Last one in the series, decided to use a different format.

A while back I messaged my friends and subscribers with a proposed friendship experiment. Here is what it was, if you still want to do it. I'm still getting some messages weeks later on it, and so I just wanted to post about it.

In the original experiment, I matched you with 3 Xangans you didn't know. If you still want to do it, feel free to pick out names that comment on this post. You should also try this experiment with real-life people you don't know or that you don't know very well.
Here’s how the experiment should work:
1. Feel free to look at their Xanga profiles, but don’t read their blog too much beforehand. If they/you have friends lock, send them a sentence about yourself. (I’m 22, male, married, go to college for engineering for example). This also avoids embarrassing mixups like calling a he a she!
2. Read http://greekphysique.xanga.com/767233438/tips-for-creating-intimacy/ before you talk.
3. Message each other and pick a time to talk for 10 minutes. You can friend each other on Xanga and use the Xanga chat bar, use AIM, or, log into http://tinychat.com/TalkProject at the same time. (For Tinychat, just log in as guest and use your Xanga name). I prefer you use live chat, not email.
4. Try to also talk to strangers/acquaintances using the techniques. Write a blog about your experience, or message me and tell me how it went. Please tell me, which tips worked the best? (and worst?). And was it easier to do it in real life, or on the Internet? I’ll collect the results of the experiment and do a post.
Have fun!

What would a church look like that would truly reflect the Bible's teachings on sex and physical intimacy?

1. Become genuinely interested in other people.
2. Smile.
3. Remember that a person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
5. Talk in terms of the other person's interests.
6. Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely.

I can't claim to be as polished as Mr. Carnegie, but here are some of my tips that have worked over the years:

1. Establish a common sense of humor or joke as soon as possible. This helps smooth over initial awkwardness and serves as a sort of friendship motif. Yes, the world really doesn't need your pirate impersonation or cat posters, but if he/she laughs, go for it.

2. Have a go-to list of safe conversation openers. For example, I ask about vacation and travel a lot, because that's unlikely to be controversial (mostly...carbon footprint issues, ha). Or I might share my photos from a trip as a way of sharing more about myself.

3. Challenge them. This is where Dale and I disagree. When you feel it's a safe topic to do so, challenge them on how they think or on what they did. Do it teasingly, perhaps, but if you seem like you agree with them on everything, I feel the relationship dies from boredom. Yes, challenging a person can end a friendship, but do you want to have to tiptoe around that new friend?

4. Ask them leading questions, and be the first to volunteer information and intimacy. In order to have someone open up to you, you have to take some risks. So maybe you tell them about your frustration with your brother, or your bad date. Or, you ask them "So, what do you think about adoption?" or "Is it hard being an only child?"

5. Prove that you care about them, and compliment wisely. The easy way is to say "Oh, I really enjoyed talking to you" or show it with your body language and expressions. But even better, show them that you're willing to sacrifice a little bit for them. Throw away their trash for them if you're out eating, or tell them you skipped something for them, or otherwise indicate that you are investing in them. Intimacy is hard to achieve if they don't see you doing this. Also, try to be original, sincere, and brief when you compliment them on behavior and/or looks.

6. Recognize if things don't seem to be going well and try something new. Be careful, though, sometimes your new friend is just shy. Sometimes the person just wants time or space before becoming closer to you. But you should ask yourself: "Do I talk about the same things over and over?" "Am I dominating the conversation?" "Am I putting him/her under pressure?" "Are we so different that the polite thing to do is to stop trying for more intimacy?"

Suppose that Mike and Alicia work the night shift at the local fast food restaurant. As they work together, Mike starts opening up to Alicia about his life. He tells her things he's never told anyone before, including the time he was beaten up by the other kids when he was 7. Alicia starts feeling drawn to Mike, seeing a side of him that no one else has seen. She wonders, "Does he really like me?" What do you think Mike is feeling, though?

I learned the hard way that men and women have very different perceptions and reactions to intimacy. Bad news, Alicia...Mike probably doesn't like you. (Or he may be a sophisticated pickup artist with a plan...). He feels safe sharing with her, because men feel safer sharing feelings with women. He may feel gratitude that he can finally share. But...he probably does not feel closer to her physically after opening up to her emotionally. Why?

I could say a lot about how women and men are intimate in friendships, but I'm focusing more on the romantic ramifications of the differences. I have a theory that for women, intimacy is felt in a multidimensional way. If they are close to someone intellectually or emotionally, that can become physical attraction. Intimacy is flexible for them. In fact, *CONTROVERSY ALERT* I think that's why it is a little easier for a woman to be bisexual, because desires for physical intimacy are not so hard-wired into a certain physical look. It's more likely for a woman to fall in love with a close friend. Intimacy is flexible, and it's easier for intimacy to be created or destroyed.

In contrast, male intimacy is very hard-wired. Once a man is physically attracted to a certain woman, it is very hard for him to become un-physically attracted barring major changes. That makes men more consistent. However, it also means that a man can be quite close to a woman intellectually and emotionally, have many items in common, share amazing life experiences...and still not have any desire to have physical intimacy with her. Although, it is true that a woman's vulnerability can trigger a man's protective instincts in some interesting ways. I also feel like intimacy is more of a stable thing for a man.

So what does it all mean? I'm not sure. Draw your own conclusions for relationships between the genders in the comments...and am I right?

I clicked on my posts tagged "Intimacy" and realized I wrote about types of intimacy a little in 2007 (on Christmas Eve for some reason. Why?). I wanted to build on that and talk about types of intimacy. One way to think of intimacy is that feeling of knowing (or discovering) and being known (or encouraging/allowing discovery). I know there are probably other types of intimacy than these, but here's my effort to try to catalog them:

Intellectual Intimacy: I love being in a small group and firing thoughts back and forth. When you truly know someone's mind, then you can anticipate what they do and how they think. Yet, there is always surprise. Your passionately Republican friend is actually pro gun-control because of an experience he had when he was 7 that ties into his ideology about individual rights, and you see a person in a new light as they reveal more. I believe the height of intellectual intimacy is when you're so locked in to the other person, you become one. I enjoy watching duos who have played various games for years work completely on instinct to win, trusting in subconsciousness.

Emotional Intimacy: Are you a discerning person? I really envy people who can sense the feelings of others fully. I still work hard to understand other people's feelings and perspectives. But isn't it beautiful when you get someone? There was a brief period in my life where I had developed a lot of emotional intimacy skills. On the one hand, it was beautiful to identify so easily with people, to understand them. It was such a privilege to be confided in. But on the other hand, imagine what it's like to be in constant contact with the emotions of others, to sense the pain and fear and anger. To be known and to know is so powerful in this area, knowing that you cannot hide, that they know what you feel and why. One almost wants to race back to the shadows again.

Physical Intimacy: Fine, fine, SEX SEX SEX. Yes, being given full access to someone else's body and emotions is an amazing moment of knowledge and discovery. There's a beautiful progression as a couple keeps opening new doors and taking new steps. But I think also, there are so many other little physical intimacies. When someone hates to be touched...and yet lets you hold their hand in public and chokes down their awkwardness, that means a lot. Or when an elderly parent allows their grown child to assist them, in a role reversal that becomes emotional for them both. And take dance or basketball for example. Watching a team weave through patterns, each relying on instinct, moving as one, is an oddly moving experience. Listen, sometime, to athletes speak reverently of that perfect moment, when their bodies obeyed their dreams and they moved together as one on the court or field or floor. Or talk to someone who has been in combat.

Tomorrow we'll get into men, women, and the compartmentalization of intimacy.

My new friend was telling me about his impending breakup with his girlfriend of several years. He seemed calm, almost analytical, talking about what had happened. I figured he was just rehashing the story, and went ahead and gave a story of my own about an experience I had with a woman. He later told me that I was the first person he told, and just how much it took out of him to tell me. I was embarrassed and ashamed. How did I not realize the honor he was giving me to share this painful experience with me? Why did I not realize the cost of his shared intimacy?

I have been thinking about intimacy lately, and decided to illustrate it with a story. It's a surprisingly difficult word to define. Merriam-Webster defines intimacy as
"1. intrinsic, essential b : belonging to or characterizing one's deepest nature

It's another evening, and I have a 20 minute drive to return to my home. I pick up my cell phone and start scrolling through the contact list to figure out who will be my co-pilot on my way home. The list of friends scrolls through my phone...
Allison
Carissa
Dan Gerous
Dpap
Dpot
Em
Emoney
And as each name passes, I have a different reason for not calling each friend, a different excuse to delay intimacy:
No, can't talk to them, it's been too long...it's been too short...we never really have anything to talk about...what do I say?..what's my reason for calling?...Is it ok to just pick up the phone and say "hey"?
Enr
Galumph
James
Javen
Jen
Jerm
Oh come on, they want to know how you're doing...but no one cares anyway...oh shut up, you've been in the office too long, pick a name already, you're already on 5th street...I'd call him, but I don't know that we have much in common anymore...but how do you know if you don't call?...come on, guys don't call each other, we just don't do that...shut up and call...he wouldn't call me, would he? Skip him...

There's a different reason not to talk to each, and in the end, I call someone from my close circle of friends, skip the rest, and go on my way*. My question is, why does the thought of intimacy, of knowing and being known, become so painful or needlessly complex? What is it about intimacy that makes us refuse to share it with many people who we would consider friends? Some of us even take it further and have problems renewing acquaintances with inanimate objects ; read Nightcometh's perceptive and honest blog on the topic.

I would think (and could be wrong) that most of us have the problem of being too intimate with a few people and not intimate enough with a larger group of people. Why does this happen? What is it about a social exchange, a reciprocal conversation, that intimidates us into walking away? Maybe it's just those of us who are a little more shy (and I would consider myself to be on the shy side, overall), but I tend to think it goes deeper than that. For extraverts, they talk more, but they too can be frustrated that they never really get to share what they most care about. But what is it that holds them back? We need intimacy; why do we refuse to let ourselves be known or to know more about someone else?

*For the record, I think the reason why the phone thing happens to me is I just want tension-free conversation, and calling someone you don't talk to as much becomes awkward quickly, at least at first. Still, why not more variety? Why so much tension about what should be just a harmless conversation?

A kiss is just a kiss--or is it? A popular controversy in Christian youth groups back in my day was "how far is too far?" in physical contact in the dating relationships. Some dating couples eschew kissing and/or dancing as greasing the slippery slope toward sexual immorality. Other couples saw such activities as ways to express physical affection that are permitted to married or unmarried couples. (If you're non-Christian and sexually active, you're just laughing at this post. Go away and leave us monks and nuns alone already, ok? ha.) So who's right?

Well, time.com, that bastion of Christian conservative thinking (hee-hee) had an interesting comment about kissing in the midst of their scientific "Why We Love" article. Quite honestly, most of the article was a useless rehash of well-known information, but this stuck out:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1704355-3,00.html

"The internal chemical tempest that draws us together hits Category 5 when sex gets involved. If it's easy for a glance to become a kiss and a kiss to become much more, that's because your system is trip-wired to make it hard to turn back once you're aroused. That the kiss is the first snare is no accident.

Not only does kissing serve the utilitarian purpose of providing a sample of MHC, but it also magnifies the other attraction signals—if only as a result of proximity. Scent is amplified up close, as are sounds and breaths and other cues. And none of that begins to touch the tactile experience that was entirely lacking until intimate contact was made. "At the moment of a kiss, there's a rich and complicated exchange of postural, physical and chemical information," says Gallup. "There are hardwired mechanisms that process all this."

What's more, every kiss may also carry a chemical Mickey, slipped in by the male. Though testosterone is found in higher concentrations in men than in women, it is present in both genders and is critical in maintaining arousal states. Traces of testosterone make it into men's saliva, particularly among men who have high blood levels of the hormone to start with, and it's possible that a lot of kissing over a long period may be a way to pass some of that natural aphrodisiac to the woman, increasing her arousal and making her more receptive to even greater intimacy."

Some interesting ammunition for the anti-physical contact folks, don't you think? Those of you dating no doubt will flounce angrily away from this post and be rather irate with me. No, Cupid's blood is not on my hands, and I do not pass out black licorice hearts on Valentine's Day. I just thought this information was fascinating enough that you should be aware of it. I have to admit, it's forcing me to re-evaluate my own standards.

PS The astute long-term reader recognizes this as my first salvo, err, post on love leading up to Valentine's Day. It's a yearly tradition on here. As usual, I start by depressing my readers and making romantic relationships seem harder than they already are. Yes! Next week, I'll provide you with stats on why 99.8% of the opposite gender is out of your league or scum. Kidding!

Hi folks. I know the last post sounded a little sour. I just wanted to explain that it was my goal to talk about all the good stuff in the first post, and the bad stuff in the second. I thought I would briefly add one more benefit of Internet intimacy: talking to famous or newsworthy people. On occasion, I'll see someone who interests me on TV, or read an interesting column in the paper, and then go look the person on-line and try to talk to them. Surprisingly, this works more often than you'd think. Here's some of the people who I talked to via the Internet:

Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter
WNBA player
Runner-up on America's Next Top Model
Famous scientist (might win a Nobel one day)
Michael W. Smith band member
ESPN reporter (met in person too)
Mega-bloggers who get millions of views a month

And some of those were rather lengthy conversations, too! Very rarely do people refuse to e-mail back, because I do my homework beforehand and make sure to have relevant conversations. I've also met several Internet people in real life, gone on trips/stayed with people I met on the Internet, used it for forming business/hobby relationships, etc. And I can't say I've ever had a bad experience in person (funny experiences, yes!). 

Of course, there's also the "oh-no" list on-line: men impersonating women (including a rather nasty case of a pastor doing so), women with eating disorders and severe depression who just want attention rather than help, perverts, cruel and vindictive folk, etc. But for the most part, I've talked to quality people. It's just that eventually, I find myself turning to virtual relationships instead of putting in the hard work of developing real-life friendships. I hate it when I fall for this, because then I become distant to the people in my life for the sake of some shadowy friend on-line. But it seems like it happens way too often. Any advice on how to get better balance? I'll be a little vulnerable here, because I appreciate my readers and would love to keep this up. But I am so disappointed in myself when real life suffers because of computer time. And the problem is, it seems to be a struggle for everyone who gets on-line; I don't think I'm being particularly "edgy" by making this observation. Right? or wrong? Perhaps its as theotica said in the last post; it would be the same struggle for some of us even if we were still sending paper letters rather than e-mail. But maybe not.