Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[DarkLight]

Chevalier, I suspect we’re talking about different emphasis rather than different ideas. People with the background like Xantippe and I have tend to have grown up with more “you don’t voice your own needs and desires.” Hence the emphasis on boundaries is stronger - because what we’re used to is “having boundaries and needs is selfish and good women don’t do that.”

I do think this needs to go along with a good discussion of how to talk about your thoughts and feelings. And dare I say, a little more openness to talking about subjects of sexuality? Too much shyness is not a good thing when it comes to boundaries, especially in a dating relationship. (That’s actually also something I wish I was told more about as a young person - it’s ok to talk about what you want and don’t want!) In today’s world it is almost certainly necessary to indicate a serious commitment to chastity up front.

Any offense against chastity proper should be a major red flag, of course, for a Catholic man or woman. Not only because of issues about boundaries, but because it indicates that the party does not share Catholic values. Someone with a commitment to chastity does not push for sex, or for things that are “not quite sex”.

Firm boundaries should not be tested lightly or frequently. My ex’s idea of trying again in 5 minutes is right out. Also, generally, if a boundary has been set, it’s preferable to ask if one can renegotiate it. Simply going in for a kiss when it’s been indicated that the other person isn’t ready isn’t a good idea.

And of course temporary boundaries are a thing that’s going to happen, and need to be communicated clearly. It’s ok to say “hey I’m not really wanting to do this right now, can we just watch a movie tonight?” or something. If it’s not a usual restriction the obligation is on the requesting party to be clear, but the other party should respect that sometimes people aren’t up for what they might usually be up for.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

However, the good news is that there’s going to be quite a noticeable difference between the demeanor of a prospective partner who is paralyzed with terror, versus somebody expressing enthusiastic consent.

Anybody who can’t tell the difference ought to read up until they can.

One, if you do not threaten, coerce, use force, or indicate that you’re willing to do so, you are not responsible for someone else’s fear. That fear may very well be irrational. I personally have a lot of irrational fears, and sometimes, I act on them. But, the blame does not lie with the source of my fear.

Two, there is a vast ocean of grey between “paralyzed with terror” and “enthusiastic consent”, and leaving it to someone else to figure out what you are, when you may not know yourself, is irresponsible from a personal safety standpoint and unfair as a potential partner. You seem very quick to label anything shy of full, affirmative, ongoing, enthusiasm as assault or rape. That’s not helpful to young people entering the dating world or to real victims of these crimes.

Three, I can think of several reasons why true consent may not look like your idea of enthusiasm. I say ‘your idea’ because the notion is so vague and so open to individual interpretation that each individual’s idea is the best you can hope for - unlike just saying ‘no’. Just a few:

-Serious cultural differences in sex. For instance, an American and a Japanese person likely have very different ideas of what “enthusiasm” looks like (look up sexual customs around the world and you’ll see what I mean by cultural differences). Both understand ‘no’.

-A severely ill person may truly want sex, but be unable to show anything resembling ‘enthusiasm’. They can still say ‘no’.

-A very inexperienced or painfully shy person may very much want to continue, but could be very unsure of what to do or how. He/she may be literally trembling from nerves. Displays of nervousness are ambiguous, ‘no’ is not.

-The one I’m surprised you haven’t made allowances for are issues like autism. Some people truly have an impossible time reading others, and/or expressing their own thoughts or feelings appropriately through cues. Enthusiasm is variable, but everyone, even people with Autism, understands ‘no’.

I’m sure there are a million other reasons or circumstances that I haven’t thought of; those are just the ones off the top of my head.

While we’re discussing boundaries, I would say that anyone who isn’t confident in their ability to say ‘no’ in the absence of threats/coercion/violence/whatever really, really doesn’t need to be dating or looking for romance. That’s just not a person who is ready to form a relationship with someone else.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier, I suspect we’re talking about different emphasis rather than different ideas. People with the background like Xantippe and I have tend to have grown up with more “you don’t voice your own needs and desires.” Hence the emphasis on boundaries is stronger - because what we’re used to is “having boundaries and needs is selfish and good women don’t do that.”

I do think this needs to go along with a good discussion of how to talk about your thoughts and feelings. And dare I say, a little more openness to talking about subjects of sexuality? Too much shyness is not a good thing when it comes to boundaries, especially in a dating relationship. (That’s actually also something I wish I was told more about as a young person - it’s ok to talk about what you want and don’t want!) In today’s world it is almost certainly necessary to indicate a serious commitment to chastity up front.

Any offense against chastity proper should be a major red flag, of course, for a Catholic man or woman. Not only because of issues about boundaries, but because it indicates that the party does not share Catholic values. Someone with a commitment to chastity does not push for sex, or for things that are “not quite sex”.

Firm boundaries should not be tested lightly or frequently. My ex’s idea of trying again in 5 minutes is right out. Also, generally, if a boundary has been set, it’s preferable to ask if one can renegotiate it. Simply going in for a kiss when it’s been indicated that the other person isn’t ready isn’t a good idea.

**And of course temporary boundaries are a thing that’s going to happen, and need to be communicated clearly. ** It’s ok to say “hey I’m not really wanting to do this right now, can we just watch a movie tonight?” or something. If it’s not a usual restriction the obligation is on the requesting party to be clear, but the other party should respect that sometimes people aren’t up for what they might usually be up for.

I haven’t caught up, but yes to this.

About temporary boundaries–sometimes people in my household are feeling especially prickly or ticklish and don’t want to be handled. So this is going to sound weird, but from toddler on up, I try to ask before I hug anybody. I don’t always do that, but a lot of the time, I say “hug?” before grabbing family members. With one of my autistic kids, this is a good idea, because if you hug her without warning, she will jump out of her skin and freak out. So I’ve been trained to be more respectful of her physical boundaries. Another family member sometimes gets all shivery if touched, so I really do have to ask and make sure that I’m not causing discomfort.

That doesn’t mean that we never hug or touch each other, but we ask a lot and we back off if the person isn’t into it.

I really want my kids to be able to say “no” and to speak up for themselves–which is why I need to listen to their “no” and adjust what I’m doing when they speak up (barring some sort of medical situation).

 

[chevalier]

My apologies for making this long again, but I don’t really have the time or energy to edit it to make it shorter. I often do at least try.

Chevalier, I suspect we’re talking about different emphasis rather than different ideas.

No argument about that. Most of our pingpong is a matter of quantity, not quality.

People with the background like Xantippe and I have tend to have grown up with more “you don’t voice your own needs and desires.” Hence the emphasis on boundaries is stronger - because what we’re used to is “having boundaries and needs is selfish and good women don’t do that.”

Hard to argue against that either.

I do think this needs to go along with a good discussion of how to talk about your thoughts and feelings.

Yes, though as someone who’s received a lot of negotiation and similar training, I more and more firmly believe that ordinary people shouldn’t need special training for ordinary situations in life. If they do, then the culture is seriously derailed. And I believe Western culture is in fact so derailed — because of various things, not just political correctness as the sole cause of all evils troubling it.

And dare I say, a little more openness to talking about subjects of sexuality?

Probably nothing wrong with that. And obviously a Catholic needs some conversation to establish that his or her ‘counterparty’ would not essentially be simulating the vows (e.g. mentally excluding indissolubility or openness to offspring) and is not incapable (oh the joys of Canon 1095).

Too much shyness is not a good thing when it comes to boundaries, especially in a dating relationship.

I tentatively agree, though I fear we’re going to be hitting a bump in a moment.

(That’s actually also something I wish I was told more about as a young person - it’s ok to talk about what you want and don’t want!) In today’s world it is almost certainly necessary to indicate a serious commitment to chastity up front.

About the need to proactively indicate one’s serious and (importantly) non-variable, non-negotiable, non-optional commitment to chastity, there is no doubt.

However, when it comes to light PDAs, I believe spontaneity is generally better, just as long as the ‘counterparty’ is given enough opportunity to dodge any such gestures. Perhaps in terms of those uncertain goodbye pecks when even up to the last moment the receiving party who is not presenting a side of his or her face but front and centre may still be thinking it’s going to land on the cheek anyway, so yeah, that’s when one would want to ask to make sure.

But the less spontaneity and the more engagement in pre-planned, demarcated PDAs, the more similarity it begins to have to purposeful, deliberate ‘consummation’ of the relationship — or ‘doing something’ together, doing our thing etc. — which is basically similar to marital intercourse, or, in this case, a substitute for it. For the same reason that fornication is wrong, one shouldn’t accept a substitutive activity that symbolizes it or makes up for the lack of it.

Personally, I think there is a danger in setting up a deliberate ritual for anything more advanced or more complex than a kiss on the hand or cheek or a hug, depending on the culture, age group etc.

The more deliberation (as reflected by making arrangements, for example), the more danger the gesture represents something it shouldn’t.

Any offense against chastity proper should be a major red flag, of course,

Generally true, but see, the problem lies in ‘any’. With big umbrella terms like that there is always the question of just how far do they actually extend. For example a slighly too colourful joke could be an offence against chastity. Or a moral purist could see as unchaste a lot of hugs etc. that most people wouldn’t give a second thought to. Or even an inappropriate glance at one’s girlfriend’s curves (that could actually go up to mortal sin). In some situations such classification would be correct, but the act itself would be far removed from the knowledge and intent necessary for a mortal sin, possibly free of venial sin even. Hence I would anys and alls for fear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hence I’m extremely wary about totalistic classifications in threads like this one

 

[chevalier]

Someone with a commitment to chastity does not push for sex, or for things that are “not quite sex”.

Of course. I was referring to boundaries such as 30 vs 45 vs 60 cm of personal space, holding hands already vs not yet, cheek kiss vs hug and such like (or how many times it’s appropriate or welcome to call someone in a day, or every how many days etc.).

Obviously, there is no question whatsoever of obsession if someone needs to be reminded that the clothes need to stay on.

Firm boundaries should not be tested lightly or frequently.

Firm and clear about important things, yes. But otherwise dating is all about pushing boundaries, usually emotional, and seeing if it’ll stick. But sometimes also physical, such as the kind of physical touch that would still be an appropriate display of affection between friends anyway but here usually also means something else.

My ex’s idea of trying again in 5 minutes is right out.

Had a colleague rub her foot against my shin under the table minutes after telling me we were and would only be colleagues. And trying to hug her or stroke her hair or something else silly and childish like that violated her boundaries.

(Obviously that violated my boundaries, because that’s not something I take from a colleague (or someone who wants to be that and no more), so she was called out on it, or rather politely asked to confirm that her intention was indeed to send the two messages at the same time.)

Also, generally, if a boundary has been set, it’s preferable to ask if one can renegotiate it. Simply going in for a kiss when it’s been indicated that the other person isn’t ready isn’t a good idea.

Yes, and I personally lean toward asking verbally, but I think it’s healthier if the verbal question does not have to be asked but the situation is instead resolved by leaning in slowly, while making the intention clear but also leaving enough time to dodge, especially at the last moment.

And obviously someone who is taking care to leave the other party enough time to dodge the kiss is, in my opinion, not violating any boundaries. Not unless specifically asked to not even try or propose another kiss (which, by the way, essentially means friend-zoned).

And of course temporary boundaries are a thing that’s going to happen, and need to be communicated clearly. It’s ok to say “hey I’m not really wanting to do this right now, can we just watch a movie tonight?” or something.

Yes, that’s okay, but Catholics are already as a rule not going to be ‘doing this’ or doing anything specific that would need to be described as ‘doing this’ because of how far the 6th commandment extends.

Next, I really don’t want to even give the impression (which would be false) of disputing someone’s fundamental right to just not do what he or she doesn’t want to do on a date, but the other side of the coin is that flip-flopping on simple, innocent signs of affection, attachment or commitment is a sign of difficulties or potential issues that could leave the other party (regardless of which person is of which sex) to re-evaluate the relationship. Hence proper communication would be key — and that does not mean anything detailed or apologetic, just something considerate and sufficient to dispel any wrong impressions. I see mature, considerate, somewhat high-class women take care to do that in dating contexts. It impresses me also on the point of their humility, as in despite their obvious worth they don’t see themselves as being above explaining something to a man (which is the radfem proposal). Thus for example a professional writer I know explains that her distance means she doesn’t know you, not that she doesn’t like you. A lawyer I used to know would add a word or two to explain the nature of a potentially question-raising circumstances (e.g. when she was already meeting someone at the proposed time, she wouldn’t be above mentioning it was a business meeting or with a friend, which would set the guy’s mind at ease without needing to delve into the whole exclusivity thing). A psychologist I know is liberal with praise where she thinks praise is due, or with signs of friendly affection, but she also makes it clear she keeps her emotions and feelings in check in dating contexts and puts them on a backburner before figuring the guy out at least somewhat. There are similar smart ways of communicating boundaries.

In any case, from a man’s perspective, if a woman begins to shy away from your touch where she didn’t before, that means she’s rejecting you or re-evaluating your relationship right now. My empirical experience, for what it’s worth, confirms this. The same goes for non-physical signs of affection. My experience also confirms women react just the same way as men in the same circumstances.

 

[chevalier]

If it’s not a usual restriction the obligation is on the requesting party to be clear, but the other party should respect that sometimes people aren’t up for what they might usually be up for.

Yeah, of course. Just as long as the other party still gets to be treated as a human being. By which I mostly mean without unnecessary disrespect or apparent rejection (unless real, true rejection is the intended message).

And just to be sure: Once again, I’m not advocating for any right of anyone to get his or her way over the objections of someone who wants to set a boundary (even an unreasonable boundary). My point is rather that the boundaries themselves and the way they are set and communicated can exhibit control tendencies and can violate the other person. Hence I would advocate for some thought, versus feeling compelled to act fully on the first impulse.

In my experience a lot of traditional men who, shall we say, represent some objective worth (basically are decent husband and father material) and are not oblivious to the fact, will generally, despite being quite forgiving and understanding, still insist on being generally treated with healthy respect (which is in fact a boundary too, e.g. they won’t date someone who talks down to them) and will generally aim to marry a considerate person who gives some thought to how she makes others feel (hubby, kids, in-laws, neighbours etc.) and feels responsible for it. This means that without being red-pill jerks (and in fact quite used to seeing and working with women in their own professions, hence prepared to both give women the traditional respect and treat them as professional, intellectual etc. equals), the whole lot of them will generally be culturally incompatible with someone looking from a more feminist perspective.

And by a more feminist perspective I mean the kind of outlook or rather approach to other people and society where a woman, just because of being female, owes nothing to anyone, and certainly never owes any courtesy to a man, is above societal rules and conventions, liberated from same old rules everybody has to follow such as politeness and basic courtesy, and encouraged to act on relatively base instincts rather than consciously chosen principles and trained, honed virtues, which obviously goes right against the professional, social and moral values those men will typically hold dear.

Hence in losing oneself too much in the appeal of the feminist proposal, one would probably miss out on the opportunity of becoming close with one of those guys, for what that’s worth. (For the record, I’m not including myself here.)

 

[chevalier]

I haven’t caught up, but yes to this.

About temporary boundaries–sometimes people in my household are feeling especially prickly or ticklish and don’t want to be handled. So this is going to sound weird, but from toddler on up, I try to ask before I hug anybody. I don’t always do that, but a lot of the time, I say “hug?” before grabbing family members. With one of my autistic kids, this is a good idea, because if you hug her without warning, she will jump out of her skin and freak out. So I’ve been trained to be more respectful of her physical boundaries. Another family member sometimes gets all shivery if touched, so I really do have to ask and make sure that I’m not causing discomfort.

That doesn’t mean that we never hug or touch each other, but we ask a lot and we back off if the person isn’t into it.

I really want my kids to be able to say “no” and to speak up for themselves–which is why I need to listen to their “no” and adjust what I’m doing when they speak up (barring some sort of medical situation).

Ah, okay, we’re on the same page then, I guess. I was on alert because we were talking about dating, and in that context going all-out on affirmative consent for the smallest thing would mean a girl having to ask a guy she’s been stargazing and reading poetry with before she pecks him on the cheek, or a guy having to feel like a sex offender for trying to hold a girl’s hand during their nth date, stuff like that. Okay, if we aren’t talking about that sort of OCD prior communication about all PDA (heck, for radfems even falling in love with a woman is a sex crime if she doesn’t find you attractive), then we’re on the same page.

 

[pensmama87]

.

In any case, from a man’s perspective, if a woman begins to shy away from your touch where she didn’t before, that means she’s rejecting you or re-evaluating your relationship right now. My empirical experience, for what it’s worth, confirms this. The same goes for non-physical signs of affection. My experience also confirms women react just the same way as men in the same circumstances.

I would be cautious about reading too much into this, though of course it can be what you say. Sometimes it’s just bad breath.

 

[chevalier]

While we’re discussing boundaries, I would say that anyone who isn’t confident in their ability to say ‘no’ in the absence of threats/coercion/violence/whatever really, really doesn’t need to be dating or looking for romance. That’s just not a person who is ready to form a relationship with someone else.

Courting maybe (19th-century-style), but not dating, yes.

To add to your list. There could be a hard-working man, working two shifts at a construction yard to feed his family, allow his wife to focus more on their small children, maybe set aside some money for a nicer house or college fees. It’s quite possible that no matter how attractive his wife was, sex would be the last thing on his mind, simply due to exhaustion. Hence he would most definitely not feel like having a night of passion but would still quite willingly agree if asked or initiate when he saw his wife (typically several years younger, hence more in trouble with hormones) needed it. That would be perfectly valid consent and absolutely not for the wrong reasons.

In fact, the same would still hold true if their sexes were inverted in the scenario.

And, for singles’ education, this is exactly what marital consent is going to look like much, if not most, of the time.

 

[chevalier]

I would be cautious about reading too much into this, though of course it can be what you say. Sometimes it’s just bad breath.

Oh yes, if it’s kissing or leaning in then yeah, bad breath is a prime candidate. But I didn’t even have that sort of closeness in mind. (Wow, I’m such a prude!) I meant less advanced PDA, where the breath would have to be royally awful to carry the distance.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes, though as someone who’s received a lot of negotiation and similar training, I more and more firmly believe that ordinary people shouldn’t need special training for ordinary situations in life. If they do, then the culture is seriously derailed. And I believe Western culture is in fact so derailed — because of various things, not just political correctness as the sole cause of all evils troubling it.

I think this depends on what you mean by special training. After all, we get lots of training for ordinary situations in life - it just comes from parents and teachers and priests and whatnot, rather than being a special instruction that’s separated out. And failures in this training can cause issues for the person later on. In my case, the fact that my standard training was “boundaries are selfish” rather than “boundaries are normal and necessary and here’s how to negotiate them” caused problems.

I think boundaries training (not necessarily in those terms) should be a part of a normal upbringing.

Generally true, but see, the problem lies in ‘any’. …]
Obviously, there is no question whatsoever of obsession if someone needs to be reminded that the clothes need to stay on.

I was meaning those two lines to go together - so an “offense against chastity” would be “sex or activities almost sex” (think things like touching of private parts here).

Had a colleague rub her foot against my shin under the table minutes after telling me we were and would only be colleagues. And trying to hug her or stroke her hair or something else silly and childish like that violated her boundaries.

(Obviously that violated my boundaries, because that’s not something I take from a colleague (or someone who wants to be that and no more), so she was called out on it, or rather politely asked to confirm that her intention was indeed to send the two messages at the same time.)

I feel like that’s another point - if one is not in a romantic relationship, one should be extremely careful before initiating anything, and it’s almost certainly better to ask verbally than to try to make a move. Trying to initiate something with someone who isn’t your partner is quite likely to get a bad response.

And obviously someone who is taking care to leave the other party enough time to dodge the kiss is, in my opinion, not violating any boundaries. Not unless specifically asked to not even try or propose another kiss (which, by the way, essentially means friend-zoned).

I might dispute the pragmatics here - personally, while I’m not going to be waiting for my wedding day, I’d probably wait to very late in the relationship to do so. A lot of that is personal reasons, which I’d be happy to explain to someone.

Yes, that’s okay, but Catholics are already as a rule not going to be ‘doing this’ or doing anything specific that would need to be described as ‘doing this’ because of how far the 6th commandment extends.

Next, I really don’t want to even give the impression (which would be false) of disputing someone’s fundamental right to just not do what he or she doesn’t want to do on a date, but the other side of the coin is that flip-flopping on simple, innocent signs of affection, attachment or commitment is a sign of difficulties or potential issues that could leave the other party (regardless of which person is of which sex) to re-evaluate the relationship. Hence proper communication would be key — and that does not mean anything detailed or apologetic, just something considerate and sufficient to dispel any wrong impressions.

That’s fair enough. I was thinking, say…I have migraines. There’s also such a thing as a migraine hangover. I’m generally functional during these, but I typically do not want to be touched in any way - primarily because the hangover tends to include some nasty muscle aches and skin sensitivity. That means don’t hug me, don’t hold my hand, nothing. Again, I’d be happy to explain why, but the simple fact is I’m not going to be receptive to physical affection at that point.

 

[chevalier]

I think this depends on what you mean by special training.

y point was that life itself isn’t really so complicated as to really necessitate taking up college-level courses to just be able to interact with others somewhat efficiently.

After all, we get lots of training for ordinary situations in life - it just comes from parents and teachers and priests and whatnot, rather than being a special instruction that’s separated out. And failures in this training can cause issues for the person later on. In my case, the fact that my standard training was “boundaries are selfish” rather than “boundaries are normal and necessary and here’s how to negotiate them” caused problems.

I can see why.

I think boundaries training (not necessarily in those terms) should be a part of a normal upbringing.

Yup.

I was meaning those two lines to go together - so an “offense against chastity” would be “sex or activities almost sex” (think things like touching of private parts here).

Ah, okay, I didn’t even think about those. Sure, there’s little common ground if that’s a problem. For some reason I was under the impression we were talking about Cath2Cath dating.

Trying to initiate something with someone who isn’t your partner is quite likely to get a bad response.

Not necessarily on a date of all things but generally yes, of course. Any adult should basically be presumed to have a boyfriend or girlfriend these days anyway, and one shouldn’t make bold moves on anyone who isn’t known to be single (and available, looking etc.).

That’s fair enough. I was thinking, say…I have migraines. There’s also such a thing as a migraine hangover. I’m generally functional during these, but I typically do not want to be touched in any way - primarily because the hangover tends to include some nasty muscle aches and skin sensitivity. That means don’t hug me, don’t hold my hand, nothing. Again, I’d be happy to explain why, but the simple fact is I’m not going to be receptive to physical affection at that point.

Ah, of course, everybody has something like that from time to time, and in any case a reason is a reason. Perhaps I was too quick to presume we were talking about people just simply getting different ideas and mental frames than they had the day (or date) before based on an impulse.

 

[DarkLight]

Ah, okay, I didn’t even think about those. Sure, there’s little common ground if that’s a problem. For some reason I was under the impression we were talking about Cath2Cath dating.

Given some of the things my entirely Catholic ex-boyfriend did, Cath2Cath dating isn’t always a guarantee. He was a practicing Catholic who went to Mass every week and attended the local Newman club. Apparently that didn’t entirely trickle down.

 

[chevalier]

Given some of the things my entirely Catholic ex-boyfriend did, Cath2Cath dating isn’t always a guarantee. He was a practicing Catholic who went to Mass every week and attended the local Newman club. Apparently that didn’t entirely trickle down.

My sympathies.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

? What’s your point?

I don’t see how whatever you just said contradict my post, unless you’re just sharing your thoughts. I was talking about how there are trad Christians trying to restrict that freedom we have (in this example, pants) by saying that we should be wearing skirts only.

If one is bothered by the fact women can wear casual attire, maybe make everyone wear professional attire in court. Instead of doing something weird like making sure women wear skirts. Of cours he was called a misogynist, it’s quite creepy for someone to insist women to wear a particular style of clothing (one that reveals more skin, in some cases) when a pantsuit works fine. It’s weird that anyone can be in court wearing jeans. I don’t know if you are exaggerating because of the variety women have in professional clothing?

If men are upset that they can’t wear skirts without compromising their masculinity, they have Sjws to look up to. People like Jaden Smith are trying to redefine masculinity by wearing feminine clothing. If men truly want that…

I’m sorry if my post didn’t remain exactly within the parameters of your post, but why are women posters here so fixated on what happens in small Protestant communities or “trad Christianity”? That’s only a minority portion of Christianity, much less American society at large. What I am talking about is what most people have to deal with on a daily basis, which is mainstream society. But this is what so often happens in these discussions; women take examples of purported misogyny in small communities and discrete cultures and extend that to make a case for rampant misogyny in the larger culture. Or they take slogans which haven’t been socially relevant for decades like “a woman’s place is in the kitchen” and try to make it sound as if that were still a cultural norm.

But that aside why is enforcing a dress code in court for women professionals “creepy”? You don’t seem to have the same issue with a dress code for male professionals. Why the disparity? And my point with all of this is not so much as to say “men should be allowed to wear dresses” as to point out that women get favored treatment in many different spheres, so please stop with the constant flogging of “war against women” and “male oppression” etc etc.

 

[Xantippe]

On the other hand some dude who was rebuked for trying to hold a girl’s hand some month and several deep conversations since the last time he was told it was a bit too early, that guy is a shy romantic, not an abuser. Any woman who saw signs of abuse in that would see signs of abuse in anything (she would essentially be seeing herself as put in danger by the mere existence of men or the possibility one could become interested in or emotionally attached to her) and be in urgent need of counselling for her own problems. ACoD would be my guess (and I’m familiar with it), or assault survivor with serious complications. There’s no shame in needing some counselling after that sort of thing before opening oneself to interactions with the opposite sex.

Yes, and they effectively get the advice to flee from any member of the opposite sex who happens to be a healthy human being and not on sedatives.

My issue isn’t even really with that but with how far the definition of ‘pushing’ goes. I really really don’t want to be any less than a nice person in saying this, but you do seem to have rather extreme definitions. I may be exaggerating a little perhaps, but it kind of looks like anything less than full immediate and unconditional affirmation of whatever a woman does or says is abusive, which would obviously be a secular feminist and not a Catholic proposal. Perhaps not radfem, but far on the spectrum nonetheless.

Trust me, I’m not talking about the sort of thing you mention in bold–trying to hold hands after several months of dating.

Bear in mind that I got engaged within three months of meeting my future husband and married within a single school year–there was a whole lot of hand probably within the first month (and my future husband was a shy Polish romantic at the time).

And, for what it’s worth, if a relationship is proceeding at the sort of snail-like pace you describe, it doesn’t really sound like it has much of a future (at least in a Western country this century).

 

[Xantippe]

If nothing else, one thing that would be nice is consistency.

I’ve definitely had the same action go from “well of course you should do that, you can’t be overly suspicious of men” to “well you know you shouldn’t have done that so it’s kind of your fault something bad happened.”

On another note, I would add in that none of what’s been said about boundaries is something I’d exclusively apply to women - or to romantic relationships, for that matter. I think it’s more common in conservative Christian society for women to be taught to not have boundaries than it is for men. But I wouldn’t recommend anyone stay involved with someone who doesn’t respect their boundaries.

Right. This is totally co-ed and applies just as much to platonic relationships.

 

[chevalier]

And, for what it’s worth, if a relationship is proceeding at the sort of snail-like pace you describe, it doesn’t really sound like it has much of a future (at least in a Western country this century).

The point isn’t how early or how late one’s ‘supposed’ to start doing this or that. As far as I’m concerned, people are free to lock lips on their first date and hug the living breath out of each other if that’s how they really feel and it’s chaste, but if they won’t even hold hands for the first month they know each other, that’s fine too. The whole point was about classifying a man as a potential abuser for even trying. This is why I chose a slow pace to avoid derailing the discussion with examples a more sensitive or less touchy-feely person could find objectionable.

And speaking of Western countries this century, thankfully we have not yet arrived at a stage where leaning in for a kiss (gently, giving the option to avoid) or trying to hold someone’s hand on a date without first explicitly asking for verbal consent is going to net a man a harassment citation (or brand him a potential rapist).

 

[Xantippe]

From the perspective of shall we say, more mature dating (25+, 30-ish etc.), I wouldn’t expect a woman to be ever consistent, unchangeable, never go back on anything etc. Some measure of confusion and flip-flopping would be expectable, though perhaps not optimal naturally.

However, my tolerance levels for unfounded serious accusations of predatorial, abusive or similar intentions or tendencies would be very, very low. And not just because it’s a one-off insult like a slap on the face (though that too) but largely because of what that would said about the reality of being in a relationship with that woman. Facing more and more of those accusations, potentially daily, potentially big theories about small transgressions, is a risk I wouldn’t be prepared to take. If any empty coffee cup left on the garden table after some work on the laptop or any sock that somehow found its way to the floor could lead to a lengthy tantrum or ‘quiet days’ or even threats of divorce, nope, that would kill me. I’d much rather a clean humane physical execution than an emotional one spread over 50 years (or whatever shorter time it would take the woman to leave me, possibly carrying off an 80/20 ‘equitable share’ in community property, possibly finding a sympathetic cop to arrest me and put an end to my professional credibility).

In terms of boundaries, sure. Don’t want to kiss on the first date? Great, I don’t either. Don’t want to hold hands after weeks of dating? Doable, though let’s not call me an abuser or defiler or whatever for trying, shall we. And no weird nonsense like flirting with me at complete liberty but cutting me short when I try to. The whole point of boundaries is to be relatively stable and work both ways. Otherwise, sayonara, I’m not taking the risk. At this point in my life I have to consider myself considerably knowledgeable about the ‘Game’, probably more so than the vast majority of actual players, but I still don’t want to turn my back to one. With much more regret, but the same extends to those women who become players not by intention but by some sort of compulsion. And the latter category includes anyone who makes a big point of defining, delimiting, demarcating etc., because that’s control. My heart goes out to those wounded people who desperately grasp for control because they can’t handle a life they can’t completely control, but I don’t think* I* could handle a life with one of them, sadly, so that’s a battle that is best not fought at all. Hence any marked and confirmed tendencies toward unilateral control (beyond the usual quirks that come in package with certain jobs) — unless the lady in question can at least realize and name the problem and want to do something about it — will kill any dating prospect.

So, not to say that losing a chance of dating yours truly is a great loss, but the above sums up the result a woman would get from me if she followed that list to the letter.

And this is supposing she didn’t actually write me off as an abuser first, by our third meeting tops, for anything from showing too much interest or being too friendly, through not immediately pronouncing myself perfectly and proactively happy with the last-minute cancellation of an agreed meeting or some other such emotional letdown, to something like… heck, I don’t even really want to think, she would surely find something. Might as well be me being a little on the grumpy side after losing a client or a court case, or some other complicated analysis with like 5% statistical probability of being correct, or trying to hug her for comfort like a friend would when she was sad. Madness.

Chevalier, you are describing yourself having boundaries. That’s great!

Other people (including women) get to have boundaries, too.

I have to say, though, that I’m concerned that you know so many crazy ladies. This may be a cultural issue, though. Bear in mind that I am of WASP extraction, so the degree of emotional expressiveness you describe as an everyday thing is only found in crazy people in my culture-of-origin. I’ve done a lot of work on myself with regard to being more emotionally expressive, but that’s mostly verbal. My goal is to be calm and kind, and firm when needed. (You can see the approach in the Boundaries in Marriage book.)

Trust me, there are very few hysterics Chez Xantippe.

 

[Xantippe]

Chevalier, I suspect we’re talking about different emphasis rather than different ideas. People with the background like Xantippe and I have tend to have grown up with more “you don’t voice your own needs and desires.” Hence the emphasis on boundaries is stronger - because what we’re used to is "having boundaries and needs is selfish and good women don’t do that."

I do think this needs to go along with a good discussion of how to talk about your thoughts and feelings. And dare I say, a little more openness to talking about subjects of sexuality? Too much shyness is not a good thing when it comes to boundaries, especially in a dating relationship. (That’s actually also something I wish I was told more about as a young person - it’s ok to talk about what you want and don’t want!) In today’s world it is almost certainly necessary to indicate a serious commitment to chastity up front.

Any offense against chastity proper should be a major red flag, of course, for a Catholic man or woman. Not only because of issues about boundaries, but because it indicates that the party does not share Catholic values. Someone with a commitment to chastity does not push for sex, or for things that are “not quite sex”.

**Firm boundaries should not be tested lightly or frequently. My ex’s idea of trying again in 5 minutes is right out. ** Also, generally, if a boundary has been set, it’s preferable to ask if one can renegotiate it. Simply going in for a kiss when it’s been indicated that the other person isn’t ready isn’t a good idea.

**And of course temporary boundaries are a thing that’s going to happen, and need to be communicated clearly. ** It’s ok to say “hey I’m not really wanting to do this right now, can we just watch a movie tonight?” or something. If it’s not a usual restriction the obligation is on the requesting party to be clear, but the other party should respect that sometimes people aren’t up for what they might usually be up for.

Yeah.

Chevalier may not get this, but it’s actually very natural when you’re used to it.

For example, my husband was leaving today for an outing, and I said, “Kiss?” and got a really nice kiss.

That’s not really required to ask for our personal agreements, but at our house we have a pretty verbal style of often asking to hug or kiss or touch.