Religous Dating

[Equois]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

Many posters complaining about their SO are usualy about things religion is against...... Porn/cheating/ being materialistic etc...

 

 

Have you ever visited the marriage forum on this website? Most of the posts are about sexless/ abusive unhappy marriages....everything the bible is against.

 

Loving and caring for your SO and putting them before everyone (including yourself) except God is a fundemental trait of anyone who takes religion seriously.

 

Never denying your body to your spouse (also a Christian teaching) would solve alot of those 'sexless' marriage issues I see on the marriage forums.

 

Why are so many so eager to blow off a sincere Christian but yet so eager to adopt to this 'MTV/real tv' dating lifestyle when it has been shown again and again to completely

flounder in comparison to the traditional way?

[Queen Zenobia]

Well I'm a Christian, but I do understand why someone who isn't religious wouldn't want to date a religious person. There are probably plenty of religious folk who will date other religious folk. Relationships that aren't compatible on religious or spiritual views will probably not work out.

 

I get the feeling though that this is about more than just why people aren't open to dating religious folk...

[Carlos S]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

I'll deal with with question first because I think it's a question in itself. Keep in mind you said 'very religious' and not simply someone who identifies themselves with a religion, although what I say might still be applicable.

 

I was a little surprised to see so many others on LS who wouldn't date someone 'very religious', because I had never heard this talk about in real life. I'm one of them.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I think many who would avoid religious SOs would agree. I could write a entire thesis on it, but I'll try to keep it short and sharp.

 

The reason: it indicates a fundamental mismatch in values.

 

I'm an someone who:

- Loves gaining knowledge

- Loves truth

- Loves reason

 

And along with that, loving critical inquiry and science.

 

The reason: they've gotten humanity so damn far. And they're still getting us damn far.

 

Being highly religious is antithetical to these values. Why? It is in some way or another a persistent, deliberate suspension of reason and a deliberate suspension of the search for knowledge. No wonder it's called a 'faith'.

 

For all the compelling claims that religions have, they should have compelling evidence. They have none. If anything, all the evidence points to is that they are entire man-made.

 

Not only is religion seeking answers from the words of others who have not factual basis for their claims, but it is usually listening to the words of men who have lived hundreds of years ago, with not a clue as to how much we know now.

 

Many posters complaining about their SO are usualy about things religion is against...... Porn/cheating/ being materialistic etc...

 

Oh I don't think this is necessarily true of religious people at all. It might be you, but it doesn't necessarily apply to everybody. Just look at Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind

 

Have you ever visited the marriage forum on this website? Most of the posts are about sexless/ abusive unhappy marriages....everything the bible is against.

 

Loving and caring for your SO and putting them before everyone (including yourself) except God is a fundemental trait of anyone who takes religion seriously.

 

Never denying your body to your spouse (also a Christian teaching) would solve alot of those 'sexless' marriage issues I see on the marriage forums.

 

Why are so many so eager to blow off a sincere Christian but yet so eager to adopt to this 'MTV/real tv' dating lifestyle when it has been shown again and again to completely

flounder in comparison to the traditional way?

 

Again, I don't think you can generalize your own attitudes and actions to all members of your faith.

 

I certainly think who you give or deny your body to is one of the biggest decisions to make, and I'd hate to think of anything that would impair that autonomy.

 

I don't know what you call 'MTV' dating. But yes, society changes, and courtship and dating ritual change

[Zaphod B]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

The thing is if you're a non-believer married to a believer, you'll most likely be seen as a sinner who needs salvation. You'll be their pet project. Who wants to be that? Who wants to be with someone who thinks you are lesser than them and someone that needs saving?

 

Not only that, but many religious people will take offence at the silliest little thing. Any negative talk about God or the bible and oh oh... trouble! Why would you want to have to walk around on broken glass all the time, having to worry about offending someone's religious beliefs? In a relationship you want to be able to talk about anything and not have to worry about cuasing offence. Another thing is a religious person has such a different view of the world to an agnostic or atheist. There would be many heated arguments as there always is when topics of religion come up. And I don't know about others here but when I hear things like "it was a miracle!" or "Praise God for this" and "praise God for that", it irritates the hell out of me because I see natural and scientific reasons for those things. To me, it's giving into ignorance and not allowing oneself to look at things rationally and logically. That really irritates me now and I'd probably get pissed off at my partner if she carried on like that.

 

For me I was a dedicated Christian for over 30 years of my life. Now, I wouldn't say I wouldn't get in a relationship with a Christian, but I'd be reluctant to. I love agnostic and atheist women because I can sit with them and poke fun at religion and have great laughs with them about it. It's so liberating and refreshing to be with a woman like that. I wouldn't get that with a Christian woman. I'd most likely upset her.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zaphod B

[oaks]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

I already have hobbies that I like to do in my spare time and I don't feel the need to have to set aside a special day every week to go through some special rituals that don't seem particularly enjoyable when I could be either doing the things I enjoy doing or sleeping in late.

[Emilia]

I would never date a religious person because I would struggle to respect someone who doesn't process information based on rigorous arguments but simply chooses to believe. I think organised religions have caused many wars, they still do and I sort of doubt a person's intellect if they accept a belief system without questioning it. That's not very bright

[oaks]

I would never date a religious person because I would struggle to respect someone who doesn't process information based on rigorous arguments but simply chooses to believe. I think organised religions have caused many wars, they still do and I sort of doubt a person's intellect if they accept a belief system without questioning it. That's not very bright

 

Ha! I like your thinking.

 

(Although I suspect that we would still have had many of those wars if we didn't have organised religions - people would've found other differences to fight over.)

[ThsAmericanLife]

I have dated very religious men before, and lived in the Deep South (aka the 'Bible Belt') for quite a long time as well.

 

Based on that experience, I would have a hard time going down that path again because of alot of the reasons people have posted here... but also because (at least the way it is practiced in the US)... women are considered secondary to the husband.

 

For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention actually dictates that women be submissive and that the man has final authority in all matters. The Catholic church refuses to allow women as priests or hold any position of authority.

 

I assume that most strongly religious men hold this belief... that they really don't want a full partnership with a woman... that getting married to them is more about getting live in maid/sex/nanny services while they get to throw their manhood around because some book said so.

 

This is not the kind of relationship I want.

[rightfield]

Christian women tend to think sex is wrong, only for recreation, that it's "dirty", that the male genitals are disgusting.

 

That's why I wouldn't date one, even when married it would be completley sexless.

 

 

Whoops. Incorrect generalization here. I had a long and positive relationship with a religious woman who rocked my world in bed. She had a very healthy appetite for sex, and that part of our relationship was absolutely NEVER a problem.

 

Your milage may vary...

[Yamaha]

Political correctness..

 

That and all the other reasons people don't want to associate with people of faith ( not very smart to rely on faith, causes of wars, science is the answer, not fun, a prude when it comes to sex, etc......).

 

It is your right to believe what you want so BELIEVE IT...

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Equois, I think it's combination of things. Religion is a highly charged and passionate pursuit. Like politics or sex. And people tend to want to find someone like minded in these facets. Religion also gets a bad name because of religious fundementalists. I'm a Christian myself but I know that when I tell people that they are judging me because they are worried that I'm judging them. And I'm not. it use to be harder for me to tell people I was Christian and I wouldn't. But I am more comfortable with who I am and proud to be one. And just because I am a Christian, doesn't mean I even think all Christian material is right in how it teaches the Bible. That's another assumption people make. THere is just too much judging all around on both sides of the coin. Non-religious people judge religious people for fear of being judged and vice versa.

 

I just saw a story this weekend based around 9/11. There was a Muslim woman that's husband worked in the restuarant at the top of the World Trade Center tower. He worked there as a second job. He parrished in the towers and she became a World Trade Center Tower widow, just like thousands of other women who weren't Muslims. But people would spit on her and do awful things to her even though she was a widow who lost her husband just like the other women. There was another woman who was muslim who came to volunteer and help clean up in the aftermath. A group of young white men drove by her slowly slapping her on her head as she stood in the dust and debris helping to clean up. She looke down humilated and saddened. People make assumptions about people based on their religion. And that's what it comes down to.

[sm1tten]

I would not date someone who was religious at all, because I'm an atheist and we therefore have a fundamental incompatibility in our belief systems. And that's pretty much it. All the rest of it is very YMMV.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Sm1tten, what is YMMV?

[Equois]

Wasnt it Stephen Hawking that said if u change any of the constants (which there are hundreds) of the universe by one part of one millionth to one millionth degree that no life would have evolved ANYWHERE? I think science takes a bit of faith aswel.

 

But i digress.

 

I can see how an athiest and christian wouldnt fit well together, but i have read no comments denying that religious marriages are much more succesful than the current dating/marriage scene. Seems to me that if a happy, rewarding, fullfilled relationship is what im looking for, than finding a religous women should be my 1st quality to look for?

 

I will continue reading in hopes you can prove me wrong..... but im not optomistic.

 

 

And to the poster that wanted to date a non religious person so you could make fun of religious people; i think you could find a lot of insight into yourself by really reading what you wrote ;D

 

 

Equois

[KathyM]

Christian women tend to think sex is wrong, only for recreation, that it's "dirty", that the male genitals are disgusting.

 

That's why I wouldn't date one, even when married it would be completley sexless.

That's not true. Christian women who follow the Bible's teachings believe that sex is a gift created by God, to be given to your husband generously and willingly. Something to be enjoyed between a husband and wife, and that the human body is a beautiful creation. I know a lot of Christian married couples who enjoy sex with their spouse very much. I am one of them.

[Scottdmw]

I see a lot of questionable generalizations about religious people here. I'll try to deal with as many of them as I can. Just so everyone knows I'm specifically coming from a Catholic Christian perspective.

 

 

-- Religious people are against reason, truth, knowledge, inquiry, facts, etc.

 

This may be true in some cases, but I'd hardly say it's a rule. I regularly attend a church group made up of engineers, doctors, businessmen, PhD students at a highly ranked university, etc. Most are extremely well accomplished in fields that require a solid grasp of modern science and mathematics. The members of our group do not accept much of anything without serious question, and we regularly spend hours discussing points of church teaching and why we do or don't agree with them.

 

Further, it's hardly the case that all nonreligious people are particularly rational, logical, etc.

 

Historically, there are a number of extremely pivotal thinkers who were strong believers.

 

In my experience religious people are seeking truth, but we understand that science can't provide all the answers.

 

Regarding the question of proof. In studies of nonreligious historical events, an event is usually considered to be proven if there are multiple accounts of it that corroborate well with each other. Why is the standard different for religious events? Even in today's world there are a number of fairly well-documented cases of miracles, look on Wikipedia at the Fatima “Miracle of the Sun” for example which was documented by a number of previously skeptical newspaper reporters. This is not laboratory double-blind proof, but it's hardly just unfounded rumor either. In my opinion, at a certain point it comes down to a choice of just how much proof a person demands before they recognize that what the voice in their heart is saying may be true.

 

 

-- Religious people don't have good sex lives

 

The basic teaching of Christianity is that sex is BEST saved for marriage, in order to promote a person's greater overall happiness. I think most of us are not perfect in that respect. Certainly I've had a number of experiences myself with religious women, and as far as they've gone they’ve seemed quite “good”. After the relationships ended they resulted in a great deal of heartbreak, which is why I am inclined to say that the Church might have the right idea here, when it says that premature sex tends to lead us to scar our hearts. In any case, it has not been my experience at all that religious women are somehow frigid or prudish.

 

If you think this is a ridiculous idea, spend some time looking at the “Breaking Up” section of Loveshack and ask yourself why it is that it takes people years of extreme pain often to get over relationships. Sex is strongly bonding through our basic biology, and not to be taken lightly.

 

 

-- Religious men don't want an equal relationship with a woman

 

Seriously, this can happen with nonreligious men too, and I rather doubt it even correlates. It's more a cultural thing, which was embraced by the culture a long time ago in the US and now is not. Speaking from my own personal life I know many married Catholic couples, often in cases where I knew both the man and a woman for a long time before they got married. None of these relationships strikes me as anything but completely egalitarian.

 

 

With all these topics, it is my impression that people tend to talk about stereotypes they've heard from TV, the media, etc., rather than experiences with believers they know well from their own lives. Or, if it is from an experience, it is often just a single bad case rather than a reasonably wide field of experiences.

 

 

Scott

[sm1tten]

Sm1tten, what is YMMV?

 

YMMV - Your Mileage May Vary

 

Basically saying that everyone's results/experience may not be the same as mine. In this thread specifically, I'm saying that any of the things in the OP could or could not happen irregardless of whether one of both of us has religious beliefs.

[thatone]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

Many posters complaining about their SO are usualy about things religion is against...... Porn/cheating/ being materialistic etc...

 

 

Have you ever visited the marriage forum on this website? Most of the posts are about sexless/ abusive unhappy marriages....everything the bible is against.

 

Loving and caring for your SO and putting them before everyone (including yourself) except God is a fundemental trait of anyone who takes religion seriously.

 

Never denying your body to your spouse (also a Christian teaching) would solve alot of those 'sexless' marriage issues I see on the marriage forums.

 

Why are so many so eager to blow off a sincere Christian but yet so eager to adopt to this 'MTV/real tv' dating lifestyle when it has been shown again and again to completely

flounder in comparison to the traditional way?

 

because there aren't many sincere christians. most are the definition of hypocrisy.

 

and i'm an atheist in a relationship with a catholic, for whatever that's worth.

 

 

-- Religious people are against reason, truth, knowledge, inquiry, facts, etc.

 

This may be true in some cases, but I'd hardly say it's a rule. I regularly attend a church group made up of engineers, doctors, businessmen, PhD students at a highly ranked university, etc. Most are extremely well accomplished in fields that require a solid grasp of modern science and mathematics. The members of our group do not accept much of anything without serious question, and we regularly spend hours discussing points of church teaching and why we do or don't agree with them.

 

Further, it's hardly the case that all nonreligious people are particularly rational, logical, etc.

 

Historically, there are a number of extremely pivotal thinkers who were strong believers.

 

and then you contradict that by saying...

 

 

-- In my experience religious people are seeking truth, but we understand that science can't provide all the answers.

 

Regarding the question of proof. In studies of nonreligious historical events, an event is usually considered to be proven if there are multiple accounts of it that corroborate well with each other. Why is the standard different for religious events? Even in today's world there are a number of fairly well-documented cases of miracles, look on Wikipedia at the Fatima “Miracle of the Sun” for example which was documented by a number of previously skeptical newspaper reporters. This is not laboratory double-blind proof, but it's hardly just unfounded rumor either. In my opinion, at a certain point it comes down to a choice of just how much proof a person demands before they recognize that what the voice in their heart is saying may be true.

 

Scott

 

no, you don't understand that science can't provide the answers. that's an assumption to support your point of view. science understands that there are an unmeasurable multitude of things that scientists don't know. it's the cornerstone of scientific thought, you have to be open to the possibility that you simply don't know, and follow a process to try to find out. your interpretation of that is nothing more than a straw man concocted by shady politicians to raise money from religious people. and if you thought about it with the same fervor you apply to biblical verses, you'd see that. if your god is all powerful and all knowing, why do you as one of his followers need a non-believer's viewpoint as justification?

Edited September 13, 2011 by thatone

[grkBoy]

Why are so many so eager to blow off a sincere Christian but yet so eager to adopt to this 'MTV/real tv' dating lifestyle when it has been shown again and again to completely flounder in comparison to the traditional way?

 

To me it's an acquired taste.

 

"Religious" people I've met are not normally easy-going folk who believe in some religion and want to live a clean more ethical life.

 

They're usually more like Angela from The Office. They're extremely puritanical, judgmental, and evangelical.

 

Guess what? I don't go to Church on Sunday...yet I believe in God. The "Religious" people will think that I don't know anything because I don't go to Church. They also push ideas on me like Creationism and homophobia. Girls I've met gave me flack because I would go to nightclubs and DJ at raves, when they think I should go to Church diligently every Sunday.

 

They all want to abstain til marriage. I dated one of those for three years...and then she ended it because there wasn't any passion or sparks. You can only carry on a grade school level dating thing for so long. So I ended up spending three years celibate to only get dumped.

 

The reality is I don't date Jersey Shore types, but I'm not going to date "Angelas". Most people just want a "normal" person. Someone who isn't going to get angry because you don't say grace, but also isn't going to have slept with 40 guys before she reached 25.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

YMMV - Your Mileage May Vary

 

Basically saying that everyone's results/experience may not be the same as mine. In this thread specifically, I'm saying that any of the things in the OP could or could not happen irregardless of whether one of both of us has religious beliefs.

 

Okay, I got ya. And I agree. I like "YMMV"..totally will have to remember that and use it.

 

Scott..great post.

[Zaphod B]

Wasnt it Stephen Hawking that said if u change any of the constants (which there are hundreds) of the universe by one part of one millionth to one millionth degree that no life would have evolved ANYWHERE? I think science takes a bit of faith aswel.

 

It depends on what perspective you look at. Religious folk tend to look at where we are now and be amazed at how we got here. It's like the puddle looking at the hole and thinking "Wow, that hole is perfect for me. It must have been created especially for me!" But like I said... the entirely wrong perspective. We are not here despite our environment, but BECAUSE of our environment. The story is about a universe that evolved and some humans came about as a result. The story is not about the humans and how they came to be.

 

 

 

And to the poster that wanted to date a non religious person so you could make fun of religious people; i think you could find a lot of insight into yourself by really reading what you wrote ;D

 

This is another problem I have with religious people. They like to take one small aspect of something an unbeliever has said and blow it up out of proportion, making it the main thing. You have done that in your OP by focussing on the sex side of things (hopefully by this thread you can see it's way more than that) and now you are doing it when it comes to one small aspect of my post about why I would choose an unbeliever over a believer.

 

You miss my point. My point is that I wish to be able to talk about whatever I want to talk about and not have to worry about offending someone. I find it therapeutic to joke about religion and the silly things about it, especially having been indoctronated into the delusion from birth. It still has a negative impact on me that I am trying to break. Do you think that's all I ever do? No, but there is so much about it that needs to be exposed for the steaming pile of crap that it is. It is one of the worst things on this planet. But please don't take this out of context and try to blow it up into yet another presumption, ie, that I am an angry atheist... I'm not. Still, I believe now that Christianity is a terrible religion and I have found that out first hand. It deserves to be mocked and it deserves to be derided and should be. That however does not mean I go about my every day life doing that. Nevertheless, I want to be with a woman that believes similar to me and has similar attitudes to me.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Zaphod B

[ChessPieceFace]

I have read a lot of posts where people say they wouldn't date a very religous person and I am wondering why they hold this viewpoint?

 

Big difference between christian and islamic religions though. Saying "religious" is unspecific and thus inaccurate.

 

Loving and caring for your SO and putting them before everyone (including yourself) except God is a fundemental trait of anyone who takes religion seriously.

 

Again, you actually mean christian religions, not "religion." Islam does not reflect what you mentioned.

 

Never denying your body to your spouse (also a Christian teaching) would solve alot of those 'sexless' marriage issues I see on the marriage forums.

 

LOL. Well, the problem is this: almost no supposedly "christian" women would ever follow the rule you state. Maybe it's the man-hating conditioning of western society, maybe it's the puritanical nature of most christian circles, but I just don't see that rule being supported very often. What the bible says and what most christians actually do are 2 different things.

 

Why are so many so eager to blow off a sincere Christian but yet so eager to adopt to this 'MTV/real tv' dating lifestyle when it has been shown again and again to completely flounder in comparison to the traditional way?

 

If your christian faith is that important to you, I don't think you will be happy dating a non-christian anyway.

 

In my case, I used to be christian, now I am undecided/agnostic who still believes in a lot of the ideals of christianity, so I feel like an outsider. I wouldn't be able to fully share someone's christian faith, yet I wouldn't be able to accept an immoral, worldly companion.

[ThsAmericanLife]

 

-- Religious men don't want an equal relationship with a woman

 

Seriously, this can happen with nonreligious men too, and I rather doubt it even correlates. It's more a cultural thing, which was embraced by the culture a long time ago in the US and now is not. Speaking from my own personal life I know many married Catholic couples, often in cases where I knew both the man and a woman for a long time before they got married. None of these relationships strikes me as anything but completely egalitarian.

 

Of course, but it is organized religion that has supported and 'enforced' the notion that women are subservient and second to men. On the other hand, some would argue, and I agree, that Jesus Christ did much to liberate and support women.

 

Regarding extent of a relationship's egalitarian tendencies... You'd have to describe to me what you consider egalitarian. Among my religious friends, I know of only one relationship that appears balanced to me.

 

Going into a relationship with the stated or unstated expectation that he will have the final say (no matter how 'nice' he is about it) is a complete insult to me as a human being.

[Scottdmw]

and then you contradict that by saying...

 

 

 

no, you don't understand that science can't provide the answers. that's an assumption to support your point of view. science understands that there are an unmeasurable multitude of things that scientists don't know. it's the cornerstone of scientific thought, you have to be open to the possibility that you simply don't know, and follow a process to try to find out. your interpretation of that is nothing more than a straw man concocted by shady politicians to raise money from religious people. and if you thought about it with the same fervor you apply to biblical verses, you'd see that. if your god is all powerful and all knowing, why do you as one of his followers need a non-believer's viewpoint as justification?

 

I'm not really sure what contradiction you mean. If you mean that it's a contradiction to say religious people are in favor of truth and facts but believe science can’t provide all the answers, consider that science is very good at answering questions of material fact such as explaining rules of gravitation, electromagnetics, biology, etc. It is not useful at all for answering questions of meaning such as “Why are we here?”, “Why does a universe exist at all?”, “Is this action right or wrong?”, etc. To take a concrete example, science is quite good at explaining all the events that occurred following the Big Bang. It is unfortunately of almost no use whatsoever in describing why the universe exists in the first place, or why anything exists.

 

Further, science cannot disprove the existence of supernatural events. A scientist can measure the speed with which a ball falls to the ground 1000 times and come up with the same answer. If on the 1001st time the ball falls twice as fast due to a supernatural influence, and then never does it again, what can science really say? Something happened that is not explainable and can't be repeated. If on the other hand the ball falls at the same rate every time, it is not possible for the scientist to say that it could NEVER happen differently the next time, only that he sees no reason to expect that it will. In the same way, if someone is miraculously healed of cancer, scientists will typically say that they don't know what happened, not that they are positively certain no supernatural intervention occurred, because science has no tools for arriving at such a certainty.

[Scottdmw]

Of course, but it is organized religion that has supported and 'enforced' the notion that women are subservient and second to men. On the other hand, some would argue, and I agree, that Jesus Christ did much to liberate and support women.

 

Regarding extent of a relationship's egalitarian tendencies... You'd have to describe to me what you consider egalitarian. Among my religious friends, I know of only one relationship that appears balanced to me.

 

Going into a relationship with the stated or unstated expectation that he will have the final say (no matter how 'nice' he is about it) is a complete insult to me as a human being.

 

I would define an egalitarian relationship as one in which both partners are of equal value, with their needs equally important, and with an overall equal say in decision-making.

 

Even within those relationships that take male leadership in a more biblically literal sense (which is not what I'm talking about with egalitarian), both Christians and non-Christians in my opinion can misunderstand what that means. It is intended to mean, I believe, that the men involved may have the final “say”, but ONLY when they are approaching it from a Christ-like perspective. That is, ONLY when they are making all decisions from the spirit of putting the woman and childrens’ good before their own to the point where they will sacrifice anything they have including their health and their lives, if necessary, for the good of the woman and children. You may consider that still condescending or paternalistic, but it is hardly the same as a fat and lazy man sitting on the couch watching TV and demanding beer be brought to him or something.

 

I guess I can understand how you might feel insulted by that, though I believe no insult is intended. Certainly, you wouldn’t be a good match for such a man if that's the case. But, try to give these men a bit of the benefit of the doubt, as long as they are truly putting their wives first.

 

To put this in a concrete example, let's say the couple is deciding how to spend $20. The man wants to buy a videogame, the woman wants to buy a pair of shoes. In the view I outlined above, even though the man has the final “say” he is going to choose to buy the shoes. It is only a very fine philosophical distinction to say that the man is truly making the decision here in the first place, since it's the woman who ultimately gets what she wants.

 

With the case of your friends, could you give an example of what you consider to be unbalanced? I'm curious what you mean exactly.