Boundaries

Note: This blog was originally published on my issues blog, but I moved it here because I thought it made more sense to put it here. It was actually written in early January, but I moved it to this blank post draft in November. Enjoy.

Unlike most people, when I told my pastor/parents/friends that I was dating none of them did me the courtesy of whipping out an instruction manual as a heart warming gift. So I had to figure out lots of little things on my own like: when to hold hands, how affectionate to be in public, how affectionate to be in private, what to say to his mother, etc.

I think boundaries are one of those things that are really difficult to know how to handle when you're just starting out. I mean, there are some basic things that you hopefully come out the gate just knowing. If you grew up in the Christian ghetto most of my readers are "privileged" to inhabit (interpret quotes as you will) then you were told not to have sex till you got married. But beyond the extreme this instruction does little to inform teenagers what they should do.

The teen Pathfinder retreat, of course, makes it very clear. In fact, they explicitly ban any and all "extramarital heterosexual interdigitalis" (which sounds more like a disease/orgy instead of a tender display of affection), but this is hardly a guide of conduct for an entire relationship. But I haven't despaired yet. I have heard many guides for how Christian boyfriends and girlfriends should treat each other. They are as follows:

1. From a Week of Prayer speaker: Treat them as you would your brother/sister. After all, this person is first and foremost your brother or sister in Christ. Since you have no long term commitment with them before God or man (i.e. marriage--the message being sent here that dating relationships, especially in high school, ultimately mean little), they cannot be anything to you (physically) other than a brother.
2. From a Christian Relationship Manual: Act only as you would feel comfortable acting if their spouse (or future spouse) was in the room. Whatever the two of you do, you will eventually have to face the consequences and memories of. You will either face these consequences with each other, or you will have to face the memories in your separate marriages. Thus, by acting only as you would if your future spouses were in the room, you are showing respect for yourselves, and for the person who will have to face your actions later (e.g. your boyfriend's wife).
3. From a Christian Dating Manual: Do only what you want the girl/boy who is currently dating your future spouse to do (i.e. do it (the "it being undefined) only if you're okay with your future spouse doing it to/with someone else tonight). This is only slightly different from the second suggestion, but it's a little more personal (and potentially much more graphic). This idea mentally puts in perspective everything you do. It means that any and every time you kiss, hug, snuggle, cuddle, dance with, make-out with, or sleep with your boyfriend you have to imagine that somewhere, the guy you're going to marry, the guy you plan on loving for the rest of your life, is doing the same thing with the small redhead he's dating now. Jealous? That's the idea.
4. Random (I don't know where I heard this): Picture your/your S.O.'s parents constantly in the room whenever you are with them (your significant other). Whatever you do, wherever you do it, there are constantly two (or maybe even four) pairs of parental eyes watching you in rapt attention. How do you feel now?
5. Random: Picture Jesus in the room whenever you are with your significant other. After all he already is. How does he feel about what you're doing? Does it make him happy? Sad? Embarrassed?
6. A warning received from some unknown magazine: Every concession you make in the area of physical affection steadily loses the respect of the boy you're dating (i.e. you let him hold your hand/kiss you/etc. and his respect level for you instantly drops according to the intensity of the action, and how soon you let it happen). This creates a delicate balance for the girl to maintain, because while she cannot completely withhold her affection, she also needs to make sure that he's working hard for every concession she does make. The result is something of a game, during which the girl strings the guy along as long as possible, giving in just enough to keep him hooked, but holding back enough to keep him wanting more. Her ultimate goal is to eventually sucker him into marriage (when there is nothing left to give him within the boundaries of their current relationship), and his goal is to get as much as he can out of her, thus thwarting her goal.

• The idea behind this last theory is that the behavior of both the girl and the boy may not be intentional, but is a natural outgrowth of their natures. He wants sex (or whatever he can get), and she wants security (marriage).

As I contemplated these various ideas I decided I needed some outside thoughts--particularly from guys. So I asked two of my guy friends what they thought of idea #6. Both of them said that this theory was oversimplified. But they also conceded that it is based primarily on truth.
As you can probably see, reading Christian magazines, books, and listening to pastors and speakers has only further confused the issue for me. So in my own dating relationship, my boyfriend and I have adapted pieces of these ideas to create boundaries we're comfortable with. We talk about everything, and I think we're doing just fine, but I still wonder about these ideas, and the levels of truth that may or may not be in them.
What do you think? Are these ideas right? Wrong? Totally absurd? Blatantly offensive? Are any of these concepts that should be more readily adopted by youth today? Or are they unrealistic for the times we live in? Comment liberally and let me know :).