The Myth of the Right Person

[ThsAmericanLife]

If you think of finding love being intentional and are serious about finding a LTR, then casual sex in the early stages should not be a distraction from those goals, merely light playful fun while you find that person.

 

 

Ok, I'll take the bait

 

 

ahh... but the mind and body play tricks with your mind!! It happens to both men and women. ooo! the sex is sooo good! We MUST be right for each other!! Oh, never mind about this little flaw, or that little behavior... I really like the warm, gooey feelings I get from sex.... and it beats being 'alone' (or so, that is how the thinking goes...).

 

I've never been in one of those so-called casual sex situations where one or the other didn't get attached.

 

I've talked alot about my younger years where I was able to disassociate from sex, and had the guy fall 'in love' with me... and I'd already decided from the beginning he wasn't LTR material. oops!! or I get attached... honestly, it is usually the guy with me. Hate to say that, but it is/was. And when I was the one to fall, or we fell together, then their character wasn't what it should be.

 

That is what I mean about it being deliberate. Establish their character first. It is alot easier to deduce before all those hormones get flowing.

 

Plus, the guy in this video makes a very good case... if you learn how to harden yourself and treat sex casually, it is a very tough habit to break once you are in a LTR.

 

All of these behaviors are habits. We can choose which habits we want to keep and ones we want to discard.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Right, and over time I had fallen for some female "friends" because I tend to start off slow, start off as friends, and move slowly.

 

I think that's why a few of my female friends didn't date ME because they didn't have that instant spark, because I don't believe in "sparks" or "Chemistry" as I've seen posted on so many women's profiles "MUST have Chemistry!"

 

As if it were a #1 priority.

 

This is one of the biggest flaws of OLD... along with the multi-dater syndrome. There may be lots of good people there, but those of us who don't believe in that approach need to be able to say that without sounding jaded, prudish, or judgmental.

 

I was never able to pull that off... and considering the vast abundance of people with that viewpoint in OLD... well, I figured it was just easier to avoid it altogether.

[visualbasicide]

Oh, never mind about this little flaw, or that little behavior...

 

My definition of love is not that we overlook each others flaws, but love the other person in spite (or because) of them.

 

as for chemistry, I really thing it just boils down to compatible personality types. You know there are those people you find sweet or charming and others that are like nails on a chalk board. Call it whatever you like, I call it chemistry and it does exist, though I'm sure the qualities liked and disliked vary from person to person.

[ThsAmericanLife]

glad why? they won't change. those people are lost causes. i don't mean that as condescending. just stating a fact. i really don't care at all about such people. i can't change the world, i just live in it. so do they.

 

there are lots of those people on this very forum, actually.

 

One person CAN change the world. The combined effort of many people are what does create change... and it starts with the individual. One can be a force for something good, or something not good.

 

I hope at least you do your part not to make things worse... and I think you do... So that is noble in itself. For instance, I've never seen you egging on these guys or coaching them with PUA tricks... That is good.

[ThsAmericanLife]

My definition of love is not that we overlook each others flaws, but love the other person in spite (or because) of them.

 

as for chemistry, I really thing it just boils down to compatible personality types. You know there are those people you find sweet or charming and others that are like nails on a chalk board. Call it whatever you like, I call it chemistry and it does exist, though I'm sure the qualities liked and disliked vary from person to person.

 

I agree with everything you said. What I like most about this video though is that it emphasizes that all of the qualities needed to establish and maintain a loving relationship have little to do with what one's body tells you.

 

On the other hand, sometimes it is 'chemistry' that keeps some people together long enough to learn how to really love each other. It certainly shouldn't be ruled out... but it isn't the end-all-to-be-all.

[thatone]

One person CAN change the world. The combined effort of many people are what does create change... and it starts with the individual. One can be a force for something good, or something not good.

 

I hope at least you do your part not to make things worse... and I think you do... So that is noble in itself. For instance, I've never seen you egging on these guys or coaching them with PUA tricks... That is good.

 

i don't deny that i'm cynical, but that's pretty much where it ends, anonymity is just a means of expressing that cynicism for me.

 

and honestly if you look at my posts over say, the past two months you can find me being just as cynical about boyfriends that women complain about as i am about women in many cases. i don't play favorites.

 

i'm actually watching all 4 of these lectures right now (i don't call them sermons, since they're not overly religious). and i'm in a relationship with someone i do not share religious belief with (she's catholic, i'm unapologetically agnostic), so there's a talk brewing between me and her about this sort of thing, that's why it caught my eye.

 

but in a round about way the reason i don't care about those people is because i agree with what the pastor in the OP's link is saying. i am who i am. i am not dishonest with women i date. this is me. my gf knows more about me than i know about her at this point. on the one hand that comes across as confident, content, mature, and a few other positive descriptions that don't come to mind that women respond to, so i don't have trouble maintaining attraction even with someone who i don't share beliefs with in the early stages of relationships.

 

but i do truly and honestly not care about those other people. while i am more moral than most religious people are, and i agree with a lot of the things that the pastor in the OP's link is talking about, it's purely out of self interest. there is no desire on my part to change the world. i'm a believer in the notion that knowledge is power, and knowledge of the ways of the world lets me succeed in that world, but i don't want to change it, i just want to avoid the icebergs and not sink my own ship.

[ThsAmericanLife]

i just want to avoid the icebergs and not sink my own ship.

 

and that is certainly enough. Living by example has its own power.

 

I've occasionally questioned my motives for doing volunteer work. It can come across as condescending... and even unhelpful for the person targeted for 'help'... especially if it does nothing to help them in the long run...

 

So, I'm very careful about what causes I get involved with.

[thatone]

and that is certainly enough. Living by example has its own power.

 

I've occasionally questioned my motives for doing volunteer work. It can come across as condescending... and even unhelpful for the person targeted for 'help'... especially if it does nothing to help them in the long run...

 

So, I'm very careful about what causes I get involved with.

 

yeah, i'm cynical about that too, for that reason. i have to honestly ask myself "am i doing something for their benefit or mine?"

 

and in most cases, if i answer honestly, it's mine. then you look at everyone else involved and ask "are they in it for themselves too?" and the answer is probably yes.

 

and although i am for the most part anti religion, i have given money to religious causes when they have specifically asked for it, if i sensed an honest desire to do good. i guess that's why i can appreciate and tolerate catholics, but not necessarily other religious. the priest takes that vow of poverty, the money isn't 'his'.

 

we could completely derail this thread on that topic

[bluenightowl]

Ok, I'll take the bait

 

I've talked alot about my younger years where I was able to disassociate from sex, and had the guy fall 'in love' with me... and I'd already decided from the beginning he wasn't LTR material. oops!! or I get attached... honestly, it is usually the guy with me. Hate to say that, but it is/was.

 

I can believe it. Its interesting that we always talk about the woman getting attached after sex and not the guy, yet I see men getting attached all the time. I even have some first hand knowledge of this

 

That said, I think some people know this and this is why woman and sometimes men use sex to solidify the relationship. You hear all over these posts. Now that we had sex we are a couple, but I suspect for many if not most people they aren't thinking about the LTR relationship at all, just having fun, then oops we had sex and now we are a couple and then 5 years go by.

 

Plus, the guy in this video makes a very good case... if you learn how to harden yourself and treat sex casually, it is a very tough habit to break once you are in a LTR.

 

Yes indeed. I agree with that. I do very much think that once you had a PUA lifestyle, meeting and dating many men or women, lots of sex, and shallow relationships, and then get married, its such a huge lifestyle change.

[threebyfate]

Watched the clip until 4:37. Bored me to the point of shutting it down. Tautology anyone? Get.to.the.point.

 

Based on what's being discussed in this thread, it sounds similar to love languages.

[visualbasicide]

actually it was nothing at all like love languages, which was what I thought was refreshing about it. It had it's own spin on things.

[threebyfate]

actually it was nothing at all like love languages, which was what I thought was refreshing about it. It had it's own spin on things.

Okay. Since you've watched it and know about love languages, can you explain the differences?

[visualbasicide]

This is mostly about self improvement, preparedness and making sure you get the most potential out of yourself before demanding it out of your partner. though it does focus alot on single people, the rules don't change if you aren't single, they just add a layer of complication since you are already devoted to someone else. It's still very well done I think and anyone can see how the things he discusses could be affecting current relationships.

[thatone]

so i just finished all 4 of these.

 

if he weren't a christian, it would have a lot more credibility. but he can't let go of his christian notions. i don't doubt he's well intentioned, but the fact remains that most people are not christians. he likes to point out examples of things like this to prove his points, well he could take his own advice. more people lie about being christians than actually practice christianity. if he thought about that he might have an epiphany of his own.

 

he spent an hour on telling men how to behave, the totality of his advice to women in the entire 4 lectures was "don't dress/act like a whore".

 

because, as we all know, conservative christians like their women stupid and controlled (look at fox news for examples), and all they need to know is "don't act like a whore", right?

[ThsAmericanLife]

This is mostly about self improvement, preparedness and making sure you get the most potential out of yourself before demanding it out of your partner.

 

Absolutely... and this is something I can't emphasize enough!!

 

Become the person you want to attract...

 

I've had PUA type guys say everything is ok because they only go after 'quality'.

 

... and I gently ask them... "And, please tell me... why would 'quality' want YOU??"

 

This is the same question I ask myself on a regular basis...

 

Why would the man *I* want... want ME? It completely reorients the situation, from one where I'm looking only to take... to one where I'm asking what I have to give.

[threebyfate]

This is mostly about self improvement, preparedness and making sure you get the most potential out of yourself before demanding it out of your partner. though it does focus alot on single people, the rules don't change if you aren't single, they just add a layer of complication since you are already devoted to someone else. It's still very well done I think and anyone can see how the things he discusses could be affecting current relationships.

In other words, don't expect your partner to "complete" you, don't try to change your partner since you can only change yourself, don't be a hypocrite and continue self-improving, even while in a relationship so your relationship doesn't stagnate.

 

Valid points.

 

That said, what one sees as a negative trait, another might see as a positive. As an example, you're a sensitive person. It would make sense for you to find another person who has a higher level of empathy, than one who's oblivious. This way, there won't be as many friction points in your relationship.

 

Same goes for fiscal responsibility v. laissez faire style of financial management.

 

There isn't solely one way of being and one cookie cutter personality type.

[ThsAmericanLife]

so i just finished all 4 of these.

 

if he weren't a christian, it would have a lot more credibility. but he can't let go of his christian notions. i don't doubt he's well intentioned, but the fact remains that most people are not christians. he likes to point out examples of things like this to prove his points, well he could take his own advice. more people lie about being christians than actually practice christianity. if he thought about that he might have an epiphany of his own.

 

he spent an hour on telling men how to behave, the totality of his advice to women in the entire 4 lectures was "don't dress/act like a whore".

 

because, as we all know, conservative christians like their women stupid and controlled (look at fox news for examples), and all they need to know is "don't act like a whore", right?

 

I haven't listened to all four yet (just finished with #3), but I hear you.

 

But let me gently posit...

 

Women hear the message ALLLLL of the time that THEY are responsible for the pace of a relationship.

 

Men, on the other hand, get the message that it is cool to take advantage of women... It is alot more common that the men he is speaking to don't have a close relationship with their father. He is attempting to do what I've been complaining about for a very long time... Mentor to men.

 

Hold men accountable for their actions. Make them share the responsibility for the PACE. It shouldn't be all on women's shoulders! No, it isn't good enough for men to just go about their man-whoring ways, then meet a good girl and settle down. It takes two to tango.

 

You and I could talk for hours about how f**d up some Christian denominations are... I swam in that soup for years living in the Deep South. I did my grad school training within biking distance of that church, as a matter of fact.

 

Still, I feel the moral and cultural 'inertia' is up against men when it comes to sexuality.

 

Maybe he should have another series about women not using men for $$... the importance of education, and learning how to be a full partner in a relationship. That would be the equivalent. But to your point, that doesn't tend to make more babies.

[FitChick]

Maybe he should have another series about women not using men for $$... the importance of education, and learning how to be a full partner in a relationship.

 

That is sorting itself out in our economy now. Men have a higher unemployment rate and fewer graduate with degrees than women. Soon we will be having women complaining about male golddiggers who expect women to take care of them.

[thatone]

yeah, we could absolutely spend hours on their problems. we could start by pointing out that the people like this pastor who tell women to be "good girls" don't really tell them how or why. all they tell them is "don't wear short skirts".

 

and they wonder why young women are so confused and young men are so frustrated.

 

i agree on mentoring to men, but again, he can't turn loose of the religious means of doing so, which leaves you with a fairly worthless waste of 3 hours here. not that all of what he said was wrong, a good bit of it was right. but mentoring to men goes well beyond "don't do this that and the other" and mentoring to women goes well beyond "don't act like a whore". but that's basically what we have here.

[visualbasicide]

so i just finished all 4 of these.

 

if he weren't a christian, it would have a lot more credibility. but he can't let go of his christian notions. i don't doubt he's well intentioned, but the fact remains that most people are not christians. he likes to point out examples of things like this to prove his points, well he could take his own advice. more people lie about being christians than actually practice christianity. if he thought about that he might have an epiphany of his own.

 

he spent an hour on telling men how to behave, the totality of his advice to women in the entire 4 lectures was "don't dress/act like a whore".

 

because, as we all know, conservative christians like their women stupid and controlled (look at fox news for examples), and all they need to know is "don't act like a whore", right?

 

Actually, I don't see why alot of the things he has talked about don't apply to both sexes. to play on what ThsAmericanLife was talking about with women viewing men as a vehicle for economic or social gain vs what the video was saying about men viewing women as commodities there are a ton of cases where these lines are blurred or even reversed in society today.

 

In my own case, in retrospect, my ex valued sex and money more than anything else in the relationship. I became injured on the job, which put a strain on both, and when I had to make a choice of choosing between staying at the same work environment and letting them injure me to the point where I might become an invalid or leaving for even more financially unsound territory but still able to function physically, and eventually monetarily down the road, it was a deal breaker. Status vs commitment 1:0

 

So i was literally a means to financial gain as well as a commodity. A complete role reversal vs the mainstream but still it demonstrates what I'm talking about.

[thatone]

Actually, I don't see why alot of the things he has talked about don't apply to both sexes. to play on what ThsAmericanLife was talking about with women viewing men as a vehicle for economic or social gain vs what the video was saying about men viewing women as commodities there are a ton of cases where these lines are blurred or even reversed in society today.

 

In my own case, in retrospect, my ex valued sex and money more than anything else in the relationship. I became injured on the job, which put a strain on both, and when I had to make a choice of choosing between staying at the same work environment and letting them injure me to the point where I might become an invalid or leaving for even more financially unsound territory but still able to function physically, and eventually monetarily down the road, it was a deal breaker. Status vs commitment 1:0

 

So i was literally a means to financial gain as well as a commodity. A complete role reversal vs the mainstream but still it demonstrates what I'm talking about.

 

and everything you're talking about is a symptom of a selfish, narcissistic society.

 

but he won't tell people "don't be selfish".

 

he still has to sell his DVDs, after all, and he won't sell a lecture like he'll sell therapy. therapy is like getting my car serviced. i'm doing something for ME to make ME better. a lecture is someone who knows something i don't telling me that i'm wrong and he's right, and here's why. but if i'm one of this guy's flock i'm probably not very interested in that. after all, i only go to church for ME.

[visualbasicide]

ok, so I read the bible, and I go to church, not that I have always done so, whatever, this is now. I don't know why everyone else on the planet does or doesn't read it or go, and I am not here to tell anyone that they have to.

 

The reasons I do these things is because it makes me....less selfish. It sets down rules for how I should act that I agree with, which helps me help not only myself, but others as well. If I were to choose any other path I would be doing it simply to get as much as I could out of life for my own sole benefit.

 

I am not saying people that don't read the bible or don't go to church behave like this, though many no matter what they claim to believe or not, do. It is a personal choice, and responsibility, of each person to follow their own path in life.

 

I both totally understand and also cant even begin to comprehend the debate people get into about religion. People that don't know anything about the bible still know the difference between right and wrong. I get the argument of hypocritical behavior in so called "Christians" and this general has two categories. People that are christian and have screwed up or people that claim to be christian and aren't. The first is someone that made a mistake, no matter how "severe" the latter is simply using christianity to sooth their conscience about the negative things they habitually practice.

 

If you were to get all the hypocrites to suddenly say they aren't Christians, then there wouldn't even be an argument anymore. The fact is, regardless of what you believe, that people are flawed in many ways. If you take out all the negativity focused on the bible, took a lot of what it talks about and practiced it, I think there would be far less pain and suffering in the world.

 

Do I think it would "magically" fix everything, no I don't. People make mistakes. Some do so continuously intentional or otherwise.

 

To rail this back on topic. If the people in relationships took 1 Corinthians 13 and applied JUST THAT to their relationship, if they understood the true implications of what those few paragraphs are talking about and FOLLOWED it it would bypass so much of everything that causes relationships to fail that there would be little else to discuss.

 

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

forget the fact that this even came from the bible if you want, look at what it says. I can sit here all day long as see why people can argue about every other aspect of the bible but if you can get two people in a relationship to take those things above and apply them to each other then nothing would cause it to fail.

 

This means that yes, this person did this, or this person did that, but it would be simplistic things, they didn't mow the yard today, they left the jacket on the couch, they didn't turn off the lights when they left the room. Not oh, well they took our life savings and gambled it away or they cheated on me with someone else or they left me because of blah blah blah.

 

If you got involved with someone for a relationship, the chemistry was there at some point regardless of all the nit picky stuff people use to justify betraying one or the other, then even with differences you could practically enjoy a relationship with anyone you chose because you would both be making choices and keeping boundaries that made the other person happy and there wouldn't be a need to try to find it elsewhere.

 

Would it always be easy? Not at all, then again the things in life that are most valuable take work to aquire, be it a house, a piece of art or a healthy relationship. Rather than work towards something that matters society has taken the Mcdonalds approach and quick and easy and that generally dictates who your next significant other will be, someone quick and easy.

 

Why? Someone wasn't patient, someone wasn't kind, someone was envious of something or someone that another had, someone was boastful (demeaning) or to proud, someone sought their own wants instead of their partners, someone was to angry, someone was resentful and lacked forgiveness, someone did something wrong and lied, someone didn't trust and didn't hope and because they didn't do the above, love did not persevere.

 

With a set of instructions so clear it should be impossible to screw it up if you follow it, but so few do and because of it so many people get hurt in the process. Once they get it through their heads that people aren't perfect, nothing except death "just works" and it isn't always going to be easy, then the rest falls into place.

 

I understand that there are many many many many people that won't do any of these things and that is the whole tragedy in my view. There are times where no matter what you do the other person will sabotage all the efforts of the other person.

 

I also think that if even one person in the relationship did these things, many of the partners would see it and respond to it. No blaming, no lording something over someone, no condescending remarks, just good ole kind patience would go a long way to resolving what many think as a lost cause.

 

It would be a way to reset many relationships and help people see who each other were when they fell in love. Then again maybe I'm a total idiot and have it all wrong.

[ThsAmericanLife]

yeah, we could absolutely spend hours on their problems. we could start by pointing out that the people like this pastor who tell women to be "good girls" don't really tell them how or why. all they tell them is "don't wear short skirts".

 

and they wonder why young women are so confused and young men are so frustrated.

 

i agree on mentoring to men, but again, he can't turn loose of the religious means of doing so, which leaves you with a fairly worthless waste of 3 hours here. not that all of what he said was wrong, a good bit of it was right. but mentoring to men goes well beyond "don't do this that and the other" and mentoring to women goes well beyond "don't act like a whore". but that's basically what we have here.

 

As a person who regularly conducts lectures in a university setting, 3 hours is not alot of time at all. Just ONE of my lectures lasts close to two hours. (yes... I just KNOW you are thinking... how in the HELL could those students bear listening to TAL for two hours at a stretch... ha...ha.. ).

 

I really admire the way this pastor discusses what many others have tried to cover, and do it in an entertaining way, non-condescending way. Even funny at times. I wish I could be even half as clever as him in my lectures. And I absolutely despise dogma.

 

What we don't see is how he may conduct his 'sermons' over the course of his regular teachings. He may very well be talking about everything you said. We don't know. Maybe you should email him and provide some feedback oh wait... you can't change the world. I forget. (teasing you now).

 

But three hours really are just the 'crib' notes on this topic... and I think ones he transmitted very, very well.

[ThsAmericanLife]

ok, so I read the bible, and I go to church, not that I have always done so, whatever, this is now. I don't know why everyone else on the planet does or doesn't read it or go, and I am not here to tell anyone that they have to.

 

The reasons I do these things is because it makes me....less selfish. It sets down rules for how I should act that I agree with, which helps me help not only myself, but others as well. If I were to choose any other path I would be doing it simply to get as much as I could out of life for my own sole benefit.

 

I am not saying people that don't read the bible or don't go to church behave like this, though many no matter what they claim to believe or not, do. It is a personal choice, and responsibility, of each person to follow their own path in life.

 

I both totally understand and also cant even begin to comprehend the debate people get into about religion. People that don't know anything about the bible still know the difference between right and wrong. I get the argument of hypocritical behavior in so called "Christians" and this general has two categories. People that are christian and have screwed up or people that claim to be christian and aren't. The first is someone that made a mistake, no matter how "severe" the latter is simply using christianity to sooth their conscience about the negative things they habitually practice.

 

If you were to get all the hypocrites to suddenly say they aren't Christians, then there wouldn't even be an argument anymore. The fact is, regardless of what you believe, that people are flawed in many ways. If you take out all the negativity focused on the bible, took a lot of what it talks about and practiced it, I think there would be far less pain and suffering in the world.

 

Do I think it would "magically" fix everything, no I don't. People make mistakes. Some do so continuously intentional or otherwise.

 

To rail this back on topic. If the people in relationships took 1 Corinthians 13 and applied JUST THAT to their relationship, if they understood the true implications of what those few paragraphs are talking about and FOLLOWED it it would bypass so much of everything that causes relationships to fail that there would be little else to discuss.

 

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

forget the fact that this even came from the bible if you want, look at what it says. I can sit here all day long as see why people can argue about every other aspect of the bible but if you can get two people in a relationship to take those things above and apply them to each other then nothing would cause it to fail.

 

This means that yes, this person did this, or this person did that, but it would be simplistic things, they didn't mow the yard today, they left the jacket on the couch, they didn't turn off the lights when they left the room. Not oh, well they took our life savings and gambled it away or they cheated on me with someone else or they left me because of blah blah blah.

 

If you got involved with someone for a relationship, the chemistry was there at some point regardless of all the nit picky stuff people use to justify betraying one or the other, then even with differences you could practically enjoy a relationship with anyone you chose because you would both be making choices and keeping boundaries that made the other person happy and there wouldn't be a need to try to find it elsewhere.

 

Would it always be easy? Not at all, then again the things in life that are most valuable take work to aquire, be it a house, a piece of art or a healthy relationship. Rather than work towards something that matters society has taken the Mcdonalds approach and quick and easy and that generally dictates who your next significant other will be, someone quick and easy.

 

Why? Someone wasn't patient, someone wasn't kind, someone was envious of something or someone that another had, someone was boastful (demeaning) or to proud, someone sought their own wants instead of their partners, someone was to angry, someone was resentful and lacked forgiveness, someone did something wrong and lied, someone didn't trust and didn't hope and because they didn't do the above, love did not persevere.

 

With a set of instructions so clear it should be impossible to screw it up if you follow it, but so few do and because of it so many people get hurt in the process. Once they get it through their heads that people aren't perfect, nothing except death "just works" and it isn't always going to be easy, then the rest falls into place.

 

I understand that there are many many many many people that won't do any of these things and that is the whole tragedy in my view. There are times where no matter what you do the other person will sabotage all the efforts of the other person.

 

I also think that if even one person in the relationship did these things, many of the partners would see it and respond to it. No blaming, no lording something over someone, no condescending remarks, just good ole kind patience would go a long way to resolving what many think as a lost cause.

 

It would be a way to reset many relationships and help people see who each other were when they fell in love. Then again maybe I'm a total idiot and have it all wrong.

 

Very good post! Thanks for writing down the definitions of 'love'.

[thatone]

As a person who regularly conducts lectures in a university setting, 3 hours is not alot of time at all. Just ONE of my lectures lasts close to two hours. (yes... I just KNOW you are thinking... how in the HELL could those students bear listening to TAL for two hours at a stretch... ha...ha.. ).

 

I really admire the way this pastor discusses what many others have tried to cover, and do it in an entertaining way, non-condescending way. Even funny at times. I wish I could be even half as clever as him in my lectures. And I absolutely despise dogma.

 

What we don't see is how he may conduct his 'sermons' over the course of his regular teachings. He may very well be talking about everything you said. We don't know. Maybe you should email him and provide some feedback oh wait... you can't change the world. I forget. (teasing you now).

 

But three hours really are just the 'crib' notes on this topic... and I think ones he transmitted very, very well.

 

he was likeable, and like i said i don't think his message in general was wrong, but he repeated himself too much and he could've covered a lot more ground had he been more concise.

 

i don't disagree with the notion of "don't dress/act like a whore" but he should've spent more time on that and less time on the no sex til marriage bit which i knew he'd get to at some point, if that's really what he wanted the message to be.

 

he also could've spent more time on WHY the absence of father figures was such an issue for younger men and what they could do about it, rather than preaching abstinence to younger men.

 

he introduced himself as intending to give a non-religious talk about relationships, but he couldn't resist falling back on 'abstinence solves all problems' because he is a pastor.

 

bait and switch, is what i took away from it.