Low on the Go!

oh so silly.
(this is a looong one!)

This song makes me laugh. Mainly the first verse, which goes something like,

"you know you're stunning
absolutely stunning and I'm running always running
and now I'm crying
you know only cause I'm caring
and if you were more daring maybe you'd stop staring
and come over and talk to me
and tell me about how you've been waiting patiently
and how you tried but I just turned away
and I'll say, "yeah well you know, I'm shy that way."

Oh, tristan and jason. You have hit the nail on the head in terms of the sentiments and actions of almost every girl in existence, with the exception of the super flirty girls that drop hints like bombs on hiroshima (thanks for letting me switch around your phrase, Jelena).
Lately, i have been bonding with many girlfriends. A recurrent theme which comes up, of course, is boys. duh. This seems to be how girls bond. Alongside this recurrent theme of boys is the story that Prettyman and Mraz seem to have described.

Girls, have you ever done this? i'm willing to put money on the table and say that almost every girl has done this. Some, admittedly do this more than others (and by some, i really mean, me). That's in large why the first verse of the song makes me laugh. What a verity in my life! In talking to my girlfriends, this has occurred to almost all of them in some form or another in their relationships with their friends who are guys. Which brings me to my latest thought in the realm of relationships.

as Christian girls, we have this notion of being romanced by a knight on a white horse, who'll brave dragons and evil stepmothers and witches to gain our affections. There seems to be this ideal of a guy who will pursue at all costs; the man who will pursue rather blindly, without needing hints or knowing the girl's affections, is highly esteemed. While some may not be as extreme as others in this position, there seems to be some sort of general consensus that a girl waits around, does her own thing, and somehow, hopefully the guy she is interested in will notice her. Of course, waiting around does not entail sitting around and doing nothing, the girl is to engage in growing to become a woman of God. Nevertheless, there seems to be disdain when a girl does any sort of "pursuing". Telling a guy she likes him, before he says anything, seems to be a mark of someone feisty and feminist in tendency.
While i say all of this flippantly, as though i do not agree with any of it, the truth is, i believe there is much goodness in the notions of being female and waiting patiently, and being male and stepping up in pursuance.

However, the question i ask myself is... do i subscribe to this notion of chivalry because i actually believe in it? OR, do i subscribe to this because it means that i need not put my feelings on the line and face rejection?

Here are my thoughts.

There is much to be said about letting men take the lead in relationships. i firmly believe that God has ordained different roles for men and women, and that leadership is a God-given role to men. Often times, women, in our impatience, snatch away this title from men, and then wonder why men are not stepping up. Thus, i believe that in romantic relationships, or those awkward "in-between" stages, it ought to be men who take the initiative with women. If a guy is interested in a girl, and would like to go beyond the "we're just friends stage", he ought to make it known that this is something he desires. Conversely, if a guy is not interested in a girl, but has a sneaking suspicion that the girl might feel otherwise, he should take the initiative to clarify their friendship and make it known that he is not interested in taking their friendship to another level. These are some examples of how men can take initiative in relationships.

This having been said, i want to leave some thoughts for sisters out there who read this blog. There is much to be said about encouraging men in their roles. Though some may not agree with me (and i think much of this is also a personal choice based on personal convictions), i think that remaining stoic puts both men and women at a disadvantage. Some girls don't believe in giving any hints to guys that they might be interested. It can be argued that this would signal pursuing, they would say. Many would also follow this with a statement such as, "If he is a solid guy, he will take the risk, regardless of whether or not he knows the girl is interested." However, i postulate, in my liberalness (i jest, i do not find myself liberal), that there is nothing wrong with encouraging a guy to pursue. Sometimes, we hide behind the idea of guarding our hearts, when in reality, it is not our hearts we are attempting to guard, but our pride. i think that it is alright to make it known to men around us that we wouldn't mind hanging out with them, and allowing them to take steps of faith, instead of shutting them down. i think its perfectly alright to give the guys we are interested some extra attention. If they are not interested, they can make it clear to us that they aren't interested.
i suppose, what i am trying to say is that sometimes, we remain stoic and "turn away", as tristan prettyman puts it, not because of conviction, or because we desire to guard our hearts, but because we are fearful of rejection. There seems to be some sort of idea of placing women on pedestals. Somehow, this strikes me as being unfair for men. What guy wants to fight a dragon if the girl on the other side doesn't want to be fought for? (well..Jesus, but that's a whole other story...or is it?). It is true, there will be some guys who will take the leap and pursue blindly. This is commendable. However, i do not think it is a staple, and i think regardless, us as women should concurrently be working on encouraging men in their leadership, not just expecting them to take leadership when it comes to relationships.