How Do Christians Date Without Viewing Their Potential Prospects as Sex Objects in Their Minds?

[Karlon]

It's a curious thing to me that so far, it's been all men who have answered.

I'm not trying to point any fingers and I'm certainly not trying to say it's a man problem, but we've seen a lot of talk in the forums about struggles with lust and the thoughts it stems from and produces -- which I'm sure women struggle with as well.

The answers here also reinforce the thoughts I've had my entire life -- that these are things almost all Christians struggle with regularly, but for whatever reason, the church never addresses it, and most certainly doesn't encourage open discussions of how to deal with it.

I knows the topics going on right now in the Singles Forum are important -- how to talk to someone you might be interested in, how to find and set up a date, even how to flirt, etc.

But you'll have to forgive me if I sound like an old, jaded soul, because these are topics I've heard about my entire life.

The topics I never hear talked about, however, are things like this: how to prevent, confront, and deal with the lustful thoughts that go hand-in-hand with the whole dating process in a way that will honor God.

And I personally find those to be the most interesting.

My own personal coping mechanism has been to pretty much remove myself from the dating scene altogether -- which might not be the healthiest choice and maybe not even the one God wants me to choose.

But that's the very purpose of these threads -- to talk about the nitty gritty beneath the generic surface of dating -- and how we as Christians can learn and find better ways to live it out.

This has always troubled me the most as a Christian, even when I was a kid -- "If these are the things people are having the most problems with, why isn't anyone willing to talk about it?"

Christian ladies will behave like Christian ladies! you can count on that! (in reference to lack of lady response).

 

[seoulsearch]

Christian ladies will behave like Christian ladies! you can count on that! (in reference to lack of lady response).

Thank you so much for your vote of confidence, Karlon!

I appreciate your positive attitude towards Christian women.

I do want to be real though in that we certainly have our struggles, and need God's help (and accountability) just as much as the gentlemen.

God bless you for being so kind to us ladies.

 

[seoulsearch]

Maybe the answers and solutions aren't the kind of answers we want. Most of the time we want the answers like if you just make these 5 points to your rebellious teen their rebellion will stop and life will be happy and peaceful again. Do these 5 things everyday and you'll never face serious illness. Say this prayer everyday for 10 days and you'll meet your perfect match and no longer be single. Etc.

But I think God's answers and solutions aren't so much how to avoid or master life, but help to get through it. It's the friend who reminds you that God is still able to reach your rebellious teen even though they say they want nothing to do with God anymore. It's the people from the church who bring meals when you're ill or just suffered a loss. And the ones who call to check up on your when you haven't been around anymore. It's the fellow believers online who encourage you and care for you when you're stuck at home or life is so up in the air that you're in a season where real life community is pretty much impossible. I think God's answers and his help are designed to come through Christ's body and like Christ we don't escape the crap of the world, we just have God with us to see us through.

Thank you for this incredibly insightful post, Cinder!!

Like most people, I often just want an instant miracle or answer, and even if God grants some kind of instantaneous relief, it doesn't hold up without continuous work. I guess it's all part of God's design to keep us reliant on Him, one step at a time, even when we're not sure where the next step will come from or where we will land us.

I've had times in my life where I wanted to cling to someone as an answer, or even be an answer for someone else, but God has told me He wouldn't allow it because of the danger of relying on someone else besides Him.

But, He graciously gives me little things, bit by bit, to get me through.

A good example would be the interaction on this forum.

One of the steps I needed to get me through some things I'm facing was the privilege of reading all these wonderful, wise and gracious answers that people have been sharing on these threads, and I am truly thankful to all who take the time to pray and/or answer these discussions.

 

[Susanna]

I’m maybe not the hallmark of a Christian lady seeing that I have spent most of my time amongst men, and that makes me view men, possibly, in a different way. They might become more of comrades than “men”. Maybe that’s why I have never remarried?

 

[NEWTOCHRISTIANITY]

And, of course, we pray to God, to help us to not view women as sex objects!

 

[Snackersmom]

sometimes, it's just not worth trying to bring to the table in the first place, because the things people think they have to contribute will only make more of a mess.

This is very true, and makes me very selective about who I ask for advice. Well-meaning church peole who think they know more than they do cause way more havoc than they realize.

That awareness restrains me from posting 98% of what comes to mind when reading on these forums. It is also telling me I'd best keep my thoughts to myself in this case as well . I do think it's a worthy topic to discuss though, so thank you for that Miss Seoul!

 

[Gojira]

At the risk of getting one more "i" as a response, I will contribute this: I think you are being unrealistic. Men are generally more visual. That is a fact. If a man's dating you, chances are he's not just swept off his feet by your intellect or your articulateness (which you seem to posses in abundance). He's also very likely to like what he sees, to some extent at least. That will be part of his motivation for approaching you. I would say that physical attraction is where most men start.

Assuming that they're being physically attracted to you means that they also (probably) have a porn addiction or have otherwise devious intentions towards you is not realistic or fair. I want someone I could see myself, shall I say, enjoying marital intimacy with. But, rest assured, that I do NOT have a porn addiction, at all, nor do I have a basement of abuse just waiting to be used. Nor do I have secret plans to seduce them.

In the OT men were told, after capturing women and children after a conquest, that they could marry the women they were physically attracted to (dang it I wish I could recall the passage). So I'm sorry, but I think that while a sensible caution is always in order, you're going too far and denying the basic nature of men.

 

[Gojira]

At the risk of getting one more "i" as a response, I will contribute this: I think you are being unrealistic. Men are generally more visual. That is a fact. If a man's dating you, chances are he's not just swept off his feet by your intellect or your articulateness (which you seem to posses in abundance). He's also very likely to like what he sees, to some extent at least. That will be part of his motivation for approaching you. I would say that physical attraction is where most men start.

Assuming that they're being physically attracted to you means that they also (probably) have a porn addiction or have otherwise devious intentions towards you is not realistic or fair. I want someone I could see myself, shall I say, enjoying marital intimacy with. But, rest assured, that I do NOT have a porn addiction, at all, nor do I have a basement of abuse just waiting to be used. Nor do I have secret plans to seduce them.

In the OT men were told, after capturing women and children after a conquest, that they could marry the women they were physically attracted to (dang it I wish I could recall the passage). So I'm sorry, but I think that while a sensible caution is always in order, you're going too far and denying the basic nature of men.

Alright Seoul, I think I'm done putting so much into my responses when I only get a flippin' "i" as a response.

 

[seoulsearch]

At the risk of getting one more "i" as a response, I will contribute this: I think you are being unrealistic. Men are generally more visual. That is a fact. If a man's dating you, chances are he's not just swept off his feet by your intellect or your articulateness (which you seem to posses in abundance). He's also very likely to like what he sees, to some extent at least. That will be part of his motivation for approaching you. I would say that physical attraction is where most men start.

Assuming that they're being physically attracted to you means that they also (probably) have a porn addiction or have otherwise devious intentions towards you is not realistic or fair. I want someone I could see myself, shall I say, enjoying marital intimacy with. But, rest assured, that I do NOT have a porn addiction, at all, nor do I have a basement of abuse just waiting to be used. Nor do I have secret plans to seduce them.

In the OT men were told, after capturing women and children after a conquest, that they could marry the women they were physically attracted to (dang it I wish I could recall the passage). So I'm sorry, but I think that while a sensible caution is always in order, you're going too far and denying the basic nature of men.

Alright Seoul, I think I'm done putting so much into my responses when I only get a flippin' "i" as a response.

Do whatever you feel is best for you, Gojira. I know you hate the "I"(nformational) emoji but it was genuine and the honest response I had to give your post. If you find yourself more worthy of what you see as higher-quality emoji's than and are seeking them out, as I said, feel free to respond or not, whatever works for you.

The original post I made explains that in another thread, a man gives the advice that in order to see someone as more than a friend, we have to see the other person as a potential sexual partner.

As explained thoroughly throughout my posts, I'm asking how someone views others as "potential sexual partners" -- without picturing having sex with or doing sexual things to them -- or does so in a manner that still honors God, and THAT is the point of this thread, and my posts.

I understand that men say (or at least have always told me over and over) that this is the nature of men, that God made them this way, and, it seems you're saying that to somehow go against this is going against the very way God made men, which would be wrong.

I disagree, and it will have to stand at that we have different viewpoints. I personally don't think God's idea of dating is to line people up, take them out on brief, casual interviews, and then start picturing if we could see ourselves having sex with them, because the sinful nature will always pervert these thoughts, but that's just me. This isn't assuming every man has a porn addiction. But it IS assuming that every person, man or woman, has been exposed to some sort of distorted and sinful views of sex, and therefore, sin will somehow affect their thinking when contemplating if someone could be a potential sexual partner.

You, of course, are welcome to your own opinion. I gave your post an "I"(nformational) because it informed me of your opinion. I don't see anything wrong with giving that as an honest emoji reaction, but you are obviously thinking you deserve something more, so perhaps the other posters will oblige your feeling of deserving what you feel are better emojis, or at least, the ones you apparently want.

Now, I also realize we live in a fallen world and the results of sin affect every area of our lives, most especially dating, so no one is going to have perfect thoughts when considering romantic feelings about someone else, and I would agree that to an extent, this can't be helped.

But I'm asking as to what extent we blame it on the sinful nature, and to what extent God expects us to maintain pure thoughts towards our dates, whether man or woman, no matter how we're built, because God tells us to be pure in both deed and thoughts.

I also gave my own answer to my discomfort with being thought of this way -- removing myself from the dating scene. It cuts back a lot on being thought that way, and keeps me from thinking those things about another person. Of course, this isn't the choice for most singles, but it's my own and I accept the consequences. I certainly realize I can't prevent all of these things, but I can make choices that limit my exposure -- on both sides.

And I'm not making the choices for anyone else, only presenting my own perspective, and asking others how what choices and advice they have on keeping the right frame of mind towards others while trying to date.

 

[Gojira]

...but you are obviously thinking you deserve something more, so perhaps the other posters will oblige your feeling of deserving what you feel are better emojis, or at least, the ones you apparently want.

I didn't deserve this. I've always taken you seriously and have always demonstrated respect for you. You know that's the truth. I never talked down to you or patronized you in this way. Not once. Anyway, I have a night to get to.

 

[seoulsearch]

Alright Seoul, I think I'm done putting so much into my responses when I only get a flippin' "i" as a response.

I didn't deserve this. I've always taken you seriously and have always demonstrated respect for you. You know that's the truth. I never talked down to you or patronized you in this way. Not once. Anyway, I have a night to get to.

It's curious to me that a grown man is positively livid while telling me that he doesn't deserve my supposed mistreatment of him -- and apparently, that egregious mistreatment is me giving him the wrong emoji.

You've also gotten very upset in other threads when I've given you the "Informational" emoji as well, even though I have explained numerous, umpteen times that I use the "I" as my default emoji when I want to respond to someone's post, but nothing else seems to fit. I have also stated many, many times, that I try my best to give honest emoji's, and if that's the one that fits my reaction, that's the one I'm going to use. I could just chose to not leave an emoji at all, but I'm guessing you'd come back at yell at me for that too.

And yet, when I respond in a way you don't seem to like, you take this as a sign of "disrespect." It's honestly baffling to me how a grown man in his 50's is so disturbed by the capital letter "I."

But never mind, because yes, you indeed have a night to get to.

I just hope to heaven that nothing about it has anything to do with the letter "I."

 

[Lynx]

I didn't deserve this. I've always taken you seriously and have always demonstrated respect for you. You know that's the truth. I never talked down to you or patronized you in this way. Not once. Anyway, I have a night to get to.

Yeah. You have talked down to her and patronized her. Repeatedly.

If this is how you talk to women in general (and it probably is, because you drip condescension all over the forum, to men and women alike) it's no wonder you are still single. You need a very meek, very unopinionated woman who will always agree with you.

And I know you have me on ignore and can't see this post. That's why you will never improve, because you ignore everyone who disagrees with you. If you make life an echo chamber, you will never get better.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

In my view there are two main factors in this.
1) the church doesn't have the answers, so if they can't offer anything, why say anything? Just avoid it.
2) condemnation. Sexual sins are viewed as among the worst, often times. Coming out and saying you're struggling with it is an open door to being attacked by pharisees. So avoid it.
If you're single then no "good Christian" wants to be involved with a "fake" Christian or one that struggles with sexual sin.
And if you're married then you're a horrible spouse and separation or divorce are suggested. Or being told that you're "trapped" with this horrible sinner in marriage.

I think these lyrics define a lot of Christians in their walk.

"Have you ever walked through hell
And there was no one you could tell
To help you through it all
When all else seemed to fail?
Why can’t we be honest
About our struggles and our pains
The skeletons we dance with
our secrets buried in their graves?"

 

[Subhumanoidal]

I got an "I" sweet. 😁
Thanks Seoul. 🙂

 

[seoulsearch]

I got an "I" sweet. 😁 Thanks Seoul. 🙂

I've never understood why an "I" emoji could be seen as being so terrible, and not up to par with what someone "deserves."

I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding but I thought the "I" emoji meant "Informative", so if a post informs me of something, I see it as a fitting response. Crazy, right?

Maybe the "I" emoji is being misunderstood and has somehow been interpreted to mean "I"(nsult) instead?!

At any rate, thanks for not being offended @Subhumanoidal, and for having a sense of humor.

P.S. I loved the lyrics you included in your post. So fitting for the way I've felt in most church settings my entire life. Thanks so much for taking the time to post!

 

[zeroturbulence]

We all know Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 -- "But I tell you, whoever stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

I think it's important to note that Jesus said, "whoever STARES".

Psychologists know that we can't completely control our thoughts. If someone tells us NOT to think of pink elephants, what do we immediately think of? Of course stopping the thought after it occurs is possible, but it's like stopping spilled milk. The sin would already be done.

Staring, on the other hand can be willfully stopped or avoided.

I'm not saying it's ok to think about it for a second, I'm saying it's impossible not to think about it for at least a split second unless you are some kind of mental ninja.

 

[GaryA]

Matthew 5:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It is not even about looking/staring - the key thing that is important here - that makes the difference - is 'to lust after her'. And, it is possible for a man to look - or even stare - at a woman without lusting after her in his heart. When it becomes lust for the woman is when it becomes sin.

 

[Karlon]

it took me 40 years to stop looking at women in a romantic way.

 

[seoulsearch]

I think it's important to note that Jesus said, "whoever STARES". Psychologists know that we can't completely control our thoughts. If someone tells us NOT to think of pink elephants, what do we immediately think of? Of course stopping the thought after it occurs is possible, but it's like stopping spilled milk. The sin would already be done. Staring, on the other hand can be willfully stopped or avoided.

This is an excellent point, Zero.

When I Googled the passage and the various wordings came up, I specifically chose the one that said, "Whoever stares." It was the first time I'd seen it worded this way. Every other time I've heard the passage, it's always been, "Whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart..."

I certainly understand that we all have errant thoughts. But you pointed elegantly pointed out the difference -- "stare" implies lingering on the thought, and then letting it grow into more than just something passing through your mind.

I know things like this are discussed endlessly but i think this is really the key difference. Expecting someone to be able to control every fleeting thought that pops into their head is absolutely unrealistic and unreasonable.

But expecting Christians to at least put up a fight of where the thought goes, how long it stays, and what it turns into is what God Himself asks of us.

For me, this would be the difference. I wouldn't feel comfortable around someone who said, "Well, this is how I am, this is how the sinful nature is, this is how God made me," if it means the fight is gone and the person has given up trying.

I'm certainly not trying to say that we win every battle (I certainly don't,) but I think keeping clear definitions of right and wrong and constantly trying to put up those boundaries is important.

It's also what I tend to gravitate towards in other people.

Great post, Zero -- thanks so much for pointing this out!

 

[seoulsearch]

it took me 40 years to stop looking at women in a romantic way.

I understand that it can be a lifelong fight.

My morning devotional a few days ago was written by a man who wrote how shocked he was that several of the men in his Bible study group said that they STILL fought with lust on a regular basis -- and these were men in their 80's.

The author didn't say so explicitly, but he seemed to hint that he was dismayed because he thought the problem would go away, or eventually lessen, over time.