The Church, Dating & Mental Health

This is a scary place to find a date. Probably because it's haunted. [Photo by A Quiverful of Fotos]

I wanted to write a brief (or maybe not so brief) companion piece to my "Undateable" series about the complexities of mental health within the context of church dating.

Let's say you are a Christian and you want to date someone who shares your beliefs. Are you more likely to end up dating someone with a personality disorder (or other mental disorder) if you choose to date within the context of a church?

To be clear, I am not saying that suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, OCD, or any other mental disorder or illness disqualifies anyone for dating or makes a person undateable. I do not believe this at all.

Nor am I saying that a person must have resolved all of their emotional issues before dating. If that were case, no one would ever date, myself included.

Disclaimers aside, I think there are certain personality disorders that might make a person more likely to cause harm to others within the context of dating. And those who have these personality disorders may be predisposed to attend church.

In my "Undateable" series, I write about different attributes I've encountered dating (or not dating) Christian men--things like misogyny, cowardice, racism and not taking "No" for an answer.

Although these attributes are not necessarily related to mental health, in some cases, I feel like they are caused by or co-occur with a personality disorder.

[This is not to take away from the fact that a person with a personality disorder is fully human and fully worthy of love, respect and acceptance, but never at the expense of another person's safety.]

Some examples of potentially damaging behavior within the context of dating include physical and emotional abuse, stalking, obsessive pursuit, disrespect of communicated boundaries and rigid gender roles.

I want to be careful here--diagnosing anyone with a personality disorder is obviously not something I am qualified to do.

However, I can hypothesize that in some cases, mental health is the issue. I would also argue that the culture of dating within the church is inherently dysfunctional, and thus encourages dysfunctional behavior and ways of relating to the opposite sex.

So, to make the point I came here to make:

I think that racist or sexist remarks can be a sign that the person you are dating has a personality disorder, particularly if they make little sense within the existing social context (i.e., the surrounding social group is usually neither blatantly racist nor sexist).

Also, racist or sexist jokes or statements can be a precursor to abuse. It might be worth thinking more about our collective tolerance for hateful or devaluing statements about the Other and whether or not we are encouraging or enabling an abusive dynamic to take place between the church and the culture, as well as between one individual and another.

To what extent does the church tolerate sexism, racism and homophobia and to what extent does this tolerance contribute to abuse, particularly of those who are the most spiritually and emotionally vulnerable?

Perhaps we could love and accept the broken (all of us, according to Christian theology) while also being wholly intolerant of anything that devalues another human being.

Should I Stay Or Should I Go?: Knowing when to quit a job, relationship or kickball team

Ever have a job you hated from the first minute of the first day? What about a boyfriend who made you feel small and alone after two weeks of dating? Rarely do jobs or relationships start out as toxic or abusive. If they did, we would leave right away.

So how do you know when to quit? What might happen if you stay?

Dr. Henry Cloud makes the distinction between "pain with a purpose" and "pain for no good reason."

Pain means something is wrong. My friend and fellow blogger goes into detail about that here, and I also wrote a post about pain here.

Bottom line: Pain Bad. Also, there are different kinds of pain, and it can be useful to define which kind of pain you are currently experiencing. Is it getting better? Is getting worse? Are you feeling numb to the pain? How does the person/atmosphere/task make you feel on a regular basis?

There are some kinds of pain that are inescapable--akin to being stuck on the 405 at 5pm on a Thursday. If you can avoid it, by all means do so. If you can't--that's life.

But there are other kinds of pain that are simply not worth it.

I read somewhere that there is a name for pointless suffering: torture.

Sometimes we buy into the idea that it's supposed to be hard--marriage isn't easy. Learning to play the violin or make the perfect pie crust might require long, tedious hours of practice. But there are some kinds of pain that are not in the service of a greater good. There are some kinds of pain that only break you down over time.

So, is this suffering (assuming it's not inescapable) making you a better or a worse version of yourself? Are you suffering for no good reason?

It's also good to process how you are coping with the pain. Are you using healthy or unhealthy coping strategies?

For example, disassociation from your environment, from people, from a hostile relationship can be an extremely useful coping strategy--however, rarely is cutting yourself off from your emotions a good long-term strategy.

Even if you are not working in an abusive or toxic environment, emotions like frustration, boredom, and dissatisfaction are worth paying attention to. Maybe they don't mean you should immediately quit your job--but they do mean something. Like maybe now is good time to move on, if you're able.

As for work situations and relationships that are abusive, the first step is recognizing the cycle of abuse. Here's an example from a work situation:



"Cycle of Abuse" by Avanduyn -  Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cycle_of_Abuse.png#/media/File:Cycle_of_Abuse.png

1 - Tensions building: As the deadline closes in for a project at work, I start to feel a sense of dread. Although I am doing all I can, I still fear that my boss will be displeased with the final product, no matter what I do or don't do. I have seen him explode in the past, usually the night before the project is due. He has also made threats about what might happen if there is a repeat of past "failures." I feel like something terrible yet undefinable is about to happen.

2 - Incident: The night before the project is due, as predicted, my boss explodes at me in a company meeting in front of our entire team for "Not presenting it in the right way." I feel helpless and unable to defend myself. I feel worthless and doubt my ability to ever get it right. The entire room is thick with tension, anxiety and fear. Everyone else looks completely cowed and no one stands up for me. My boss justifies his belittlement as necessary because other tactics (praising me, telling me I'm doing a good job) have not worked.

3 - Reconciliation: My boss is absent for much of the rest of the week. When I see him again, he appears to be in a better mood, and no mention is made of the meeting.

4 - Calm: My boss tells me he is just trying to help me develop in my career. He seems to want to work more collaboratively and tells me that I have a lot of potential.

A note here about anger and distinguishing between normal, reactive anger and anger that is abusive:

I think there is a difference. As far as I can tell, abusive anger (unlike normal anger) tends to fill the room. It has layers of hurt, shame and blame that go far beyond the context or situation at hand--imagine that you and this person are in a relationship and you cheated on them and ran over their dog on purpose--that's what it feels like. The goal of abusive anger is to hurt, control and punish the other person.

If you are in an abusive situation, I would recommend getting out now. Instead of thinking about what could be--he could be the man of your dreams, this could be the job that catapults you to success, it could get better, there could be an opportunity here to do something you love--think about what is.

Think about what might happen if instead of getting better, things actually get worse--whether it's your partner's anger or an abusive cycle at work. Abuse tends to escalate gradually over time, so that boundaries that you never thought would be crossed are suddenly fair game. When you are in a toxic or abusive dynamic, it can be impossible to see the situation objectively--even more so if the relationship or job constantly puts you in fight or flight.

Here are some not-so-great reasons for staying in a bad situation:

1. You keep thinking about the good 'ol days when you first started the job/relationship.
2. There's a small chance conditions will improve.
3. He/she can change. You believe in them!
4. You're afraid that no one else will ever love you or hire you again.
5.You want to prove "them" wrong.
6. You are seeking justice for wrongs done to you.
7. You are waiting for permission to leave.
8. You think that the pain is making you "better."

I once overstayed a bad job situation by roughly three months--three of the worst months of my life, not to put too fine a point on it.

I kept thinking that when I finally left, things would start getting better. What I didn't expect was that, instead of getting better, things just stopped getting worse.

I feel like this is an important distinction. Are things getting worse? Is the abuse escalating? Are you continuing to put yourself in a situation that you know is harming you emotionally, physically, mentally? Get out. Stop waiting for them to get better. Stop waiting for him to change. Stop waiting for people to listen to your side of the story. Get out get out get out.

You are more important than any job or relationship.

If you do choose to leave an abusive relationship of any kind, take steps to protect yourself from retaliation by making sure that person has no access to you (preferably), zero leverage over you, or if that's not possible, that you have a support system and a safe place to go.

I'm rooting for you.

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys are All Dented Cans - The Myth of Persistence

Photo by quinn.anya

So I've started doing this thing where I'm completely honest with men. Why?

Well, for one, it amuses me and my dark sense of humor. I get to say fun things like:

"I'm not interested in pursuing anything romantic with you."
"Hitting on one person on the fb status of another person is kind of a douche move."
"You fondled my earring at a BBQ and it made feel uncomfortable and disrespected."
"When you grabbed me from behind around my ribs directly under my breasts [yeah, that happened], I felt unsafe and violated."

Yep. That's right. Just waiting for the marriage proposals to roll on in.

For another, I'm done protecting a man's feelings at the expense of my own personal safety.

And that brings me to the topic for today in dented cans: THE MYTH OF PERSISTENCE. And yes, it definitely deserves to be in all caps.

There's this weirdly longstanding myth out there that women want men who will continue to pursue them even in the face of blatant rejection (see also, "The Notebook").

You say, "I just want to be friends."
He hears, "I just want to be friends until I change my mind and decide we should definitely get married and have five kids."

You say, "I'm not interested in you in that way."
He hears, "I'm not interested in you in that way, but you should definitely grab me and try to kiss me."

You say, "I like someone else."
He hears, "He's probably a douche-bag--so you still have a shot!"

To the men that believe this myth, "No, I'm not interested" means "Try harder. You're not trying hard enough. Persist long enough and I will say 'Yes.'"

Except it doesn't mean that.

No--when you persist in pursuing me after I have made my feelings clear, I can only assume that there is something wrong with you either emotionally or mentally. And the last thing in the world that I desire is to have an emotionally or mentally unstable man pursuing me, or worse, believing that I owe him something--a date, friendship, my time, a second chance.

In short, when a man will not take "No" for an answer, all my self-preservation instincts kick in, and all I want is for him to stay the **** away from me.

I feel fear and anger.

Fear--because if this man apparently can't understand or chooses not to understand the words that I use to communicate (perhaps if I did an interpretive dance?), who's to say what other boundaries of mine he won't violate due to this "misunderstanding"? If he has already violated my verbal boundaries and made me feel unsafe, there are still other boundaries he has yet to cross: emotional, spiritual, mental, physical.

But truthfully, I have trouble understanding the level of pure terror I feel when a man refuses to take "No" for an answer.

My best guess is that this is a dehumanizing experience--I am not a person to these men. I am the projection of all of their baggage about women. I "owe" him something--my body, my "Yes," a chance for him to prove that he is the man of my dreams and we are meant to be together-- In short, I cannot give consent because I am not fully human. His pursuit has very little do with me, and so much to do with the fantasy world he has created in his mind: A world in which I should say, "Yes."

At a certain point this fantasy becomes far more important than my humanity. And that is terrifying (cue visions of being chained up in a dungeon somewhere by a man who "just wants to love me," and is willing to wait as long as it takes for me to realize that).

My guess is that many men fail to understand this as well--they have never experienced fear for their personal safety in the context of romantic relationships, partially because women are not encouraged to pursue in the face of rejection, in fact, quite the opposite. Any romantic rejection is humiliating and shameful.

And what about "Not Leading Him On," that crime that women seem to be accused of at a substantially higher rate than men? Why do women so often take the path of least resistance, trying to "let him down easy." It goes back to fear, again. Women have been taught that saying "No" is not only rude, but also dangerous.

A stranger came up to me in the 99 cent store and told me that I was "beautiful." He followed this up immediately with, "That's a compliment you know."

Of course, I enjoy compliments most when they are followed by vaguely hostile or threatening statements. I also enjoy being put in a situation in a public space where I am expected to thank a stranger for harassing me or be subjected to the accusation of "ungrateful b___ who can't take a compliment."

Unfortunately for me, as a woman, I fear for my physical safety. Therefore, I try not to engage with men in an aggressive or potentially escalating manner.

The same goes for turning down men who are romantically interested in me--but as it turns out, it matters very little what I say:

I've had different Christian guys: Corner me in a car and demand repeatedly that I go out on a date with him, then text me to apologize and tell me that he really "respects" me; Tell me my job is on the line unless I let him back into my life (as a friend, of course); Ignore my request to be "just friends" by grabbing me and dipping me for a kiss, all while citing the scene in "Hitch" when Will Smith and Kevin James accidentally make out ("You lean in half way, then wait for her to go the other half").

Then there's the anger--yeah, being seen as not quite human kind of pisses me off. And there's the icky, would rather not think about it, idea that my biracial, "exotic" looks only contribute to the extent to which men are able to project their own fantasies onto my very real, non-white (but still human!) body.

The intersection between race and perceived sexual availability is a fraught one at best--but whether it applies here or not, let me just say:

I don't want to be touched, grabbed, or groped in public by men I don't know.
If I say I don't want to date you, I mean exactly that, and I don't care to repeat myself.
I am in no way obligated to explain to you why I am not interested. I owe you no justification whatsoever.
If you won't take "No" for answer, consider yourself banned from my life.

So why is it that Christian men are so horrible at grasping the concept of women as fully human?

The word "consent" is quite the buzzword these days, but I believe there are many Christian men who do not grasp the concept:

Consent (or if you prefer, "Respect") isn't just about sex. It's about respecting the boundaries of another human being--seeing them as fully human--in every single interaction, romantic or not.

There are certain things that "Nice" Christian guys tend to believe or say that are inconsistent with consent:

One, believing that if you go to the trouble of asking a girl out, she should say, "Yes," just because you took a risk and put yourself out there.

Two, if you ask a girl out and she says, "Yes" even though she is not ultimately interested, then she is leading you on.

Three, you are a "Good Christian Man" but every girl you ask out says, "No," meaning that there is something wrong with them, not you. You are a victim of feminism, shallow female whims, or unfair discrimination.

Four, if a girl says "No" before the first date or after five dates, you deserve a full, complete, and honest explanation as to why.

Five, women don't actually know what they want. They read romance novels and "Fifty Shades of Grey" and then complain that they don't want to be raped, beaten, sexually harassed, or coerced into sex. What gives?

One and two are obviously contradictory, but I have heard both. Trying to control whether or not someone says "Yes" or "No" to a date is contrary to the idea of consent--and trying to control a person's motivations in general feels fishy.

For three and four, being rejected sucks, obviously. But believing that someone else is "wrong" for rejecting you or that the the entire female population is delusional because they are not romantically interested in you is also contrary to the idea of consent--particularly to the idea that a woman should be able to choose to date or not date someone for any reason. Yes, any reason, even one you think is shallow or stupid.

Also contrary to consent is manipulating a person into unwanted contact of any kind.

For five--well, perhaps that is the subject of another blog post, but it boggles the mind that women are still not allowed to be complex or contradictory beings with a freedom of choice and personal autonomy that transcends one particular sexual fantasy or choice of reading material. "Women don't know what they want" seems highly correlated with the myth of persistence--"Women don't know what they want" but "I (a man) know what they should want." Gross.

In conclusion, if a guy will not take "No" for an answer he is, in my opinion, undateable.

Up next in the Dented Cans series, a post on entitlement.

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - The Racist

Coming never to a store near you

[Catch up on the premise of this series here.]

I know you've all been waiting with bated breath for this next installment--

And on the docket today for cringey subject matter, racism.

It probably won't shock you to know that, like misogyny, racism is a deal-breaker for me in a dating relationship. This hardly feels like ground breaking territory.

After all, how many of us look at a prospective dating partner and think, "You know what would be really awesome? If he/she were just a little bit racist every once in while, just to keep me on my toes as an ethnic minority."

No. Highly doubtful.

But despite that generally accepted reality, I dated a racist Christian guy.

This is embarrassing and shameful for me to admit. How could that even happen? I'm a college-educated, biracial feminist who studied English literature. I've read Spivak and Bhabha for crying out loud. That **** takes commitment (and roughly four cups of coffee or 20 cups of tea, depending on whether you're stateside or across the pond).

Here's my theory: we tend to work with a simplified framework of reality when it comes to other people.

So in my non-hypothetical case, I have a framework in my mind about Jack's character. I think of him as highly sensitive and extremely compassionate based on the sum of all my interactions with him (the mathematical function of our relationship).

So when Jack says something that doesn't fit within the framework--"Sensitive to other people's feelings," "Compassionate," my mind places these utterances outside of the established framework as rare exceptions.

The same holds true with racist comments. Far from pouncing on a statement with a gleeful, "Aha! I knew it! All white people harbor secret racist thoughts," my mind seeks to integrate the new information into previously held conceptions about Jack's basic character.

There's no way someone this empathetic could be racist. Right?
I must have misunderstood what he said. I think he meant something different.
But he's a Christian.

To return to the subject of this post, whether or not someone is a Christian seems to be only a very mild marker of whether or not he/she is also racist (completely debatable of course).

Observationally, however, a shared belief system like Christianity can function much like a shared disgust for the Other, whatever or whomever that Other might be.

"We're Christians so of course we think ____ is disgusting/sinful/wrong."

More observational thoughts about the intersection between being a Christian dude and being racist.:

The "Other" and Disgust

When I've heard Christian guys that I dated (or didn't) say something racist or bigoted or prejudiced, I couldn't help but register the tone of disgust.

Isn't that what racism is, in a way? Gut-level disgust about this inferior group of people? Whether they're destroying America, rioting in the streets about injustice, or brutally asserting their worth as human beings, nothing done by "people like us" ever seems to elicit an even remotely similar reaction.

Even if it's not aimed at you, you feel it like a punch in the stomach.

I want to make a quick note here about the possible connection between racist remarks and having a personality disorder. I mention this later on, but I hypothesize that there is a potential connection--and I want to point it out as a red flag: The person you are dating might not only be slightly racist, but also emotionally dangerous.

The "Other" and Forced Teaming

Gavin de Becker talks about forced teaming in his great book "The Gift of Fear." Basically, the predator uses the tone and language of "we're in this together" to establish rapport and trust with his victim. Example: a stranger points out that you're both unprepared for the rain, commiserates with you about your lack of an umbrella, and then offers to give you a ride in his car. [STRANGER DANGER]

Racist remarks can function in much the same way. A conspiratorial lowering of the voice (ooh, I'm being so daring and countercultural right now, I can't even). The message:

We're in this together.
We both feel the same way about this controversial issue.
We're superior and better than those other people.
You agree with me by default, because you're clearly not part of an inferior racial minority.

My silent response making me a co-conspirator, implicating me in the same kinds of beliefs--to challenge them would be to lose the relationship. I betrayed myself. And I hate myself for it.

I reached a turning point in dealing with this particular relationship when I realized that the racist (and sexist) remarks were far from the exception to the rule--they were beyond calculated and intentional. Far from being the isolated pinpricks in a compassionate, honest and loving relationship, they were the deliberate wounds of an abuser.

He discovered my deepest vulnerabilities. And wielded that knowledge like a weapon to hurt, manipulate and control me.

The "Other" and Political Correctness

Something odd tends to happen if you even hint to a man that he might be racist or sexist.

He begins clutching his pearls (haha), crying, "No! Not me! I would never believe such things. What kind of sick, twisted monster do you think I am?"

Because apparently, calling someone a racist is stopping just short of calling them a child molester.

Well, let me be neither the first nor the last to say:

"He doth protest too much."

Often, after letting you know that you've offended his delicate, white male sensibilities, he follows with, "Well, I'm not politically correct if that's what you mean."

I have a theory about not being politically correct:

Speaking the language of politically incorrect is a way for those without any real power to puff themselves up--like the so-called "alpha male" who is secretly insecure and terrified of his own weakness.

Why are Christian men politically incorrect?

1. They feel personally disempowered in their lives and adopt what they perceive to be the vocabulary of power (politically incorrect speech) as a posture of "I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but only around people who are like me and agree with me and only about people who are less powerful than I am and unlikely to fight back." See also, cowardice.

2. Christian dudes refrain from challenging other Christian dudes in Christian Bro-centric environments.

Being politically incorrect is putting on a brave face for the lads--what with all the oppressive powers of feminism making it impossible to be a "real man," because God knows, merely having a penis is just about enough to get you locked up these days.

Church & Patriarchy

Speaking of power, perhaps the church tends to attract men who feel disempowered in other areas of life. The church, unlike other contexts, tends to place a premium on male leadership--even more progressive churches do this. So a man who is not a leader in any other part of his life might find himself an integral part of church leadership.

Of course this is speculative, but I would observationally argue that men who attend church might feel a greater sense of being victimized and disempowered in other parts of their lives, and so seek out greater involvement at a church that values them and their contributions. They might lack power politically, socially (be socially awkward, for example), economically (unemployed or underemployed), or romantically (perceive themselves as the "nice guy" that women always reject).

Just to reiterate: We are all dented cans. Male or female. White, Black, Asian or Hispanic. However, the sense of victimization that seems to come from the gap between being apparently privileged--you're white and male! Go you!--and the reality of working at Coffee Bean, relying on your parents for gas money, and asking women out only to be repeatedly rejected--feels somewhat specific to the demographic I am writing about.

Again speculatively, in this day and age for white men, I'm not sure if racism or politically incorrect language can be entirely separated from a personal sense of victimization.

Note: Playing the victim is a common sociopathic trope.

Clearly I am not saying that all men who say racist things are sociopathic (just the guy I dated).

But, I think that this sense of victimization dulls a person's empathy to any and all who are perceived as Other. After all, if you gain part of your sense of self from being a victim of society, why the hell would you want to share that power with someone else?

And what defines a sociopath? Lack of empathy. And that's not the kind of guy that I want to date.

So to conclude an overlong post: Racism bad. Racist guy bad. Racist Christian guy--the worst.

Have a great day.

Up next in the series, men who won't take "No" for an answer, or The Myth of Persistence.