted after Tamar and dumped her outside as yesterday's garbage after he had his way with her.

But there are people who have sex outside of marriage, and they actually have a relationship with their partner that goes beyond sex. There may be a regard for the partner as an actual person, not just as an object.

So why can't they commit through marriage? Maybe they're still trying to see if the person is right for them. Or they're afraid that the person will change. That's one challenge in relationships: If we're to wait for a lifelong partner before we can have sex, then we may not have it for a long time! After all, spending the rest of one's life with a person is a tall order. No wonder people want to see if a person is "the right one." And even if someone is "the right one" today, where's the assurance that he or she will be "the right one" tomorrow, or the next day, or several years from now?

500 Days of Summer

I saw 500 Days of Summer today, at the suggestion of my therapist. It's about a guy named Tom who meets a girl named Summer. Tom buys into all this "searching for your soul mate" jazz, while Summer is more skeptical, noting that relationships break up, marriages end in divorce, and she's never felt true love in her past relationships. Summer says that she doesn't want to be encumbered with a relationship. Yet, she still kisses Tom, holds hands with him, and sleeps with him, and he's frustrated because he feels they're a couple while she's not clear about what exactly they are.

Tom becomes frustrated with all of the "lies" popular culture fed him--about finding "the one true love" and becoming fulfilled in the process--so he quits his job writing greeting cards and pursues his dream to become an architect. Summer, meanwhile, meets a man by "chance," concludes he's "the one," and gets married. She starts to believe in fate, since she could've easily not met the man she's compatible with (had she arrived too early, or too late, etc.). She tells Tom that his dream was true, only it wasn't to be with her. And, as Tom is about to be interviewed for an architect's position, he meets a competitor, a pretty young lady named "Autumn." And so Day 1 of a new relationship begins!

The movie jumps around in the 500 days and isn't in chronological order. We see Summer dumping Tom and wanting to be friends, right before we see how they became a couple in the first place. In one scene, she doesn't laugh at his joke about the sink not working. In the next scene, she laughs when he first tells it.

There are scenes that stick in my mind. For example, the morning after Tom first sleeps with Summer, he feels on top of the world! He looks in a car window and sees Han Solo winking at him. I also liked the scene that contrasted Tom's expectations with reality. Tom expected to get back together with Summer; instead, he found out she was engaged to somebody else.

Actually, the lady who played Summer is sticking in my mind because she was so cute!

Which view on romance do I prefer: the "romantic," "your soul mate will find you" view that Tom had at the beginning of the movie, or the "life is a coincidence" view that Summer initially held? I wrote on my Facebook that I go with the latter, but actually I'm not so sure. I think that Tom's problem was that he was in love with his romantic narrative and was projecting that onto Summer, meaning he didn't love her, but rather the whole idea of finding a soul mate and being attractive to a nice-looking lady. The problem with searching for "the one" is that no one can meet a standard of perfection, since relationships take work.

At the same time, one character from the movie is Paul, a friend of Tom. Paul's been with the same woman since 1997. She's not his dream girl, but he's comfortable with her and thinks she's better than his dream girl. For me, that's the thing to look for in a potential mate: not a perfect "one," but someone I'm compatible with. Someone with whom I can "do life." As Robin Williams said in Good Will Hunting, the question is not whether the girl is perfect, but whether we're right for each other.

Do I believe in fate? I don't know. As Summer said before she got married, there are plenty of relationships that go sour. That seems to indicate that God isn't minding the store and leading everyone to his or her perfect mate. At the same time, there are people who do meet "their soul mate," someone with whom they're comfortable enough to share a life together. Sometimes, their first meeting appears so happenstance, which is why many do believe in fate. They can't fathom having met someone who's so "right" for them purely by chance. And those tired of the dating game, or people like me who have a hard time getting our foot in the door at the outset, draw from their stories to give us hope and to support our dreams.

Valentine's Day 2009

For this year's Valentine's Day, I want to post two quotes from the movie Spiderman (see here). In the first one, Peter tells his life-long crush, Mary Jane Watson, how he feels about her. In the second one, Mary Jane realizes that she actually loves Peter.

Peter: I said...I said, Spider-Man, I said the great thing about M.J. is when...when you look in her eyes and she's looking back in yours and smiling, well, everything feels...not quite normal because you feel... stronger. And weaker at the same time and you feel excited and at the same time terrified. The truth is, Spidey, I call him Spidey sometimes, the truth is you don't know what you feel, except you know the kind of man you want to be and what it is, is, it's as if when you're with her, it's as if you've reached...the unreachable...and you weren't ready for it.

Mary Jane: Sometimes what you want... you have to go to the edge of your life to find out it was right next door. I've been so stupid for so long. There's only one man who was ever there for me, who has always been there for me...who makes me believe that I'm...more than I ever thought I was. That I'm just...me, and it's okay...The truth is...I love you. I really love you Peter.

I like the first quote because it expresses how I've often felt when I've had serious crushes: stronger yet weaker, bold yet nervous, eager yet seeing the object of my affections as somehow unattainable, making me wonder if I'm truly ready.

I like the second quote because it expresses one thing that I seek in a relationship: acceptance--being loved for just being me. That's not to say that relationships don't require work, since the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane took a LOT of effort both sides in the next two movies. But it's good to have love as a foundation in a relationship.

Unequally Yoked on Eli Stone

Many evangelicals believe that Christians shouldn't date or marry non-Christians. They call this being "unequally yoked." Touched by an Angel did an episode on this topic, which starred Wynonna Judd. Wynonna was a God-believer, and she was about to marry an agnostic. The angels helped put a stop to that!

Personally, I didn't really understand the concept until I watched last night's Eli Stone. Eli Stone is a lawyer who has visions from God, and that has led him to make radical moves on behalf of the oppressed and disenfranchised, plus he no longer kisses up to the rich and powerful. For a while, the head of the firm, Jordan Wethersby, wasn't too enthusiastic about Eli's activity, since his firm made money off of, well, the rich and the powerful. But, during this season, he has embraced Eli's righteous crusade, and he is open to the idea that Eli receives revelations from God.

It's been a hard walk for Wethersby, and that was topped off yesterday when his wife left him. His wife couldn't live with the new Jordan. They were going in entirely different directions. They were unequally yoked. Jordan didn't necessarily want his wife to leave, the same way that Christians usually shouldn't be the ones who initiate divorce with their non-Christian spouse (which is how I understand Paul in I Corinthians 7). But Jordan following the right path inevitably led to their split-up.

Where am I on this issue right now? Personally, I'm not too sure I'd want to be married to a fundamentalist evangelical who loves the Lord, since I have problems loving the Lord right now. I'm hesitant to marry an atheist, however, because I may get to the point where I do love the Lord, and I wouldn't want to find myself unequally yoked at that time.

Looks

I was watching an episode of Smallville last night, "Facade," which is from its fourth season. It's about a girl with scabs all over her face, "Scabby Abby," who tries to fit in at high school. She even plays the school's mascot! But, in spite of her many attempts to win people over through her inner beauty, all she gets is teased. And so she goes to her mother, a homely-girl-turned-beauty-queen, who performs an operation on Abbie that makes her into a supermodel.

The problem is this: every time Abbie kisses someone, the person goes crazy, since the operation was done with kryptonite meteor rocks. And so Louis Lane conducts an investigative report for the school's newspaper. She tells Abby's mom that she wants to undergo the operation, which is not very believable, since Lois is hot herself. When Abby's mom suspects that Lois is recording their conversation, she tries to force Lois to have the operation--only this time to make her ugly. Lois then says, "I've always been one to believe that true beauty is on the inside." Abby's mom responds, "The only people who say that are those who are already pretty on the outside."

That reminded me of a scene from Liar, Liar--only it claimed the opposite. In it, Jim Carrey's son, Max, remarked that his teacher said true beauty is on the inside. And Jim Carrey replied, "Oh, Max, only ugly people say that!"

Despite their contradiction, I think that both scenes are right, from a certain point of view. So many of us try to convince ourselves that we're all right. The problem is that it's hard to do so if the rest of the world believes the exact opposite. I can tell myself that I'm beautiful on the inside--that, even if I'm not physically attractive, I'm still a good person, and that's all that really matters. But what if no one is attracted to my inner beauty, and chooses to judge me on the basis of superficial criteria? In that case, telling myself that I'm beautiful on the inside is not exactly going to help me. I have an image of how the world should work, but that's not exactly how the world does work. In the real world, attractive people get the breaks in life. And that's true in the church as well, believe it or not.

Incidentally, that's one reason many women cannot stand Sarah Palin (see Why Some Women Hate Sara Palin): she's too pretty. She reminds them of the pretty girl in high school, who's friends with the other pretty girls. According to this article, a lot of women are plain-Janes, so they tend to resent Sarah the pretty girl.

Society seems to favor the attractive. I encountered this last night in my daily quiet time. I read the deutero-canonical Letter of Jeremiah, which states:

"And the women, with cords around them, sit along the passageways, burning bran for incense. When one of them is led off by one of the passers-by and is taken to bed by him, she derides the woman next to her, because she was not as attractive as herself and her cord was not broken" (1:42-43, NRSV).

The Letter is referring to a custom that Herodotus describes in History 1:199: In Babylonia, women had to "sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger once in her life" (BibleWorks translation) as part of a fertility ritual. If no one wanted them because they were unattractive, then they had to wait. They couldn't go home! No wonder one of them was mad because her cord was not broken!

But we see the same sort of thing in the canonical portions of the Bible (canonical from a Jewish and Protestant perspective). Jacob loved Rachel over Leah, since Rachel was the curvaceous one (Genesis 29:17-18). Sarah and Rebekah were knock-outs (Genesis 12, 20, 26).

Some have suggested that the Bible itself supports that kind of discrimination. I once read an article that said the author of the David stories conveys that David is good by presenting him as handsome (I Samuel 16:12). Perhaps. But there are Bible passages that seem to oppose a focus on outer beauty:

Genesis 29:31: "When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren."

I Samuel 16:7: "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.'"

Proverbs 31:30: "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised."

And the New Testament also prioritizes inner beauty over outward appearance:

I Peter 3:3-4: "Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight."

My problem is this: I can criticize the world and even the church for focusing so much on outward appearances. But the fact is that I do so as well. And I'm not sure if I can help myself on that.

When I lived in New York and attended Redeemer, Tim Keller was talking about dating. He asked us if we focus more on superficial things when we look for a mate--such as looks, body, wealth, success, etc.--or if we instead seek good character. He related that a frustrated young man told him that Redeemer is just like the world when it comes to the dating game: the women blow you off if you're not successful.

I can sympathize with that young man, since I feel blown off a lot. But can Tim Keller tell us whom we should be attracted to? Can God even command us on this? We're attracted to whom we're attracted. Evolutionists say it's evolutionary--women are drawn to the strong men who can protect them and give them lots of babies. Wasn't that what Lucas said about Charlie Sheen in Lucas?

I hate the line "Let's just be friends," but maybe that's the solution to my whole dilemma. We can't help whom we're attracted to. But we can treat everyone with respect and dignity. At the same time, hopefully what attracts us is more than skin deep, and we can look at character too.

Messy Relationships

I'm trying to reach ninety posts for this month, so here we go! Maybe I'll share some of my blues in the process.

I was catching up on the Waltons yesterday, and I was reminded of how messy human relationships can be. John-Boy wanted to marry this one girl, but she wasn't ready for marriage. One of Grandma's old friends was coming to court her, and Grandma didn't love him the way that he loved her.

Then, I read a friend's blog in which he discusses his recent break-up with his girlfriend. He thought things were going well, until his girlfriend dumped him. They were going to be friends, but now she doesn't want to have anything to do with him. He's wondering if he did something wrong, since his Asperger's may inhibit him from knowing when he may have offended her.

What really stinks is that our feelings do not go away. Grandma's friend was rejected, but he still loved her. I wouldn't be surprised if my friend feels his heart's been ripped out of his body. He spent a lot of time with this girl, and she helped him to grow. When you form an attachment to someone, it's hard to let that person go. How's anyone supposed to handle rejection?

It's also discouraging to me that so many attractive women fall for losers, when there are plenty of nice guys out there. The only problem is that women don't give these nice guys the time of day! I recall an episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry said, "Women wonder where all the men are. We're here!"

You know, even if I had a relationship, I wouldn't know what to do next. There's so much insecurity in relationships! I could get dumped for inadvertently offending someone, or because the woman likes to play games, or because I can't come up with anything to say in the relationship.

I tried to think how I would react if I were John-Boy. "I want you to marry me NOW!" would not go too far. People are not always going to act as we want them to act. That's a truth that I have a hard time swallowing.

Lost: Season 2

I finished the second season of Lost last night, and it got me thinking about pride, relationships, faith, and true virtue.

1. Let's first talk about pride. Charlie Pace loves Claire, who has a baby boy named Aaron. Well, Charlie made Claire mad when she discovered he was using heroin. Add to that Charlie's abduction of Aaron and his attempt to baptize him, and you can see that Charlie's lucky if Claire ever speaks to him again!

Enter John Locke, a philosopher-type who seems to know everything about everything (he must have done a lot of reading during his period of paralysis). He keeps hanging around Claire, even going so far as to sleep near her tent to protect her and the baby. When Charlie abducts Aaron, returns him, and tearfully apologizes, Locke punches him. As Sawyer tells Charlie, "That's like Gandhi hitting his kids." Charlie is humiliated by the macho pillar of the island community, John Locke.

And so Charlie participates in a con that Sawyer sets up. Sawyer's goal is to get all the guns for himself. Charlie's motivation, however, is to make Locke look stupid. Both are successful.

I can sympathize with Charlie. I don't like to look foolish, especially in front of a girl I happen to like. And when there's an admired person who totally humiliates me, I want revenge. It's only natural.

It takes a great deal of self-crucifixion to let bygones be bygones. Charlie would really have to trust in God's love to forgo seeking revenge. But it's hard to do that, especially when life stinks. In Charlie's case, everyone on the island didn't like him, including Claire, the love of his life. It takes a great deal of faith to look beyond one's present surroundings--to believe in something good, even when one's external reality seems to scream the opposite.

This overlaps with my weekend quiet time, which is on Judges 15. The Philistines get their revenge on Samson, and Samson gets his revenge on the Philistines. And innocent people suffer as a result. Forgiveness or non-retaliation looks like weakness or timidity to a lot of people, which is why many seek revenge in the first place. But revenge only escalates the conflict. Again, it takes a lot of self-crucifixion to do the right thing!

What's ironic is that Locke has the same kinds of issues that Charlie has. He's not a heroin addict, mind you, but he has a lot of pride. People treated him like garbage for most of his life--his dad, his workplace, etc., etc. He didn't like others telling him what he couldn't do. And he has somewhat of a rivalry with Dr. Jack, the leader of the island community. Locke sees himself as a co-leader, so he doesn't like Jack giving him orders.

One would think that Locke's issues would lead him to sympathize with Charlie, but they don't necessarily. Maybe that's because pride tends toward isolation, not community. In general, it's not always the case that people who suffer have compassion for others who suffer. There are people who have struggled socially, as I do, but I don't necessarily connect with them, nor they with me. Shared experiences must not be the only necessary ingredient for a social connection.

2. Now onto the topic of relationships. As we saw, Claire became mad at Charlie. In one of Locke's flashbacks, we see that Locke and his girlfriend, Helen, had a falling out. Locke and Helen were going to get married, but that whole plan deteriorated when Helen discovered that Locke valued his dad's love over hers. Charlie and Locke both apologized profusely to the women they loved, but the relationship was still over.

Can relationships be healed? A few months ago, I had a conversation with a young woman on my Christian dating site. Things were going well for a couple of days, as we had some good banter. But then I said something that offended her. I didn't mean to cause her offense, mind you, for I was actually trying to make her feel better. But the damage was done. My apologies didn't appease her. We've not had contact since.

But there have also been times when my relationships have been restored. I may be estranged from someone, but then we encounter each other after a long period of absence. We start talking, and we end up bonding over a shared topic of interest. I'm not always sure if I'm ready to dive back into the relationship, since I don't want to be hurt again. But I find myself having a good time with the person.

Sometimes, giving a person space is the right thing to do. Time can be conducive to healing. Meeting a person after a long period of absence may be a way of letting a relationship start anew. That's why I don't need to walk around with grudges about the past. I can allow each social situation to be a fresh and new experience.

3. Now let's talk about faith. At the beginning of the season, Locke wants to get inside a portal, and he doesn't know how to do so. He believes that the island has a special destiny for him and the community, since it healed him of his paralysis. In despair, he cries out to the island and hits the door of the portal. Suddenly, there's a bright light, and the door opens.

Inside the portal, Locke encounters Desmond, who is part of the Dharma Initiative, a research project that encompasses the government and various universities. Desmond feels he has to type a code into a computer every 108 minutes to save the world. Dr. Jack denies that the world is in danger, for he views the whole exercise as a psychological experiment to see if Desmond will go along. But Locke is convinced that Desmond is truly saving the world every 108 minutes, and he assumes Desmond's task as his own--as if it's part of his destiny.

But Locke discovers that it was all a psychological experiment, or at least he concludes that when he watches a Dharma Initiative video in another portal. And he learns that the ominous "bright light" was actually Desmond turning on a lamp to identify who was pounding on the portal (Locke). Locke then has a crisis of faith. What he initially viewed as a mysterious sign turns out to be ordinary. And he feels that his life is meaningless, devoid of any purpose.

But, sheesh, the island took away his paralysis, didn't it? Did he forget that little detail? It's amazing how quickly we're willing to dump our faith, just because not everything turns out as we had hoped or expected. I have a whole list of expectations of things that should be true if there is a God: I'd have a pretty Christian woman, God would be blessing me left and right, someone would stumble on my blog and offer me a lucrative writing contract, people would come to Christ on a massive scale through my "brilliance." But life's not like that for me; actually, it's rather ordinary, and I often wonder if anyone's minding the store. And yet, there have been times when God has helped me, so maybe he still has a plan for my life. And perhaps God can work through the ordinary and not-so-glamorous.

4. Finally, true virtue. Michael's son, Vic, is abducted by the Others. The Others tell Michael that he'll get his son back if he brings them four people from his island community: Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Hurley. In the process of following these instructions, Michael kills two innocent people, one of them Hurley's girlfriend (who keeps popping up in flashbacks, for some reason). He also deceives his friends. But he gets his son back in the end, and the Others show him how to get back home (off the island, that is).

I had to admire the depth that Michael was willing to go out of love for his son. He would do anything for that boy! But his situation reminded me of something I read in Jonathan Edwards' Nature of True Virtue. Edwards was trying to explain how non-Christians could do good things, since he believed in the total depravity of human beings apart from Christ. His conclusion was that the "good" that unbelievers do is not true virtue. For Edwards, true virtue is disinterested love for God and neighbor. There's a part of his book where he says that unbelievers may love their family, their friends, or their clan, without really giving a rip for the larger human community. As far as Edwards is concerned, that is not true virtue, for true virtue values the whole, not just individual parts.

And that's what I see with Michael: he was willing to do anything out of love for his son, but he ended up hurting everyone else in the process. Of course, that raises other questions, such as the whole Star Trek dilemma of "Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one?" Would I have wanted Michael to tell the Others, "Go ahead and kill my son--I will not compromise my morality!"? How would I feel if my dad approached the issue in that way?

That reminds me of a motif that I've seen on TV and in movies, in which a parent tries to save the world and ignores his own family in the process. In an episode of Touched by an Angel, a man owns a large taffy company and tries to implement a grand vision for all kids. But his own son feels left out of his father's life. In The Third Miracle, Anne Heche plays a woman whose mother was a saint. But her mom was so busy saving the rest of the world, that her very own daughter felt neglected. The TBAA episode and the movie portray the saintly parent in a positive light, but I wonder: "Shouldn't the parents have focused more on their own children? Does God require me to care for the entire world, or only for those he has placed in my life?" But maybe there was a way they could have had their cake and eaten it too: they could've worked with their children to help others, making social justice a family activity. It's something to think about!

I'll go to the library to see if I can find Lost: Season 3. Stay tuned!

Some More on Fleshly Entertainment

Last night, I watched the first hour of Love Actually. Someone recommended it to me. While there were scenes that I liked (e.g., Liam Neeson's tender relationship with his little boy, who has a cute crush on a little girl), I just couldn't watch it all the way through.

There was so much nudity in it. It was about people going on dates and getting laid. This one British guy comes to America specifically to get sex, since he's somewhat of a dunce in Great Britain (of course, I could identify with him there--I wonder if I'd be a more successful dater in other countries!).

I just felt that watching it was a waste of my time. I didn't really care for the characters or what happened to them. I took out the Love Actually DVD and put in an episode of Smallville. Smallville always makes me feel better!

I know I sound like a prude--more so than I did in yesterday's post, Charlie Pace: Flesh v. Spirit. So what's my stance on sex in entertainment? I guess I don't mind it, as long as it's not the main focus of the show or movie. The show or movie has to have some redeeming qualities, in my humble opinion.

Dr. Dobson and the System

I've talked on this blog before about Doc Love, a dating guru whose advice has helped many. He has a dating technique called "The System," which is based on three C's: confidence, (self-) control, and challenge.

For Doc, women generally like men who are confident enough to approach them, who don't totally fall apart whenever they're rejected. A good sense of humor also helps, for Doc is clear that a man on the first date should be "light and funny." Self-control means that a man should wait a week after meeting a woman before he calls her, and it also includes being willing to say "no" to a woman every now and then (which women love). That leads to Doc's third C, "challenge," which is allowing women to do some of the chasing. A man needs to show a woman that he has a sense of self apart from her. He should definitely flirt, since that goes with "confidence," but there are also times when he should pull back. That can increase a woman's "interest level."

Doc's advice is not exactly what you see on movies and television, at least not most of the time. Sure, there was an episode of 7th Heaven (Season 1) in which Matt told one of his friends to act aloof around Mary, since "chicks dig that." Unfortunately, his friend didn't follow that advice but chose instead to fawn all over her, leading her interest level to drop lower than it already was.

But, overall, movies and shows tell men to fawn all over women. "You need to tell her how you feel, send flowers every day, remind her all of the time that she's beautiful." There's a place for all that, since such deeds can convey appreciation, which women (like everyone) desire. But, for Doc, they also don't want a man whom they can walk all over. And women like receiving gifts and compliments from men they like, for whom they already have a high interest level. Gifts and compliments do not necessarily increase a woman's interest level, as far as Doc is concerned.

Well, in the midst of all of these conflicting messages that are out there, guess who agrees with Doc Love (though perhaps by coincidence)? Another Doc--the Doc of the evangelical community--Dr. James Dobson!

That's how Jim Dobson got Shirley. Here's a quote from Dale Buss' Family Man: The Biography of Dr. James Dobson:

"[A] more unsettling...strand of their relationship was the perpetual cat-and-mouse game they played as each one tried to figure out how serious they should be and whether the other partner in the relationship felt the same way...This dating equivocation surfaced almost immediately. [B]y the end of their first summer of dating, Shirley told him that she wanted to resume dating a boyfriend from the previous spring. Dobson later recalled his response as a crucial early step in their relationship. 'I said that was a good idea, because there were some girls I wanted to date too,' he says. 'She said that she wanted to go with him and me too. And I said, 'No, go with him.' I set her free at that moment. If I'd said, 'You can't do that to me; maybe I love you!' the relationship would have been over, stone-cold dead--I know Shirley. But I was confident enough to do that. She never dated him again. She stayed with me'" (33).

This game of cat-and-mouse continued on and off until Dobson finally proposed. Buss explains:

"Dobson finally drew an end to the uncertainties by determining that he wasn't going to be a beggar in this relationship. One evening he pulled over the 1949 Mercury convertible he called Ol' Red and gave his beloved a moonlit speech. He was going somewhere in life, he told her, and he wanted her to come along. If she didn't, he would move on. Shirley opted in, and their relationship was forever defined" (33-34).

He wasn't going to be a beggar in the relationship. Doc Love couldn't have said it better!

Dobson's own experience inspired his book, Love Must Be Tough. I was listening to it a few weeks ago, and he said that the men who normally got the girl in his day were the ones who flirted, while maintaining some aloofness. Dobson also recounted that Shirley was a major heartbreaker in her younger years!

This puzzled me because Shirley was a Christian from her youth. Because of her troubled childhood, she learned to depend on her heavenly Father from a really early age. Would a Christian break mens' hearts?

That's when it hit me: so much of dating is a game. Sure, there are important aspects to it, like genuinely enjoying the company of another person. But a big part of dating is determining if this is the one you want to be with for the rest of your life. And many women are drawn to a man's strength (and I don't primarily mean his muscles!).

As I was thinking about this, my (and Bryan L's) favorite Bible passage entered my mind: "If you have raced with foot-runners and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses? And if in a safe land you fall down, how will you fare in the thickets of the Jordan?" (Jeremiah 12:5, NRSV).

God is telling Jeremiah to stop complaining and toughen up, for things will soon get worse. Or they can get worse. And, believe it or not, this verse gives me comfort, probably more than the usual passages that Christians go to for reassurance ("I will never leave you nor forsake you"). I can whine about my current situation, or I can use it as an opportunity to become stronger. And I will need strength if I ever enter the dating game, for there is a lot of rejection out there!

Carley, Doc, Townsend, and Lucy on Dating

I said yesterday that I wouldn't post any more Michael John Carley quotes. I lied! Or, more accurately, there's more in his book that I want to interact with. In Asperger's from the Inside Out, Carley offers some tips on dating. I'll list his tips and respond to some of them, drawing on other things that I have seen, read, or experienced.

"Part of where we have a legitimate shot at someone being attracted to us lies in our ability to bury ourselves in work that we love and believe in--and then being seen doing it. So find some of that work, and if you sense that in this capacity there's no one there for you at your present volunteer position, move on. Volunteer somewhere else, and keep trying until you have some luck" (183).

Carley relates that this is how he met his wife, Kathryn. She was a journalist in Iraq, where he was working on bringing water to poor areas. She was attracted by his passionate commitment to his cause.

Believe it or not, there were times in my life when this could've worked for me, but I kind of blew it. In the course of my academic career, attractive (and not-so-attractive) females have remarked to me, "You are so smart!" Some of them even had conversations with me. Maybe if I had been more confident or socially savvy, I could have gotten dates. But I was really shy.

Right now, I'm usually not so lucky. I find it difficult to stand out in academia now-a-days. And a lot of my work is solitary, so women don't see me doing it. I do write on a Christian dating site, which has news and Bible study forums. I wish women there would be attracted to me through my brilliant writing, but, alas, I've not had much luck.

A friend of mine at Harvard once told me that, even though I wasn't that successful in getting dates then, I would one day shine in academia. And if a woman saw me being passionate about my work, then she'd figure that I could be passionate about her. He said that I'll probably meet a colleague in academia or the ministry (if I choose to go that route).

But there are rules that I'll need to remember! As a professor, I cannot date my students. And, as a pastor, I cannot date my parishioners. It's against the rules.

What Carley says reminds me of a sermon by Lucy Camden on 7th Heaven. I'm in the 9th season right now, and Lucy is an associate pastor at her father's church. Her father wants her to teach a class about abstinence, since a nearby church has an extensive sex ed program, plus his son, Simon, is getting sexually active in an attempt to bury his pain. Lucy talks about the Shulammite woman of the Song of Songs, who knows who she is and doesn't need others to feel good about herself (in Lucy's interpretation). According to Lucy, we should seek out our own passions rather than looking to a man or a woman to fulfill all of our needs.

And this was the advice that I heard at GRASP. I remember one young man there who was obsessed with finding a girlfriend. He was advised to get his mind off of girls for a while and find himself some interests, like a course of study (for instance). C.S. Lewis gave the same advice about seeking friendships in general: Don't complain about not having friends! Rather, find something to be interested in! Then, you can build some friendships around those interests.

What I just said here will prove important later on in the post, so store it in your memory banks!

"Rituals like dinner, dancing, and/or a movie shouldn't be ruled out necessarily, and if you can do well at such traditions, a certain amount of pride should be yours for figuring them out (I couldn't). But if these venues are not to your liking, Grasp's Zosia Zaks, in Life and Love: Positive Strategies for Autistic Adults, has a fabulous list of date ideas..." (184-185).

The list includes having a picnic; hiking; and visiting a museum, aquarium, or science center (as Bill did on his first date with Hillary).

This is an important point. My Harvard friend whom I mentioned above prided himself on being a ladies man. He said that women like to be surprised. If I give a woman the same red rose over and over, he said, then she may get bored with me and not stick around. And so it's good to be creative in the dating game.

That's something to think about. I ordered Zosia's book for this reason. Plus, it offers strategies on seeking employment, so I'm sure the book will be useful to me on numerous occasions.

"Prior to the date, dress appropriately and smell good. Perfumes or colognes aren't necessary (and if the other person is on the spectrum, it might be preferable that you not wear these). But make sure you're clean--teeth brushed, no body odor, etc." (185).

I've recently found out how important this is. Don't get me wrong: I've always brushed my teeth, bathed, and put on deodorant. But here's the deal: Recently, I went home to Brazil, Indiana and got a haircut. When I came back here to Cincinnati, I got compliments. A gay person I know said, "You look different. You look clean-cut and handsome." My therapist said, "That's a good modern haircut! You look like you're taking better care of yourself! You're clean shaven, and your clothes are neat. You look like you're going to a job interview!"

And, interestingly, more attractive women have smiled at me. Ordinarily, they don't even look at me when I pass them on the streets. Now, for some reason, there are more who acknowledge my existence (though I haven't had any conversations with them).

I'm not sure how to take the part about looking different. I've shaved and bathed for as long as I've known these two men. So I'm not sure how to stay clean-cut. What specifically do I need to do now that I didn't do before? Do I need to get regular haircuts? Tuck in my shirt more? What?

"At the beginning of the date, say something nice about how your date looks. But don't keep repeating the compliment" (185).

This resembles dating advice that I've heard from Doc Love, a dating guru whose advice has helped many. According to Doc, women like men who are a challenge. They generally don't like men who fawn all over them. That's why Doc recommends that men not call a woman the day after he met her (or went out on a date for her, for that matter). Rather, he should wait a week. That's a rule I've violated a few times!

I seek balance on this whole issue. Doc says that men should be somewhat aloof and let women do the chasing, but I don't think that's the best strategy for me. I've been aloof most of my life, and that's not gotten me too many dates! Women may like their space, but they also appreciate men who find them attractive. A lot of women work on their appearance an awful lot, so they want to know that their efforts are successful. And so Carley gives a good guideline: compliment her once, but don't fawn all over her throughout the date. She likes to be complimented, but she also likes men who are a challenge.

"Listen to the person you're on a date with. Try not to interrupt" (186).

Overall, women like to talk. This can help me on a date, and it can also annoy me. It can help me because I don't have to carry the whole conversation. I just need to come up with good questions and let her do the talking (without coming across as an interviewer). But will I be truly interested in what she has to say? Well, that may be a determining factor on whether to take the relationship to a deeper level!

"When the topic switches to you, try to be positive. If the subject touches on events in your life that were hard, be honest about them, but don't play them for sympathy. You'll get more respect this way" (186).

Some say that the sympathy card actually works. And, in some cases, it may. But I'd venture to say that most women want to be with someone they respect. They are attracted to confidence. This is a struggle for me, since I have a hard time coming across as a strong, bold, confident guy, the type that makes women swoon.

Also, according to Doc Love, men shouldn't completely spill their guts on the first date. Women like mystery. They want to learn more and more about a man over time. Why would she want to go out with a man when she knows everything about him--after the first date?

I may be sunk here, since I am so transparent on James' Thoughts and Musings. A woman can just visit my blog and learn all about me! Plus, my blog is not always positive. Many readers can get the impression that I'm playing people for sympathy.

But my blog is a form of free therapy. There's something healing about putting my thoughts on public display, for all the world to see. Maybe that's because I've felt powerless over long periods of my life, as if others' opinions counted and mine did not. Now, I can put my thoughts into the realm of public discourse. "Here is my opinion!" my blog boldly proclaims.

Also, I'm learning new things every day about myself and life. That's why I have something to write each day! And so I am a man of mystery, on a certain level.

And, finally (under this Carley quote), I want a woman who accepts me for who I am, even if I am timid a lot of the time. Sure, I hope to build confidence as time goes on. But I need a woman with whom I can be comfortable, which (for me) means that she loves me (or at least likes me), with all of my imperfections.

"If the date involves spending money (such as dinner) and you asked the other person out, try to pay, but be prepared to pull back and let the other person contribute if you sense this is somehow insulting to them" (186).

This is good advice, especially in this era of women's lib. But it's also applicable to men who date non-feminists. I once went out with a woman who had a conservative, Church of Christ background (one of the four dates in my life), and she offered to pay for part of the meal. I paid for that date, but it's still good to have insight about such a thorny situation. The question of "Who pays?" will come up in a lot of dates, I'm sure!

"At the end of the date, never engage in anything physical unless both of you want to. If you don't want physical contact but a second date, say 'no' nicely do that your wishes are clear" (186).

This is an important rule, especially because of laws against date rape. Overall, I think that the Christian rule of "no sex before marriage" should take care of much of this guideline, even though it fails to cover non-sexual contact (e.g., kissing). Doc Love recommends that a man on the first date give the woman a quick peck on her mouth. Personally, I'd be too timid to do that!

"Remember that if you are over the age of eighteen and the other person is not over the age of eighteen, you should never, ever engage in sexual activity with that person. You could go to jail for this" (186).

This is probably a no-brainer for most of my readers, but I feel a need to stress it. One reason is that the media do not always make this clear. I've seen shows in which grown men date girls who are still in high school. It was on Desperate Housewives a few weeks ago! (Only, there, a woman slept with a teenage boy.) And how old was Laura Ingalls when she married Almonzo? Moreover, in one of Madeleine L'Engle's books for young adults, an adolescent has a romance with a college student. And art reflects life, for, when I was a teenager, I had classmates who dated people over 18. But everyone should remember that there is a serious legal consequence for those who cross the line.

Second, I've heard of situations in which men have casual sex with underage girls, without knowing that they are underage. The girls may have told them that they were 18 or more, or they simply looked older. That's why it's important to get to know someone before you have sex. Again, the "no sex before marriage" rule should take care of this (except for that Mormon sect, in which men actually marry underage girls).

"Remember to be honest if feelings start to grow. Sometimes people will date more than one person at a time unless there is an agreement between the two to be exclusive. To be dishonest in this regard is called cheating, and the other person probably wouldn't appreciate it if they found out" (186-187).

I don't have that problem yet. But I'm glad that Michael offers Aspies hope that they too can become "players"!

"If you like someone, he doesn't have to like you back. And if he doesn't like you back, then you have to leave that person alone" (187).

One has to learn to handle rejection without freaking out. Such a sense of inner-security is essential, especially if one wants to attract people. And that goes with what I said under the first quote: we need to have passions other than our obsession with the opposite sex.

Ironically, John Townsend says this in Loving People, and I was reading him make this point the same time that I was listening to Lucy's sermon. (It's funny how that happens! This has been the second time, too! See Alister McGrath on Religious Pluralism.)

So I hope that these nuggets are useful to you. Maybe they'll help me down the road!