What Men and Women Mean

Christina and Savvy recently expressed a need to have someone interpret the men. In the interests of gender equality (ha ha), I decided to include an interpretive guide to the sexes

What men and women really mean!

Women’s English:

Yes = No

No = Yes

Maybe = No

I’m sorry = You’ll be sorry

We need = I want

It’s your decision = The correct decision should be obvious by now

Do what you want = You’ll pay for this later

We need to talk = I need to complain

Sure go ahead = I don’t want you to

I’m not upset = Of course I’m upset, you moron!

You’re so manly = You need a shave and you sweat a lot

Be romantic, turn out the lights = I have flabby thighs

This kitchen is so inconvenient = I want a new house

I want new curtains = and carpeting, and furniture, and wallpaper

I heard a noise = I noticed you were almost asleep

Do you love me? = I’m going to ask for something

How much do you love me? = I did something today you’re going to hate

I’ll be ready in a minute = Kick off your shoes and find a good game on TV

You have to learn to communicate = Just agree with me

Are you listening to me!? = [Too late, you’re dead]

Men’s English:

I’m hungry = I’m hungry

I’m sleepy = I’m sleepy

I’m tired = I’m tired

Do you want to go to a movie? = I’d eventually like to have sex with you

Can I take you out to dinner? = I’d eventually like to have sex with you

Can I call you sometime? = I’d eventually like to have sex with you

May I have this dance? = I’d eventually like to have sex with you

Nice dress! = Nice cleavage!

You look tense, let me give you a massage = I want to fondle you

What’s wrong? = What stupid self inflicted psychological trauma is it now?

What’s wrong? = I guess sex tonight is out of the question

I’m bored = Do you want to have sex?

I love you = Let’s have sex now!

I love you, too = Okay, I said it, Now can we have sex

Yes, I like the way you cut your hair = I liked it better before

Let’s talk = I’ll impress you by showing you I am a deep guy then maybe sex?

Will you marry me? = I want to make it illegal for you to have sex with others

I don’t think that blouse and that skirt go well together = I’m gay

Be Careful What You Ask For…

In 1997, the state of Oregon–after voter approval–enacted the Death with Dignity Act, which allows physician-assisted suicide. Back then, the issue was framed in terms of a person’s “right to die with dignity”. The selling point was the hard cases: terminally-ill people in excruciating pain, with hospitals bleeding their estates dry while using technology to prolong the inevitable.

Against that backdrop, one can fully understand why voters supported the measure.

Unfortunately, as I’ve always said: never, EVER forget to account for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Sadly, the payback is in play in Oregon, and it is shaping up to be the mother of all bitches. Against the specter of State-sponsored health care, and a state that allows for physician-assisted suicides, what do you think the State will do when the economic situation demands examining tradeoffs?

Here’s the answer.

Near-Disaster: Oxygen Tank Explosion Likely Caused Qantas Mishap

More than likely, the Qantas 747 scare was the result of an oxygen tank that exploded in the cargo bay. This opened up a hole in the fuselage that resulted in a loss of cabin pressure and forced the crew to take the plane down 20,000 feet and make an emergency landing.

Every airliner has such oxygen tanks: that is how those oxygen masks above your seat work.

This was very close to being Lockerbie 2. If more tanks explode, and the hole is bigger, then you have potential for catastrophic failure. Once the fuselage is torn like that, anything can go wrong. The plane can break up, debris can get sucked into engines, resulting in engine and/or hydraulic failure…you name it!

Ephesians 5 and Faith, a miniGesis

In my low-volume conversation with Savvy, I discussed a friend of mine (Bravo Lima) who recently married a Mexican gal. Part of that conversation involved a Bravo Lima’s comparison of American Christian women–a large number of whom have been corrupted by feminism–versus the women south of the border who are more likely to embrace their Ephesians 5 responsibilities.

(For the record: Bravo Lima was abandoned by his “Christian” wife. I knew her; she talkedĀ  great talk, but at the end of the day she felt the tail ought to wag the dog. She left him for reasons that had no connection to Scripture.)

Savvy raised the following issues with a retort:

So not being a feminist = spiritually mature??? Riiight. A woman can be very serious about Eph 5 responsibilities and not have much faith at all.

Depends on what you mean by that, Savvy. On one hand, the Pharisees–who in many cases had perfect doctrine on paper–failed to place their faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and follow that Messiah who kept telling them they had it all wrong.

On the other hand, the way husbands and wives accept their Ephesians 5 responsibilities–in the spirit in which Paul lists them–actually speaks volumes about their faith in God.

Let’s look at the passage in question.

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.

The wife is commanded to submit to her husband in all things, as to the Lord. Without that last qualifier, any submission on her part is pure legalism. On the other hand, taken in entirety, a wife who submits to her husband as to the Lord, is demonstrating faith in God as well as a trust in her husband that is uncommon among women.

In so doing, she is expressing faith that her husband will trust God’s lead and love her properly; she is also trusting God to work in her and her husband for their benefit and God’s glory.

If she does not accept her responsibilities, she dishonors not her husband but God. She is telling the world that she does not have the faith that God will vindicate the covenant they have entered; the end result is a failure of the marriage to reflect God’s covenant love.

On the flip side, the husband‘s approach to his Ephesians 5 responsibilities–in the spirit they are given–tells the world about his faith in God. If he loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, then he will reflect the very Jesus who painstakingly taught, led, and ministered to 12 Disciples who were not always cooperative, one of whom even betrayed Him and self-destructed. Jesus ultimately died for the Church.

While the husband will not, cannot, and–thankfully–doesn’t have to redeem his wife, his sacrificial love–given in Ephesians 5 spirit–is a portrait of that finished work of Jesus.

The kicker: neither the husband nor the wife will execute those responsibities perfectly, because–human depravity being what it is–we are still self-serving jerks and jackals who, in spite of being new creations in Christ, still fall short of the glory.

Back to the point: while a husband or wife can submit legalistically–lacking faith–such legalistic submission is not Ephesians 5 submission.

Ergo, I’d submit that Savvy is wrong.

Advantage: Anakin

A few days ago, Matt Schmucker–in an article republished by Boundless–provided some new dogma for Christian singles with respect to their approach to the opposite sex.

I would have responded, but did not have the time. No problem: Anakin handled it just fine.

One of the respondents, Curiepoint, had this to say:

By my estimation, by not playing the game according to this guy’s rules, I am defrauding a woman of the chance to defraud me through the aegis of perpetual marriage and enslavement.