Trying to see things from a woman's perspective, I can see how one might agree or be sympathetic with the modern feminist ideal that woman is complete unto herself, without needing a man to fulfill and complete her. There is a certain apparent truth to such an idea. However, I think it is a superficial truth, and that such a view is wrong. No person is an island. We are all, by our nature, social creatures. We all need others to make us whole.

Certainly, man needs woman to complete himself. Without that "other," there is a void, an emptiness. As a man, of course, I am confronted with the Genesis account of a rib being taken from man to create woman. That account rather explicitly shows how a part of me, as a man, is missing. It describes, quite truly, how I am not complete, and cannot be made complete without having that rib returned, that is, without woman at my side and a part of me once again. It is true that there is no such explicit reference for man being a necessary and constituent part of the complete woman, but I think the idea holds true for her as well. There is the passage where God created Man in His own image as "male and female," thereby indicating a unity of male and female to form the complete "Man," that is, the complete person.

There is only one other way to fill that emptiness, that void in our being, and that is by filling it with the One that is Love, the One that is Completeness, the One that is also present and part of each marital union. Unless and until the heart is filled with one or the other, a spouse or God, there is a restlessness and a hunger. Sadly, all too many singles recognize the void, but do not know how to properly fill it. All the other various substitutes and activities we might engage in to try to satisfy that hunger will never do so. We may be in a crowded room and still be totally alone. Casual sex, food, alcohol, drugs, etc. may temporarily provide sensual relief, but they never fully satisfy. Indeed, they end up blinding us to what we really need.

It is by and through the virtue of chastity -- chastity in all things -- that one begins to see what is really needed to satiate our need. It is by giving up our false self, our worldly-material self, that we find our true self, and we find that we are not complete unto ourselves. We are not fully self-sufficient. We are not ourselves God. We need an "other" to complete and fulfill us.

It is no wonder that our feminist sisters so often seem to be so unhappy. Denying to themselves their very nature of needing another, yet at the same time trying to fill the void with all sorts of substitutes, and getting frustrated all the while because they never fully satisfy.
Bender | 05.04.06 - 4:15 am | #

Sweet!

You're dead on about the scourge of "chick lit" covers; my mother-in-law has shelves full of them: "playful" and "sassy" and oh so ugly.

This reminds me of those cool '87-'88 era covers by hip young authors...like yourself.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 5:27 am | #

D, it's a great cover and will be an even better book!
Kevin Walsh | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 7:47 am | #

So, why do we have to wait until December to buy this? Does the publisher use monks to copy out each book by hand?
saint kansas | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 9:02 am | #

I love the cover! It's elegant and completely appropriate for the subject matter.
Susan B. | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 9:05 am | #

It looks great. Can I reserve my signed copy?
Janjan | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 10:09 am | #

Absolutely, Janjan -- thanks!

There is the passage where God created Man in His own image as "male and female," thereby indicating a unity of male and female to form the complete "Man," that is, the complete person.

I wish I'd said that! Thanks, Bender, for the profound thoughts.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 11:28 am | #

Between the ranting feministas and the peculiarities of the English language, we risk being robbed of the depth of that line in Genesis.

If one can avoid getting one's linguistic knickers twisted over the concept that the word "man" refers to humankind, and not limited to male human beings, the meaning is dead-on. As women and men, we are part of a whole; we don't have it all alone.

However, we are each given our unique call and our unique role to play. Collectively, men and women DO complete each other; but each individual is not necessarily called to fully participate personally in that completeness.

Oh, the paradoxes!

BTW, interesting cover indeed.
C.J. | 05.04.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Great cover indeed. And I'm getting in line behind JanJan!
Joel | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 12:09 pm | #

It is a very nice looking cover. But it does seem to me to look more suited to a paperback version. Maybe it's just the way the picture is cut. But like I said, looks good.
Oz | 05.04.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Alternate title suggestion:

"No Sex in the City"
L. | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 1:39 pm | #

I really like it. It sort of reminds me of the Salinger book covers, lots of white space. Very nice. Can't wait to read it.
Amy G. | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 1:47 pm | #

Dear Lord, please don't let Dawn's book ever be described as "sassy," because then I might not be able to read it.

And, please, if it's not asking too much, it would be best if you could also stop anyone from calling it "smart."

And if you were to let anyone call it "smart and sassy" you might cause me to doubt your existence.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 1:52 pm | #

It looks very good - dignified, even. One wonders how the Borders staffers will choose to hide it on their shelves once it's released.
Nightfly | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 1:55 pm | #

What follows is insane rambling on my part.

The colors that would signify something remotely resembling lust are not used for the object which has most to do with lust, the lips of that woman on the cover. Instead that velvety red is used for the color of a sky, and a pinkish-purple is used for words that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It seems to hint at the idea that lust is in the seeming (it seems like the atmosphere of the city is most conducive to it), in that which is external, yet the character of senusality is something more blase and yet more real - amazing how that woman is not what our eyes gravitate toward, but rather the color, just because it's color.
ashok | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 2:22 pm | #

It looks very good - dignified, even. One wonders how the Borders staffers will choose to hide it on their shelves once it's released.>>
Yeah, cause it's a conspiracy against chastity! Come on, Nightfly. If Borders thinks it will sell, it will be put right up front with every other book. Good luck with it, Dawn.
NeilC | 05.04.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Absolutely agree, Dawn, great cover! Thank you also for the Psalm 37 quote.
Scott Allen | 05.04.06 - 3:39 pm | #

The book sounds wonderful! I know it won't be out until December, but when it does come out, where will it be available? I'd like a copy for sure!
Sara | 05.04.06 - 3:58 pm | #

NeilC--

I don't know about Borders, but at Barnes & Noble I can NEVER find anything I'm looking for. Their shelving system is some sort of Gnostic mystery unto itself. Regardless of politics, they will hide thhis as they hide everything.
Kate B. | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 4:05 pm | #

Nice cover!

Nice looking chick!;-) (From what I can see).
getalifeagain | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 6:56 pm | #

p.s. It is a really attractive and skillful cover--skillful in that the way the woman's face is sensual (at least) and yet hidden communicates a sense of restrained desire. It has dignity. Not puritanical in the least, but not lewd, either.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Dawn, congratulations. I think it's really brave of you to take on a topic like this, and to reveal so much about yourself in the process.
:::getting in line behind JanJan and Joel for the autographed copy::::
Sarah | 05.04.06 - 9:36 pm | #

Congratulations! And the cover looks fantastic. I'll be buying a copy first chance I get.
Christopher Johnson | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 9:48 pm | #

Congratulations! It's gorgeous. I'll have to clean a space out on my already overloaded bookshelves for it:)
Luthien | 05.04.06 - 10:44 pm | #

Can't wait to read it. Maybe you can single handedly restore Chastity to its rightful place as the sexiest of the virtues.... Uh, wait a minute, that sounds kind of problematic, doesn't it?


Warren
warren | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 10:53 pm | #

Lots of white space there on the front for getting a big obvious handsigning on it.

My first impression was that the half-face at the bottom was you Dawn, but then I realised the lips weren't quite...er, long enough.


I'd like to see this tagline in the author's bio:

Dawn Eden: Like GK Chesterton but much better looking.
Rhys | Homepage | 05.04.06 - 11:29 pm | #

Do you know who designed the cover? It looks great.
IA_ | 05.05.06 - 12:02 am | #

Thanks so much, everyone -- really glad you like the cover, IA_, I did try to find out who the designer was, but my editor didn't know. I only know it wasn't in-house.

Rhys, Chesterton was actually quite handsome as a young man. I do believe I'm better-looking than he is now, but that's just my opinion.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 1:48 am | #

Dawn,

Congratulations! The cover looks great!

I do disagree with you on one point, however.

Yes, I am quite sure that you look better than Chesterton did at the age that you are right now- I know that's what you meant.

But where he is at the moment- and I DON'T mean physically- (not yet, anyway)...

From what I understand about these matters, there's a strong possibility that he's lookin' pretty good!
Faith | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 8:14 am | #

Actually, Faith, I meant that I look better than he does physically right now -- but again, that's only my opinion. The opinion of some fans is that his body hasn't likely changed a bit since that day in 1936.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 9:25 am | #

Gotcha!

In which case, even if he HASN'T changed a bit since 1936, as miraculous as that may be, I am sure that GKC himself would agree that you DO look better than him presently, anyway.

Not just MHO, I'm sure...
Faith | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 12:25 pm | #

How do we go about getting signed copies?
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 12:26 pm | #

i think i'm going to send you a stack of self-adhesive peel-off labels with some smart greeting or sentiment on it, for you sign and retrun to me ... then i'll afix the label to the inside of the books i intend to buy and give to my friends
uncle jim | 05.05.06 - 12:59 pm | #

Congrats, Dawn! But what were they thinking not using your lips on the cover? Hope all is well.
Jim | Homepage | 05.05.06 - 3:57 pm | #

your book cover looks awesome!!! Def. a book I would buy
Rachel in Dallas | 05.06.06 - 3:57 am | #

"I am sure that GKC himself would agree that you DO look better than him presently, anyway."

This is correct for two reasons.

1) GKC is a gentleman.
2) GKC is a man.
Maureen | Homepage | 05.06.06 - 11:12 am | #

Awesome.

Dawn, you are about to become an evangelical rockstar.

Bless you.
GrenfellHunt | Homepage | 05.07.06 - 3:03 pm | #

After I made the decision to become chaste, I joined Ave Maria Singles.com and met my fiance! We're getting married on November 4th. I am 36 years old and have beat the odds. You are beautiful. Never give up!
Kelly Ames | 05.08.06 - 4:51 pm | #

I really like your way of thinking. My friend is Catholic and he too would like to publish some of his works, any ideas on how he should start?
Maria Crivello | 03.28.08 - 12:59 am | #