Looking For a Traditional Man...
- Thread starter seoulsearch
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I actually am one of those people liable to say "hon", "sweetie", etc., even here, but it's with people I have a mutual, established relationship with.
But, I know it's different with different people.
Obviously, if I don't like what someone calls me or why, I'll say something.
And of course, there are much worse things to be called (though my rebellious side often sees it as a compliment, because it means I'm not a doormat.)
I'm just thankful that it wasn't just me who raised an eyebrow at this.
Thank you both for saying something.
I think it's important to stand up for oneself, especially since I have often had young women here write me that they are uncomfortable with the way some of the older men on CC have addressed them in this manner without knowing them.
Thank you both for saying something.
I think it's important to stand up for oneself, especially since I have often had young women here write me that they are uncomfortable with the way some of the older men on CC have addressed them in this manner without knowing them.
Last edited:
M
These threads are never productive. And I don't mean that as an insult to you, Kim- not at all. I totally get why you started it; it's nice to have a balance here.
But it just seems like no matter who starts the thread or how carefully or respectfully they word things, people- both genders- get all riled up. Either we end up with someone attacking most of the other people, or we have someone digging in their heels and insisting they are right, or we get condescension or passive-aggressiveness out the you-know-what...
Anyway. I just came in to state the obvious.
And to call y'all 'honey'.
But it just seems like no matter who starts the thread or how carefully or respectfully they word things, people- both genders- get all riled up. Either we end up with someone attacking most of the other people, or we have someone digging in their heels and insisting they are right, or we get condescension or passive-aggressiveness out the you-know-what...
Anyway. I just came in to state the obvious.
And to call y'all 'honey'.
G
Yes - it is, in large part, "just a southern thing"...
Somehow I am thinking that - if I were to research it - i could probably find numerous places in your past posts where you made statements to the effect of people getting to know you ( or, each other ) [ better ] by virtue of reading your ( or, each other's ) posts. Yet, I cannot know anything about you at all for having done the same? I am not able to "get to know you" enough to have a high-enough regard for you - such that I am willing to show my sister affection?
It really is intended to communicate to you that:
"I am one who cares."
And that ---- I do know enough about you ---- to care enough about you ---- to demonstrate it with "natural affection"...
( Because, it is 'natural' for me to show this kind of affection. It is simply "the way I am"... )
I would like to assure you that this is not the case -- not anywhere even close... I speak to you like as does a brother to his sister.
Essentially, I speak to every female on CC:
~ As does a brother to his sister.
~ As does a father to his daughter.
~ As does an uncle to his niece.
~ As does a grandfather to his granddaughter.
( Whatever seems appropriate for the 'relationship' according to age, etc. )
The same goes for the guys in similar like fashion ( i.e. - brother, son, nephew, grandson ).
I would like to assure all CC women that -- if I have called you - or ever do call you - 'honey', 'dear', etc....
"I promise you it is only intended as an honest innocent affection."
~ It is never intended to offend, or "be creepy", etc.
~ It is never intended to be "too personal" or solicitous in any way whatsoever.
~ It is never intended to "put you in your place" or any such similar thing.
( It is reserved only for honest, innocent, positive, [ show of ] affection. Period. )
I try my very best to never say something - that should only be said to show affection - in a way that is 'hard' or 'harsh' -- but, only - soft, kind, etc.
~ If any woman on CC does not feel comfortable with it - or would like for me not to show my affections in that way for any reason - all she has to do is kindly let me know -- and I will do my very best to honor the 'request'.
I am not here to force myself on anyone.
"It is never my intent to be offensive to anyone on CC. You can rest assured of that."
In a way, it certainly is supposed to be 'endearing'; however, the 'patronizing' part does not fit -- that is not my intent at all.
Interesting...
I grew up in the south. I have spent most of my life in the south. And, I am "pretty sure" that I have never come across this phrase - not even once.
Interesting...
Somehow I am thinking that - if I were to research it - i could probably find numerous places in your past posts where you made statements to the effect of people getting to know you ( or, each other ) [ better ] by virtue of reading your ( or, each other's ) posts. Yet, I cannot know anything about you at all for having done the same? I am not able to "get to know you" enough to have a high-enough regard for you - such that I am willing to show my sister affection?
It really is intended to communicate to you that:
"I am one who cares."
And that ---- I do know enough about you ---- to care enough about you ---- to demonstrate it with "natural affection"...
( Because, it is 'natural' for me to show this kind of affection. It is simply "the way I am"... )
I would like to assure you that this is not the case -- not anywhere even close... I speak to you like as does a brother to his sister.
Essentially, I speak to every female on CC:
~ As does a brother to his sister.
~ As does a father to his daughter.
~ As does an uncle to his niece.
~ As does a grandfather to his granddaughter.
( Whatever seems appropriate for the 'relationship' according to age, etc. )
The same goes for the guys in similar like fashion ( i.e. - brother, son, nephew, grandson ).
I would like to assure all CC women that -- if I have called you - or ever do call you - 'honey', 'dear', etc....
"I promise you it is only intended as an honest innocent affection."
~ It is never intended to offend, or "be creepy", etc.
~ It is never intended to be "too personal" or solicitous in any way whatsoever.
~ It is never intended to "put you in your place" or any such similar thing.
( It is reserved only for honest, innocent, positive, [ show of ] affection. Period. )
I try my very best to never say something - that should only be said to show affection - in a way that is 'hard' or 'harsh' -- but, only - soft, kind, etc.
~ If any woman on CC does not feel comfortable with it - or would like for me not to show my affections in that way for any reason - all she has to do is kindly let me know -- and I will do my very best to honor the 'request'.
I am not here to force myself on anyone.
"It is never my intent to be offensive to anyone on CC. You can rest assured of that."
In a way, it certainly is supposed to be 'endearing'; however, the 'patronizing' part does not fit -- that is not my intent at all.
Interesting...
I grew up in the south. I have spent most of my life in the south. And, I am "pretty sure" that I have never come across this phrase - not even once.
Interesting...
um... i'm a little confused why you would make an overt effort to insert yourself into a matter that you have no part of--which is really not the big deal, as it IS an online thread.
but to ME it came off as intended to spur controversy. not to promote harmony or add value, but what appears to only "stir the pot". if there was any doubt whether to take offense or not, your input helped to secure the offense that was taken--or at least that's how i see it.
when i read garyA's message, i noticed the "honey" that was followed by, "i'm sorry". the statement was a direct reply to a comment kim shared about "being thrown away by her husband". the statement was intended to relay the pain that she felt.
i read his reply to that statement as "i'm sorry kim" with the "honey" at the end to provide a little bit of tenderness, given the painful consequence her statement relayed.
while that might seem odd or less than ideal, i think that we all have a choice to make when we react. we can choose to be easily offended and assume the worst interpretation of statements, or we can look at the effort that has been made in whole to be sensitive, (not to mention the previous statement, clarifying his intent) and simply give people the benefit of the doubt.
in this case, i have a hard time understanding why this is such a difficult concept with our brothers and sisters. we aren't called to treat them as we think they deserve. we are called to treat them according to the standard held to us, from the bible. i can post a bunch of scripture about wholesome and edifying words, loving one another as yourself, bearing one another's burdens, whatever is good and lovely, and the life and death in the power of the tongue... but i have a feeling you guys know them too. : D
my thoughts, as well. if it's our intent to have a productive discussion, we need to stop carrying our frustrations and pain, and use it as a club to hit over people's heads, only further validating their negative perceptions. talking down to people, and making statements rich with inference and mocking do more damage than any good. i have yet to witness a time when the word "arrogance" was well-received.
further, none of these people are the ones who have injured or contributed to your negative impressions of women or men. these are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
they deserve our love, our kindness, and our respect. if we can't fulfill that standard, and keep the integrity of our communication, then it probably shouldn't be said. this is our testimony to the world, and THIS is what the world will view and use as one of many things that will construe their opinions of christians.
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. john 13:35
what we say matters. it matters in our homes, in our hearts, in our workplaces, and it matters online, even here, in this thread too. )
this is not to condemn anyone. far from it. and i'm not coming down on anyone in particular. i am just deeply troubled by these kinds of conversations and the damage that they can do. thanks.
but to ME it came off as intended to spur controversy. not to promote harmony or add value, but what appears to only "stir the pot". if there was any doubt whether to take offense or not, your input helped to secure the offense that was taken--or at least that's how i see it.
when i read garyA's message, i noticed the "honey" that was followed by, "i'm sorry". the statement was a direct reply to a comment kim shared about "being thrown away by her husband". the statement was intended to relay the pain that she felt.
i read his reply to that statement as "i'm sorry kim" with the "honey" at the end to provide a little bit of tenderness, given the painful consequence her statement relayed.
while that might seem odd or less than ideal, i think that we all have a choice to make when we react. we can choose to be easily offended and assume the worst interpretation of statements, or we can look at the effort that has been made in whole to be sensitive, (not to mention the previous statement, clarifying his intent) and simply give people the benefit of the doubt.
in this case, i have a hard time understanding why this is such a difficult concept with our brothers and sisters. we aren't called to treat them as we think they deserve. we are called to treat them according to the standard held to us, from the bible. i can post a bunch of scripture about wholesome and edifying words, loving one another as yourself, bearing one another's burdens, whatever is good and lovely, and the life and death in the power of the tongue... but i have a feeling you guys know them too. : D
my thoughts, as well. if it's our intent to have a productive discussion, we need to stop carrying our frustrations and pain, and use it as a club to hit over people's heads, only further validating their negative perceptions. talking down to people, and making statements rich with inference and mocking do more damage than any good. i have yet to witness a time when the word "arrogance" was well-received.
further, none of these people are the ones who have injured or contributed to your negative impressions of women or men. these are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
they deserve our love, our kindness, and our respect. if we can't fulfill that standard, and keep the integrity of our communication, then it probably shouldn't be said. this is our testimony to the world, and THIS is what the world will view and use as one of many things that will construe their opinions of christians.
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. john 13:35
what we say matters. it matters in our homes, in our hearts, in our workplaces, and it matters online, even here, in this thread too. )
this is not to condemn anyone. far from it. and i'm not coming down on anyone in particular. i am just deeply troubled by these kinds of conversations and the damage that they can do. thanks.
Last edited:
Hey Singles,
As a counterpart to Mitspa's thread about looking for a traditional woman, I'd really like to hear your thoughts about what exactly "traditional" is. Personally, I think the very definition of what's considered "traditional" has radically changed just because societal norms have changed so much over time. I am NOT saying that GOD'S laws have changed, but rather, what's seen everyday in society certainly has, which changes people's perceptions of what "traditional" might mean.
What would a "traditional" man look like in today's world? (At least, what does the term "traditional" mean to you?)
I was talking with a young co-worker who asked if my parents were married. "Yes,", I replied, "They're only a few years shy of 50 years." "WOW," my young comrade replied. "I wonder what that's even like. My Mom and Dad were never married, and my Dad had several other children with a bunch of other women." To this person, "traditional" would mean that one's parents are married and stay together.
I'm writing this thread not because I myself am looking for a traditional man in particular--I'm not opposed to a good Godly traditional man of course--but since there's been so much talk about what a traditional WOMAN supposedly is, or supposedly should be, I'd like to know what a traditional man would look like today. Is he a provider? Should he be expected to the sole source of income with a wife who doesn't work? Will he make all the major family decisions with little to no input from the other family members?
I come from what I consider a traditional home myself, with a man who provided (but most certainly doesn't lord over any of us) and a mom who stayed at home. But because my Dad has a more laid-back, "What does everyone in the family have to say before we make a final decision?" attitude, I'm sure some people would say even my family isn't "traditional enough."
How can we recognize a "traditional" man in today's society?
(Yes, I know some people are going to be shocked by the brevity of this thread. Just in case anyone feels cheated, I'll make up for it in the next one I plan to start.)
As a counterpart to Mitspa's thread about looking for a traditional woman, I'd really like to hear your thoughts about what exactly "traditional" is. Personally, I think the very definition of what's considered "traditional" has radically changed just because societal norms have changed so much over time. I am NOT saying that GOD'S laws have changed, but rather, what's seen everyday in society certainly has, which changes people's perceptions of what "traditional" might mean.
What would a "traditional" man look like in today's world? (At least, what does the term "traditional" mean to you?)
I was talking with a young co-worker who asked if my parents were married. "Yes,", I replied, "They're only a few years shy of 50 years." "WOW," my young comrade replied. "I wonder what that's even like. My Mom and Dad were never married, and my Dad had several other children with a bunch of other women." To this person, "traditional" would mean that one's parents are married and stay together.
I'm writing this thread not because I myself am looking for a traditional man in particular--I'm not opposed to a good Godly traditional man of course--but since there's been so much talk about what a traditional WOMAN supposedly is, or supposedly should be, I'd like to know what a traditional man would look like today. Is he a provider? Should he be expected to the sole source of income with a wife who doesn't work? Will he make all the major family decisions with little to no input from the other family members?
I come from what I consider a traditional home myself, with a man who provided (but most certainly doesn't lord over any of us) and a mom who stayed at home. But because my Dad has a more laid-back, "What does everyone in the family have to say before we make a final decision?" attitude, I'm sure some people would say even my family isn't "traditional enough."
How can we recognize a "traditional" man in today's society?
(Yes, I know some people are going to be shocked by the brevity of this thread. Just in case anyone feels cheated, I'll make up for it in the next one I plan to start.
)
: )