Christians Suck at Consent, Part 2

It gets worse.

Chuck II

The same day all that other stuff happened, another guy messaged me. We'll call him Chuck II, because, again, I don't know anyone named Chuck. Unfortunately for Chuck II, I was on an honesty kick, because of a lack of sleep and what had just transpired with Chuck I.

So when Chuck the Second sidled up to me via facebook messenger and said he was also interested in the project I was working on (translation, "Heyyyyyyyy there"), I told him the truth:

That I felt like he was physically pushy when we dated (we went on two dates total) and that it made me feel disrespected.

His response wasn't great. In fact, it may have filled me with inchoate rage.

Let's go back in time again to a few years ago.

On our first date, we went to coffee. So far, so normal.

At the end of our second date, Chuck II tried to shove his tongue into my mouth after we hugged goodbye. I was taken aback. Again, it felt like it had very little to do with me or with us having a "moment" (I've had moments before. This was not a moment). There were no signals coming from any direction that said, "Now is sexy, sexy make-out time." Was it the bright sunlight of a Hollywood afternoon? The ambiance of the brick walkway in front of my rent-controlled apartment? Who knows.

I pulled away in surprise and soon texted him that I "just wanted to be friends," because apparently things were escalating quickly. He apologized and said he wanted to take things at my pace. I think we settled on something like friends with the potential for more.

The next time we hung out, he was all over me. And when I went to hug him goodbye, he didn't let go of me at first, but instead held me tightly and said, "What if I ask this time?"

And then he pressed me about why I just wanted to be friends as I was about to get into my car to leave.

THIS. This is why.

So when I told Chuck II that I felt like he was physically pushy and he didn't respond well, I got angry.

His response? He wasn't physically pushy—not from his perspective. In fact, he is "hyper-aware of [implied: all] the choices and moves" he makes. Respecting me had been really important to him because he liked me. And I had judged him too quickly.

Not only that—he was hurt that I felt disrespected

Come again? He had violated my personal boundaries—violated my body—but it was his feelings that truly mattered. I had misjudged him. I was wrong, and it was all my fault.

When I said that the conversation was upsetting me and I was ending it, he blithely suggested we meet up for coffee so we could "make amends." And that's when I really lost it.

Again, I felt like a face and a body that a man had projected his wishes and desires onto, not a real person. Hyperaware though he may have been, Chuck II made no mention of being aware of what I was thinking or feeling. I guess he meant, "I was hyperaware that I wanted to kiss you. And so I did."

I felt like a non-entity—Chuck II didn't think he was disrespectful, Chuck II thought he was very respectful. In fact, Chuck II was extraordinarily confident and wildly intentional about all the choices he made during the brief time we dated.

To put it graphically:

Chuck II was more confident about sticking his tongue in my mouth and pressing his boner up against me on a second date than I have ever been about anything in my entire life, ever.

It feels like I'm mocking him (which isn't nice, I know), but I'm actually dead serious: I wish that I had that much confidence about anything—ANYTHING at all—choosing which mismatched socks to wear in the morning, my career, my decision to live in Los Angeles, anything.

With credit to Sarah Hagi for the original version of this

Lack of dating experience or something else? 

It's not like I met these guys on the internet—we met through mutual friends and still have many, many mutual friends. We met in "Safe," "Christian" contexts. They are "nice guys."

It's easy to look at these incidents and think, "Well, maybe he just doesn't have a lot of experience."

I've dated Christian guys like this. They're not always good at dating. They make mistakes. Obviously, not all of them are this bad.

But there's something deeper going on when a guy corners me in his car and almost demands that I give him a chance and go on a date with him (Chuck III?) or when a guy takes my picture after a couple of dates so that he can show his friends a picture of his "girlfriend." Or when a male friend tells me I'm too closed off and judgmental because I don't automatically assume that a stranger who approaches me in parking lot, at night, is safe (because what if he's just a nice guy, standing in front of a girl in the parking lot of Sprouts, asking her for her number, even though all she wanted was to buy some Brown Cow maple yogurt because that sh** is delicious?).

I feel like something is deeply wrong when I'm expected to educate men in their 20s, 30s or even 40s about the fact that women are people too, or when I'm expected to "give a chance" to someone who doesn't even respect me as a real person entitled to make her own decisions.

What doesn't seem to factor into any of these situations is me—my thoughts, my desires, my body, my decisions, my judgment, my intuition.

And I'm tired. I'm tired of feeling like I have to scream "NO" at the top of lungs to get someone to leave me alone. I'm tired of feeling like my pain doesn't have any meaning or significance unless I'm literally bleeding to death or dying of cancer.

I'm tired of being so disconnected from my own body that I only feel the rage of physical violation weeks, months, or years after the fact.

Consent isn't just about sex

Consent is about treating the other person like a person—not a body, not a good-looking accessory, not a blank canvas on which to project fantasies of marriage and children, not a character from a movie—but an actual person.

And these two stories in particular (though kind of funny) have been painful to write about—I've had to sit in it and think about why I felt so violated in the first place.

I've thought about how scary it is for a man to physically grab me out-of-nowhere, against my will, and start tipping me backwards. I've thought about how f***ing scary it is to have someone you don't know very well not let go of you (restrain you) and pressure you for something sexual that you don't want to give. How out-of-control and terrifying it is to feel like in that moment your body is not your own, is out of your control, is in the hands of someone who doesn't even see you.

I don't know how to describe it except to say that it cuts you off from your own physical being. That when you do start to tune back in from the numbness, all you can feel is pain.

It feels like sh**. That's what.

Jessica Jones, Sex Robots for Jesus, and the Love/Respect Binary

I. SEX ROBOTS FOR JESUS

What causes someone to voluntarily become a sex robot for Jesus?

I once listened in horror to a podcast subtitled A Good Woman's View of Sex on the Love and Respect Podcast that appeared to answer just this question. 

She doesn't need your respect. Photo via collider.com

If you're not familiar with Love and Respect, it is a popular Christian marriage book written by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. The book purports to rescue and redeem marriages through the universal application of a simple gender binary: 

Women need love; Men need respect ("desperately"—his word, not mine). It's all based on this verse:

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:33)

Although Eggerichs repeatedly says in the book and throughout the "Love and Respect" franchise that both men and women need both love and respect, his application of these two concepts proves otherwise.

Essentially, he places any need or desire women have for respect and puts it under the heading "love." He places any need or desire men have for love and puts it under the heading "respect." A woman's core need is love. A man's core need is respect. If you put a gun to a man's head and asked him to choose, he would choose respect; if you put a gun to a woman's head and...you get the idea. If I just keep saying this over and over again, you'll eventually buy into it, right?

The truly "revolutionary" concept in "Love and Respect" is not the idea that husbands should love their wives (which as Eggerichs points out, is old hat by this point), but the idea the wives should unconditionally respect their husbands (109). 

Yeah, you heard that right. Husbands deserve unconditional respect, especially when they are undeserving. 

It's important to emphasize here that in this context respect has everything to do with power. The key to respect is for the wife to consistently demonstrate by word, deed, and tone of voice (or even better, silence) that her husband is in a hierarchically superior position within the marriage. 

A man's power is his God-given right. A woman's power lies in respecting her husband—she gives power away (unconditionally) in order to get it back. Make sense? I didn't think so. 

Now, back to A Good Woman's View of Sex, which is, now that I think of it, demonstrably the worst possible title for this podcast. 

In the podcast, a good woman writes in (we'll call her "Martha") to describe a painful marriage. Martha believed that in order to honor God and be a good Christian wife, she needed to make every effort to meet her husband's sexual needs.

Therefore, she went from "never saying no to sex," because that would be sinful, to initiating sex with her husband every third day, without fail, although he continued to treat her poorly. Basically, he came to expect regular sex. He refused to ever initiate, but would subtly punish her if she didn't offer herself up to him every third day.

In her letter, Martha describes weeping uncontrollably in the shower, knowing that sex would be expected of her that day—knowing that if she did not initiate as expected, her husband would treat her with even more coldness and contempt than usual.

This story is upsetting—this wasn't just a woman submitting to unwanted sex with a selfish and emotionally distant husband because "that's what Jesus would want," but a woman who took it a step further and became the only person in the marriage to initiate sex—emotionally (possibly physically) painful sex that she did not want, but believed God required of her.

In essence, she became a sex slave within her own marriage.

Okay, now we get to the good part. How do Eggerichs and his son Jonathan Eggerichs respond to this letter? Do they mention the concept of self-respect? Do they tell Martha that no, Jesus does not require her to die emotionally every third day in order to meet her husband's sexual needs? Do they perhaps suggest that Martha's husband might want to be married to and have sex with a fully realized, equal human being with thoughts, feelings, inclinations, or a will of her own? And if that doesn't interest him, she should think about getting out of what sounds like an abusive marriage?

No. No, they do not.

Instead, Emerson Eggerichs says stuff like, "I honor you for your obedience to Christ" and "If you worship Christ in the sexually intimate area, [. . .] you are touching Christ's heart" and "this is a good-hearted woman" (refer back to the title of the podcast). At one point, he calls a wife like Martha a "goldmine" for sexually starved husbands everywhere. Most husbands would kill for such regular sexual activity. Who cares that she has to shut down every other aspect of her humanity?

"Love and Respect" the book devotes an entire chapter to "Sexuality—Appreciate His Desire for Sexual Intimacy." Because everything in this book is drawn along a gender binary, men have sexual needs and women have emotional needs. For men, "sex is symbolic of his deeper need—respect" (250). Eggerichs equates respect with sex, and let us not forget the oft-repeated phrase "unconditional respect."

Although Martha's story might seem like an outlier, it's hard not to see it instead as the logical conclusion of "unconditional respect": unconditional sex, or "Sex Robots for Jesus."

Now, let's talk about Jessica Jones.

Watching the new Netflix series was as bracing as the Atlantic ocean in December. I've never seen the issue of abuse tackled like this before—somehow it takes a woman with superhuman powers to show the effects of mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Jessica is nobody's fool, but even her superhuman abilities and dour wit don't save her from the harrowing trauma of an abusive relationship.

What the show makes plain is that mental and emotional coercion can be just as powerful as the threat of actual physical violence.

Kilgrave abuses Jessica through the use of mind control. He wines and dines her as his perfect, ideal woman, going on and on about how much he "loves" her even as he turns her into his sex slave. As the show demonstrates, the worst kind of emotional and mental abuse eventually destroys a person's will. It breaks down their humanity. Over time, they have no willpower left to resist the abuse, no ability to say, "No."

Christian marriage advice, on the other hand, uses spiritual coercion to guilt women into unwanted sex. It's essentially a form of mind control—the woman submits her will to the "will of God," losing some of her own humanity in the process.

If you tell a devout Christian woman, "This is what God requires," you don't need to put a knife to her throat.

So when you encourage a woman to treat herself as less than human—when you praise her for making herself into a sex robot whose only purpose is to "respect" her husband by meeting his sexual needs—when you tell her that Jesus is pleased—then yes, you are encouraging and enabling abuse.

II. RESPECTING YOUR ABUSER

Ending an abusive relationship (that I initially didn't recognize as abusive) has caused me to more carefully examine words like "love" and "respect."

I've learned that if someone does not respect you as a human being, they cannot love you. Lack of respect, not lack of affection or care (often confused with love) is the cause of abuse. And as bell hooks puts it, "Love and abuse cannot coexist."

In "Love and Respect," Eggerichs addresses the question of whether his conception of "respect" will cause abuse:

Will the concept of biblical hierarchy lead to abuse? [...] Yes, this is possible, but because it is possible does not mean a woman should refuse to allow her husband to be the head. If a husband is evil-willed, the abuse will happen anyway, no matter what the family structure is. Any hierarchical role given to him has nothing to do with the abuse. The evil-willed man always treats those around him abusively (207).

I absolutely disagree. Shrugging and saying "Evil be evil" or "Abusers gonna abuse" is both misleading and f***ing irresponsible. 

Eggerichs fails to admit that he is putting powerful, ready-made, "biblical" (his word) tools into the hands of the abuser. Will reading "Love and Respect" turn an ordinary man into an abusive jerk? Doubtful. But an abusive man would have a field day with the concepts presented, and could easily use them to further control and manipulate his wife or girlfriend.

Here's why:

The words "love" and "respect" are deliberate. They are words favored by abusers.

I can't stop hearing Kilgrave's voice in my head:

"Jessica! Jessica! I love you!"

Nightmares for days

My abuser said the same thing (minus the Jessica part). He told me, "I still love you." And then he indirectly threatened me (but only because he was trying to help me and he didn't want to see me suffer!)

Hearing "I love you" from an abuser creates a huge amount of cognitive dissonance: "But he told me he loved me! Over and over again with tears in his eyes!"

Only when I began to see that the "love" itself was abuse did the fog start to lift.

And then there's that other word: respect. I've written about how another abusive man in my life used to repeatedly say, "You don't respect me!" By "respect" he meant exactly what Eggerichs means in "Love and Respect". He meant, "You don't submit your will to me. You don't treat me as being above you. You won't give in to me."

You see, respect as Eggerichs conceives of it—that is, the respect men "desperately need"—is always a hierarchical value. Men need this kind of respect in order to feel like men. It's an odd setup, where men are the more powerful entities (by God's design), but without a woman following them around all the time telling them how much they respect them, men collapse emotionally, spiritually, and probably sexually (Eggerichs writes that "respect beats a dose of Viagra any day!"). It's a spiritual variation on a common theme: men need women to prop up their fragile egos.

I can still remember the time I told my ex-boyfriend that I respected him. He lit up like a Christmas tree. I don't even know why I said it—maybe the love/respect doctrine had trickled down to me somehow. I had just confronted him with some things that he had said and done that troubled me—so perhaps this was my way of restoring equilibrium in the relationship.

I wonder whether I used "respect" like Trish Walker does with Kilgrave in "Jessica Jones"—to prevent him from turning, and tearing me to pieces. Now, this is a type of respect that I can relate to—the kind of respect that I pretend with men so that they will stop hating me, stop abusing me, stop treating me with contempt, or just simply leave me alone. Did my "respect" keep my ex-boyfriend from treating me abusively later on? No. It didn't.

Joy Eggerichs, the daughter of Emerson and Sarah Eggerichs, talks candidly on her website (billed as "Love and Respect" for the current generation) about being in an abusive dating relationship where the guy would tell her she was being disrespectful in order to manipulate her. By her own account, she went to her parents and asked them if she was really being disrespectful.

Luckily, she got out of that relationship. But here's my question: Why would Joy (as an adult, presumably) need the outside validation of her parents to confirm that she was being manipulated? Why would the progeny of the love/respect dynasty fall prey to a common tactic of abusive men?

Perhaps because the only guidance that "Love and Respect" gives about abuse is that we need to somehow discern between "good-willed" people and evil people, without giving any real guidance on how to tell the difference.

III. LOVE AND RESPECT AND ABUSE

Eggerichs grants that at times, women might need to submit to God instead of to their husbands, for example, in cases of physical abuse.

Later on, however, he relates the story of one woman who went back to her previously abusive husband (he repented), but was still struggling to show him respect. She writes:

My heart's desire is to win my husband to the Lord through my respectful behavior. I must admit I have to "mull over" some of your teaching, but it IS biblically based, and the Holy Spirit keeps revealing my rebellion, contempt, disobedience, etc. I keep asking the Lord for strength to implement your suggestions, and He is so faithful!

This letter creeps me out.

Basically, the husband abused his wife, but she is the one who needs to work on her rebellion, contempt, and disobedience. This reeks of Stockholm syndrome. Any time a thought arises within this woman's mind that even hints at self-respect, anger, or, I don't know, boundaries around being abused, she beats it down as a sign of rebellion—against God!

And this is not the first abused wife in the book jonesing for more ways to unconditionally respect her husband. In another story, a woman emails Eggerichs wanting more resources and guidance about respect, but fails to mention how her husband once threw a dish at her, cutting her face.

Eggerichs' response to her selective account of her marriage: "What a woman!"

I'm not kidding. Her husband threw a plate at her face and she needed to learn more about how to respect him (he apparently repented while sitting in jail).

The connection between "Love and Respect" and abuse is not a coincidence. The false binary between love and respect is textbook spiritual abuse—"scriptural" mind control.

IV. CONTEMPT IS FOR WOMEN

Eggerichs deliberately uses the word "contempt" only in the context of a wife having or showing contempt for her husband—as if contempt, the opposite of respect, were a gendered phenomenon.

Women treat men with "contempt" (the word or its variations appears a total of 48 times in the book, always gendered female), while men are "harsh" (20 times, gendered male). Notice that women are described as contemptuous more than twice as often as men are described as harsh.

Men are never described as having or showing contempt for their wives. Why is that? My theory: It is impossible to show contempt for someone who is already beneath you, see also the phrase "beneath contempt." Eggerichs encodes his own misogynistic attitudes into his use of language.

It goes further: women are overwhelmingly portrayed as the ones responsible for marital problems and strife. I believe this is also deliberately gendered: women are the ones expected to buy the marriage books. They are the ones who should shoulder the emotional burden of improving a troubled marriage—see the previous two stories from women who were abused. 

Eggerichs' overwhelmingly gendered use of the word "contempt" sends women a clear message: It's your fault; it's your responsibility.

On the Love and Respect Now blog, writer and former missionary Alece Ronzino writes about her husband at the time literally throwing the book "Love and Respect" at her and saying, "Maybe this will teach you how to respect me like you should instead of accusing me of having an affair."

What do you know. He was having an affair.

Mindblowingly, Alece concludes this story by affirming her own ongoing struggle to respect her ex-husband despite his manipulation, abuse, and infidelity.

Yes. The moral of the story is: How do I continue to show respect to a man who has betrayed me and treated me with overwhelming contempt?

In a way, I appreciate the incredible effort Joy and Alece make to shoehorn even this traumatic story into the love/respect binary.

But on the other hand, someone throwing a book titled "Love and Respect" at you is the equivalent of a gigantic, neon, glowing sign that reads, "GET THE F*** OUT OF THIS ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP", not a gentle suggestion that maybe you need to learn some respect.

Trying to demonstrate unconditional respect to a person who is only interested in manipulating and abusing you is, needless to say, a very, very bad idea. Telling an abuser or a controlling person, "I respect you," doesn't tend to make them less abusive or controlling. Instead, as I found in my own personal experience, they are more likely to escalate the abuse.

If you are in an abusive relationship, the last question on your mind should be, "How do I respect my abuser?" That's hyperbolically equivalent to asking during an attempted murder, "How do I show my murderer that I genuinely admire his skill with a knife? Perhaps a mid-stab compliment is in order."

Notice that I used the "C" word to describe how a man treated a woman. I think my use is perfectly valid, and anyone who tries to convince you that it is impossible for a man to have or show contempt for a woman is either delusional or has a deeper agenda at stake.

Going back to Martha's story, I can't imagine a greater expression of contempt for another human being than to use her body but reject everything else about her.

What Eggerichs and Eggerichs fail to acknowledge in their podcast is that this woman's supposedly godly and praiseworthy behavior only caused her husband to treat her even more like a sexual object and less like a human being.

V. SEX ROBOTS AGAIN

As far as I can tell from reading Joy's comment on Alece's post, women can potentially save "disobedient" men by showing them respect. But it doesn't always work. Sometimes people are just evil (there's that helpful advice again).

Wives saving their disobedient husbands through unconditional respect is a huge theme in "Love and Respect," based on these verses:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. (NASB, 1 Peter 3:1-2)

Which Eggerichs shortens to:

The apostle Peter reveals that husbands who "are disobedient to the word" (meaning they are undeserving of respect) "may be won . . . by . . . respectful behavior."

Notice that the burden is on the wife to save her husband. And how does one save a husband? By having sex with him as often as possible—um, I mean, by respecting him.

Eggerichs' comments in the "Good Woman" podcast make so much more sense now—Martha is literally worshipping God by having sex with her husband. She may be dying on the inside, but all that matters is that her vagina is winning him to the Lord.

Eggerichs claims that it's not like she's being "tortured" or "crucified" or anything. I feel like the fact that he even uses these words implies the opposite. She is crucifying her own will. She is crucifying her emotions. She is crucifying her body. She is emotionally tortured every three days over a two year period.

And to be consistent here, isn't that what women are supposed to do? Be Jesus for their husbands? Die a little more each day so that he might "live"?*

Sex Robot = Sex Martyr

VI. LOVE AND RESPECT AND JESUS

I have yet to read a single story in the entire love/respect canon that describes a woman standing up for herself and saying, "No." No, I will not abused. No, I will not stay in a situation that puts my life at risk. No, I will not stay in a marriage in which I am emotionally and sexually degraded.

Women are being counseled to trust the love/respect doctrine over their own self-preservation instincts—and I'm not just talking about life-threatening situations, though of course those exist.

I'm talking about preserving your life—your emotional, spiritual, rational self—precisely the self that abuse seeks to destroy. Precisely the self that, according to Christianity, Jesus died to save.

And that's probably the primary reason that "Love and Respect" the franchise makes me so f***ing angry, and what makes it so spiritually abusive at its core:

"Love and Respect" uses the gospel of Christianity to keep women enslaved in hierarchical, if not abusive, relationships, where they are told to subjugate their anger, their intuition, their analytical abilities, their desire for meaningful work and a career, their sexuality, their bodies, their voices, and their facial expressions* to the overriding goal of "respecting" their husbands.

So I'm going to call "Love and Respect" what it is: a false doctrine. Idolatry. A dangerous, misogynistic, and abusive ideology masquerading as the biblical, magic pill solution to all male/female relationships.

VII. LOVE WITHOUT RESPECT IS ABUSE

It feels ironic to read a book about how much men need respect when I've been writing about how disrespected I've felt in relationships with Christian men.

Usually, love or romantic feelings are used to justify or gloss over disrespectful behavior—so that the men who have treated me the most abusively or disrespectfully are also the ones who have expressed the most love, affection, and attraction.

When a man tells me that he "respects" me, it's usually after he has treated me in an incredibly disrespectful way—this seems to indicate that men understand how manipulative the words "I respect you" can be.

I've struggled with how to characterize this lack of respect for women in the Christian world. It's more than a simple lack of respect. It's not even contempt, because "contempt" implies that you actually see the other person.

I think it really comes down to the idea that women are less human or not fully human. This is the only way I can explain the abuse, especially as it coexists with "love." It's the only way I can describe a man who violates my boundaries even as he sheds crocodile tears over the depth of his love for me.

"Jessica Jones" captures just how terrifying it is to have such a man tell you he loves you.

Give me respect any day.









*Eggerichs makes a huge meal out of the fact that men are willing to die for their wives. He uses this willingness to die to justify a man's inherently superior station in the marital hierarchy. I once watched a baffling video clip of him telling women something like, "Remember that your husband would die for you. He may never open up to you emotionally, but he would die for you" as if this were somehow sufficient consolation for having an emotionally distant husband. I just picture lonely women rocking themselves to sleep every night saying over and over again, "He would die for me, he would die for me, he would die for me..."

Given the statistical probability of a man ever having to die for his wife, what about the slow death of living in an abusive or unloving relationship? What was that saying again: "Death by 1,000 Cuts."

*"A simple application is that a wife is to display a respectful facial expression and tone when he fails to be the man she wants" (43)

*"Right or wrong, men interpret their world through the respect grid, and a wife's softened tone and facial expressions can do more for her marriage than she can imagine."

*"Love and Respect" includes two letters from wives who have learned how to control their facial expressions (191, 302) and the glowing effect it has had on their marriages.

All pages numbers are from the Kindle edition of "Love and Respect."

Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys Are All Dented Cans - Anger

I've written about anger in this series before--in the entry on Entitlement and in the entry on Cowardice. In fact, if I've written about anger in every entry in this series, I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Photo by Ferran Jordà

This is not about a normal, everyday kind of anger. Anger--the kind of anger I'm talking about--is tightly wound up with entitlement and an underlying sense of victimization:

Victimization: I have been injured.
Entitlement: I have a right to be angry.
Unspoken Assumption: I have the right to enact revenge and/or even the score.

This kind of anger feels dangerous, because it is so deeply rooted in a sense of righteous justification.

Instead of calling it "anger," it might be more accurate to refer to it as bitterness, resentment, or rage--an anger cherished, nurtured, held close.

I'm writing about anger not just because I drew it out of the jar as a writing topic (which I did), but because--

Anger is my Achilles' heel.

If you want something from me, try getting angry. I might just crack.

For whatever reason (maybe getting yelled at as a kid, I dunno), anger has an unpleasant effect on me: My throat tightens. I get quiet. I go numb.

I've learned that anger can be a form of manipulation and control. And it works. I can't think of a single abusive dynamic that I've been a part of that hasn't involved this kind of anger.

One guy I worked with would yell at me, then get even angrier when I responded neutrally instead of emotionally.

He would consistently tell me about how angry yet another guy was with me (triangulation).

This happened again in another situation, where one dude capitalized on the anger of another dude to overcome a break in our relationship (bonus points if it's someone in a position of power, authority, or influence):

"___ is very angry with you. You need to do something. I can help you fix it."

Essentially, Dude A used fear of authority, specifically fear sparked by someone in authority (Dude B) being angry with me, to get what he wanted.

I mean, it worked--maybe a little too well: I soon after entered into an abusive dynamic with Dude B, a dynamic centered around anger, fear and control. It felt a little too much like being handed from one abuser to another.

That was last year. This year, I found myself once again sitting across from one man telling me that another man was "very angry with me." I find this funny (rule of 3; first time tragedy, second time farce). If you find yourself in a conversation where one person is earnestly telling you that another person is angry with you, and what are you going to do about it, I can say with certainty that something is wrong.

But I digress. Achilles' heel.

This is about anger and Christian guys and being undateable.

I had an epiphany once, while working on this series: "Christian men don't actually respect women." And then that thought kept me up all night the way that 3am thoughts sometimes do.

I think there's some truth to it: some men and some Christian men do not see women as equals. They do not see women as fully human. And it's hard to respect someone unless you view them as fully human.

I've heard from a reliable source that "anger is a gateway emotion." If we think about shame as the root of this kind of anger (abusive anger), a disproportionate response to perceived slights* makes a lot of sense:

How would you feel if something not quite a person (that you don't regard as an equal) made you feel completely worthless? Especially when everything you believe about yourself and everything society encourages you to believe tells you that you are superior, the genuine article, the real thing?

It would be incredibly enraging. The balance must be restored. Someone or something must pay. Shame is an unbearable emotion, and it must be displaced onto the body of another.

In this case, violence is just settling the score, evening the debt, restoring the equilibrium.

Where does the shame go?

I've written before about how the burden of shame accrues to women. Even the way we talk about and think about anger contributes to this burden. Anger more than almost any other emotion is seen as "out of control" or "out of my control," serving as a justification for violence.

The less that men are "in control" of their own emotions or passions, the more women are responsible for the outcome of those emotions.

This is not to blame shame for the abusive anger of men--rather, the underlying belief that men are more valuable than women, more human than women, more entitled to respect, dignity, rights, justice, power, autonomy, etc.

Yes, I blame misogyny. I blame Christian teachings that emphasize complementarian gender roles. I believe that a system that enforces rigid, narrowly defined gender roles enables and encourages the abuse of women.

As men displace their shame onto women, they feel better, while women feel worse. Messages from our culture that implicate women in their own victimization serve to reinforce this sense of reverse responsibility: You are the one at fault. You caused your own abuse. You caused your own assault. You were not hyper-vigilant enough.

I suspect that just as men cannot heal the shame of women, women cannot heal the shame of men. And women are definitely not responsible for the underlying misogyny of men's anger.

Another important point: Submission to this type of anger is a bad idea. For so long I bought into a conception of Christian reconciliation that entailed submitting passively to unhealthy and abusive anger. I thought that by demonstrating humility I could heal the relationship and reestablish equilibrium. I even apologized to my very first abuser for treating him poorly (not listening to him, not respecting him). Not even joking.

For one, it doesn't work. It can even intensify the abuse. For another, there is nothing Christian or holy about submitting to dehumanizing behavior. Any theology, church, person who tells you otherwise is selling you an abusive crock of ****.








*I owe this idea to a discussion of Roy Baumeister's writing about abuse at WenatcheeTheHatchet. While I don't agree with Wenatchee's interpretation, I did find Baumeister's ideas about men's rationalizations for domestic violence helpful.

Advice From the Google Trenches: Hitting on Girls, Respect at Work, and Why a Guy Might Think You're Desperate

And we're back! It's time for the next installment of "advice you didn't really ask for based on google search queries that led to this blog." You can find the first installment here. Let's get down to it.

"How to hit on a girl"

Today is your lucky day. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: you can talk to girls as if they are real people. Seriously! I'm not joking. Oh, you want me to be more specific? Okay.

1) Make eye contact. I'm not saying stare intensely into her eyes--I am saying don't stare at the ground the entire time if you can help it.
2) Smile. More specifically, smile while making eye contact. Be prepared to catch her if she swoons.
3) Ask her questions, preferably about herself.
4) Listen intently to what she says. You can even repeat back key points, so she knows you're paying attention.
5) Watch your body language. Are you facing toward her, facing her at an angle, or facing completely away? If you're making eye contact and smiling, this shouldn't be an issue.
6) If you are talking to a girl and you like her, it will probably be obvious that you like her. Hitting-on-girl mission accomplished.
7) It's okay to be nervous. If she likes you, she'll probably think it's cute.

If you're ready for some next level stuff, I suggest reading this post over at LABullets. Be careful though--it's not for the faint of heart.

"Thoughts about work and respect"

I have a lot of thoughts about work and respect:
-Playful banter and/or ribbing is not the same as disrespect. Of course, every workplace is different.
-If you feel you are not getting the respect you are due, there could be a deeper issue.
-This deeper issue could be with you--are you placing your worth in your job? Will any amount of respect ever be enough? Imagine getting what you want. How would it make you feel?
-This deeper issue could be with workplace dynamics or politics. It could have nothing to do with you.
-If someone condescends to you or puts you down, it might be worth it to call them out on it--to say, "Hey, what do you mean by that?"
-Ultimately, you can't change someone else's behavior or attitude. Think about why this is so important to you. Can you make peace with not getting the respect you think you deserve? If not, it might be time to look for a different job.

"Why a guy might think you're desperate"

Whoa. Hold up right there, girlfriend. Did a guy actually tell you he thinks you're desperate? No? Then what are you worried about?

There's tons of advice out there (I should know, I googled it) on not appearing desperate. But chances are if you're asking why a guy might think you're desperate, you're too self-aware to actually be desperate.

Desperate people are not self-aware. They are too busy etching their crushes' names into their forearms.

Speaking of which, if you like a guy, it's okay to tell him. Telling him does not make you desperate. Flirting with him does not make you desperate. Wanting a boyfriend does not make you desperate. Holding someone's favorite stuffed animal hostage until he agrees to date you--that makes you desperate.

Your question does bring up another issue: the difficulty of navigating the often contradictory demands placed on women by contemporary culture: being sexy, but not slutty; being intelligent, but non-threatening; being attractive, but low-maintenance; being independent, but still needing a man; being just-interested-enough, but not desperate. You can read more about this here.

Now, if you'll excuse me--I need to go mail this ransom note from "Binky."

Working For Free Without Losing Your Self-respect

In my last post, I wrote about three unpaid, short-term jobs I worked shortly after moving to LA. And last I checked, my self-respect was still (mostly) intact, making me a clear expert on this topic. These mostly apply to trying to break into the film industry, but I suppose they could apply in other fields as well. Here are some tips:

1. Put a time limit on it.

Do: Decide in advance how long you will work without pay.
Don't: Keep working for free until your savings are gone.

"Unpaid internship" is not a euphemism for "slave labor." Or at least it shouldn't be. Don't work for free for too long. Put a time limit on it--a month, three months. One year is too long (if you're not in school). If you're working in an unpaid internship and they haven't even hinted about giving you a job after three months--it's probably time to thank them kindly for the valuable experience, ask for a good reference, and move on. It's a lot like dating: If they're still not ready to make it official, it's probably not meant to be.

2. Watch your expenses.

Do: Work odd jobs to make money.
Don't: Eat at the Cheesecake Factory every night. [Plus, cholesterol!]

This goes with out saying--if you're working for free, you're probably not making a lot of money in general, so avoid spending what you do make. I was lucky. When I first moved to LA, I immediately got a temp job working at a media conference that lasted for a week. Subsequent to that, I got another extremely short-term gig that paid pretty well because I was working a double-shift. If you're making money at another job...

3. Save your ass off while working your ass off.

Do: Your job. Well.
Don't: Kill yourself.

Give it your all. You have nothing to lose (literally). If you work hard and don't complain, people will remember you. Being happy and nice doesn't hurt either.

4. Network, network, network

Do: Tell people you are looking for more gigs.
Don't: Hand out your resume between takes.

Make friends. Friends is how you will get jobs. Friends = jobs. Remember that.

5. Take advantage of craft services. [There is such a thing as a free lunch.]

Do: Take leftovers home, if appropriate.
Don't: Steal all the peanut M&Ms. They will find you. And they will kill you.

Anyone who knows me knows that craft services is pretty much my favorite thing ever. On the films I worked on, I was often the one buying the craft services (Win!) Eating on set will help you save money. One solid meal a day can go a long way, and often the company is paying you with meals and things. So enjoy the perks, I mean, red vines.

6. Keep your receipts.

Do: Remember to ask for a receipt.
Don't: Spend your own money on production expenses.

If the company is reimbursing you for lunches or gas, make sure to keep your receipts. If you are spending petty cash, MAKE SURE TO KEEP YOUR RECEIPTS. Learn how to ask for a receipt in Spanish, if necessary.

7. Don't tolerate disrespect or harassment.

Do: Tell someone if you're not comfortable or don't feel safe doing something you've been asked to do.
Don't: Try to deal with HR type problems on your own.

If you are working for free and the company/production is mistreating or abusing you--call me and I will come punch them in the face. But seriously. That is unacceptable. If someone harasses you, say something. You are more important than any film.

8. Give thanks.

Do: Wash the dishes.
Don't: Overstay your welcome.

Working for free is a privilege that many cannot afford, because they have to pay for stuff like "rent" and "daycare." Thank those who have helped you [or are helping you] along the way. I was lucky enough to live with my aunt and uncle rent-free for a few months before moving in with roommates. I couldn't have done it without them.

9. Get a job. [Do I sound like your parents yet? Good.]

There comes a time in every woman's life when she must "get a real job." If your time limit is up (and before your savings run out), start looking for a job that pays. Any job. Beggars can't be choosers and all that. When it comes to survival jobs, I like to quote the Rolling Stones: You can't always get what you want. You know what's worse than working as a barista? Living out of your car or being a freeloader eternal.

Finally, like the old college motto says, respice finem, or "Look to the end." Why are you working for free? Hopefully, you are working for free in order to eventually get a job. But in the short-term, what are you looking for: To support a cause you believe in? To make connections? To meet interesting people? To have an adventure? To get up at 5:30am every single day and drive from Torrance to West Hollywood?

These are all valid reasons. Just know why you are giving of your time and yourself. Make sure it's worth it.

Tune in next time for How to Survive a Day Job Without Losing Your Mind.

How to be Friends with a Girl

I haven't been very successful in guy/girl platonic friendships. But, here I am, writing a blog post about how to be friends with a girl (wishful thinking on my part that someday I'll have guy friends like this?). So let's just pretend that I know what I'm talking about.

Never Compare Her to Other Girls

Girls are constantly comparing themselves to other girls. This habit has been beaten into us from an early age by film, television, middle school...I honestly don't know how to make it stop. So don't compare your friend to other girls or women--especially as it relates to things like appearance or weight. I would say this applies even to favorable comparisons. If you are telling your friend that she's skinnier than another girl, you're only adding fuel to the comparison fire. Better to never compare at all (at least out loud).

Let Her Know What You Appreciate About the Friendship

This probably applies to all friendships. Let her know what you like about being her friend. Maybe it's her great sense of humor or appreciation for the finer points of Settlers of Catan. Maybe you both enjoy political punditry or the films of Wes Anderson. Whatever it is, tell her.

Don't Sexualize the Conversation

I'm not saying don't talk about sex. I'm saying don't sexualize her. I'm pretty sure there's a name for this in pickup artist lingo. Basically, you test the limits with a girl you're trying to sleep with by using sexually suggestive humor or language. This is pretty common in general though, I think. Guys will allude to your body in a suggestive (if subtle) way or even mention a fantasy they have about you. There is a category that this kind of conversation puts you in. That category is not "friend." If you want to create a safe place for friendship to grow, you won't sexualize the conversation in a way that makes your friend uncomfortable.

You Don't Have to Agree with Her About Everything

Contrary to popular belief, girls are not looking for someone who agrees with them 100% (exceptions do apply, of course). That doesn't mean that if she's telling you a story about some douche-nozzle who cut her off in traffic you need to lecture her for over-reacting. No. It just means you can disagree. That's what friends do. It's okay to be honest. It's not okay to be patronizing.

Chivalry is for Friends Too

If you're naturally a chivalrous person, you can be chivalrous with your friend too. It's not an expectation, but it is a welcome change.

Don't Use Her

More has been written on this topic than I care to expand on here. And though I suppose there are multiple ways to use someone, I'm mainly referring to taking advantage of a friendship in order to get your emotional needs met. In other words, you're treating your friend like a girlfriend--but without any of the messy romantic/commitment stuff. If you are engaged or married to another girl, don't try to kiss your friend. She will feel used.

Don't Emotionally Dump on Her

Don't emotionally dump on your friend. Just because she's a girl doesn't mean she has an infinite well of empathy for you and your emotional problems. If you think that your teacher, your boss, the checkout clerk at the supermarket, and society in general is out to get you--maybe you should do something about it instead. Also, like all your other friends, she probably doesn't want to hear about your recent breakup for four straight hours. If you think that talking about your problems will only draw the two of you closer together, you might want to reconsider your approach.

If You Like Her, Tell Her

So maybe you have ulterior motives. That's okay. Just be upfront about it. True friendship and ulterior motives don't go together particularly well, so better to risk the sort-of-friendship you have now for the almost-relationship that could be.

If She Says She Just Wants to be Friends, Believe Her

She might not feel the same way. But that's okay. Because you can still be friends, right? Probably not. If a girl says, "I just want to be friends" she usually means "I just want to be friends." She doesn't mean, "Convince me" or "Maybe someday I'll change my mind." If this is too much for you, go ahead and end the friendship. But also realize that if you don't want to be her friend now, you were probably never her friend to begin with.

Read Part 2 here.

The Burden of Fear

As I walked past the seedy--yet somehow comfortingly familiar--entranceway to the local crack den on my way to church, I couldn't help but think about respect, and its importance in my life.

Yes, I was thinking about the suspect(ly) named Love and Respect Ministries and how as far as I can tell, it's mostly about women learning to respect men, not men learning to love women. As it turns out, I have a theory as to why this is:

Books, conferences, and ministries focused on making marriage better are primarily marketed toward women. And the primary marketing tool at work is fear. Fear of infidelity (his). Fear of a less-than-great marriage. Fear of not being good enough (as a wife, mother).

But the core fear, that coveted, prized, and beloved of advertisers the world over fear--is the fear of abandonment. How do I know this? 'Cause Google tells me so. One of the most persistent, recurring ads I get online warns me: "Why Men Pull Away: 10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins [sic] Any Chances Of A Relationship."

[Then there's this Christian book, "What Your Husband Isn't Telling You" by the same author of "Why Men Hate Going to Church." This guy has got this angle on lock. I love the contradictory messages: men are simple and have basic needs (food, sex); men are a mystery, buy this book.]

Christian or secular, it doesn't matter. The fear is the same. The message is the same: If he leaves, it's because of you. You did something wrong.

This plays out on a larger scale as well. Why are men leaving the church (or why don't they attend in the first place)? Women. The feminization of Christianity. The predominance of xx chromosomes. Who's supposed to do something about this "crisis"? Women, particularly if they hope to ever get married to a Christian man.

Seems a bit backwards to me--men aren't stepping up and being men in the church! Who's to blame? Women! The most manly thing we can do is blame someone else (Eve) for our problems.

But, sadly, it seems that this kind of fear, no matter how poorly articulated, sells.

I've been writing about the burdens that women are expected to bear in our culture, and I feel like this is a key burden.

It fits so neatly with a pressing temptation women face: To take on blame for the failure of a relationship. Or I dunno, maybe it's just me.

There's something oddly comforting about taking on the burden of blame, perhaps because it's easier than anger, or perhaps because it turns into something you can control. If I change my behavior, repent, respect, submit, then he won't leave me.

There's the fear too, that men always cheat. That they can't keep it in their pants. It's in their very nature to stray. And this fear too, sells.

And as far as the feminization of church goes...color me confused. I get the part about wanting "adventure to live" and "battle to fight" and such, but I doubt that this translates into "What I really want as a Christian man is to literally go into battle and die for my family/faith/country" or "I could really use a few more disfiguring knife wounds so that everyone will know I'm a real man" or "I want nothing more than to do the back-breaking, manly labor of a lumberjack for the rest of my life" or "I wish that disemboweling scene at the end of Braveheart could happen today."

All this "Men were made for battle" stuff seems to translate into, "Get back, woman! Let the men lead." Am I wrong?

I am not a man. And far be it from me to offer here a definition of masculinity. However, I am a daughter and a sister and a friend, and I'd like to challenge this conception of what it means to be a man.

To return to this article, my favorite article, from the website Love and Respect Now, I think we need men who can honestly and non-defensively talk to their own daughters. I'm not sure what, in the name of Mel Gibson, this has to do with battle, or MMA, or adventure, or knife throwing, or rescuing wenches from dragons, but it seems important to me. And probably way, way more difficult. Is that not true strength?

The Burden of Shame

Wow, I've been writing about shame a lot lately. And really, all of these burdens seem to be about shame in one way or another, see also, the burden of secrecy. But this time, I'm gonna get a little bit more specific. Hopefully. We'll see.

Have you ever heard the (Christian) cliche that women need love and men need respect? There are whole books, websites, ministries, etc. devoted to this idea. These books, websites, and ministries list hundreds of ways women can work on showing respect for men--you know, shoulder that burden, that burden of shame.

It's not hard to see that shame and respect are two sides to the same coin, or to hone in a little more exactly on the meaning, shame and ego. The message is clear in this and other contexts: Men aren't stepping up at church. Well, then women must step down. Men aren't stepping up to lead their families. Again, women must step down, respecting and honoring the divine hierarchy of male headship. It only makes sense that women must become less so that men can...become. Women must diminish. They need love, not respect, and so this diminishment, this restraint, can only be easy for them.

Even in secular contexts, it's clear that one harsh word from a woman can easily destroy a man, no matter how powerful he is. Therefore, women must wield this awesome power with care. A man's ego is a fragile, fragile thing--much like a tiny, speckled robin's egg. A woman's job, in marriage and career, is to faithfully guard that little egg with her very soul throughout the great obstacle race of life. If the egg drops and the man's ego is crushed--it's her fault.

Men must be protected from their own shame. Perhaps if a woman feels shame, she's just being her normal, insecure female self. Shame looks good on her. But if a man feels shame, it's a crisis of masculinity.

I don't deny that both love and respect are important in a marriage. However, if a man or woman has not worked out the problem of shame for themselves--it's doubtful that all the respect or love in the world will make them feel whole.

I suspect this often plays out in abusive relationships. And I wonder if shame often looks a whole lot like rage. If only she didn't "make" him angry. If only she didn't set him off with her careless remarks. I've mentioned before that I was once in an emotionally manipulative relationship, and he would often say, "You don't respect me," when I failed to do what he wanted me to do. And he would rage.

Now I know that someone's else's shame, their anger, is not my responsibility, just as my shame, my ego is no one's responsibility but my own. And if you think that persons of the female gender don't struggle with ego--Hi, my name's M. Nice to meet you.

And you know, I wonder. I wonder at what age we start teaching girls that the shame of others is their burden to carry.

I read this article on the Love And Respect Now website (Yes, it's Love And Respect for the younger crowd. Eep.) about daughters engaging their emotionally distant fathers in a respectful way. The article has some pretty good advice. Part of growing up is forgiving your parents and engaging with them as real people with real flaws.

But part of me feels deeply saddened. Here's an excerpt:

"It’s also important to note that while a man can talk about relationships and marriage, it may not be as energizing to him as it is to you because he feels like he might be a failure to you in this area. Men often feel that “questions,” no matter your motive, are calling them into question because they believe women want them to change, resulting in them feeling not liked by you."

[So, men just wanna be liked, just like everyone else? I dunno. These fathers don't seem to like their daughters very much anyway (not talking to them, ignoring them to watch TV...) There may be little to lose.]

Well, the writing is depressingly clunky, but that's not what I'm talking about. Ouch. Just ouch. Any question is suspect. If you know me, you know I'm screwed. I might not be cut out for this whole love and respect thing.

It distresses me that the daughter is, emotionally speaking, the only adult in this exchange, ever careful of her father's delicate masculine feelings. There is no suggestion that pain and hurt can be honestly and frankly expressed. Real emotion is way, way too threatening in this context. Men can't handle the anger of women, unless it's couched in "respect." And I know we're talking (presumably) about grown daughters here, but at what age do daughters start bearing the emotional burdens of their fathers? The day they stop being daddy's little girl and start asking real questions? When is dad's emotional withdrawal first conceived of as "my fault"?

To conclude, as a woman, have you ever felt compelled to bear the burden of shame and if so how, why? As a man, have you ever expected a woman to bear the burden of shame for you and if so how, why?

And forgive the disrespect. It was not intended.

The Christian Girl's Guide to Guys

Greetings fellow traveller. I'm sure you, like me, are pining away teaching Sunday school and wondering when that cute Christian guy will finally notice that you bothered to wear your cute, kiss-me-but-only-after-we're-married heels to church.

Fear not. I have put together a handy guide that covers all possible church foyer scenarios, from that first divinely inspired meeting of your windows-of-the-soul to the moment when God finally decides to write the "Going Steady" chapter of your love story.

Bu first, let's cover proper foyer posture and bearing for the young Christian woman. Remember, be receptive and open. [Receptive. reception. Wedding reception. You follow?] It's best to stand off by yourself. Friends will only scare him away. You should be doing nothing in particular, or how will he know you're available? You are the lady-in-waiting. Smile. No one likes a scowling woman. Act as if the words of the young man who has not yet approached you are already falling upon you like raindrops after a decade of drought. Laugh heartily at the jokes he hasn't yet told you. This will let him know that you are truly open and receptive.

Now that we've covered proper posture, let's move into the specifics:

He says: "Hi."
Translation: "The magnetism of your intense love for God, fair trade coffee, and orphans drew me over here to speak with you."
Suggestion: In the ensuing conversation, let him do most of the talking. If the question of what you do comes up, make sure to say, "But what I really want to do is be a stay-at-home-mom." He will be like putty to your hands.

He says: "Wanna grab lunch?"
Translation: "God told me we're meant to be together, but first I want to take you out to Chick-fil-A."
Suggestion: Make sure to talk about Purity and how much it means to you. Let him pay so that he knows you respect him as a provider.

He says: "Let's sit together in church."
Translation: "I consider us practically engaged. I hope you've picked out a pattern for the wedding dress you will sew by hand."
Suggestion: Under no circumstances allow your arm or leg to brush against his. This is an opportune time to test his true intentions. Is he marriage-minded or just trying to get an extra-marital cuddle on the side?

He says: "Where's the bathroom?"
Translation: "I see you, woman of God. I see you. Also, I really need to use the bathroom."
Suggestion: Smile and point him in the right direction. Do not lead him there yourself. This lets him know that you will make a great help-meet someday.

He says: "How was your week?"
Translation: "Tell me your heart. Pour it forth into my listening ears. I will treasure it forever, my beloved."
Suggestion: This is your moment. Prepare yourself for a DTR.

He says: "Seen any good movies lately?"
Translation: "I want to ask you out, but I'm not sure how."
Suggestion: Talk about guarding your heart. Look at him meaningfully when you say this. Your favorite movie is "A Walk to Remember."

He says: "I like your shoes."
Translation: "I am enthralled with your beauty. I want desperately to hold your hand in mine. I beg of you, be the Ruth to my Boaz."
Suggestion: Bake him cookies and write a note praising him as a man of godly character. Leave these on his doorstep.

Now that we've covered many common scenarios, you should be well-equipped to catch a Christian man of your own. Good luck and God bless. And remember, b-e-e-e-e-e receptive!

I lose respect for you when you hit on me on facebook

Hey there. Yeah, you, hot stuff. I have a confession to make:

I lose respect for you when you hit on me via social media.

But really, is that even fair? I mean, in today's world, how often do you even meet people outside of your work and primary circle of friends? How often do you get the chance to chat up that cute girl you met at the Christmas luau?

But oh look, one of you just added the other as a fb friend.

Let the coquetting begin.

So yeah, maybe I'm not being fair or realistic. Tough. This is my blog. So with that, here's a few of my non-favorite facebook flirting things:

1. There's no risk. 

People do and say things online that they would never do or say in person. Why? It's less risky. Less risk = Less respect. It's that simple. I know it's old-fashioned, but as a girl, I want to believe that I'm worth more than a "hey there" on fb chat. Maybe it's like a test, the "will you do more than hit on me online?" or "will you risk rejection?" test. Not a fair test. But still.

2. There's no reality. 

The virtuality of facebook makes it easy to pretend, easy to posture, and easy to poke that cute guy you've been pining after. There's a lack of reality to online interactions; an invisible curtain between virtual life and real life.

I'm not saying that actions and reactions online don't resonate and reverberate in real life. Trust me, they do, sometimes for the worse. The "facebook feedback loop" can manifest in welcome and unwelcome ways. But for me there's always that shock--that jolt of recognition--when the virtual and the real collide.

3. Would you please get to the point already? 

There's often a lack of clear direction to online hitting-on. The worst has to be fb chat. Please don't hit on me via fb chat. In my opinion, fb chat is the LAMEST way to hit on someone you barely know EVER. If fb chat is the only place you have game, just don't.

The vague asking-me-about-my-day but never asking-me-out thing annoys me. For a guy, chatting with a girl via fb chat can be a way to fish for her interest in him without taking even the remotest risk. Lame.

4. There's no clarity. 

I've had guys ask me out on fb only to...not ask me out. What? There are just so many questions. Like, why is this guy talking to me? Is he hitting on me? Expressing mild interest? Passing the time at work? Just chatting? Wait, why is he asking me if I'm single? It's too much. These guys usually end up deleting me anyway after I make my lack of interest (un)clear. Thanks...Friend.

5. There is a double standard.

This is horribly sexist of me, but I don't think these things apply to the opposite scenario of a girl hitting on a guy via fb. That's totally cool. Unless guys hate it. Please weigh in, gentlemen.

[Caveats and disclaimers: To all the guys who've asked me out via fb, kudos and respect to you. Also, none of this applies if you're actually in a relationship with someone. Please, if you are, poke away.]

That's it. That's all I've got. So before you get your mack on on your Mac or your pickup game on on your PC (say what?), consider: are you hedging your bets by not taking a risk or being indirect in your attentions? Do you want her to be more than just your fb friend? Tread with care.

Think before you flirt.