Foreword by Ian Voorn.

Nathan is one of my oldest friends from TCU. He has a certain reputation...well, I won't get into it. You can just read the article. It's a page-turner:

**************************

Guest Column...by Nathan Winston

Alright folks, apparently the need for clarity is so overdue that it’s starting to grow mold. For approximately my entire college career, I’ve noticed a sort of love-hate relationship brewing in the “Christian bubble” that seems strikingly analogous to a bad second marriage. As I’m sure many of you will agree, I have managed to engender (unintentionally I might add) a rather scandalous reputation. To simply abridge and paraphrase rumors, I have been “blacklisted.”

Now, for all of you good folks that might not have been exposed to this term, let me provide you with a short definition according to Mr. Webster as well as an example in context:

def. - A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.”

Ex. – Every new member of He Is Sufficient is directed to avoid and is warned of the evil and scandalous nature of Nathan, a blacklisted member of Beta Upsilon Chi.

Now, while this example does contain some factual inconsistencies, it does serve as an accurate representation of the previously discussed term. As such, I feel it necessary to question as well as hopefully correct any possible premonitions such as the above which might be directed towards certain individuals in the TCU community. To do this I will probably make several references to the above example as well as the sources and events that led to the present circumstances.

So where to begin? I think that the first notion that I must combat is the idea of the quintessential “player” theory. Now, I doubt that I will be so lucky as to find the appropriate definition I need from Webster this time so spare me some improvisational slack. Let’s define the term “player” simply as an individual who treats the opposite sex as expendable (more or less), a person who lives by the allegorical idea that the fish are practically jumping into the boat and he/she can’t get the net out fast enough.

On the other side of that coin exists a stereotype that receives far less attention, yet at the same time can also provoke negative connotation to some. We’ll call him or her the “clinger.” The clinger is typified by an extreme resistance to the necessity of ending a deteriorating and/or meaningless relationship. This person is more likely to drag the situation out ad nauseum for a variety of reasons. It could be a fear of independence, a fear of getting “back in the game,” or a fear of being the break-up instigator. The list of reasons is practically endless. I would venture to say that most of us fall somewhere in the middle of these two personalities (unless you are in a social fraternity – that’s another article all together). I think that it can be equated to our political system – are you a right wing conservative Republican or a left wing liberal Democrat? (think of extreme examples).

The purpose of this demonstration is not to try and sway your position on dating but rather to hopefully give you insight into the psyche of a dater. For some (and this seems remarkable more so in the aforementioned “Christian bubble”), the short relationship can easily be transformed into a “fling” thanks to the ever present circle of gossip which I personally am so thankful to have in place (?that’s sarcasm folks). Instead, consider the possibility that the two parties involved in the relationship realize quickly that the situation would quite possibly lead to eventual disaster and rather than see that explosion reach critical mass, they call the whole thing off.

Now, please realize that because the relationship was short lived, the level of emotional attachment is probably (and I do emphasize the term probably) not overly superfluous. This leads to a shorter amount of time needed for either party to compose him/herself and be ready to accept a new relational invitation. As such, if a potential candidate of interest should approach the horizon in the near future, the span of time between the relationships is reduced. The underlying issue stems primarily from the debate over what the socially acceptable span of time is. In addition, for some a longer amount of time is necessary, while the needed time for others may shorter. Neither need is right or wrong, only different.

The last side of this theory which is still yet to be solidly proven is what I refer to as the “freshman factor.” For the past year I have, much to the glee of Scott Hatter, disengaged myself from forming a dating relationship with any female classified as a freshman. After several misconstrued encounters stemming from the blacklist example, I decided to see if perhaps girls that had already had at least a year to become acclimated to their new environment handled relationships differently. My conclusion is unequivocally NO. My new sentiment is that if a girl is going to be stupid, she’s going to be stupid regardless of age. The only difference is whether or not she can get into Pete’s Dueling Piano Bar in Addison.

Alright, that said, I realize that I have probably overanalyzed the situation. Don’t let that stop you from picking up on the basic ideas contained therein. As Mr. Voorn has happily put it (multiple times I might add), I could “field a softball team with the girls I’ve dated.” First off, I’d like to combat that statement by telling Ian to stick it. Next I’d like to say that that statement is probably also true for many of us (unless you’re Paul and Annabelle) given a timeframe suited to our individual needs. As I said before, some people want or need longer than others.

I will admit that I’ve grown a bit cynical about the situation. I, along with several of my colleagues here on campus, share a slightly satirical view of dating TCU girls. But can you blame us? Don’t think that I haven’t heard the stories about girls getting warned about me by name before they even get to school or the episode of “I’ve Never” at the HIS retreat back in the day. I know you girls talk...a lot. You verbally bash some of the neatest guys into the ground behind their backs all on hearsay. You bend the truth and over-embellish your stories trying to ruin any chance we might have. You kill the opportunity to possibly form some really interesting, productive, and rewarding relationships.

All I can say is don’t hate the player – hate the game. Go ahead and talk it up though. Tell your worst stories about what horrible womanizers we are. I know that I am probably the poster child on the HIS Least Wanted List, but I also realize that I’m not the only guy that gets a bad rep. Ladies, you’re missing out on some really caring, romantic, Godly Christian men. I’m going to be graduating in May. My departing request is only that you don’t do to the newer guys what you did to me. College is a great chance to potentially meet the “one.” I wouldn’t want either you or them to miss out on that chance because of some stupid gossip circle. I know girls who specifically avoid me based solely on what they’ve heard from other girls who heard from still other girls. Cut the crap. Dig deeper into people and make up your own mind.

That’s about all I’ve got on this one. I wish the best to all you folks in the time you have at TCU as well as the years following your graduation. Get out there and have fun with your life. God didn’t create the world to be boring. Share the Word, feel the rhythms around you, and enjoy the fellowship of the good Christian brothers and sisters around you. Have fun kids.

YBIC

- Nathan

Side note to Camille, Jen, Kate, Sara, Jaclyn, Meredith, Cynthia, Courtney, Lisa, Kristina, Jamie, Ashley, Megan, Lindsey, Jennifer, Amanda, Britney, Amanda, Amy, Angie, Megan, Annie, Paige, Laura, Lindsey and Rachel - I hope you’re doing well. I’m curious to see if any of you are interested in putting together a softball team. I think it could be fun…maybe.

THE VOORN PROJECT
home