Andy Borgmann's Blog

One of the key sponsors of the conference Allen and I just left was The Kim Komando Show. If you don't know who that is, she does a "technology" talk radio show. It's mildly informative. But her appeal is that she is sexy (sort of...ok not really, but you can tell she thinks she is).

Anyways...so she's hosting this luncheon and sure enough, it is like the sorority house at Arizona State University let out and the babes are just everywhere. It went from a conference of balding, fat, old men in their 50s to American Pie Beta House. She even went as far as putting one girl with very nice breasts (yeah I noticed, leave me alone) in a very nice, but provocative formal dress that had a slit up to the middle of her thigh with her boobs hanging out. As you can imagine, with a conference full of men, it was a huge success (even though her talk was mediocre).

Right as Kim's talk was about to start, Allen mentions to Phil about how there are all these young girls around and maybe Andy will find a date. I, hardly amused, say, "that would never work out", and get back to what I was doing. Allen then says, "I think Andy's gay." So why are you wrapping up your series on Lori Gottlieb's article Marry Him! with this. Simple...

My conclusion after spending nearly two weeks thinking about this is that I think Gottlieb is right and wrong. She is right for woman. You should probably settle. But she is wrong for men. I know. Super sexist huh? But it is true.

I say this for two reasons. It is unfair, but true, that women have more of a deadline facing them in the event that they are looking to have a family. Gottlieb goes into great detail on why this is true.

But my reasoning is not simply biological. It is sociological as well. Woman have an uncanny ability in dealing with disappointment. If marriage isn't what they thought it was, or their husband doesn't turn into John Cusack, they deal with it. I sincerely envy women because of this.

Men on the other hand don't. I am not saying this is good. I am not saying they shouldn't work on it. But the fact is, men are awful at dealing with disappointment in relationships. Hence the reason a majority of divorces are due to men looking for what they feel they missed in getting married. Therefore men should pay particular attention to what they are looking for in a marriage when they are dating and stick to it.

So what does this have to do with ASU sorority girls above? Simple. I am not gay. I am persistent. I am not settling for anything that won't realistically work out in the long run. And while I can never be John Cusack in Say Anything, and the sex probably won't be like Aaron Eckhart and Katie Holmes in Thank You For Smoking, I still have what I am looking for, and not settling for anything less.

So if there are any fun, cute girls, who are cool being in ministry, look forward to having an adventurous sex life, love Jesus, love to travel, and are pretty independent looking to settle, feel free to shoot me an e-mail (extra bonus points if you have blond hair ).

I hate the grocery store. I usually go once a month. The longest time inbetween grocery store trips on record since moving to Georgia is three months. I have to say, and as sexists as this sounds, I look forward to getting married in hopes that I never have to go to the grocery store again. But the grocery store has one positive, and no it isn't the lonely, single girls who think the grocery store is a great place to pick up guys (it isn't). The #1 best thing about the grocery store: I can still push the cart through the store and ride on it like superman. Immature? Absolutely. But this brings me to a profound thought: I am glad I don't have ovaries...

Welcome to part 4 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do!

This is the universally unfair deal breaker that truly proves it is harder to be a woman than a man. Like the picture above, a single man in his 30s has relatively little worry about his singleness. He still has plenty of time to start his family Better yet, not only can he start a family, men seem to get more attractive to woman as they age, so he will be able to find a woman to start a family with. Thus, the man is free to go strolling through the grocery store like superman.

But it isn't quite true for his potential equal half. In contrast, a single woman in her 30s knows full well that her time to create the family she always dreamed of is coming to a quicker end than she would like. In addition to that, the older she gets, the less attractive and interesting she is to members of the opposite sex. It's a lose, lose. She isn't free to approach her 30s as an free wheeling time to go romping through grocery stores. She has a clock and a calendar to worry about.

I am not saying it is fair. In fact, I wish it weren't the case. I truly mean that. If I had any say, there would be some equalizing factor that would allow a woman to act like superwoman, or at least bring men down a peg. But the truth is the truth, and that is what we deal with here. No matter how hard it is to accept.

So where does this leave us. Well, in an unprecedented move, I am splitting Lori Gottlieb's score. She gets a point for the "woman" side, but does not get a point for the male side. This leaves her score 2-2 for woman, and 1-3 for men.

Which brings me back to the question at hand: is Lori Gottlieb right? Should we be much more willing to settle for love? You'll have to tune in tomorrow for my conclusion, but I'll give you a hint: the aforementioned score tally should indicate where I am landing and I may never get a date after this.

I once got into a heated argument in a restaurant in Elat, Israel on whether or not chick flicks were as damaging to relationships as porn. My position: yes! In fact, it is worse because chick flicks are more subtle...

Welcome to part 3 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

In my formative years, romance was John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything.

What fascinates me is she uses the same person as my favorite writer Chuck Klosterman in Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs

If Cusack and I were competing for the same woman, I could easily accept losing. However, I don't really feel like John and I were "competing" for the girl I'm referring to, inasmuch as her relationship to Cusack was confined to watching him as a two-dimensional projection pretending to be characters who don't actually exist.
Page 2, Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs

As a single, 20-something man who has a bit of an ego and no problem asking women out, I completely understand what he is saying. In the marketplace of "dating," I can't compete with Say Anything. I don't compare with Matthew McConaughey in How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days. And if they were real people, really "competing" for the same woman, like Chuck, I wouldn't mind losing to them. But they aren't real! And you know full well the real John and Matt would make awful boyfriends and worse husbands.

And before you respond, "ohh I like those movies, but I don't expect that in real life," all I have to say is bull crap! Chuck is correct again when he writes:

[men and women] will both measure our relationship against the prospect of fake love...The main problem with mass media is that it makes it impossible to fall in love with any acumen of normalcy.
Page 3-4, Sex, Drugs, & Cocoa Puffs

A couple of months ago or so I had a conversation at Starbucks with one of my "Stolen" girls. She is smart, funny, attractive, successful, ambitious; simply put: she is amazing. But she said something that floored me. She signed up for internet dating. What!? She even made the statement that, modesty aside, she thought her and [a couple of her friends] were real "catches" but they never get pursued. They don't get asked out.

And while, yes, I will beat up on men for becoming wusses (especially within the church), I have to say they have some justification in being wusses given that the perceived expectation is so high. Which brings me back to Gottlieb's comment on settling...

Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.

I have to give her the point for today (if you are keeping track, settling is up on not-settling 2 to 1). I sometimes think I would be happier abandoning my expectations because I have come to realize these expectations are built on fictionist fantasies. It isn't that I don't want to find true love, it just seems that true love is fundamentally different than what we have seen. And just as I don't expect my wife to be Pamela Anderson, I shouldn't have to be John Cusack.

You are given two options:

Option #1: You get married. Have a great family. Love your kids. Love your wife. For the most part, your life is full and complete. You are content. But here is the catch: there is little or no passion in your life. It's boring.

Option #2: You have an incredibly passionate life. You are successful with your work, you pursue your interests, and you have wonderful friends. Life is rarely dull, but you never get married.

Which do you choose...

Welcome to part 2 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

Here's the unfortunate thing about the above scenario. Most of us don't get to pick, it just sort of happens. But if you could pick, which would you? I think Gottlieb would pick option #1 and here's why...

Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.

This is about the most disappointing thing I think I read in the article. As Allen said to me, "you're never going to get married now are you?"

But I want my cake and eat it to. I want option #1 and #2. And (for now) I won't settle for less. So I continue to search. But will anybody I find out there be any better than anybody else I have previously dated?

...while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the [boring] orthodontist, 10 years earlier?

Here's the catch. I think we do think she will be happier with Ross because we project our own theoretical happiness on their relationship. But in reality, if this were the real world, she wouldn't be.

So what is the point to dating and searching for "the one?" I find that all of my past relationships have failed because of one of four reasons (which I will explain more later this week). Is there a point in looking for someone who meets all four? Will it make me any happier than someone with three?

I don't know the answer to it. And even though she probably deserves it, I won't give Gottlieb the point on this one. I just can't. I am 25 and I am going to hold onto the idea that marriage is more than a boring nonprofit. I at least hold onto hope that it is a sexy, exciting nonprofit, and I am going to keep looking for someone to give my tax deductible "donations" to.

On our way to Phoenix, Allen threw an issue of The Atlantic at me and told me to read an article titled Marry Him! by Lori Gottlieb. It's long, but it's well worth the read.

Here's the brief synopsis of the "feminist" writer (picture Carrie Bradshaw): she decide she was getting too old to have a baby the "traditional way" because she couldn't settle on a husband, so she was artificially inseminated. The realization that followed was that she wishes she just would have settled and got married to one of the men she dated in her 30s. That's hardly a romantic position. That's hardly a feminist position. And it is a position I am not sure if I am comfortable with. But I do think the article is profound in many ways...

Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).

I am not 40. I know, brilliant. I am not a woman. Even more brilliant. I have no clue if this is true or not. But I believe her. It's kind of like that old adage you never see a tombstone with, "I wish I spent more time at the office" written on it. Humans desire the companionship of marriage (and by extension, a family) more than anything else.

It's like in the Bible where Paul talks about staying single unless you can't control the "passion" inside. Most pastor's will teach the passion is in reference to sexual desire. I think those pastor's fundamentally miss what Paul is talking about. It seems more likely he's talking about companionship. He's talking about knowing someone so intimately that the relationship transcends all other relationships. And when you think about it, that's harder to abstain from than sexual pleasure.

So she continues...

Is it better to be alone, or to settle?

[married woman], like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection...

I found this interesting because of an all female chapel I sat through at APU. I was the only man in the room of some 1,200 college females (and I still couldn't get a date, but to my credit, I was in an invisible room directing the event). But one of the speakers was doing a Q&A about being single in her 40s and someone asked simply, "aren't you ever lonely?"

Her response was simple and it stuck with me. "Sure I get lonely, but so do my married friends."

I have often reflected on that statement over the years and found solace in the idea that the loneliness that comes with singleness doesn't go away in marriage, it just mutates. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that being single and lonely isn't any different than being married and lonely. At least being single I can travel the world, right?

But Lori's article got me rethinking this whole position. Because 4.5 years later I think she is right. Every single person I know past the age of 23 (except one) would probably admit they desire a full marriage relationship, even when they acknowledge that marriage is hard.

But there are no married people I know who want to leave a marriage because it is lonely (they may want to leave for other reasons, but loneliness is not it). Therefore, there must be something fundamentally different, and secondary, to the loneliness found in marriage when compared to the loneliness found in singleness.

So far, Lori wins 1 point on should I settle or should I not. Lets see what the rest of the week brings, but I promise she won't win them all...

I checked the mail today and got a save the date from Kim in Minneapolis. Kim always draws my mind towards two things: 1.) the fact I wanted to date her my first two years of college, and 2.) the song Champagne High by Sister Hazel - which incidentally is about a guy at a wedding who realized how he missed his chance. So you think you know why this song reminds me of her don't you? You'd be wrong...

You think the song reminds me of her because I somehow think I missed my chance with her? Sorry. Nope. I never asked her on a date because she was in a relationship when I knew her and then she moved. That was pretty much the end of it and I don't feel like I missed anything.

Ok if that isn't it, you think she introduced me to the song? Wrong again. That would be Sara.

But the song does draw my mind to two girls I do feel like I missed my opportunity. I know when I get the save the dates to their weddings I will feel like I am on a "Champagne High."

But the day's irony doesn't end there. I have recently been trying to digitize all the Scrubs episodes for my iPod. Sure enough, the next episode after visiting the mailbox was "My Cold Shower." This is one of my top 5 favorite Scrubs episodes. But it is particularly fitting for the Champagne High moment. Scrubs decided to use Stolen instead of Champagne High in the last scene - probably my favorite scene in all of Scrubs - but I don't blame them, it fits.

That scene is so powerful. That feeling is so raw. Maybe I am the only one. But I understand the emotion in this scene. It's like in Top Gun when Meg Ryan tells Kelly McGillis that there are "hearts broken all over he world tonight...because unless you are a fool that boy is off the market."

Most of you know how devoted I am to work and what I do is pretty much my life. So this next statement should not be taken lightly. If you could tell me, 100% for sure either one of the relationships would work out, I would drop what I do and move there in a second - even if it meant working at McDonald's.

But I have no guarantee either would work out, so I don't do it. Maybe it is because I am not a romantic, and am a realist (*read* cynic). Maybe it's because I am a wuss. Maybe it's because I believe in fate. Maybe it is because I think as soon as I get what I want, I no longer want it. Whatever it is, I stay here in Alpharetta.

But this post isn't about them. It is about singleness. It's about missed opportunity. The realist in me moves on. The realist in me looks for "their qualities" in others. The realist in me knows there will be others, and there will be one that is even better. But then again...here's hoping to Atlanta's job growth and maybe some job will "steal" one of them to Atlanta. Here's hoping. I'll keep a bottle of champagne ready...

I recently added the song I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) by Meatloaf to my iPod. I know it is a bit of a classic, and it takes me back to Middle School, but in a more recent context it got me thinking about sex. Welcome to part two of my blog's discussion on Good Sex

"Will you engage in oral sex once you are married?" This is a question I have posed to countless single, 20-something, Christians and Non-Christians that I have a trusted relationship with from Indiana to Los Angeles to Jerusalem to Atlanta. The responses have been quite surprising. Heard everything from "absolutely not," to "yeah, who wouldn't," and everything in between. But I think it gets to the heart of the real question, which is: what is sexually appropriate within a marriage?

Now for this discussion I am not talking about pre-marital activity (we can debate that some other time) nor am I talking about homosexual behavior. This is about what is appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

For example, I had a professor in college that said his fiancée came to him before they were getting married and wanted him to list all of his sexual fantasies. After getting married, she did all these fantasies, because she wanted him to think of her when he thought of these fantasies and nobody else. I had another couple I know well that is dating come to an agreement that when they get married, one of the first things they will do is go to the local sex store and each pick "something" out. I know another married couple who isn't using birth control, and on days of the month where she is most likely ovulating, they do, as he put it, "other stuff."

On the other hand, I know of marriages that have fallen apart because one partner was uncomfortable with what was asked sexually (which for privacy I won't get into those details).

The church does an awful job of talking about this topic. It makes comments like "sex is good," but the term is so ambiguous that it still leaves so much confusion for the married and single alike. Even on our show, we have had people call in with questions about oral sex and anal sex during open mic, and even though we don't mind talking about swinging or pornography, etc...we don't ever seem to take those calls.

Well that all ends here. We are going to do something interesting on the blog that I have never done before. I am not going to give you what I think until I hear from everyone else out there. I usually get about 200-300 visitors, yet never get that many responses. So I know you are out there. I want to hear from everybody. Feel free to lie about your name and e-mail address. "Who" you are is not important. But what you have to say about this topic is. And be honest! Married, single, engaged. Christian, Non-Christian, Atheist. It doesn't matter. Pass this along to your friends. I want to hear from anybody and everybody. What is your perception of a healthy sexual relationship and how do you draw the line on what you feel comfortable with and what you don't?

To get you thinking, consider the following items (but I want you to be more philosophical in response then just responding to a laundry list)

• Oral sex
• Anal sex
• Sexual fantasy or role playing
• Using pornography
• Swinging or "Threesomes"
• Using sex toys
• Adventurous and/or Sex in Public Settings

Seriously. How do you establish what is and is not ok within the boundaries of a healthy sexual marriage? I will explain what I think in a comment later on this week but for those of you who want a really boring, long read, you are welcome to check out my senior thesis on the topic.

I am an avid Bones fan. If you are unfamiliar with Bones you are missing out. But a quick summary so you can understand this blog. Dr. Temperance Brennan (Bones - or "the girl") is a brilliant, but lonely, anthropologist. Her partner is FBI agent Seely Booth ("Booth" or "the guy"). They solve murders. Before you read further, watch this clip.

This 2:30 does a better job talking about sexuality than any sermon/lesson/book I have ever experienced. Who knew the Fox cooperation could do more on the topic of sex than find news anchorwoman with really big boobs? But seriously, I love this clip. And if sermons approached sexuality from Booth's angle, I think we would be more effective at teaching a healthy, God-oriented view of sexuality.

While I will take issue with Booth's comments about fetishes (which I am actually planning on discussing in my next blog post), I think he is spot on. Sex is a miracle. What I love about the TV show Bones is that the continual dilemma of the show is basically summarized in the rational (Bones) vs. the irrational (Booth).

I typically find myself to be a insanely rational person, which can make me a "cold" individual at times. But I have a faith that essentially asks me to be irrational, because faith by definition is trusting in what we cannot see. Now in our hyper-educated society, irrationalization is usually seen as a point of weakness. Reason is the god of the 21st century. And part of me identifies with this. But it is that same reason that eventually leads me back to faith, thus it is reason that brings me back to irrationalization. And sex is at the heart of it.

Creation I believe is the best evidence for God, and I think He wanted it that way. The complexities of our universe, and even our own bodies just could not have happened completely random. That is all fine and good, but that doesn't mean God is personal or loving or even good. But I think love and sex are the evidence of that. And I think subconsciously we know this to be true. It is why it is the one thing we all seem to long for and desire, but don't really know why (seriously, why do you desire to be loved?). And subconsciously, I think it is also why the church tries to defend it so vehemently (although usually it fails in its methods).

For example, did you know that the clitoris (as Family Guy puts it: "Nature's Rubik's Cube") has no other function whatsoever that to provide women with sexual pleasure? It is the only organ in either male or female that's sole purpose is sexual pleasure. What does that say about our Creator (other than that he is nicer to women than men)? Have you ever stopped and thought about why sex is pleasurable? Seriously. What evolutionary purpose is served by sex being pleasurable; by it being bonding; by it being, dare I say irrational.

I once read an author that said the sexual orgasm is the closest thing we come to experiencing the euphoria of God's entire goodness; or maybe better put it is the closest thing to heaven. In addition to that, the phrase, "with our bodies we worship Thee" used to be included in wedding vows. Why? Because sexuality, good sexuality, is designed to be such a transcendent experience that it can no better be described as worship. The miracle of two, trying to become one, even though physically and scientifically impossible, becomes possible through the act of sexuality. And that my friends is a God I can worship. That is a God I can trust to be irrational.

With that said, I look forward to a very interesting discussion in my next post about what good sex in marriage is like.

Please note this article was originally written for my Newsvine Column so verbiage is slightly different.

We interviewed David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots yesterday in London in preparation for a show we are doing this weekend roughly titled "Why We Get Married?" His prediction is that by 2050, Massachusetts will be the first state to legalize human-robot marriages.

This got me thinking about evolution (which I am sure has got Mykola floored). Now, I am not a total believer in evolution. This is not to say I don't think it could be true - I have no quarrels with the theory. I just don't think scientifically there is the evidence for Macro-evolution. But that is not really my point. My point is that if evolution is true, I think robots are going to be the end of human existence.

We usually think of the end of human existence with robots something a-la-Terminator or Matrix. There is a giant war between the robots and their creator, yet inferior humans. But robots are far too smart for that. They are going to take over the world more subtly.

In the interview, we started to talk about if a human-robot marriage will be able to have kids. Sure enough, David responded by saying that the robot will be designed to produce genetically similar mini-robots that will combine traits from the "natural human" and the robot. Thus making kids.

So here goes. In theory, all things being equal and morality set aside, I think humans will naturally want to have relationships with robots more than humans assuming you can't tell the difference between the way a robot looks/acts/talks/etc...when compared to a human. Why? Because life could be all about the human. Everybody could marry a supermodel or "Dr. McDreamy." The robot could cook and clean, etc...sex would be what you want, when you want, how you want, etc...You could have the number of kids you want, not what your spouse wants. You would have no in-laws. It is essentially one less person to "feed / house / pay for." Conversation would always be about what you want to talk about, and it can be as deep, intimate, or shallow as you would want. You could essentially create a life that is all about you.

Now, throw in that the robot can manufacture robot kids and then you have the start of an evolutionary process that essentially wipes out the human race. Sure there will be some that will hold on (I'd like to think I would be one of them), but sooner or later the robots will become the far superior race and with survival of the fittest kicking in, they will easily be the next step in the evolutionary chain.

Side notes:

1. I should state for the record that a.) I don't think human-robot relationships are a morally acceptable and valid form of intimate relationship, and b.) I don't believe that robots really will be the end of human existence. But it is interesting nevertheless.
2. P.S. You should really listen to the interview if you have 6 minutes. I think it is really interesting and, yes, I am the "Andy" they make fun of in the middle of the segment for not being able to find a girl.
   http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Home/play.php?FileURL=...

This past month I turned 25. I decided to spend it like I did most of my weekends this summer: down at the beach on Hilton Head Island. It was real low key - and if you know anything about me - that's the way I like my birthdays (isn't that right Patrick ).

I originally sat down to write this while at the condo in Hilton Head, but I got distracted by a beautiful woman who still has 3 years to turn 25, hit save, and haven't touched it since. But I am glad I didn't because it wasn't until this past weekend that I knew what my point was with it, and here it is: I was never suppose to get this old.

This past weekend, Molly's parents and I dropped Molly off at Samford University for her to start her 4th and final year of college (I'll blog about that experience later). The ride home was really quite enjoyable as Molly's parents and I had some great conversation. As we were entering the greater Atlanta area, Molly's mom started talking about how weird it was to drop Molly off this weekend, and her younger sister a couple weekends earlier (actually the weekend I turned 25), and next year they are going to be dropping off their youngest. As we passed over 285 she made the comment, "I was never suppose to get this old." And after reflecting on this further this past week, I have to say that I think she is right.

I am not going to bore you with another discussion on why time proves there is a heaven. If you missed that, you can check it out here. But what I do think after putting some thought into this is how often life tells us exactly what we need to know, yet we ignore it. It is moments like these that God uses to remind us that something is seriously wrong with what we call life. Yet do we notice?

What happened to high school? Remember longing to get your driver's license? Or showing up for the football game to meet friends? Or getting ready for Prom? And then we moved on to college and how many of us woke up the day after graduation, looked in the mirror and just said in that subdued, quasi-depressed tone, "wow, it's over." And if you are reading this and are older than say 25, I am sure you are thinking, this kid doesn't even know the half of it; and you'd be right. I can't even imagine what it is like watching my kid grow up and go to college and start a life on their own and have their own kids just to start the process all over again.

Whether turning 25 or dropping your youngest kid off at college, it is only natural to feel as if something isn't right with the equation. We were suppose to live for eternity. We were created to live outside the bounds of time. But what do we do with that feeling? Do we just get depressed and long to have the moments back? Do we take the opposite approach and start freaking out and attempt to grab every single moment we can while driving everyone else around us nuts? Or do we simply cherish the moments we are currently having because we know they too will be short, but take solace in the idea that one day it will all be corrected? I am not sure how I am going to react, but I do hope these moments always draw me closer to - not further from - my God and my loved ones.