Can someone explain courting?

[ac_claire]

Restricting what your children do and controlling them will only make them more angry and rebellious. Kids need freedom at that age. It’s best to talk to them about sex early on, so they know what to do. My parents ingrained it into our heads that we weren’t old enough until we were out of the house.

As a blanket statement, this isn’t true. You can set bounderies and have values in your house and your family without being “controlling”…you’re basically just raising your children. Children look to their parents to be raised, and for guidance! If they respect you, they won’t feel you’re being “controlling” when you set reasonable standards such as, no dating in high school, as was mentioned earlier. Not every child is going to seeth at the injustice of that and long for the day when they can be free and date to their hearts content! lol Especially not if the kids understand the reasons for it (which are good and logical) and, even better, agree with you.

I’m not just saying this because it’s how I plan to raise my own kids. I’ve seen it work in my own family. Much more than I’ve seen kids grow up rebellious and angry because they were “too restricted”.

Honestly, the ones I’m thinking of in my own extended family who grew up rebellious and angry were the ones who had remarkably inconsistent parenting. It was at times too strict, and at times too lenient- but never consistent. Kids pick up on that, they know a lack of consistency doesn’t make sense and they have a hard time respecting it.

 

[chevalier]

But really this hostility to courtship because it’s “antiquated” doesn’t make sense to me. It’s really not antiquated. Practically speaking, courting today isn’t going to look the exact same way it did in the 19th century. It’s not all that different from dating. It just is more chaste and presupposes a specific goal in mind: finding someone to marry.

Let me put it this way. Old is not necessarily bad. But the point is, old is not necessarily good. Chastity and normalcy (yes, normalcy) are great. Victorian revival is just that, Victorian revival, same kind of thing as SCA except the period being recreated was shorter ago.

I think my words were misconstrued. Let me clarify for anyone who needs it: By kissing for “fun” (not my term) I meant kissing in a long term relationship out of marriage, not kissing ANYONE. I’m not endorsing kissing in casual relationship, but people do have serious relationships that can last a year, 2 years, etc. People will engage in these sort of relationships whether Catholic or not.

Well, that’s hardly for fun. At any rate, the point, in my view (other people will likely see it differently), is that it should have a meaning, not something to do socially with lots of people. We seem to agree on this point.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Courtship is not Victorian, it is far older and at one time or another was almost universal.

You will find similar customs in all civilised cultures in many different times throughout the history of the world, and the reason for this is because such a system develops organicly wherever loving parents seek to protect their daughters from the wolves they know only to well exist among their fellow men who would prey on their children for their own benefit.

And in protecting their daughters by teaching them to insist on the things I have already outlined before honouring a man with their company & favour such parents also protect society as a whole from the many evils that arise from the rash and imprudent forming of romantic attachments that are so prevalent in our time.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Good point! Of kids want to date they will, they’ll sneak around and do it behind their parents’ backs,

Bad kids might, good kids who respect their parents won’t, you seem to have a very negative attitude towards children which is quite disturbing, they are not all bad.

Disobedience of children to their parents is not inevitable as you seem to think, it is a result of bad parents and a wider society that teaches that rebellion is good and normal. Regardless of how the tv likes to portray children, and especially teenagers, rebelliousness is not a natural trait it is a learned one.

What makes good tv is not necessarily a true representation, that so much of our society have accepted these artificial portrayals as normal is one of the great problems of our time, one which is made even worse because now children actually learn how to behave from their tv’s. It has become self fulfilling, society through the media tells children to behave badly and the children do it, reinforcing the message that tv gives that all children are bad.

 

[chevalier]

Courtship is not Victorian, it is far older and at one time or another was almost universal.

We’re getting stuck on defintions a bit. As I said, generally dating would be a form of courtship. The problem is, whenever I hear about “courting”, “courtship” etc., I run into something I’d associate with Victorian novels and it seems to be a bit like historical reconstruction.

You will find similar customs in all civilised cultures in many different times throughout the history of the world, and the reason for this is because such a system develops organicly wherever loving parents seek to protect their daughters from the wolves they know only to well exist among their fellow men who would prey on their children for their own benefit.

She-wolves exist too. And parents’ role is important but has limits. (No argument on cultures, I’m rather knowledgeable there, actually, at least in terms of general knowledge.)

And in protecting their daughters by teaching them to insist on the things I have already outlined before honouring a man with their company & favour such parents also protect society as a whole from the many evils that arise from the rash and imprudent forming of romantic attachments that are so prevalent in our time.

There is nothing wrong with romantic attachments, nothing wrong with being romantic per se and nothing wrong with attachments per se either. The point is that love ought to be integrated (JP2, Love and Responsibility), which means that:

• the relationship is objectively based on friendship, which friendship gains colour from the sympathy which exists between people and prompts them towards each other;
• while feelings and even desire exist, objective value of the person counts (more), as does objective reality of the relationship;
• pronouncing love and building a future on it while it’s not so integrated is imprudent;
• “love” based only on desire and/or feelings is not full;
• things have to go through will because will is the final instance;
• mutual gift of self, coming together with acceptance, is not full without knowing what is given and what is received.

Recognition of the frailty of desire (including sex drive) or emotions (and feelings) is a good thing, together with the caveat that basic love on desire leads to use and basing love on feelings alone leads to falling out of touch with reality, *but *undermining the value of feelings or even of desire per se is not a moral obligation of a Catholic person. We head towards integrated love, but not towards a gloomy, super-serious, filled with pathos vision of resigning oneself to chores of married life (sounds like puritanism).

Next, while I do see it that way that it is an honour when a lady accepts your company and spends time with you (verbs like *honour *or *grace *are not out of place), you must realise that man and woman have equal dignity and are supposed to complement each other, thus, while a woman who is being brought up to be a lady (not everyone has be a lady or gentleman, this is not a moral obligation) should be ingrained with those concepts of *decorum *and made aware of this perspective, at the same time it’s not good for a woman to regard herself as a superior subspecies to the man, which does seem to follow from your statement, with all respect. And while men should be reverent (yes, I am using this word in the 21st century in this context), they should not be *apologetic *and they are not supposed to be or regard themselves as puny losers, nor is it like they have nothing to offer (a woman presents value to a man naturally, but so does a man to a woman). With respect again, your perspective seems Victorian to me unless you were consciously using hyperbole.

Our time does, however, seem to be focused on serotonin and endorfin supply, with occasional high from dopamine. It does carry some association with drugs, now that we’ve mentioned three substances. Plus, there’s plenty of people who are hurt and those are pushed towards non-committal attitudes, avoidance, maybe looking for shallow relationships that don’t carry obligations (perspective also present in some 19th century-ish outlooks, though), or are simply afraid and wounded. Relationships are the matter of a civilisiational disease these days.

 

[Kit15]

There’s been a few in the thread already, here’s one more. That’s how I ended up married to my husband too. We never “dated” in the traditional sense.

But really this hostility to courtship because it’s “antiquated” doesn’t make sense to me. It’s really not antiquated. Practically speaking, courting today isn’t going to look the exact same way it did in the 19th century. It’s not all that different from dating. It just is more chaste and presupposes a specific goal in mind: finding someone to marry.

I will never, ever let my children “date” when they’re in high school. How normal some random people may think it is is of no consequence. Christians aren’t really supposed to be “with the world” every step of the way anyhow, are we?

I also think part of the misunderstanding is that no one uses the word “courting” anymore. At least many people who are, in fact, courting right now are not using the term. The word is antiquated but the practice itself does still exist. We use terms like “casual dating” and “seriously dating” or “serious relationship” to describe various degrees of the umbrella term “dating”, which does include the process being referred to as “courting”.

Yes my husband and I “courted” but we sure never called it that (In fact I think this may be the first time I used that word to describe what we did) and probably will never call it that. No one called it that. We were “in a serious relationship” or “seriously dating”.

 

[VonDerTann]

I echo the sentiments that we are getting hung up on semantics. “Courting” can be a form of dating…however, I think when most people use the term “courting” it has certain connotations which make certain behaviors spring to mind - for better or worse.

However, I was struck by the phrase AC Claire said:

“I will never, ever let my children “date” when they’re in high school. How normal some random people may think it is is of no consequence. Christians aren’t really supposed to be “with the world” every step of the way anyhow, are we?”

–I think ‘refusing to let our children date’ in HS, carte blanche, is really, really unwise, with a capital “U,” for many reasons:

1. I think the biggest issue is how we see dating. Must ‘dating’ be confined to looking for spouse? Or can some form of dating - i.e., a senir prom, where your date may or may not kiss you on the steps at the end of the nite - simply be for fun and/or social interaction? If the latter is acceptable – and IMHO it is – then why prevent it?
2. Anecdotally, I know TONS of well-intentioned Christian people who took the ‘no dating in HS!" approach to/with their kids…and every one, I mean every single one I know, had the situation end badly. One Protestant minister I know said his daugher couldn’t date in HS. She came home from college pregnant after 1 semester. Another devoutly Catholic couple I know forbade their 4 children to date in HS…now, all their kids are in their 40s, and are all single, and unmarried. Why? a) the kids can’t relate to the opposite gender, b); and b) no one was ever good enought for the kids in the parents’ eyes. My point is, rebellion is only part of a multi-faceted problem caused by cutting kids off from social interaction.
3. As I posted earlier – ‘dating’ is part of learning how to interact with others of the opposite gender. AC Claire or anyone else who wouldn’t allow dating is HS: Are you saying you children couldn’t go their senior HS prom? If not, why not? Are you so sure they wouldn’t simply enjoy the experience, learn something, or simply have a bit of plain old 'fun?" Is simply going to a prom so bad? If we are at the stage where ‘fun’ is off the table, wow, no wonder Catholics get a bad rap!
4. Saying “you can’t date in HS!” IMHO often becomes “You can’t date until some later time!”…and that later time never comes. Do we want our daughters to grow up single, unmarried, and alone? That is exactly what can and does sometimes occur. Worse, simply asying, ‘you can’t date now!’ may lead to all sorts of rebellion, Must it? No. May it? Absolutely, and simply saying parents have to be ‘even handed’ or ‘consistent’ won’t make it any less likely IMHO.
5. Worst of all – some social skills wil be needed to help see a bad suitor from a good one. Saying 'no dating in HS!" may leave a child totally unprepared to recognize a bad guy/girl when the child – regardless of age – finally starts looking around at people of the oppose gender.

Now, there’s a distinction, Can I say to my 14 year old, 'you’re too young to even go out with a 19 year old?" Yes IMHO. But should I say to my 18 year old, “no senior prom for you, at all, no matter who asks you (or who you want to ask), because you’re still in high school, and all dating is out?” That’s gonna be remembered for a LONG time IMHO…and rightly so IMHO. At the end of the day, our children need our guidance - but, after a certain age, its their lives to live, not ours, and hiding them from the world – after a certain point – simply hurts them and prevents them from living. Doing so is no benefit to anyone…particularly the really perfect future spouse we may unwittingly prevent them from meeting.

 

[Emily2009]

Firstly congratulations.

As someone who has had to live the long courtship you are probably more aware than most of the difficulties involved and how much more preferable it would have been if at least one of you was already in a position to marry the other am I right?

Actually, as far as that goes, if one of us was ready for marriage and the other was unable/unready, I’m pretty sure it would have been even worse. There’s not much worse than being on a different page than Grant. But, yes, you’re right. …it would be much, much, much more preferable for both of us to be ready and able to get married right now. That would be wonderful. He told me two years ago already that he wanted to marry me someday…of course, he was young…ha. But, it is possible to know when you’re young. He was a lot more ready than I was at that point…

And, in response to the O.P., there is a difference between kissing for fun and not kissing at all. I had one previous relationship to the one I’m currently in, and my ex was abusive–he’d force me to kiss him, etc., so I was scared to death of kissing when I started “dating” Grant. And Grant was a sweetheart, and though he wanted to kiss me since day one, he waited until I was ready…which was good, because even then, I still had panic attacks sometimes. Actually: when Grant kisses me now, he tells me it’s like another way of saying “I love you.” Maybe more a guys way, but I see it now, too. He doesn’t kiss me because his body says it feels good or because it causes other things, [in fact if he thinks it may cause problems we restrain] but merely because he loves me.

And age doesn’t mean everything. My ex was 2.5 years older than me [18 to my 15 1/2] and I was more mature than he was. My Grant is 18 months younger than me [17.5 to my 19] and he is at least, if not more, mature than I am. Which is good…because I typically cannot stand teenage guys.

 

[Emily2009]

If kids want to date, they will date… [Don’t remember who wrote that]… But, I agree. It does not mean that the kid is bad.

I will say that I dated someone behind my parents back, but it wasn’t because I was a bad kid. My mother is mentally/emotionally abusive. My dad is kind of submissive to her at times [she is getting help now and we get along a lot better, and my dad stands up for us now more, too], but, long story short, I didn’t have a great home life. I didn’t have love, etc. I refuse to raise any children I have like she raised us *. But, I dated my ex to escape my mother. He couldn’t get enough of having me around. He’d drop anything for me. And he’d do anything for me…within reason, of course, and as long as there wasn’t anythng he was dead set on doing.

Obviously things weren’t working out between us…but, should i have not dated him? He helped make me who I am today–through good things and bad. My parents eventually met him and accepted him, but I didn’t do it because I was a rebel or because I was bad, but, merially to escape a bad situation.

I guess judging people, deciding if they’re good or bad, isn’t up to you…or anyone else. A good kid can disobey her parents sometimes without being bad. You don’t know the circumstances behind it. Btw, I’m the “bad” kid in my family. Why? I don’t know. I always came home before curfew, I always told my parents where I was, I never drank, I never stole, I had a 3.9 GPA taking honors classes, I was an athlete, a loving older sister, an artist, a musician. But, I was the bad kid…escaping is the only way I survived. *

Bad kids might, good kids who respect their parents won’t, you seem to have a very negative attitude towards children which is quite disturbing, they are not all bad.

Disobedience of children to their parents is not inevitable as you seem to think, it is a result of bad parents and a wider society that teaches that rebellion is good and normal. Regardless of how the tv likes to portray children, and especially teenagers, rebelliousness is not a natural trait it is a learned one.

What makes good tv is not necessarily a true representation, that so much of our society have accepted these artificial portrayals as normal is one of the great problems of our time, one which is made even worse because now children actually learn how to behave from their tv’s. It has become self fulfilling, society through the media tells children to behave badly and the children do it, reinforcing the message that tv gives that all children are bad.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

If kids want to date, they will date… [Don’t remember who wrote that]… But, I agree. It does not mean that the kid is bad.

I will say that I dated someone behind my parents back, but it wasn’t because I was a bad kid. My mother is mentally/emotionally abusive. My dad is kind of submissive to her at times [she is getting help now and we get along a lot better, and my dad stands up for us now more, too], but, long story short, I didn’t have a great home life.

Like I said bad kids are the result of bad parents. Disobeying parents reasonable restrictions is bad, if you had good parents that you respected you probably wouldn’t have.

However the main point I was trying to make is that the assumption that children will always disobey their parents is false. Some children do obey their parents.

Not all children will ignore the wishes of their parents and follow their own selfish desires and even if they did that would not be an adequate reason for parents to fail to set rules of good conduct for their children.

 

[Charlotte12]

Emily, I’m in a very similar position, so I know how it feels to be waiting. I would just like to agree with your response: yes, it would in many ways be preferable if my boyfriend and I were both out of college, employed, and free to marry.

However, I also know that God planned this wait for us. He wants us to struggle like this for reasons of His own. And I know that I am becoming a better person for it.

I guess this is mostly why I take issue with the idea that long courtships are always bad. True, they are incredibly frustrating at times, but I really believe God is helping us both to become holier people during this Lenten period of waiting. Which is wonderful, because that is what our marriage will be all about

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

While I applaud the two of you in making your situation work so far, it is far more common for couples in your situation to simply move in with each other and start fornicating and contracepting, or at least keep falling into the related sins.

As such it is a situation full of temptations and pitfalls which many people fail to resist and so fall from grace, sometimes never regaining. Better to avoid temptation than to expose yourself to it and then have to try and resist.

If you play with fire do not be surprised if you get burnt. I realise this is to late for the two of you and of course you will never agree because you love your boyfriends but you are a exception and it would be unwise to promote your dangerous path as something to be emulated.

In summation long courtship are not always bad, I did not claim that I don’t believe. However nor are they somethign to be desired or aimed for, more often than not they do have bad consequences and so are best avoided by not putting yourself in a position to fall in love with someone before you are ready, you generally don’t fall in love with someone you never get to know.

Because you get to decide who you spend time with you do to a certain extent control when and who you will fall in love with and marry and so can avoid long courtships and the accompanying dangers.

 

[ac_claire]

Let me put it this way. Old is not necessarily bad. But the point is, old is not necessarily good. Chastity and normalcy (yes, normalcy) are great. Victorian revival is just that, Victorian revival, same kind of thing as SCA except the period being recreated was shorter ago.

Courting is just a way of relating and communicating. In a way I think it’s timeless, it’s definitely not “Victorian”. You don’t have to wear petticoats and top hats and whatnot when courting, although I think that’s the problem a lot of people have with it. They have this mental picture.

It’s just like dating, only chaste and with a specific goal (marriage) in mind.

 

[Havard]

Courting is just a way of relating and communicating. In a way I think it’s timeless, it’s definitely not “Victorian”. You don’t have to wear petticoats and top hats and whatnot when courting, although I think that’s the problem a lot of people have with it. They have this mental picture.

Hey, I happen to like their snappy clothing!

 

[LilyElain]

Hey, I happen to like their snappy clothing!

http://tifftastic.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/darcy.jpg

Yes!!

 

[VonDerTann]

“Like I said bad kids are the result of bad parents”

-I’m sorry, Advocatus, I think you are 1000% wrong:

1. Exactly what is a “bad kid?” Is a 18 year old a kid? A 16 year old? A 23 year old who still lives at home? And what makes them “bad?” In 1958 someone who listened to Elvis Presley might be termed a “bad kid.” Are they “bad” because they want to go to their senior prom and their parents say, “you can’t go because you have to stay home and say your 8th Rosary today?” Is anyone who disobeys a parent “bad?”
2. For that matter, who’s a bad parent? Let’s be clear on exactly what consititues this.

I suspect 1 & 2 are simply a matter of opinion.

1. Even if we can agree on “who a bad kid is,” a parent can sometimes be a very good parent and the child nonetheless makes poor choices and turns into a “bad kid.” Conversely, sometimes a parent can screw up royally and nonetheless their children turn out well.

You also write, “Disobeying parents reasonable restrictions is bad, if you had good parents that you respected you probably wouldn’t have.”
–Once again, what’s a “reasonable restriction?” I knew parents who wold not let their 17 year old son see the original “Star Wars” in 1977. Was that “reasonable?” Under some peoples’ view, any and all “restrictions” by a parent are “reasonable, just b/c they come from a parent.” Moreover, I may respect my parents but nonetheless “push the envelope” with behavior…why? because I’m a kid, and that’s what kids do. Your post seem to suggest that all good kids must obey their parents, period. Im sorry, this will be true only when the perfect parent exists (and outside of Mary, I’d say we all fall short).

–Do you actually have children yourself? If so, how old are they? I ask, b/c saying “bad kids come from bad parents!” sounds sooooo much like a childless person speaking to me.

-A wise person once said to me that a child growing up reflects a constant widening of the childs’ boundaries. Sometimes the boundaries are healthy (don’t play in traffic). However, sometimes IMHO the boundaries reflect merely the parents’ own fears more than they do the child’s safety, i.e., 'there are bad young men out there in the world who will look to carry off my daughter and steal her virtue…so therefore she is not allowed to even THINK of going to her senior prom!" The good parent is the one who can understand the difference, and act accordingly.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

“Like I said bad kids are the result of bad parents”

-I’m sorry, Advocatus, I think you are 1000% wrong:

No need to apologise the feeling is mutual.

1. Exactly what is a “bad kid?”

A child who breaks the fourth commandment would fit the category of bad kid, any child who fails to perform their duties to their parents as taught by the Catholic Faith.

Is a 18 year old a kid? A 16 year old? A 23 year old who still lives at home?

Anyone under 21 is still a child, anyone who lives in my household is under my authority whether they are children, adults, family or total strangers.

Is anyone who disobeys a parent “bad?”

Their act of disobedience would be bad yes. Anyone who disobeys those who have authority over them are bad if they disobey an order that is not contrary to the orders of a higher authority.

1. For that matter, who’s a bad parent? Let’s be clear on exactly what consititues this.

Parents who fail to adequately perform their duty to their children as taught by the Catholic Chruch.

I suspect 1 & 2 are simply a matter of opinion.

Your suspicions are ill founded the catechism among other sources goes into one and two, whole books have been written on the subject and I am not inclined to type them out here. For a more expansive answer to your questions you may consult the below source:

newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm

–Do you actually have children yourself? If so, how old are they? I ask, b/c saying “bad kids come from bad parents!” sounds sooooo much like a childless person speaking to me.

God has blessed me with one child at the moment, but that question is really irrelevant, you do not so much learn how to be a good parent by experimenting with your own children so much as you learn from your own parents as they raise you and your siblings just as they learned from theirs.

My experience of parenting was gained more as a middle child in a household that raised 5 children than from been a parent myself, been a parent myself is where I start to put what I already know into practice it was not where I learned to be a parent, knowing how to raise children is a prerequisite, it should come before not after having children.

What is your parenting experience?

 

[Coco82]

Bad kids might, good kids who respect their parents won’t, you seem to have a very negative attitude towards children which is quite disturbing, they are not all bad.

Disobedience of children to their parents is not inevitable as you seem to think, it is a result of bad parents and a wider society that teaches that rebellion is good and normal. Regardless of how the tv likes to portray children, and especially teenagers, rebelliousness is not a natural trait it is a learned one.

What makes good tv is not necessarily a true representation, that so much of our society have accepted these artificial portrayals as normal is one of the great problems of our time, one which is made even worse because now children actually learn how to behave from their tv’s. It has become self fulfilling, society through the media tells children to behave badly and the children do it, reinforcing the message that tv gives that all children are bad.

Your arrogance & ignorance amazes me. You don’t know anything about me and are supposing I have a negative opinion of children that “disturbs” you. Give me a break. I have teenage siblings, I have a teenage sister I’m very close to. I DO NOT have a negative opinion of children in the least bit. I wholeheartedly agree w/VDT. Instead of preaching from on high to your children talk w/them and educate them so they can make good choices. If they can’t see see what makes a good guy in their teens and have those instincts what makes you think they’ll have them in their 20s and up? They need experience to call on. My parents talked w/us and educated us about choosing the right person. To AF, do not say things you know nothing about. I’ve seen both good and bad kids and think both can come from both types of parents.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Your arrogance & ignorance amazes me. You don’t know anything about me and are supposing I have a negative opinion of children that “disturbs” you.

You made the statement that if children want to date they will do it it regardless of what their parents want, how else am I supposed to interpret that other than that you believe children will always disobey their parents and thus are always bad when that is what you said?

Give me a break. I have teenage siblings, I have a teenage sister I’m very close to. I DO NOT have a negative opinion of children in the least bit.

That’s good to hear thanks for clearing that up.

I wholeheartedly agree w/VDT. Instead of preaching from on high to your children talk w/them and educate them so they can make good choices. If they can’t see see what makes a good guy in their teens and have those instincts what makes you think they’ll have them in their 20s and up?

“Your arrogance & ignorance amazes me. You don’t know anything about me and are supposing I” preach from on high to my children. See how that works?

They need experience to call on.

Not necessarily, a wise man learns by the mistakes of others only a fool has to experience it himself to learn the lesson, I would prefer my children are spared from learning the hard way if it is in my power to spare them that.

My parents talked w/us and educated us about choosing the right person.

That’s good are you implying that I would not?

To AF, do not say things you know nothing about. I’ve seen both good and bad kids and think both can come from both types of parents.

Again you assume somethign about me which is false.

 

[Rascalking]

Hey! Coco and Advatacus-stop using personal attacks on each other like , “arrogant” or other names…

Don’t make me whip out my Bichon, the loyal guard dog of Catholic Answers-he bites people who get nasty!