[hellinahandcart]

I just don't see how the simple sentences of: "I dated a very intelligent woman, an attorney, who was OK with celibacy," Washington said. "But after six months, she wanted me to make a commitment. She felt if she knew we were going to marry then she could abstain. I couldn't make that promise." can be construed to mean that he was messing with her mind. I just don't see it.

Okay, here's how---

1. Let's assume she was not a virgin or celibate prior to meeting Mr. Washington. (It's not much of a stretch, since he says she was "okay" with celibacy, not "absolutely devoted to celibacy". And to be fair to him he is not requiring a virgin, since he wasn't one himself)

2. Girl becomes acquainted with Mr. Washington.

3. Girl and Mr. Washington begin to date, and she finds out he plans to abstain until marriage. In other words, he's going to save himself now for someone very special, his future wife.

4.Girl obviously finds this attitude an attractive quality, since she continues to date him.

5. Mr. Washington, who is on record as "saving himself for that special someone" continues to ask Girl out over and over and over. Since they are not having SEX, it's likely they are having extremely good conversations to compensate (and presumably getting to know each other fairly well).

6. After this man who is "saving himself for someone special" keeps asking her out again and again and again, Girl begins to believe and hope she *is* the "SPECIAL SOMEONE"--

7. Begins to believe he's *her* "special someone",too-- after all, he must be interested in her for her self, not because of sex, like all the other men---

8. Begins to really look forward to consummating their relationship in marriage one day.

9. Begins to wonder why he isn't saying anything about the future, after all that attention.

10. Asks where their relationship is headed, and finds out he's JUST FINE with things the way they are. In other words, she's not so special after all.

Result---messed-up head.

(come on, it's kind of a logical progression.)

[Robert_Paulson2]

your progession makes a lot of sense...

and so did the "politicization of every private matter" post by willie tell above.

[Tribune7]

(come on, it's kind of a logical progression.)

It's a silly progression. Everyone has bad dating experiences and as bad dating experience go this is pretty mild.

There is nothing wrong with her saying "you're a nice guy but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'm going to start shopping for someone else." It shouldn't be a big deal.

[FourPeas]

I'm right with you until #9 or #10. We don't know that he didn't talk about their future. And, we don't know that he said he thought everything was just fine and he didn't want it to ever change. Six months is just not that long. Perhaps he said he considered their relationship very promising and that he believed that their courtship should last a year. Perhaps they were still talking about the issue of children. Perhaps he still had concerns over their life goals. Perhaps.... The point is, we don't know. We weren't there. All we know is two short sentences. Making assumptions about this dude being a bad guy based on two sentences is pointless. We just don't know.

BTW, there are other assumptions you're making that we just don't know. We don't know that she finds his abstinance an attractive quality. Perhaps she thought she could change his mind. Perhaps she thought it was a ploy, a line.

Frankly, I find a woman who says something to effect that she can abstain if she knew they were going to marry to be less than ideal. It sounds to me more like she's not willing to wait for the one she loves. She knows she can get sex other places and if he's not going to come through, then she'll go elsewhere. Afterall, if she really loved him, shouldn't she be willing to wait? My grandmother's aunt waited for her soldier to return from WWI. She had a promise of marriage from him. He never returned. She loved him and waited for him. She never married.

Far from faulting Mr. Washington, I'd say it was in HIS best interest that their relationship is no longer.

[Buggman]

(come on, it's kind of a logical progression.)

Yes, but it's not the only logical progression. Your desire to paint Mr. Washington as some kind of disturbed individual so that you can ignore the point of the article is blinding you to other possibilities.