Adopting the Pop Culture's Definition of "Single"- Must We?

[mistfall]

Our culture has re-defined the word “single”. For many, it no longer means “not married” but rather “not currently in a sexually intimate relationship”. Couples who are sleeping together are often not considered “single”, and expect to be treated in many ways as if they were married, e.g. be invited to family gatherings as a couple, and for each partner to be considered “off limits” by members of the opposite sex.

When we reject the culture’s supposition that sleeping with somebody grants the rights and privileges formerly reserved for marriage, are we obliged to still treat non-married “couples” as if they were married? Of course we would never dream of flirting with, or going on a date with somebody’s spouse; if someone has a “girlfriend” or “boyfriend”, are they just as “off limits”?

(Yes, I hear some people piously saying, “But why would you flirt with someone who is fornicating and therefore cut off from God? What could you possibly see in such a person?” Well, I have in mind a person who was a product of the Pop Culture, raised with Zero catechesis, either doctrinal or moral, but who has has a strong instinct for Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and an almost eerie affinity and attraction to the Catholic Church. I suspect he has many Catholic ancestors in heaven praying for him. And considering his total immersion in the hook-up culture, his actual moral choices have been way more lofty than that of the average neo-pagan. But being raised to think that fornication is just the normal thing that people who are dating do, makes it very difficult to see the Catholic moral doctrine as anything but utterly strange and alien.)

 

[HannahLisa]

In our culture, “single” carries the connotation of “available.” These couples may not be married, but they are definitely not single – because they are in an exclusive romantic relationship with another person. This applies whether or not anything reserved for marriage is happening. If someone is involved with someone else in any way, you could theoretically try and flirt with them but they’d better not flirt with you.

I am in a chaste relationship with a wonderful young man. We are hoping to get engaged and then married at some point in the future. Right now, however, we are just “dating”. Should he be considered off limits to other girls? You better bet he should be!!!

Should cohabiting couples be given the same “status” as married couples when it comes to inviting both of them to weddings, family gatherings, etc.? Most people in today’s culture would probably say that yes, they should, once you know they’re planning on sticking with each other. I don’t think that is necessary. I do think that an engaged couple should be invited together to family gatherings – but that’s a different situation. If people in the family want to invite steady boyfriends, etc. that’s fine. But again, a boyfriend does NOT equal cohabitation or an inappropriate sexual relationship.

 

[cam100]

Our culture has re-defined the word “single”. For many, it no longer means “not married” but rather “not currently in a sexually intimate relationship”. Couples who are sleeping together are often not considered “single”, and expect to be treated in many ways as if they were married, e.g. be invited to family gatherings as a couple, and for each partner to be considered “off limits” by members of the opposite sex.

When we reject the culture’s supposition that sleeping with somebody grants the rights and privileges formerly reserved for marriage, are we obliged to still treat non-married “couples” as if they were married? Of course we would never dream of flirting with, or going on a date with somebody’s spouse; if someone has a “girlfriend” or “boyfriend”, are they just as “off limits”?

I agree that in today’s culture, a simple “dating” relationship has been improperly given the same status as a marrige. Just because some has a boyfriend or girlfriend, I don’t think we have to consider them “off-limits” from a moral standpoint. Of course, their boyfriend or girlfriend won’t like that, but they don’t really have any claim on the person.

Modern society basically still recognizes that sleeping with multiple partners is wrong, so people have developed this “serial monogomy” viewpoint of dating to make themselves feel moral. Every dating partner becomes a sexual partner, and therefore becomes “exclusive”. This is opposed to a Christian viewpoint, which actually encourages the casual dating of multiple people at the same time until we find one that seems to be the most suitable marriage partner. Then the two people can agree to only see each other. A good book that explains this approach is *Christian Courtship In An Oversexed World: A Guide For Catholics * by T.G. Morrow. (You can get it from Amazon.)

 

[HannahLisa]

Actually, in most cases it’s not only the significant other saying a person is off limits – it’s the person himself. I see absolutely nothing wrong with exclusive romantic relationships before marriage, provided nothing which belongs only inside marriage is happening. I do not see how two people trying to figure out if they should marry each other have any business doing anything with other people. It kind of defeats the purpose, IMHO.

 

[mistfall]

Actually, in most cases it’s not only the significant other saying a person is off limits – it’s the person himself. I see absolutely nothing wrong with exclusive romantic relationships before marriage, provided nothing which belongs only inside marriage is happening. I do not see how two people trying to figure out if they should marry each other have any business doing anything with other people. It kind of defeats the purpose, IMHO.

There is nothing wrong with an exclusive romantic relationship before marriage in a Christian courtship if you’re satisfied you’ve narrowed down the field to a particular person. But many lovers who are still considered “couples” do not have marriage with each other on their radar. As the poster above says, they are serial monogamists, but may have no intention of marrying each other. They are “just dating.”

 

[HannahLisa]

There is nothing wrong with an exclusive romantic relationship before marriage in a Christian courtship if you’re satisfied you’ve narrowed down the field to a particular person. But many lovers who are still considered “couples” do not have marriage with each other on their radar. As the poster above says, they are serial monogamists, but may have no intention of marrying each other. They are “just dating.”

At some point, you have to start discerning whether a particular person is someone you actually want to marry. This should be done before engagement (which will possibly be a product of the process) and WITHOUT living together, etc. It should also be done without “dating” other people; that defeats the point entirely, I think.

I do see what you mean with the couples that date but aren’t considering marriage. High school relationships could be a good example of this; people date, but when you’re fourteen it’s not going to end up in marriage soon enough for you to be discerning it, so you shouldn’t date then. And some people do go from long term relationship to long term relationship. This does not mean they weren’t considering marriage to any of those people, though. (I’m thinking of relationships without cohabitation.)

 

[idrum677]

In the cube farm that is my work, I am situated between 2 educated young women, both of whom cohabitate but are “not ready” to get married. Both of them own homes with their “pretend spouses” and act as if they are married to them. Its actually amusing to hear them talk about getting married some day but they give no reason as to why they are not married now. Unfortunately, my company has a strict policy about bringing up personal viewpoints (politics, morals, religion) so I am unable to say anything. Its just sad that this is the norm for society.

 

[Contarini]

. This is opposed to a Christian viewpoint, which actually encourages the casual dating of multiple people at the same time until we find one that seems to be the most suitable marriage partner.

There isn’t one Christian viewpoint on this. I think there’s quite a bit to be said for the view you’re suggesting, but it’s surely not a matter of Church teaching. My family considered casual dating (of the kind you’re describing–I know we’re not talking about sexual promiscuity) to be immoral. Many conservative evangelicals have come to the view that dating is a preparation for divorce. And many other Christians–perhaps overly influenced by the secular culture, but still orthodox Christians–find the “serial monogamy” pattern to be superior to the “casual dating” pattern as long as it is clear that sexual intercourse is to be reserved for marriage (because it trains single young people in patterns of fidelity and love that will serve them well once they get married, rather than expecting them to jump from a pattern of promiscuity, however sexually innocent it may be, to one of monogamy). It seems to me that you’re elevating one particular cultural pattern to a status it doesn’t deserve.

I say this even though I think that the approach you’re describing has many virtues and is considerably superior to the more conservative, uptight approach in which I was raised. I’m not saying that your position is wrong, only that when you sweepingly describe it as *the *Christian view you shortcircuit a debate that serious Christians need to have.

However, as a matter of honor and simple decency it is clearly wrong to try to lure a person away from their current romantic partner for one’s own selfish benefit.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Newbie2]

I’m somewhat disguested that the term “dating” has come to mean a sexual relationship and it’s always refreshing to hear that that’s not always the case.

We don’t have to adopt secular culture’s definition of anything; remember, we’re counter culture!

 

[Contarini]

P.S. to cam100,

I have looked at the amazon.com reviews of Fr. Morrow’s book, and it looks good. Fortunately, I have not had to worry about this for the past five years, and my daughter is only a year old so I won’t have to think about it on her behalf for a long while either! But in principle I think the pattern Fr. Morrow seems to be advocating is a healthy one.

Edwin

 

[cam100]

There isn’t one Christian viewpoint on this. I think there’s quite a bit to be said for the view you’re suggesting, but it’s surely not a matter of Church teaching.

No, you’re right, Church teaching doesn’t specify how one should date. Culture has something to do with it, too. But, in general, I think one is better served – from a practical and Christian standpoint – by casually spending time (not sexual activity) with a number of different people before settling down with a particular person. It helps us understand ourselves and our relationships with others better.

 

[bilop]

Our culture has re-defined the word “single”. For many, it no longer means “not married” but rather “not currently in a sexually intimate relationship”. Couples who are sleeping together are often not considered “single”, and expect to be treated in many ways as if they were married, e.g. be invited to family gatherings as a couple, and for each partner to be considered “off limits” by members of the opposite sex.

When we reject the culture’s supposition that sleeping with somebody grants the rights and privileges formerly reserved for marriage, are we obliged to still treat non-married “couples” as if they were married? Of course we would never dream of flirting with, or going on a date with somebody’s spouse; if someone has a “girlfriend” or “boyfriend”, are they just as “off limits”?

(Yes, I hear some people piously saying, “But why would you flirt with someone who is fornicating and therefore cut off from God? What could you possibly see in such a person?” Well, I have in mind a person who was a product of the Pop Culture, raised with Zero catechesis, either doctrinal or moral, but who has has a strong instinct for Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and an almost eerie affinity and attraction to the Catholic Church. I suspect he has many Catholic ancestors in heaven praying for him. And considering his total immersion in the hook-up culture, his actual moral choices have been way more lofty than that of the average neo-pagan. But being raised to think that fornication is just the normal thing that people who are dating do, makes it very difficult to see the Catholic moral doctrine as anything but utterly strange and alien.)

I find this odd as well. People will strenuously condemn someone for “cheating” on their boyfriend or girlfriend, when from a moral prospective this “cheating” is no worse than the fornicating that is going on with the boyfriend or girlfriend.

God Bless

 

[HannahLisa]

I find this odd as well. People will strenuously condemn someone for “cheating” on their boyfriend or girlfriend, when from a moral prospective this “cheating” is no worse than the fornicating that is going on with the boyfriend or girlfriend.

God Bless

“Cheating” is defined as breaking the exclusive relationship. It can happen to people in relationships without any physical contact, which would therefore not be sinful.

 

[Contarini]

I find this odd as well. People will strenuously condemn someone for “cheating” on their boyfriend or girlfriend, when from a moral prospective this “cheating” is no worse than the fornicating that is going on with the boyfriend or girlfriend.

God Bless

Betrayal of trust is always wrong, period. Dante put fornicators in the second circle of hell (most lenient next to limbo), but those who betrayed people who had a reason to trust them were way down in the ninth circle, at the very bottom. And I think Dante had it right.

Edwin

 

[mistfall]

Edwin said that the violation of trust is the big problem in this situation. But this raises the question of what grounds one partner in such a relationship has to expect fidelity from their sex partner. If one partner assumes that a sexual relationship automatically entitles one to a monogamous commitment, and the other has no such assumption, what grounds does either one have to say the other is wrong, if they have not explicitly promised each other any such thing? They have, after all, rejected the idea of making promises to bind themselves to each other in a monogamous sexual relationship, i.e. marriage.

 

[Island_Oak]

Our culture has re-defined the word “single”. For many, it no longer means “not married” but rather “not currently in a sexually intimate relationship”. Couples who are sleeping together are often not considered “single”, and expect to be treated in many ways as if they were married, e.g. be invited to family gatherings as a couple, and for each partner to be considered “off limits” by members of the opposite sex.

…are we obliged to still treat non-married “couples” as if they were married? Of course we would never dream of flirting with, or going on a date with somebody’s spouse; if someone has a “girlfriend” or “boyfriend”, are they just as “off limits”?

(Yes, I hear some people piously saying, “But why would you flirt with someone who is fornicating and therefore cut off from God? What could you possibly see in such a person?” Well, I have in mind a person who was a product of the Pop Culture…

So which is it? Do you want the green light to flirt with this person or to avoid including them as part of a couple in some family social event?