[jthomas1600]

It was not all that long ago that it was frowned on in middle class America for the girl to make the first move. I grew up in the late 70s and 80s and that was the norm in our home and in the homes of most of my friends. I'm not saying it is a better way, just that it is not as out dated as some in this thread are painting it. Also equating this to owning slaves?

Any way, I think in todays culture it is fine either way.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Also equating this to owning slaves?

Not equating at all. However, if your basis for moral superiority is that it was the established norm of Colonial America, we have to accept Colonial America as a moral authority. Slavery is an easy way to point out that Colonial America =/= a valid moral authority. If we are to recognize it as a valid authority, it would require more basis than that.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not equating at all. However, if your basis for moral superiority is that it was the established norm of Colonial America, we have to accept Colonial America as a moral authority. Slavery is an easy way to point out that Colonial America =/= a valid moral authority. If we are to recognize it as a valid authority, it would require more basis than that.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "basis for moral superiority". I don't think who initiates a relationship is a moral issue.

I may be mis-reading your post. It almost sounds like you are discrediting Colonial Americans because of slave ownership. Wasn't the constitution written by Colonial Americans. For that matter, any system or document we look to ( besides the Bible ) as a guide to moral or ethical practices was established or written by flawed individuals.

Any way, if a girl likes a guy, she should let him know.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I'm not sure what you mean by my "basis for moral superiority". I don't think who initiates a relationship is a moral issue.

No, not what I mean. j2_da_k set out that it was superior for the guy to initiate based on that it was a continental American custom and thus chivalrous. My reading of history is that, there was no distinct American custom, there were numerous regional customs at the time. Also, Continental methods are not necessarily morally superior. I do not think there is a moral issue here, and that one being "better" or "worse" is merely a cultural thing. Continental America is an intriguing time period, but their custom of bundling raises the hackles on my neck in finding a mate. Just because a position may or may not have been standard in a period in history as a custom does not intrinsically make it better or worse than another position. Again, this was not really directed at you.

I may be mis-reading your post. It almost sounds like you are discrediting Colonial Americans because of slave ownership.

It does discredit their culture as a good standard to replace the scriptures when determining what a man and woman's roles should be though. We should look to scripture as an authority, not a perception of 17th and 18th century new England that is sugar coated. I think it points out the flaw in looking to a glorious fictitious past where all was perfect. It points out that that age had screw ups, and nastiness and should not be accepted as intrinsically right without critical examination against scripture as a final guide.

Wasn't the constitution written by Colonial Americans. For that matter, any system or document we look to ( besides the Bible ) as a guide to moral or ethical practices was established or written by flawed individuals.

Thus, scrutiny according to the scriptures is required. And even the founders realized the constitution as written was flawed. Thus, the bill of rights and subsequent amendments, and ultimately, I do not think it provides any final standard of how we should live our lives. My point is that Scripture occupies that place and when we let a mythic past take that place, we are dooming ourselves to repeat history's mishaps.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

It does discredit their culture as a good standard to replace the scriptures when determining what a man and woman's roles should be though. We should look to scripture as an authority, not a perception of 17th and 18th century new England that is sugar coated. I think it points out the flaw in looking to a glorious fictitious past where all was perfect. It points out that that age had screw ups, and nastiness and should not be accepted as intrinsically right without critical examination against scripture as a final guide.

I think I hear you saying that our final authority should be the scriptures and I couldn't agree more.

But the answere to this question might be helpful to the original poster as well as others:
how do we make determinations on life issues that the Bible does not appear to address directly?

[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Cop out. I am not trying to be a pain, but I am trying to consider why one way is intrinsically better as you claim. What is your basis for your claim?

I don't know. It's just the way I've always understood it.

No woman in the history of the universe has found it disrespectful that they are not allowed to decide the course of their romantic endeavors? I find this impossible to believe.

None that I have ever noticed. I'm sure some would. I guess culture is different around here. Keep in mind, I live in a rural community on the Florida/Georgia border. We have some odd traditions.

Now I am curious. Why is that? I know I would have been flattered.

Because I have always felt it was my place. I don't want to be flattered, I want to be accepted. Wouldn't you prefer that? I don't take putting a move on a male as a sign of acceptance. I take it as an attempt at manipulation. I know that is not every woman's intention, but that is how I would perceive it.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I don't take putting a move on a male as a sign of acceptance. I take it as an attempt at manipulation. I know that is not every woman's intention, but that is how I would perceive it.

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you really need to get over this mindset. I understand that you care about traditions and I respect that, but you yourself admit that you insist on viewing female "moves" or attempts at initiation as manipulation even though you also admit that plenty of women don't mean it that way. You're deliberately attributing wrong motives to people who aren't guilty of them. Again, sorry to be blunt, but I really think that's downright rude, and a pretty bad way of relating to people.

Suppose you asked out a girl with the best intentions, and made every effort to do so according to what you believed was right, because you wanted to pursue a committed relationship with her. Now, suppose she had it in her mind that a man asking a girl out the way you did automatically meant that he was only asking for sex, and even though she knew that wasn't your intention, she still chose to be offended by it and turn you down anyway. Would you want to be treated that way?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I don't know. It's just the way I've always understood it.

So as I take it, no real reason then?

None that I have ever noticed. I'm sure some would. I guess culture is different around here. Keep in mind, I live in a rural community on the Florida/Georgia border. We have some odd traditions.

My grandmother got married in Clayton Georgia, and I know she was one who would have. I know the NC/Georgia border much better, and its quite a bit different. I can hardly think of a paternal marriage in 200 years that looks a thing like what you are describing as the norm, but I am of hillbilly stock. What makes one set of traditions better than another though?

Because I have always felt it was my place.

Not to be rude, but why is it yours and not hers? What puts her under you when you have no claim on her at this point whatever? This seems really patronizing and rude to women. Like a view that they should be seen and not heard.

I don't want to be flattered, I want to be accepted. Wouldn't you prefer that?

No. Here is why. Because they are not mutually exclusive. If a woman wanted to start a relationship with me, (and a few did before I got involved in a relationship) it generally comes from a level of acceptance, interest, and a general like of who you are as a person. Acceptance is part, but not the whole of what a girl does when she gets up the courage to tell you she likes you. Now one girl did go way too far in the pursuit of my affections and got almost creepy stalkerish. That's a whole different animal. But of the 3 girls who pursued me back in the day, 2 were solid, and honestly my close friends. Neither worked out, and it was the girl who we pursued each other back and forth for half a decade before our relationship took off that I married. But that's a whole different story.

I was flattered when girls thought I was worthy of their affections. Really, you can be offended, but from my POV, that just seems weird. They like you enough to mention it, and respect you enough to be honest, so that means they do not accept you... I really fail to follow that one.

I don't take putting a move on a male as a sign of acceptance.

And why would it not be valid for a female to say "I don't take putting a move on a female as a sign of acceptance."

I really hate the term, putting a move on. It sounds like you are doing something physical, rather than pursuing an open, honest relationship.

I take it as an attempt at manipulation.

Why the double standard? If you view it as manipulation for them to, wouldn't it be manipulation for you to do what you condemn? Honestly, sounds hypocritical, or like you are projecting your motives on another, or something, but it sure is not healthy, or how scripture describes love in 1 Cor 13.

I know that is not every woman's intention, but that is how I would perceive it.

So you would assume the worst, and show them the opposite of love? That shows signs that a relationship would be doomed. A relationship needs to be built on love, trust, and hoping the best is a part of love.

[j2_da_k]

I don't think it really matters. I've already found someone I care about that understood my point. I obviously can't put it in a way that is politically correct, so I shall stop.

But for the record...I don't understand the argument. I was just saying things from my point of view. I apologize if I offended anyone. You guys are far too smart for a dude like me to argue with.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I don't think it really matters. I've already found someone I care about that understood my point. I obviously can't put it in a way that is politically correct, so I shall stop.

But for the record...I don't understand the argument. I was just saying things from my point of view. I apologize if I offended anyone. You guys are far too smart for a dude like me to argue with.

It wasn't a matter of arguing/getting offended so much as advice. I just honestly think that relating to the opposite sex under the mindset you described is dangerous and unfair to those who might be hurt by it, so I was saying that (in my opinion) it would be good to try and be more open minded about things in the future.

[Jfool]

Ditto El Cabong... and I would add pray about it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I don't think it really matters. I've already found someone I care about that understood my point. I obviously can't put it in a way that is politically correct, so I shall stop.

But for the record...I don't understand the argument. I was just saying things from my point of view. I apologize if I offended anyone. You guys are far too smart for a dude like me to argue with.

My point was this. The sort of ideas you are holding up as ideals are unbiblical and run a high risk of torpedoing future relationships and an unhealthy view of women overall.