I was in the middle of writing my previous post when this one from you came through, @steve, so forgive me if I'm being redundant.
Let me repeat myself: I'm really not trying to change anyone. We're all just perfect as we are. We just have to acknowledge who we are -- own it, as it were.
Yes, @steve, you're on the "control end of the spectrum," but I hope that the mountains of praise I have heaped on you over time says more to you about my reverence for you than any fear you might have that what I'm saying in this thread is a dig on you. I love you, my brother, and I wouldn't change you.
In fact, I would assert that you and I are actually on the same page about this, because you suggest a more reasonable option than suggesting that a woman directly approach a man with her interest: doing what we all knew was wise back in 6th grade: going through an intermediary. It's wise for many reasons, not the least of which is the manner in which it allows those on both sides of the equation to save face.
Again, I'm not casting aspersions about being on the control end of the spectrum (although I will acknowledge that I think there are some opinions that I consider to be as extreme in one direction as others will undoubtedly think my opinions are extreme in the other direction -- e.g., asserting that a woman who divorces Man A and the Man B she subsequently marries to take Man A's place are somehow both under the covering -- and thus the control -- of Man A). I'm just saying that being on the control end of the spectrum can't be coordinated with wanting women to somehow become forward in an isolated sense in the realm of courting.
Now, I'm also not saying that I have any problem with women being forward in that way, but that's because I'm not as far into the control end of the spectrum as the average guy in Biblical Families. Personally, I would love it if a woman would just walk up to me and declare her interest in me, just as long, of course, as I have the option to gracefully decline the offer. In fact, I think that it should be an option for any woman who so desires to take that approach. In recent days, I've even suggested to a friend that she consider being more assertive in that regard, but I also cautioned her to make sure she's really as interested in a more egalitarian type of relationship as she declares herself to be. One needs to know oneself before one markets oneself. But if a woman wants to be that bold within the marriage she seeks, then she might as well be just as bold in her participation in courting rituals.
As far as your question (2) is concerned, I have two responses:
Response 1 to "If a man is truly perceived to be the way that you describe, why in the Heckle and Jeckle would any woman ever want to approach that family?": Remember, if you took offense, then I wasn't talking about you. To the extent that I was pointing to something I would be critical of, I'm not talking about you or even the bulk of the men in Biblical Families I would accurately label as legalistic. Take the Man A/Man B example I provided above, though (or the example in my earlier post about men who espouse the notion that manhood can be measured by how often a man impregnates someone). My response to your question if I applied it to Man A would be, "Exactly; why in the Heckle and Jeckle would any woman ever want to approach such a family to join it?" Keep in mind, though (he says as he beats the dead horse), I am not lumping you or hardly anyone else I've ever known in Biblical Families into that response, because I haven't observed you promoting anything that I'm being critical of. I am, though, asserting that, as a group of men, we are responsible for and subject to the fact that men behaving unsuitably on Biblical Families forums and/or in the meatspace of retreats reflects on all the rest of us. Therefore, when a man vociferously espouses what amount to unsuitable male opinions, and when another man confronts him about it in that same public forum, we should not jump to defend the man who espoused the unsuitable male opinions. I have noticed while participating here that, when I voice an opinion that varies on the one side from what amounts to this group's mainstream positions, folks rarely hesitate to criticize me for it, right out in public, and I happen to consider that to be entirely acceptable, because I put myself out on that limb. Your challenge to me here is an excellent example of my being taken to task, and I welcome it. The incongruency, though, is that, as a group, instead of supporting that kind of taking to task when it comes to a Man A being confronted, the wagons get circled around Man A and back-slapping ensues.
And each time that happens, we collectively become responsible for being subject to the supposed "wrong impression" that's created.
Response 2 to "If a man is truly perceived to be the way that you describe, why in the Heckle and Jeckle would any woman ever want to approach that family?": Outside of the extremes I've just addressed, my rhetorical response is that why in the Heckle and Jeckle any woman would want to approach any particular family is because she sees in that family exactly what she's looking for. Just as the average married man in Biblical Families is on "the control end of the spectrum," the average single woman drawn to Biblical Families is looking for a family led by a man "on the control end of the spectrum." So that's why. That is the natural order of things. Again, there's nothing wrong with being "on the control end of the spectrum," @steve; in fact, you're a good example of the evidence of that. In fact, I'm also "on the control end of the spectrum" compared to most of the nancy-boy Sensitive New Age Guys with whom I've associated for most of my adult life.
We just have to own up to the ramifications of failing to confront those who take it too far.
And we have to recognize that an inseparable part of being patriarchal males is being stuck with having to do the bulk of the pursuing, no matter how inconvenient it is or how busy we are. Because we're the men and we want the women to be the women.
The issue in this forum thread, though, is this: what can we do to minimize the degree to which unsuitable male behavior discourages suitable females from being available to those males who are suitable?
