"Casual Sex," The ...But Guy and Enchanted

I like Oprah. And I like O Magazine ... usually.

Yesterday I received the January issue in the mail. And I'll confess--one article made me both sad and quite frankly, mad (and you thought I couldn't get angry).

The O Article That Ticked Me Off

In "Live Your Best Love Life!", Linda from Rhode Island said, "My dilemma is that I still love my ex, who I dated for nine years." She then goes on to basically ask, "I'm now thinking of using my ex as a booty call ... or maybe it's time to try self-satisfaction?"

The answer of columnist Cindy Chupack? "The beauty of the booty call is its simplicity ... how does love factor into this? It doesn't!" Chupack then goes on to say, "The perfect booty call is someone who's great but" ... meaning basically someone who's safe ... but someone that you don't really want to marry or love. And if a " ... but" man isn't available? Chupack says "self-love" (masturbation) is "not a last resort; it's essential."

Can you hear me yell now?

Casual Sex: Does It Really Exist?

There's no such thing as casual sex--just like there's no such thing as casual naked Fridays at the office.

Sex always has meaning--it's supposed to. I think saying you can have sex without meaning is like saying you can Christmas without music, dessert without chocolate or an amazing car without tires. It's empty--it's missing something it's designed to have.

Sex has meaning because it always reveals how we feel--about another person or ourselves.
I think Linda from Rhode Island was really saying, "I'm still in love with my ex, but I know he doesn't want to have a relationship with me. If I have 'casual sex' with him, at least I'd have something--right?"

But by having 'casual sex'--with her ex or, as Chupack suggested, a " ... but" man or herself, Linda would be settling for something less than what she wants. She would be cheapening herself, a man and sex itself by choosing any of these options.

Sacred Sex, Enchanted and the ...But Guy

I believe sex is beyond meaningful--it's sacred. So why do so many adults settle for "casual sex"?

They are "looking for love (and meaning) in all the wrong places" ... and after casual sex, will end up feeling more lonely, more lost, than ever.

I believe sex is designed to be shared by a married man and woman. I know this sentence might sound extreme. Society tries to tell us sex without marriage is normal--and this article even tries to tell us that sex without love is normal.

But I know I'm not alone. There are many people who want to believe in the sacredness of sex. It's why we find it horrific when children are sexually abused--a violation of the sacred. It's why most states don't allow prostitution--the business of treating something sacred as a commodity. And it's why fairy tale love stories will always be popular (hence, the #1 movie in the country at the moment, Enchanted).

I can hear some guys think, "Yeah, but it's different for guys. Sex doesn't have to have meaning." Are you sure? Do any men really want to be considered some woman's " ... but" guy? I doubt it. A guy deserves to be with the one woman on the planet who thinks he is not a " ... but" guy, but the it guy, the forever guy.

Sex has meaning, but it can never give you meaning. It's an expression of love, but it's not how you find the perfect kind of love every human being is looking for. That kind of meaning and love is only found in God.

I don't have to feel cheap, empty or settle for something less than what I believe is possible. And neither do you.

Special Note: If you're someone who's reading this and says, "That's great for you, but I've already had sex outside marriage"--don't lose heart. I'm not saying that you are cheap or empty.

On the contrary, I'm saying you're priceless. You deserve better.

Even if you've messed up in the past when it comes to sex, you don't have to mess up your future. Start fresh. God can forgive you of your past, but you have to make a choice to define your destiny. It may not be easy--but the best things in life rarely are.

Can we just talk? Part 3 - It's a guy thing ...

In the final part of this series, I'll give some observations on three types of guys (and issues they may deal with) that lead to lack of clarity in co-ed relationships between Christian singles.

I definitely think there are at least two sides to every story, so I'm not trying to label or pick on either gender, but hopefully to shed some light on the way I see things ... so here goes:

• The Shy or Intimidated Guy

Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of shy or intimidated Christian guys. In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for them. They've probably been burned by mean-spirited girls/women/mothers (Christian or not) who disrespected them in some way. And so they're scared ... to talk to girls, ask them out, whatever.

But when it comes to dating, most guys have to sum up some courage (and most of us girls recognize that). It takes guts to make yourself vulnerable to possible rejection ... but if you can be bold at work, school or in sports, you can handle it. Anything in life worth pursuing takes some risk. Don't take the stupid DTR assessment from Boundless--just be brave and talk.

• The Weirdos

Then there are the weirdos. If you are a guy who women avoid like the plague, you might fall into this category. First, read one of my original posts "10 Things Christian Guys Should Know About Dating" (March). Then, work at looking women in the eye (yeah, we notice when you look at us other ways), getting better at conversation and asking questions, avoiding comments that make others squirm in discomfort, and popping breath mints (sometimes it's the practical things!).

• The Charmers

On the flip side, charming guys have no problem hanging out with women. Lots of them. But if you're a single Christian guy with a charming personality, try not to lead girls on (yep, most of us have those romantic idealist tendencies I talked about in Part 2).

It's okay to be nice and friendly to everyone, but here's a tip if you're a charming guy: pretend your future wife is standing next to you while you're chatting with a single woman you're not interested in. If you knew your future wife was in the room with you, would you treat that other woman differently?

On the practical side, here's how that might look--if you're not interested in a woman and "just trying to be friends", don't regularly compliment her looks, invite her to hang out with you one-on-one, or give her "just because" notes/gifts/flowers, etc. It may sound basic--but if you do these things, you might be sending signals you're not intending to.

So what if you've dealt with these issues and you're still confused about a co-ed relationship?

Like my advice to other women, I guess I'd tell guys to again pray and seek advice from solid Christians you trust.

But unlike the ladies, you can take some action to initiate a relationship. I won't lie--it's definitely a risk. If it doesn't work out, your friendship may be different. But if you're both mature, you should be able to move past it. And if it does work out, you could have a great foundation for a relationship.

Dear John...

Dear John,

I never thought I’d say this—but I’ve lost respect for you. I still think you’re a musical genius, gifted writer and witty conversationalist. I stood by you despite your messy hair and Kermit the Frog facial expressions. But I cannot handle who you have become—a golddigger.

Yeah, yeah—I know you’re not after Jessica’s money. But you’ve become the world’s new version of a golddigger—a man obsessed with blonde hair and shiny plastic personalities.

I thought you were above that. You’re smart. But here’s the thing—she’s not. Or if she is, she pretends to be stupid … and that’s worse.

Please avoid the Messica. Get out while you can.

Love,
Joan