[HannahBelle]

I'm probably not going to date for awhile but there was just a question that poped in my head, when a girl and a guy like each other shouldn't the guy take the first move and just go up to a girl and say " I like you" and all that stuff rather than the girl to do it?

[el cabong]

Depends totally on the people and circumstances involved. Way too many variables. No one "right way" for it to happen.

[HannahBelle]

Oh okay

[j2_da_k]

Traditionally, a guys should make the first move. My girlfriend refused, even though she really wanted to. I finally had to do it. It was scary!

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

Traditionally, a guys should make the first move. My girlfriend refused, even though she really wanted to. I finally had to do it. It was scary!

Why? There is no good reason for this to be the case. I agree with El Cabong.

[Ordinary Sarah]

I don't think it matters who makes the first move, as long as after the fact, both people are contributing to the relationship, if they decide that's where it should go. I have been in relationships where I made the first move, and others where the guy made the first move. But it was important to me later on that the guy put in at least an equal effort to tell me how he felt about me, even though we were already clear about how we initially felt.

[Jeffrey]

I think it depends on the circumstances. Given the role of husband & wife, if the relationship's tone is set by the woman pursuing the man excessively, there may be issues later on. If there's attraction, but the man is far too shy to make any sort of move, or needs every move and furthering of the relationship initiated by the woman, I'd advise the woman to seek another man!

That said, in a general sense, if the woman initiates and the man shows initiative from there on out, I wouldn't be bothered by it. Heck, that's true from the reverse - if a relationship is entirely directed by the man and the woman only follows passively or has to be "worn down" to go to each step of the relationship, there's a problem there as well.

Sometimes I've encountered forward women who are needy and desperate, but I've also encountered women who initiated a relationship and I found no fault in their actions. As El Cabong said, there are too many variables.

If I were a woman, I'd be a better person by default...oh yeah, and also, I'd be careful about making the first move. However, if the man has a good reputation, is not known for timidity or passivity, etc., I'd have no qualms initiating with a simple "Hey, we should grab a cup of coffee sometime" or "Would you accompany me to this get-together?" or what have you.

[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Why? There is no good reason for this to be the case. I agree with El Cabong.

Because of the way it makes a woman appear.

A girl should not feel as if she has to throw herself at a guy to get his attention. She should make obvious her feelings, but be reserved with her affections.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. This tradition comes from a time when a courtship was a very different affair.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

Because of the way it makes a woman appear.

Which is?

A girl should not feel as if she has to throw herself at a guy to get his attention. She should make obvious her feelings, but be reserved with her affections.

Who said anything about anyone throwing anyone at anyone else? And this standard that she should make obvious her feelings, but be reserved with her affections... What does this mean, and why is it a standard of anything?

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. This tradition comes from a time when a courtship was a very different affair.

Okay, so you apply some rules from some culture from a different time, but not all. What time period? What culture? why should anyone abide by it?

[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Which is?



Who said anything about anyone throwing anyone at anyone else? And this standard that she should make obvious her feelings, but be reserved with her affections... What does this mean, and why is it a standard of anything?

Okay, so you apply some rules from some culture from a different time, but not all. What time period? What culture? why should anyone abide by it?

Have I made offense?

The culture of the earlier American years, probably from the colonial ages (don't quote me on that), was for a man to make the first move. He displayed an interest in a woman, spoke with her father, and the father asked if the girl was interested in the guy. If not, nothing happened, but if she was they began a courtship.

For some reason, I still believe in a form of this. I don't say that it's always the right thing in every situation, but it's just always the standard I live by. In that time, if a woman made a first move, it was not official and therefore purely sexual. To be blunt, it made her appear as a hooch, tease, or flirt, because she was making moves without a chance of any real relationship taking place.

Today's culture is different, and I understand that, but I still try to keep alive what little bit of chivalry I can. I'm sure this seems chauvinistic to some, but it's just the way I think.

I hope to one day understand why a simple difference of opinion is such a crime among Christians.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by El Cabong

Depends totally on the people and circumstances involved. Way too many variables. No one "right way" for it to happen.

Agreed 100%.

And I also agree with what I think Jeffrey was saying -- a relationship in which the woman ends up taking most or all of the initiative is heading for trouble, but equally so is a relationship where everything is done by the man. I honestly don't believe gender has anything to do with that. Nor do I believe that a girl who chose to ask out a guy would be "throwing herself at him" anymore than the guy would if he did the asking.

[Small]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

Have I made offense?

I doubt it.

For some reason, I still believe in a form of this. I don't say that it's always the right thing in every situation, but it's just always the standard I live by. In that time, if a woman made a first move, it was not official and therefore purely sexual. To be blunt, it made her appear as a hooch, tease, or flirt, because she was making moves without a chance of any real relationship taking place.

If, in fact, what you describe was the standard of the era, it was enormously misguided and somewhat narrow-minded. To wit, if a woman can't set things in motion through the established avenues, you're saying that her setting things in motion by drawing a man's attention to the fact that she would be glad to have him go about courting her through the established channels was purely sexual? Why was there no chance of a real relationship taking place? I apologize if I'm being dense, but I don't see why a woman couldn't discreetly set things in motion, unofficially.

Today's culture is different, and I understand that, but I still try to keep alive what little bit of chivalry I can. I'm sure this seems chauvinistic to some, but it's just the way I think.

I honestly don't think the preservation of chivalry has anything to do with this question.

I hope to one day understand why a simple difference of opinion is such a crime among Christians.

...Overreaction.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

Have I made offense?

No, but on a question of which is better, a reason is a very, very good thing to have. see, I am somewhat familliar with several regions courtship rituals, and I am curious which one you hold and why.

The culture of the earlier American years, probably from the colonial ages (don't quote me on that), was for a man to make the first move.

It also was to own slaves, acceptable to beat your wife, (whether legal or not) and to take various and sundry drugs. There was no unified American culture of this time period. (Georgian? New York? New England? Philadelphia? North Carolina?) So which rendition are you going with and why? And also, I really am unaware of this from what I have read.

He displayed an interest in a woman, spoke with her father, and the father asked if the girl was interested in the guy.

I have heard tales of this in post 1980's Christian literature, but even the 1858 poem, the Courtship of Miles Standish portrays a very different perspective on it, and while I am sure Longfellow took some artistic license... it bears no resemblance whatsoever to this model. I have never actually heard of this model in practice.

If not, nothing happened, but if she was they began a courtship.

This treats girls as if they are inferior beings who must be locked away by the men-folk. Its not chivalry, its demeaning.

For some reason, I still believe in a form of this.

Why?

I don't say that it's always the right thing in every situation, but it's just always the standard I live by.

why?

In that time, if a woman made a first move, it was not official and therefore purely sexual.

Basis? This does not make sense and I know this is not true, but even so, its a double standard, and demeaning to women. If a woman does it, its sexual, if a guy does, it is fine? That's one heck of a double standard, and one that really treats women like dirt.

To be blunt, it made her appear as a hooch, tease, or flirt, because she was making moves without a chance of any real relationship taking place.

Because women are incapable of relationship? Only sex? Wow. Just wow.

Today's culture is different, and I understand that, but I still try to keep alive what little bit of chivalry I can.

Chivalry? Chivalry? If this is chivalry, chivalry is nothing more than treating women poorly and I would be happy to watch that die.

I'm sure this seems chauvinistic to some, but it's just the way I think.

It looks like an unbiblical way to look at women honestly, and treating them with intense disrespect.

I hope to one day understand why a simple difference of opinion is such a crime among Christians.

Its not, but I don't believe a pseudohistory is a justification of anything. Heck, history is not a moral justification of why one way is better than another. Scriptural principles should be, and my goal here was to make you think about why you believe what you believe.

[j2_da_k]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

No, but on a question of which is better, a reason is a very, very good thing to have. see, I am somewhat familliar with several regions courtship rituals, and I am curious which one you hold and why.



It also was to own slaves, acceptable to beat your wife, (whether legal or not) and to take various and sundry drugs. There was no unified American culture of this time period. (Georgian? New York? New England? Philadelphia? North Carolina?) So which rendition are you going with and why? And also, I really am unaware of this from what I have read.




I have heard tales of this in post 1980's Christian literature, but even the 1858 poem, the Courtship of Miles Standish portrays a very different perspective on it, and while I am sure Longfellow took some artistic license... it bears no resemblance whatsoever to this model. I have never actually heard of this model in practice.



This treats girls as if they are inferior beings who must be locked away by the men-folk. Its not chivalry, its demeaning.



Why?



why?



Basis? This does not make sense and I know this is not true, but even so, its a double standard, and demeaning to women. If a woman does it, its sexual, if a guy does, it is fine? That's one heck of a double standard, and one that really treats women like dirt.



Because women are incapable of relationship? Only sex? Wow. Just wow.



Chivalry? Chivalry? If this is chivalry, chivalry is nothing more than treating women poorly and I would be happy to watch that die.



It looks like an unbiblical way to look at women honestly, and treating them with intense disrespect.



Its not, but I don't believe a pseudohistory is a justification of anything. Heck, history is not a moral justification of why one way is better than another. Scriptural principles should be, and my goal here was to make you think about why you believe what you believe.

I suppose that that is just my twisted perception of things. No woman has ever took it as disrespect. Let me put it this way - I wouldn't really appreciate a girl putting the first move one me.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I suppose that that is just my twisted perception of things.

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?

No woman has ever took it as disrespect.

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.

Let me put it this way - I wouldn't really appreciate a girl putting the first move one me.

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