Professional Christian Counseling
Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
Counselworx.com
Emotionally Focused...Solution Driven Counseling
Bulding Healthy Marriages and Strong Families
COUNSELOR PAGES
It is spiritual fraud to enter marriage and then live like a single man or woman.
—Gary Thomas[1]
His Heart
Why He Must Commit to Her
Revised 10/30/2015
In the beginning stages of a romantic relationship, because two people know very little about each other yet, physical attraction is the spark that first attracts one person to the other.[1] Contrary to what Genesis 2:24 might lead us to believe, researchers have observed that more than half the time the woman is actually the initiator of a courtship sequence by sending subtle signals to, or by approaching the man she is attracted to.[2] In another study, researchers found that the woman was responsible for initiating the couple’s courtship about 70 percent of the time.[3] One method of getting his attention is by putting herself in his presence in order to be noticed. In the story of Ruth, the Bible tells us that Boaz noticed her while gleaning his fields during the barley harvest. Even though women are often the initiators of romantic relationships, their signals may be so subtle that the man can easily believe he is the one making the first move.[4] Nevertheless, the Genesis 2:24 account of courtship is not offended by this nor should the student of Scriptures be alarmed.
The repertoire of signals that women use to capture a man’s attention is broad and quite predictable. They cut across cultural boundaries and can be observed universally around the world.[5] Making brief eye contact and then looking away; glances up and down his body; cocking her head to one side; holding eye contact while smiling at him and flipping her hair are some of the many signs of her interest.[6] Without saying a word, she makes known that she wants to explore their possibilities.
It is important to note that a woman's initial signals are preliminary. She is simply checking for mutual interest to determine if he is interested in her. If her safety valve is working properly, her signals are most definitely NOT indicating that she is ready to be sexual.[7] Even though her signals are designed to initiate a conversation, the man receiving those signals will often sexualize what he is noticing from her thus potentially leading him to misinterpretations of her intentions. Instead, because women rarely sexualize encounters with others, her overtures are simply attempts to let the man know that she is really just welcoming the opportunity to get to know him better.[8]
Love at First Sight or Not?
During dating women reserve their judgment of the man’s suitability while men often make quick determinations about how he thinks they will fare as a couple.[9] Her hesitation is not based merely on physical attractiveness. She wants to find out if he will be sensitive to her feelings and whether or not he will be a good protector and provider thus offering her a lifetime of security.[10] & [11] In order to determine all of that, it obviously takes time for women to figure that out. Not that most women would do this anyway―but asking someone to show you their financial portfolio on the first date would be considered outrageous. Besides, it’s not just his financials that she is concerned about. She needs to see him in a variety of situations to find out if he is safe for her to be around or if he may be prone to fits of anger or pouting. Dr Kevin Leman recommends that single dating women become even more deliberate―over and above what comes natural to them―to finding these things out about a man whom they might consider marrying.[12]
For the man, because he does look at life through a sexual lens,[13] what he sees physically is basically all he needs to know. Dr. David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, confirms that men look for mates who are physically attractive and healthy.[14] Psychologists Robert Kail and John Cavanaugh tell us that, “in their respective search for mates, men around the world value physical attractiveness in women, whereas women around the world look for men capable of being good providers.” [15] The Biblical account of the first couple notes that Adam’s reaction when he first saw Eve says it all. Bible scholars say that his “Wow!” is possibly the most expressive verse in the whole Bible. The shape of her body, how she moves and her mannerisms all combine to tell him if she is sexually appealing. It’s not that men are disinterested in other aspects of women but this is usually his primary focus in dating. As an example, women with graduate school training and those with less than five years of school contribute disproportionately to the ranks of women who remain unmarried.[16] On the surface it appears that men want a wife who has intelligence but perhaps not too much. Digging deeper into the psyche of men, perhaps they fear that her ability to provide for herself might equate to freedom? Perhaps they are afraid that what they earn may not be enough to keep a highly educated woman in the marriage? Nevertheless studies like these tell us that men do look at other things beyond just her sexual prowess. Once he determines that she does fit the bill for him, and given his sexual nature, the thing that he likely wonders most about―that takes time and commitment to discover―is exactly what she looks like undressed and how attentive she will be to his sexual nature. Consequently, because those questions are not quickly answered, men who are experiencing attraction will often offer sexual innuendos to test the waters thus helping them determine how open she will be sexually. We call this dance that dating couples do “flirting.” And, it has some inherent dangers to it.
The Flirting Dance―A Matter of Loneliness and Self-Image
As mentioned earlier, flirting is a way to test the waters. The reason for doing this is because people are looking for two things they are unsure of. First, they want to find out if the person they are attracted to is willing to love them with the kind of love they desire most so that they can escape feelings of loneliness. Second, flirting allows this to be discovered while preserving self-image. It is very risky to get answers to whether someone is willing to love you directly. Why? Because that special someone might say “No!” which adds an element of invalidation to their declination thus damaging the inquiring person’s ego. People want to be “loved” and they want to know that they are “lovable.” These two words carry very important distinctions. The first, which has to do with being loved, is associated with a desire to be cared for while the latter concept of being lovable is associated with personal value. Both men and women monitor both of these attributes in their relationships. Authors Chap and Dee Clark write, “It is not enough for us to hear, ‘I love you;’ we need to know that we are cherished and chosen.”[17]
Dangerous Flirting
The dangers of flirting spoken of earlier, that you should be aware of, are that intentions can be misconstrued and that flirting can be used in-and-of-itself for self-validation. Using the highly dangerous example of rape, some men misjudge a woman’s intentions and act upon what they think the woman meant by her signals. In other circumstances, women (and men for that matter), can use flirting as a means of acquiring self-worth for the purpose of bolstering a sagging self-image. Some women want to be affirmed that they are still attractive to men. Therefore they flirt to reassure themselves of that. In yet other uses of flirting, some may make “sport” of flirting, whereby they flirt while having no intentions of following through with establishing a relationship. Leading someone along in this manner can be quite cruel. In the preceding cases flirting is used inappropriately. The healthy use of it will be for legitimately attracting a mate and moving a relationship closer to marriage.
Another danger of flirting has to do with online dating. As of 2012, more than a third of America’s 97 million singles were dating online.[18] While it affords a physically safer way of interacting, it limits the ability to discover who each really are before making decisions to marry or cohabit. An online environment can even create an illusion of intimacy. Because people can reveal only what they want others to see about them, online dating may create the impression that you know the other person better than you really do. This means that a woman’s safety valve can be relaxed sooner than it should be thus allowing her to become sexual too early in the relationship. Furthermore, cyber-distance makes it much easier to flirt more provocatively.
His Commitment is Paramount
Regardless of the dangers of flirting and the overtures women send to initiate a relationship―without a reciprocal interest on the man’s part―the relationship goes nowhere. Therefore, a bona fide relationship always starts with an acceptance of the woman by the man even if she is the one making those initial advances. The first overt gesture however, is almost always made by the man,[19] which by the way, is precisely what the Scripture draws our attention to in the mating sequence of Genesis 2:24. As mentioned earlier, the Scriptural version of dating says nothing about a woman’s use of signals. It begins with a determination by the man. And, just because the Bible leaves this out does not mean that it and science are in disagreement. Just because Genesis 2:24 begins by stating, “For this reason a man” does not mean that the man is the one who must always initiate the relationship. Clearly women do that most of the time. Leaving this out has another important implication. Not all marriage relationships begin by flirting and dating. In various parts of the world arranged marriages still take place. In other circumstances sex sometimes happens apart from lengthy dating rituals which can result in pregnancy. Because God knows that in most cases the resulting children do benefit from the father marrying the mother, He has left this out intentionally to cover contingencies like these. In either case whether through dating, arranged marriage or unintended pregnancy, God still wants men to commit themselves and so He chooses to focus our attention on the male perspective first. This idea is further supported by hermeneutic principles.
For background information, many theologians hold to the belief that whatever occurs first in Scripture is preeminent and of the greatest importance. That sentiment could never be truer than it is in Genesis 2:24. While it has left out any discussion of a woman’s initiatory mating signals, God has chosen instead to place a greater emphasis on the importance of the woman’s acceptance by her would-be-husband. Any casual reader can tell that Genesis 2:24 is a highly condensed statement that succinctly tells us only what we would be hard pressed to discover on our own. God skipped over this important fact of female courtship probably because we can and have observed how all of that happens. It should also be noted that the reason God left out a woman’s initiatory signals does not in any way discount the importance of those. It only means that He wants to draw our attention to something more critical to the longevity of the relationship, which is, the importance of a man’s commitment to his wife however he comes to have her. You may ask why that is? The answer probably lies with the inability of humans to fully grasp the importance of the husband’s commitment to his wife. Furthermore, the fact that God is pointing that out to us implies that we should also give importance to it.
The best way to understand why a husband’s commitment to and acceptance of his wife is so important cannot be better illustrated than from observations of the opposite. You may ask, How can that be? Isn’t a man’s commitment implied when he agrees to marry or live with a woman?” The short answer is no. The man’s commitment is not necessarily a given, especially if he takes a wife for self-centered reasons. The best example of this is found in cohabitation. While prevalent in Sweden and other parts of the world,[20] America offers the best example of how dangerous it is to a woman when commitment is either not offered to her or even worse when it is withheld from her. While undoubtedly found to some degree in all family structures nowhere is it more blatant than it is in cohabitation. In fact, just the concept of cohabitation denotes a withholding of some form of commitment. The degree of commitment withheld may be slight and temporary or it may be deliberate and malicious in nature with the intent of taking advantage of the woman.
Before 2000 very little was known about the long-term effects of cohabitation. Up until that point, most studies had focused on marriage.[21] Cohabitation as a family structure, while not new, is now becoming the most prevalent type with its upsurge beginning only within the last fifteen years. The latest numbers from 2012 indicate that there were 7.8 million cohabiting couples in the United States[22] which represents a 1500% increase since 1960.[23]
According to researchers Stanley, Markman and Blumberg in their book Fighting For Your Marriage, they write that young people today still value marriage highly and think that being married for life is a worthy goal, and even want to be happily married someday. What they lack, however, is confidence that a happy marriage is an achievable goal.[24] Markman and his colleagues write further, that in the course of their research, they have found that (among other things), confidence in marriage is related to commitment.[25] Men and women appear to have differing views on when to apply it.
Ironically, it is interesting to note that while women reserve their commitment in the early stages of dating, cohabiting men appear to reserve their commitment for a time as well. The main difference is that many men are now reserving their commitment for the duration of the relationship. Studies reveal that men and women tend to go into a cohabiting situation with different objectives. Women often view cohabitation as a “step toward marriage” while men often see it as “a way to test a relationship”.[26] As women delay commitment in the early stages of dating for the sake of determining whether the man will make a good mate who can provide them with a sense of security, men are evidently postponing commitment to determine how she will perform as well. But, whether done consciously or subconsciously, his reservation has an effect on the relationship. The cohabiting man’s perpetual reservation can work to his advantage in the short-range but usually backfires in the long haul.
Given the fact that cohabiting couples are typically more experienced sexually than other couple types; they become sexually active at younger ages than do non-cohabiting couples and along with the most important fact that cohabiting couples report having sex more frequently than any other couple type does lead us to detect a theme about their relationship—sex seems to play a larger role for them than it does for other couple types.[27], [28]
The lack of commitment from the cohabiting man keeps the cohabiting woman in a constant state of having to prove herself sexually. She has to perform sexually, seemingly at-will, in order to keep her relationship and the important associated sense of security intact. Because her safety valve was designed to keep her out of such relationships, she must have either been duped into believing that the present insecure relationship will someday provide security or else she is overriding her safety valve somehow. One possible explanation for both possibilities has to do with the current state of divorce in our country.
The explosion of divorce in America beginning in 1970 certainly must be a contributing factor to the expansion of cohabitation. In divorce it is most common for the mother to retain physical custody of the children[29] which means that the father must generally move out. One of the many negative outcomes for children of an absent or uninvolved father is that young girls may develop a “hyper-attentiveness” to male attention. Because of this desire for the attention of a male, there has developed a strong correlation between father absence and teen pregnancy. Girls who have absent fathers are five times more likely to become teenage mothers.[30] Because security was disrupted for these girls and because of the deficit in security that they have felt, their desire to regain it can become magnified. Exacerbating the loss of security that a father should have provided for his daughter, coupled with substandard living conditions of divorced single mothers, which statistically drops by 31% for white families and 53% in black families,[31] a young girl’s desire for security plus the realized lack of it predisposes her to look for it more desperately from a substitute male. Furthermore, obsessiveness and infatuation for male attention can blind young women from seeing deficiencies in potential mates.[32] Overly attentive attitudes may be what cause women to override their safety valves thus allowing them to make themselves sexual in order to gain the favor of a male. This concept is supported by the fact that about half of sexually active fifteen-year-old girls said they expected to marry their most recent sexual partner.[33] In other words they were hoping that their sexuality would lead to marriage. While under the spell of this type of thinking, cohabitation can work for awhile.
The hope of marriage stops when the disillusionment begins, and the woman becomes tired of having sex at times when she does not want to. Most particularly, her willingness ends as she recognizes that she is being used sexually and that he is not maintaining her sense of security. For most cohabiting couples this takes only about two years at which point, the relationship ends.[34] & [35] Marriage expert Dr. John Gottman refers to this as “Negative Sentiment Override.” It happens when a person’s attitude changes from generally positive to negative based on the frequency and severity of negative situations a person experiences in their relationship.[36] When this happens a woman’s safety valve finally engages thus causing her to avoid sex with her cohabiting partner. Because the sexual part of the relationship is what is important to the cohabiting male, her sexual withdrawal compels him toward either making a commitment to her or else making an exit from the relationship. Sometimes the exit is only partial which may result in an affair. Studies do reveal that cohabitation is associated with a high incidence of affairs.[37] Regardless of whether the cohabiting male leaves completely or only partially by initiating an affair, he justifies himself heading in either direction because, of course, he has made no long-term commitment to the female. He is free to go be with whomever he pleases. Thus, his lack of initial commitment to her has now weakened her commitment toward him thus causing him to harvest what he has planted in her—a lack of commitment to him.
While our intuition tells us that these noncommittal cohabiting relationships are doomed from the beginning, studies overwhelmingly support those beliefs by telling us that only about 20 percent of cohabiting couples live together any longer than five years,[38] and that 75% of those who do marry will eventually end in divorce.[39] The experiment of cohabitation whereby men perpetually reserve their commitments under the guise of eliminating risk has not ended it but has actually increased it. The continual lack of commitment from him plants doubt into her mind as to whether he can ever commit himself wholly to her. As George Gilder has observed in Men and Marriage; the casting away of traditional marital values has not generated greater security for women.
Instead it has freed men from the constraints of traditional morality. As one single woman observed, “When their whole lives men were free to have sex with whomever they wanted, why would they suddenly change after marriage and just have sex with one woman?”[40]
In other words, women come to realize that what his character represents before marriage is not likely to change after marriage. Despite a cohabiting man’s propensity to having an affair, another likely cause of the high rate of marital failure has to do with the seeds of insecurity that he has already planted in her. They have been allowed to grow over several years which cause her to create beliefs of insecurity that are very difficult to overcome. Not to mention, when a woman does finally receive a commitment, she gets to relax a bit sexually which diminishes the frequency of sex. Some men may find it difficult to tolerate even the slightest reduction which may also cause the relationship to collapse.
The bottom line is that cohabitation perpetually keeps a woman in a paradox stuck between keeping her relationship (which she equates with security) and having to perform sexually. It is reminiscent of Erickson’s intimacy vs. isolation stage of development. Except that, as Erickson suggested, this developmental stage is usually completed when a permanent relationship has been established. In the case of cohabitation, this paradox appears to persist long after a relationship has begun. Not only that but it persists for the woman day after day and―for several years to come. What woman could stand for such a thing indefinitely? Beverly LaHaye quoting Robert McGee in her book The Desires of a Woman’s Heart writes, “The man or woman who lives only for the love and attention of others is never satisfied—at least, not for long. Despite our efforts, we will never find lasting, fulfilling peace if we have to continually prove ourselves to others.”[41]
Cohabitation trades unconditional love and security for a performance view of relationship. It does violence to the Covenantal promises that a man should make to a woman and relegates the covenant God intended for her, to some form of manipulation instead. In essence it uses the woman’s appetite for a secure relationship against her. Certainly, God must be opposed to such an egregious condition for the woman. He instead designed for the institution of marriage to provide her with a safe and secure place in which to raise her children. It has been so important to society that the government has seen fit to regulate it by licensing those who want to pursue it. In recognizing the importance of commitment governments require that it be “solemnized” in some way in front of witnesses.
That “piece of paper” (referring to a certificate of marriage), which cohabiters often say is meaningless, does provide women with some measure of security. How so? Because, legal marriage, even in the face of “no-fault” divorce, is still somewhat difficult to get out of. And, with the division of property that ensues, it costs the man something to end the relationship while at the same time affording the woman some measure of security, even if it requires a divorce to get it. Sadly, no-fault divorce, has effectively robbed motherhood of its last protection―marriage[42] and has done so all for the sake of ending a relationship quickly and expediently. Likewise cohabitation is merely an extension of expedience by suspending formalities even further. In essence cohabitation now eclipses the devaluation of commitment that no-fault divorce legislation began. In fact that is precisely what cohabitation relies on. It attempts to make the permanency of relationship less and less important and accomplishes that by demonstrating less and less interest in it. There is a principle that describes who cohabitation can work, and is best understood by the Law of Least Interest or Personal Exploitation Principle.
Least interest states that whoever in a relationship has the lowest interest in something controls that thing.[43] As men withhold their relational interest (by withholding commitment), that puts them in the driver’s seat. And since sex is how they measure relationship and what they want most from it, they leverage the relationship in order to get it. By withholding their commitment, it forces women into a performance stance. And, since sex is what men want from relationship women have to provide it if they want to keep the relationship. Cohabitation, from the male perspective, is simply a way of keeping sex at elevated levels in a relationship. Studies show us that fewer young men in the U.S. want to make the long term commitment of marriage than ever before, while at the same time the desire for a committed relationship is rising among young women. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentages of women 18-34 who say that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things to them has grown from 28% to 37% since 1997. The number of young adult men who believe the same thing has dropped from 35% to 29%.[44] Taking advantage of a woman’s frailness of insecurity, men are being tempted to keep women dependent upon them, and in so doing create a counterfeit relationship by holding power over them. Relationships based upon dependency are not love but would rather be classified as an addiction instead.[45] Just as every addiction has some adverse side-effects so does cohabitation. Compared with married couples who have never cohabited, the long term negative effects of cohabitation include:
Negative Outcomes Associated with Cohabitation
* Lower rates of employment — Married men tend to have more stable employment histories.[46]
* Lower rates of income — Married men average 30% higher incomes than their non-married counterparts.[47]
* Lower net worth — children from married families have stronger economic mobility as adults. Cohabiting families have the lowest net worth growth of all family structures.[48]
* Higher rates of poverty — Just 5.8% of married families were living in poverty in 2009, while in households headed by an unmarried man, 16.9% are in poverty. Married women are less likely to be impoverished.[49]
* Higher rates of partner aggression — A cohabiting partner is twice as likely to exhibit aggressive behavior than a married person.[50]
* Higher rates of partner depression — A cohabiting partner is three times as likely to suffer depression than a married person.[51]
* Higher levels of child behavioral problems — Children of cohabiting parents experience higher levels of behavioral problems than those of married families.[52]
* Higher levels of child psychological problems — Children of cohabiting parents experience higher levels of psychological problems than those of married families.[53]
* Lower rates of child academic achievement — Children of cohabiting parents exhibit more academic problems than children whose parents are married.[54]
Thus, cohabiting relationships are obviously not good for any member of the family. Clearly they do not afford women with the security they desire. Nor does it bring the long term sexual fulfillment that men are looking for. There simply is no substitute for the benefits of men committing themselves to permanent marriage relationships. Howard Markman and his Colleague Sarah Whitton at the University of Cincinnati are conducting studies that indicate the importance of male commitment to marital happiness.[55] Indeed, male commitment is the first step of the Genesis 2:24 Cycle of Marriage and forms the foundation of the marriage relationship. We should not be surprised to find that it is essential to not only marital happiness but to relational longevity as well. When a husband commits and betroths himself to his bride they are well on their way to the second step of the cycle which involves “being united”.
The original Hebrew text refers to the state of “being united” as “be joined/cleaved/united/caused to stick.”[56] With Whitton’s study, both science and the Bible are finding agreement. When the Bible says that a man must “unite” to his wife it means that he must stick himself to her and she must stick herself to him. That is, he commits himself to her in loving devotion just the way God does with His bride the church. It is the way that God designed for male/female relationships to work which, in His infinite wisdom, implies that any deviation from that ideal is unlikely to work.
Works Cited:
[1]The Necessary Nine: How to Stay Happily Married for Life!, Dan Seaborn and Peter Newhouse, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2007. (p. 105).
[2] Sex Signals: The Biology of Love. Timothy Perper, Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1985. In E. Allgeier and A. Allgeier. (Eds.). Sexual Interactions (5th Ed.) (pp. 17-18). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000.
[3] Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget, Marianne Legato, United States: Rodale, Inc., 2005. (p. 30).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 19).
[6] Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget, Marianne Legato, United States: Rodale, Inc., 2005. (p. 31).
[7] Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 19).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Women and men in love: Sex differences in close heterosexual relationships. In V. O’Leary, R. K. Unger, and B. S. Wallston (Eds.) Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 257-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. In R. Kail, and J. Cavanaugh (Eds.) Human Development: A Life Span View, 2nd Ed., Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000. (p. 369).
[10] Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget, Marianne Legato, United States: Rodale, Inc., 2005. (pp. 19-20).
[11] Human Development: A Life Span View, 2nd Ed., R. Kail, and J. Cavanaugh, Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000. (p. 371).
[12] Single Parenting That Works: Six keys to raising happy, healthy children in a single-parent home, Kevin Leman, Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2006. (p. 248).
[13] The Female Brain, Louann Brizendine, New York: Broadway Books, 2006., (p.5).
[14] Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget, Marianne Legato, United States: Rodale, Inc., 2005. (pp. 19-20).
[15] Human Development: A Life Span View, 2nd Ed., R. Kail, and J. Cavanaugh, Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000. (p. 371).
[16] Marital status and living arrangements: March 1992. Current Population Reports, Series P20-468. In Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier (Eds.) Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 298).
[17] Remember When We Used To Talk?: Social Media and the New Family Dynamic, Chap Clark and Dee Clark, Christian Counseling Today, Volume 19, No. 3, American Association of Christian Counselors, Forest Virginia, 2012. (p. 44).
[18] Dot.Com Dating: Is Online Dating for You, Les & Leslie Parrott, Christian Counseling Today, Volume 19, No. 3, American Association of Christian Counselors, Forest, Virginia, 2012. (p. 38)
[19] Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget, Marianne Legato, United States: Rodale, Inc., 2005. (pp. 19-20).
[20] The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today, Andrew J. Cherlin, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. (p. 17-19). In Mitch Pearlstein, (Ed.) From Family Collapse to America’s Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation, Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. (pp. 30-31).
[21] Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 303).
[22] Remarriage Rate Declining as More Opt for Cohabitation, Sharon Jayson, USA Today, 10:13 p.m. EDT September 12, 2013, Retrieved 12/9/2014 from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/12/remarriage-rates-divorce/2783187/
[23] The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage, Meg Jay, The New York Times, April 14, 2012, Retrieved 12/9/2014 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[24] Fighting For Your Marriage, 3rd Ed., Howard Markman, Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010. (pp. 15-16).
[25] Ibid. (p. 16).
[26] New York Times, 4/19/12., Gary D. Foster, (Ed.), For The Record: The Foster Report, Christian Counseling Connection, Volume 18 Issue.3, Forest: American Association of Christian Counselors, 2012. (p. 15).
[27] The Social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. E. Laumann, J. Gagnon, R. Michael and S. Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. In Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier (Eds.) Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 299).
[28] Sexuality in close relationships. S. Sprecher and K. McKinney, 1994. In A. Weber and J. Harvey (Eds.) Perspectives on close relationships (pp.193-216) Boston: Allyn & Bacon. In Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier (Eds.) Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 299).
[29] Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 310).
[30] Father Absence and the Welfare of Children, Sarah McLanahan. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 2003.
[31] Understanding Racial Differences in the Economic Costs of Growing Up in a Single-Parent Family, Marianne Page and Ann Huff Stevens, Demography, Volume 42, Number 1, February 2005, (pp.75-90). In Mitch Pearlstein (Ed.) From Family Collapse to America’s Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation, Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. (p. 41).
[32] That‘s Not What I Meant!: How Conversation Style Makes or Breaks Relationships, Deborah Tannen, New York: Harper, 2011. (p. 163).
[33] Sexual Chaos: Meeting the Challenges of Teen pregnancy, Homosexuality, Single-parent homes, Pornography, Adultery, Date rape, Gay rights. Revised Ed., Tim Stafford, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993. (p. 48).
[34] Cohabitation vs. marriage: A Comparison of relationship quality, S. I. Brown & A. Booth, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1996., (pp. 58, 668-678). In Elizabeth Allgeier & Albert Allgeier, Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 299).
[35] The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. E. O. Laumann, J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael and S. Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. (n.p.)., In Elizabeth Allgeier & Albert Allgeier, Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 299).
[36] The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert, John M. Gottman& Nan Silver, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999. (p. 21).
[37] American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, New York: Morrow, 1983. (p. 298). In Tim Stafford (Ed.), Sexual Chaos: Meeting the Challenges of Teen pregnancy, Homosexuality, Single-parent homes, Pornography, Adultery, Date rape, Gay rights. Revised Ed., Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993. (p. 106).
[38] Sexual Interactions, 5th Ed., Elizabeth Allgeier and Albert Allgeier, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. (p. 299).
[39] Single Parenting That Works: Six keys to raising happy, healthy children in a single-parent home, Dr. Kevin Leman, Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2006. (p. 251).
[40] Men and Marriage, George Gilder n.d., Beverly LaHaye (Ed.) The Desires of a Woman’s Heart, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993. (pp. 188-189).
[41] The Search for Significance , Robert S. McGee, Houston: Rapha Publishing, 1990. (p.11). Beverly LaHaye, (Ed.) The Desires of a Woman’s Heart, Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993. (p. 21).
[42] Ibid. (p. 227).
[43] Law of Least Interest or Personal Exploitation Principle E. A. Ross, 1921, Waller, n.d. In Howard Markman, Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg, (Eds.) Fighting For Your Marriage, 3rd Ed., San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010. (pp. 146).
[44] LifeSite News 1/10/13., (Ed.), Gary Foster, For The Record: The Foster Report, Christian Counseling Connection, Volume 19 Issue. 2, American Association of Christian Counselors, Forest Virginia, 2013. (p. 15).
[45] The Family: A Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home, Jack O. Balswick & Judith K. Balswick, Grand rapids: Baker Books, 2004. (p. 30).
[46] CitizenLink 5/31/11, (Ed.), Gary D. Foster, For The Record: The Foster Report, Christian Counseling Connection, Volume 18 Issue 2, American Association of Christian Counselors, Forest Virginia, 2012. (p. 15).
[47] Ibid. (p. 15).
[48] Ibid. (p. 15).
[49] Ibid. (p. 15).
[50] Trend to Live Together, Not Marry, Put Kids at Risk, USA Today, October 20, 2003. In Kevin Leman (Ed.) Single Parenting That Works: Six keys to raising happy, healthy children in a single-parent home, Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2006. (p. 251).
[51]Trend to Live Together, Not Marry, Put Kids at Risk, USA Today, October 20, 2003. In Kevin Leman (Ed.) Single Parenting That Works: Six keys to raising happy, healthy children in a single-parent home, Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2006. (p. 251).
[52] Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-Being. Susan Brown, Demography, Volume 43, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 447-61. In Mitch Pearlstein (Ed.) From Family Collapse to America’s Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation, Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. (p. 40).
[53] Ibid.
[54] Family Environment and Adolescents’ Well-Being Before and After Parents’ Marital Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis. Yongmen Sun, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (August 2001), pp.697-713. In Mitch Pearlstein (Ed.) From Family Collapse to America’s Decline: The Educational, Economic, and Social Costs of Family Fragmentation, Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. (p. 41).
[55] Fighting For Your Marriage, 3rd Ed., Howard Markman, Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010. (p. 331).
[56] The Biblical One Flesh Theology of Marriage as Constituted in Genesis 2:24:An Exegetical Study of This Human-Divine Covenant Pattern, Its New Testament Echoes, and Its Reception History Throughout Scripture Focusing on the Spiritual Impact of Sexuality, René Gehring, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013. (P. 190).
His Heart Page
The Birds and Bees Talk
You've Never Heard...
Introducing:
The Genesis 2:24
Cycle of Marital Intimacy
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
Genesis 2:24 — NIV
CYCLE OF INTIMACY
MAP:
Have a Question or Comment for Mikel?
(Give your feedback here....)
Heading Quote:
[1]Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make us Happy?, Gary Thomas, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. (p. 250).