Get matched with thousands of Christian singles — for FREE

Join now

who should be the one visiting first...

ForumFriendship and relationships

1 – 14 of 14Post reply

  • SUCELL553

    August 15, 2016

    so... i have been thinking about this question for a while now...

    in a long distance relationship. who who should be the one visiting first if there is not any major problem for any of them?

  • ARIANNA571

    August 17, 2016

    The guy.

    But maybe I'm prejudice that way. I think that men should be the ones moving the relationship forward.

  • DANIELLE967

    August 17, 2016

    I would consider meeting somewhere in the middle. That way we both have to travel and we are both independent.

  • August 25, 2016

    I'll briefly offer a bit from my perspective. In short, I think both should show that they're willing to take things to the next level of seriousness/etc, so I agree with Danielle here, I think both should agree to travel to some mid-place.

    ARIANNA571 wrote:

    The guy.

    But maybe I'm prejudice that way. I think that men should be the ones moving the relationship forward.

    But this does not really show any form of effort or actual interest from the female side, so it should be no wonder why some guys are often not sure of whether to even try something more serious or just move along to someone that's actually willing to put some effort into him. Relationships are 2-way streets and if it's going to move "forward", or in any direction for that matter, it has to be done from both sides.

    In addition, it also suggests that the same guy-should-do-it approach will be used in the future for other things, which don't exactly look positive from my angle. For example, is there a relationship issue that needs a solution? "The guy should solve it". Is there some other problem that needs attention? "The guy should solve it". At a minimum, it gives the impression that the partner is simple "along for the ride" without being willing to actively help/engage in things (i.e. a potential free-loader).

    I don't claim to be speaking for "for all men" out there, of course, but personally, and this might be rather blunt, I wouldn't waste my time in that sort of situation. Of course, the question assumes that travel is "not a problem" for any individual. Things would obviously be different if this is not true.

    August 25, 2016 updated by XRAY948

  • ODUNAYO653

    August 25, 2016

    I think it base on choice

  • FLAMI604

    August 25, 2016

    I think either can visit first, depending on how honest and open they both are financially, and is important to put safety first when meeting.

  • August 28, 2016

    Mainly the guy but both should show some interest expecially if they are in same country, they can meet half way.

  • CATHY628

    September 3, 2016

    ARIANNA571 wrote:

    The guy.

    But maybe I'm prejudice that way. I think that men should be the ones moving the relationship forward.

    Yes, I tend to agree with you. That's the Biblical way.

  • CATHY628

    September 3, 2016

    XRAY948 wrote:

    But this does not really show any form of effort or actual interest from the female side, so it should be no wonder why some guys are often not sure of whether to even try something more serious or just move along to someone that's actually willing to put some effort into him. Relationships are 2-way streets and if it's going to move "forward", or in any direction for that matter, it has to be done from both sides.

    In addition, it also suggests that the same guy-should-do-it approach will be used in the future for other things, which don't exactly look positive from my angle. For example, is there a relationship issue that needs a solution? "The guy should solve it". Is there some other problem that needs attention? "The guy should solve it". At a minimum, it gives the impression that the partner is simple "along for the ride" without being willing to actively help/engage in things (i.e. a potential free-loader).

    This is an interesting point of view and might well reflect the true state of things sometimes. Certainly if one party never puts any effort into visiting, it clearly indicates a lack of commitment.

    Yet, to me, the Bible clearly teaches that the man should lead in a couple and it seems that it should start right from the start of the relationship, especially in today's world where men's leadership is constantly being denied, even in the churches.

    Besides, without taking into account the Christian perspective, receiving the potential partner may also represent effort, entertaining them, etc...

    Finally, I have had two LDR, one when the other party never visited me whilst I visisted him regularly and the other LDR where he visited twice at length but totally panicked when I proposed to return his visit for a couple of days, which returns me to my first point, I should not have initiated this visit but waited for him to suggest it when he was ready (possibly never). I only mention it to show that lack of commitment can actually be on the part of the visitor!!

    My conclusion is that there are no hard and fast rules. It should be decided according to circumstances but should become reciprocal pretty quickly.

    September 3, 2016 updated by CATHY628

  • September 3, 2016

    CATHY628> Yet, to me, the Bible clearly teaches that the man should lead in a couple

    But at the start of the relationship they're not yet an actual "couple", so I'm not sure what Biblical verses you think apply in this context. They're just friends, unlikely to be that much different from any other friendships you may already have. To me, it seems like there's a disconnect between the actual state of the relationship (i.e. not couple) and the expectations you seem to be specifying.

    CATHY628> it seems that it should start right from the start of the relationship

    I'm not too sure on this. My guess is that even you wouldn't appreciate some random guy trying to act as your "leader" simply because he's interested in you. You'd probably only appreciate/welcome this from someone that you actually happen to be interested in already (which is anyone's guess) instead of just anyone. I know I wouldn't appreciate having a female friend that's trying to act as if she were my girlfriend when that's not the case.

    It can also be a catch-22, b/c if the woman is just acting passively, no one other than her will know if she's just "waiting" for the guy to "lead" or just wishing he would "get the hint" that she's not interested and wondering how he could be so "clueless" and has not left her alone already. And, BTW, this doesn't even get into situations where men are accused of being "sexists" or "oppressive" or "[insert some other emotionally charged manipulative term here]" simply for doing things that men often should be doing --which actually leads to your observation.

    CATHY628> especially in today's world where men's leadership is constantly being denied, even in the churches.

    I think your observation is correct, but I don't think the answer to the problem is trying to expand the scope of couple roles outside the bounds of a couple and into friendships, if that's what you mean.

    Your observation is also fairly limited. In general, society as a whole doesn't care as much about us. Even abuse from women towards men (which, when it occurs, is not as obvious b/c it's generally verbal/emotional) is often treated as comedy. (I've never seen a movie or sit-com where it's "funny" to hit or otherwise abuse a woman, but I've seen plenty where it's "funny" to call men idiots and worse.) Even male suicide rates are higher than females across the board[1].

    I'm side-tracking, but in short, it's a huge cultural double-standard that has either already made it into churches, or will manage to do so eventually, if the usual trend of Christians-in-name-only continues to rise (c.f. 2 Tim 4:3).

    [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... by_suicide_rate

    CATHY628> Besides, without taking into account the Christian perspective, receiving the potential partner may also represent effort, entertaining them, etc...

    I think that's true, although in a LDR, the visitor is likely putting significantly more effort and resources than the host. This probably includes buying plane tickets, passport if out of country, time off work, paying for pet boarding services (if you have pets like I do), paying for a place to stay (e.g. hotel), stress for leaving comfort zone, hoping you're not being tricked and arrive to find no one's actually expecting you, getting catfished, and so on. And that's before they even meet in face to face.

    CATHY628> My conclusion is that there are no hard and fast rules. It should be decided according to circumstances but should become reciprocal pretty quickly.

    I agree. I'm not trying to create 'hard and fast rules'. I'm probably more concerned about whether someone might be trying to take advantage of me or not, and seeing someone who's simply sitting and waiting for the guy to do everything is what probably gets me to start rising an eyebrow. :-/

  • SUCELL553

    September 5, 2016

    there is a lot of trust issues involved in the process of visiting/ been visited by in a LDR and not a manual about how to do things. But who is risking/wining more is relative....

    the visitor get's personal and background info about the person because he/she get's to see the other person in his habitat, with his people and his church. jejejje I'll say that's a BIG plus if you are trying to decide if a person is right for you. She/he also risk a lot, travelling with lots of expectation but no actual reasurance about what he/she's going to find.

    the visited get the confirmation that the visitor is actually interesed and willing to move things forward. But he is going to be exposed: he would have to open up her/his life, family, friend, church and trust the visitor is going to see it as the gift it´s.

  • September 7, 2016

    So, it seems that we're just speculating here, so rather than just say what I think is or isn't the case, I contacted a friend of mine who was in a LDR that eventually led to his current marriage. The question I sent him, for the sake of completeness, is included below:

    "Hey, I was having a conversation on long distance relationships (LDRs) and the topic of who is 'risking more' or putting 'more' effort/resources when it's time to choose who should be the first to visit (assuming travel is not an issue for any of the two) came up. I said I thought the visitor is risking more and putting more time/effort, but another person thinks it's just 'relative' (e.g. the host is more 'exposed', etc.) What would you say was your experience in the LDR w/ Rie?"

    His response is quoted below word for word.

    "According to my own experience, if both parties are on equal footing, the visitor is investing more resources than the host. The host "exposing" herself in her home isn't exclusive to LDRs; it's going to happen if she meets a guy in a school or over the internet. At some point she's going to let a person she doesn't know well (yet) into her home.

    However, I feel that both parties will never be on equal footing, so the value of the effort is going to be determined by the individual. In my case, I bought a $2,000 ticket to visit Rie during Christmas. Although $2,000 is a lot of money, I was single, living at home, and with very little expenses. It wasn't a big burden then to spend that. And if things didn't work out, I was still having a vacation in Japan.

    Money-wise, I feel that it was me who carried the majority of the burden early on, but I saw her put enthusiasm and effort into the relationship. I saw her making sacrifices too, which is what made me think it was worthwhile.

    At some point, someone will have to move and then those $2,000 plane tickets will seem small compared to the sacrifice that's happening for the sake of a relationship"

    Feel free to draw your own conclusions from his first-hand experience.

  • SUCELL553

    September 8, 2016

    XRAY948 wrote:

    "Hey, I was having a conversation on long distance relationships (LDRs) and the topic of who is 'risking more' or putting 'more' effort/resources when it's time to choose who should be the first to visit (assuming travel is not an issue for any of the two) came up. I said I thought the visitor is risking more and putting more time/effort, but another person thinks it's just 'relative' (e.g. the host is more 'exposed', etc.) What would you say was your experience in the LDR w/ Rie?"

    So... the subject of this topic is "who should be the one visiting first if there is not any major problem for any of them?". "who is making a bigger effort" is 1 of the things people take into consideration while addressing the question.

    I didn't give my personal consideration upon the matter of whom should be visiting whom. I just said that both parties are at risk here. i never say equally... and because the risk depends of the person and the relationship, it's in deed relative.

    The host "exposing" herself in her home isn't exclusive to LDRs; it's going to happen if she meets a guy in a school or over the internet. At some point she's going to let a person she doesn't know well (yet) into her home.

    In a Not-LDR, if you are wise, your family gets involved after you have some 1rst hand knowledge about your partner, which is not always the case if you are metting someone for the first time in a LDR. If your friend went to visit her during Christmas, there is a very good chance of him meeting her family and her for the first time at the same time... Not an ideal situation... but that's just my opinion.

    Getting the perspective of someone who went through that and was successful is great. My "own conclusions from his first-hand experience" is

    • your friends (man) was the 1 visiting first (can you ask him how they/he/her made the decition?)
    • he specifically said that Money-wise, he did more but saw her making sacrifices too, which is what made me think it was worthwhile.
    • and that the bigger problem was not who is visiting first but who is moving. jejejeje
  • September 10, 2016

    SUCELL553> I didn't give my personal consideration upon the matter of whom should be visiting whom.

    I thought you had, since you had said "who is risking/wining more is relative".

    SUCELL553> I just said that both parties are at risk here. i never say equally... and because the risk depends of the person and the relationship, it's in deed relative.

    I guess the conversation took a turn into who's about to jump into the deep-end of the pool first in the context of LDRs, and what things were specific to LDRs that would need to be taken in to account. It's probably self-evident that if a friend and I are going to meet for the first time at a public place 15 minutes away from where we are, that's very different from someone buying a plane ticket to visit this person in a different country. Yes, the risks might be somewhat relative to the kind of visit, but they're definitely different kinds of risks the visitor is running into.

    SUCELL553> If your friend went to visit her during Christmas, there is a very good chance of him meeting her family and her for the first time at the same time... Not an ideal situation... but that's just my opinion.

    His Christmas visit was not the first time he had met her. They initially met b/c a Japanese branch of his Church was planning a vacation trip to visit Puerto Rico and were planning things through the Church (more on this later). I don't know whether that visit was self-funded or not. However, my friend's Christmas trip to Japan was definitely self-funded.

    SUCELL553> can you ask him how they/he/her made the decition?

    I asked him, and his response is below:

    "As for the LDR, I guess Rie visited me first. She was coming on vacation to PR that year anyway, she just came earlier. When I visited her, I had no previous plans of returning to Japan, but I didn't mind since I had very little expenses and a good income. I figured the worst that can happen is that you go on the trip and you don't feel the same after meeting. At that time, you just have a vacation on your hands and an awkward breakup. I think it just depends on whether you can afford to do it or not; as un-romantic as it sounds, money is a big issue as LDRs are expensive.

    But, the question of who is visiting first is not as big as the eventual "who is going to move?", which I believe has to be wholeheartedly agreed from the beginning since it can be a source of frsutration later on. We had both decided to move to PR first since I could afford to support her if she couldn't get a job (she chose to stay home raising Jael). Had we gone to Japan first and I coudln't find a job, her income wasn't enough to support me. PR, though, was always temporary, our ultimate destination was always Japan.

    One important note, I think part of our success is that we were both comfortable and knowledgeable about each other's culture. She could also speak some Spanish and I could speak some Japanese."

    One point I'll add is that, even from our days in high-school, my friend always said he wanted to move to Japan to live there, which is likely to have made some things easier to agree upon, since that was something he already wanted to do anyway. For example, he had been taking Japanese classes for about 8 years prior to the Japanese branch contacting his Church to schedule visits and so on. (My friend was the person who initially help set things up via email from his Church and sort of hosted the Japanese group when they were visiting the PR church and a few other details.) In short, he had already taken a few steps in advance before they even knew about each other.

1 – 14 of 14Post reply