Catholic dating- Dating more than one person at the same time

[llenadegracia]

Wait, so it’s a good thing to do or is it a no big deal? A no big deal suggests something which isn’t entirely right but the gravity of its wrongness is not particularly significant. Still at odds with the “should” because you can’t really say everybody should do something which is slightly problematic on the ethical side while being somewhat expedient.

Just a trouble I find with the reasoning. To cast some more light on what goes on my mind: a lot of the pro-non-exclusive dating arguments seem centred on one’s own benefit, while allowing the others’s good to be put in a position subordinate to one’s own good. Save our time, test all of your opportunities, do what’s best for you, look out for no. 1. That’s rather tenuous from the point of view of either more traditional thomistic ethics (do the right thing) or its more modern personalistic iteration (affirm the person in the other).

On the other hand:

DL, he’s talking about a Catholic match dot com scenario. You may or may not know what that looks like. One such site where I’m signed up has over three hundred thousand profiles out of some thirty-eight million inhabitants of the geographical area of interest. The numbers are probably higher in anything that involves the US, as your splendid country has 8 times that population number, then add the Old Country at the Thames, former colonies here and there and all the second language speakers. That’s gonna be a lot of profiles in total, even if it’s probably similar on the local level (if you “fish” closer to your surroundings for practical reasons, e.g. air fare).

You can’t fall in love with a profile. I actually recognise faces in thumbnail pictures provided in Random 5 on the starting page out of the what, 170K female profiles on that service I’m using? Few of them do anything to me. Like sure, heck, why not have a coffee. In some cases, I’ll say, ‘heck, what an interesting person,’ I may wish her all the best and be happy that such cool people walk this earth, kinda lifts your faith in humanity. But you can’t anything else than an approximate narrowing down decision based on the data a profile contains, even complete with pictures. You just can’t really pick one person unless you have very narrow and very specific criteria and it simply happens that your target group for that is 1. So you just have to involve some getting-to-know in your process. The OP does say the process involves mostly information-finding, not testing how the other person actually lives out a relationship, complete with kissing, cheap poetry, strollin’ down the lovers’ lane and so on. That’s the reality of match-making agencies, I guess.

My own profile contains a warning that 1) meeting up for a coffee is not a step en route to engagement, 2) I’m not okay with any “no obligations” PDA.

Hmm…I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I’ll try to explain a little more…

I completely agere with you on the “meeting up for a coffee is not a step en route to engagement.” That’s exactly my motto and outlook on the whole situation. However, I believe that you can absolutely meet someone for coffee on say a Monday and meet someone else for coffee the next week. I don’t exactly how, when done properly, would be bad/wrong.That’s what I mean by dating more than one person at a time. I definitely don’t mean going on regular dates with multiple people at the same time…that’s probably not the best idea. I hope that makes a litte more sense.

 

[chevalier]

I completely agere with you on the “meeting up for a coffee is not a step en route to engagement.” That’s exactly my motto and outlook on the whole situation. However, I believe that you can absolutely meet someone for coffee on say a Monday and meet someone else for coffee the next week.

Or even later on the same day. If it’s right, then there’s no need to space it out!

I don’t exactly how, when done properly, would be bad/wrong.That’s what I mean by dating more than one person at a time. I definitely don’t mean going on regular dates with multiple people at the same time…that’s probably not the best idea. I hope that makes a litte more sense.

Well, like always, it goes down to the definition of dating and the cultural differences in looking at things. My impression is that the dominant American perspective seems to be looking at it in light of “exclusivity” or lack of it, while you also mention regularity, which is perhaps a different facet of the same perspective, while on the other hand I tend to focus on what exactly is done on those dates. (Apart from bellyaching about the romantic escapade implications inherent in the word “dating”.) Maybe because I’m European.

 

[llenadegracia]

Or even later on the same day. If it’s right, then there’s no need to space it out!

Well, like always, it goes down to the definition of dating and the cultural differences in looking at things. My impression is that the dominant American perspective seems to be looking at it in light of “exclusivity” or lack of it, while you also mention regularity, which is perhaps a different facet of the same perspective, while on the other hand I tend to focus on what exactly is done on those dates. (Apart from bellyaching about the romantic escapade implications inherent in the word “dating”.) Maybe because I’m European.

Ok…

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to get across, sorry.

I think that as long as all actions are done respectfully and for the best interest of both parties, then there likely won’t be a problem.

For instance: I attended this large church event and two young men asked for my number and asked if I’d like to get coffee sometime. I said sure to both of them. I had coffee with both of them the following week. We ended up having some major differences so a second coffee date didn’t occur. No harm done. I got coffee with each of them once, we realized that we weren’t a good compliment to one another, and moved on. In my opinion, it would have been weird to say no to the second guy simply because I had just accepted the invitation of the first guy. That is my definition of dating two people at one time. Not really sure what else to say on this topic.

Overall, every situation and people involved differs greatly. I don’t think there will ever be one answer to all these situations. I don’t have anything further to say on this matter.

 

[chevalier]

Ok…

I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to get across, sorry.

I think that as long as all actions are done respectfully and for the best interest of both parties, then there likely won’t be a problem.

I’m trying to get it across that romantic relationships should by defnition be exclusive. Merely considering someone (i.e. his or her advantages and disadvantages) as a potential romantic or even marriage partner does not entail such a need. But “non-exclusive dating” does contain a dangerous notion of harbouring concurrent romantic attachments.

Respecting both parties and their interests here is crucial, of course, but it isn’t sufficient to just respect whatever we construe as such or the other party construes as such, given that, in my opinion, no amount of anybody’s consent can make it right to foster multiple concurrent romantic attachments (what can be non-exclusive must be limited to finding out, but not to actively building, trying and testing the relationship).

For instance: I attended this large church event and two young men asked for my number and asked if I’d like to get coffee sometime. I said sure to both of them. I had coffee with both of them the following week. We ended up having some major differences so a second coffee date didn’t occur. No harm done. I got coffee with each of them once, we realized that we weren’t a good compliment to one another, and moved on. In my opinion, it would have been weird to say no to the second guy simply because I had just accepted the invitation of the first guy. That is my definition of dating two people at one time. Not really sure what else to say on this topic.

Well, I don’t see anything wrong about that and I’d have done the same (with the understanding that it was just talking and any flirting was minimal and water-probing rather than foundation-creating). But I wouldn’t call those meetings dates really. I mean, descriptively we’ll generally tend to use the word “date” here, but if we get more specific about the naming conventions, we should skip the word “date” in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Hate to be hair-splitting but this is sometimes necessary. But we gotta mark the difference or else people will pick up the sentence that “non-exclusive dating is okay” and understand it as making it right to have multiple boyfriends or girlfriends or go on sitting-in-the-tree-kissing with one person today, another tomorrow, then the previous one the day after etc., which basically means being involved in multiple low-level romantic relationships (rather than mere finding out about possibilities).

Overall, every situation and people involved differs greatly. I don’t think there will ever be one answer to all these situations. I don’t have anything further to say on this matter.

All right, so we’re finished unless you wish to comment on anything I’ve just said.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Taking all physical contact out of the equation there is still a definite point when you need to be exclusive. A coffee date isn’t it, but if the relationship/friendship progresses to the point where you are sharing secrets, hopes, dreams, and opening up about your families, upbringing, etc then it is time to seriously consider exclusivity. If I found out that as I was moving forward with someone he was spending one night having these meaningful conversations with me and the next taking another woman out for dinner and dancing I would end it. He would have shown me that he doesn’t respect the people who open up to him and either doesn’t take the idea of marriage seriously, or is too immature to go about it the right way.

It really isn’t all about physical activity. There’s a reason that emotional affairs are so destructive. I would say that it’s time to be exclusive when you get to the point with a woman that you would feel cheated on if your wife developed the same connection to another man.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

DL82:

Ok, to each his own, but I do wonder whether this approach isn’t a little too cold and emotionless.

All right, thank God someone is with me on this one…

Well, sorta.

Tradycja:

Well, so, after the end of a 7 month relationship I am back on Catholic Match.

One thing that I would like to change during this time around, is not going exclusive with someone so fast, but rather to get to know many Catholic women. I feel like the last time around (went exclusive after 2 months of knowing her) I kind of limited myself. Ultimately, we were incompatible due to our views on money and an objective large amount of student loan and credit card debt she had (60k).

Anyway, I feel like I would have found out that we were incompatible after knowing her awhile ANYWAY, but I could have been getting to know other women during that time period.

I am traditional Catholic and I basically reject the idea of “soulmate” and “the one”. I think you basically need to find someone who is compatible in regards to Religion (Catholic/Traditional), Psychology (are we compatible personality-wise), and Worldview (politics, views on raising children, financial compatibility). It’s my belief that if you find someone that matches you in this criteria, it’s impossible NOT to fall in love with them. I fundamentally believe that reason should lead and THEN the heart and not vice-versa. Actually, I read something that statistically arranged marriages (still practiced in various parts of the world) are stronger marriages, because the parents of the bride and groom take into account factors that may be overlooked by two young people intoxicated by romantic love.

That being said, how does one approach this issue (of not wanting to go exclusive that soon) when it seems like the expectation, even in Catholic circles, is that the goal is to be “In a relationship”? My goal is not to be “In a relationship” but to discern a good spouse. I’m financially and psychology ready to get married. In a sense, it really is kind of like a job interview, when you think of it…but you’re interviewing for something more important than a job- a life-long covenant. Just as I wouldn’t choose where I worked simply on my emotions towards the place, why would I base a life-long covenant and sacrament on just randomly “falling in love”?

Please advise. How does one date more than one girl at the same time without seeming like a “player”. (It goes without saying that I don’t believe in premarital sex or kissing before marriage).

I’m not following your approach. It seems like you want to go from a discernment right to an engagement, without developing a “relationship” in between, and I can’t quite make sense of how that is supposed to work for you.

You mention religion, psychology/personality and worldview/financial condition. My question is: how do you intend to get someone to reveal their most intimate information without being “in a relationship” at some point? Without any physical affection whatsoever (not even a kiss?) While treating the reveal of all this intimate information over a long period of time as a “job interview”?

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I don’t get it…

llenadegracia:

I do not think there’s anything wrong with your approach. In fact, I think it is very wise and something all young Catholics (and everyone) should do. I really don’t think you’d seem like a “player”.

Really, I don’t think it’s too big of a deal. I encourage you to make a list of non negotiables. Sit down for coffee with many Catholic women and work those non negotiables into the coversation. She believes in pre-marital relations? Hmm…probably time to move on. Obviously, don’t be so strict about your non negotiables that you end up missing out on some great young women…but know what you’re looking for.

Some personal experience with this issue…I finally sat down a few months ago and made a list of non negotiables. When I sit down for coffee (or dinner or whatever) with a young gentleman, there’s a few topics I try to get his stance on during that time. For example, he needs to be financially stable/financially sound. Considering I’m in college as are these gentlemen, that can be a little tough so I’m not expecting much…just the assurance that they are being financially responsible in their life and not taking out thousands upon thousands of loans and not being responsible about it…

Do you bring up these non-negotiables on a first date? Does that usually go over well? I’m just curious. For me, at least, bringing all of that stuff up on a first date might be pretty personal. I’d like to have a general sense of the lady’s personality before revealing intimate details.

 

[PatriceA]

All right, thank God someone is with me on this one…

Well, sorta.

I’m not following your approach. It seems like you want to go from a discernment right to an engagement, without developing a “relationship” in between, and I can’t quite make sense of how that is supposed to work for you.

You mention religion, psychology/personality and worldview/financial condition. My question is: how do you intend to get someone to reveal their most intimate information without being “in a relationship” at some point? Without any physical affection whatsoever (not even a kiss?) While treating the reveal of all this intimate information over a long period of time as a “job interview”?

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I don’t get it…

No, you’re not the only one, I’m confused as well. But then again, I do believe in “soulmate” and “the one” that God has deemed for each of us. That might be why I can’t quite grasp all the OP is applying to their dating process.

If its a matter of “weeding out” all the profiles on an online dating site, that I can understand his approach in the beginning. But he loses me when it comes to developing a relationship with someone he wants to get to know better and start the discerning process for marriage. Maybe its the terms he’s using, but it seems very cold and business like. If my husband had approached our first initial meetings as a job interview, there wouldn’t have been even a third date let alone a second. Our first date lasted 12 hours, we connected like I had never connected with anyone I had ever met before. We were engaged within 5 months. He’s my best friend and soulmate, no doubt. Up until meeting him, I did decide I wasn’t going to be exclusive with anyone and I was getting to know several guys at the same time in group settings, sometimes one on one for coffees and similar. But once I met my husband, all that went out the window.

You have to put your ear to God’s mouth and discern while you’re meeting people when you are single. You may think you have a plan to meet your future spouse, but God’s timing and HIs plan is the better plan. Its better to follow God’s lead than your own ways and thinking.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

No, you’re not the only one, I’m confused as well. But then again, I do believe in “soulmate” and “the one” that God has deemed for each of us. That might be why I can’t quite grasp all the OP is applying to their dating process.

I couldn’t imagine myself being more fulfilled with any woman other than my wife, and the circumstances that brought us together are rather extraordinary. While I must disagree with your position from a rational standpoint, I certainly understand the sentiment involved!

If its a matter of “weeding out” all the profiles on an online dating site, that I can understand his approach in the beginning. But he loses me when it comes to developing a relationship with someone he wants to get to know better and start the discerning process for marriage. Maybe its the terms he’s using, but it seems very cold and business like. If my husband had approached our first initial meetings as a job interview, there wouldn’t have been even a third date let alone a second. Our first date lasted 12 hours, we connected like I had never connected with anyone I had ever met before. We were engaged within 5 months. He’s my best friend and soulmate, no doubt. Up until meeting him, I did decide I wasn’t going to be exclusive with anyone and I was getting to know several guys at the same time in group settings, sometimes one on one for coffees and similar. But once I met my husband, all that went out the window.

I concur. It does sound like a cold process that is extremely divorced from anything I’m familiar with. I couldn’t imagine myself opening up to someone like this.

This is probably a cultural thing that we really can’t understand.

I don’t want to judge the man, I’m sure he’s doing what’s right by him, but I don’t understand so I’m afraid that I can’t provide any advice.

 

[PatriceA]

I couldn’t imagine myself being more fulfilled with any woman other than my wife, and the circumstances that brought us together are rather extraordinary. While I must disagree with your position from a rational standpoint, I certainly understand the sentiment involved!

I concur. It does sound like a cold process that is extremely divorced from anything I’m familiar with. I couldn’t imagine myself opening up to someone like this.

This is probably a cultural thing that we really can’t understand.

I don’t want to judge the man, I’m sure he’s doing what’s right by him, but I don’t understand so I’m afraid that I can’t provide any advice.

I have learned God and His plan is never “rational”

 

[WildCatholic]

To be honest, OP (sorry if I forgot your name), I’m kind of in the same boat. I’m on Catholicmatch as well, and I kind of just want to get to know girls. Whats different and hard for me though is that i haven’t really had a relationship (awkward and low self esteem in hs, mixture of being too busy and too shy in college, though I have done the online thing, and asked two girls on dates in person, though both went badly to say the least). Anyway I guess I’m the one who sometimes wants a girl to be the one, but i guess i’ve been trying to look at it as trying to find new friends than find the one (which is dangerous for both girls and guys, if you latch onto someone too quickly, you get hurt fast and easy). It is tough though, especially since there aren’t a lot of people in my area, granted there are not a lot of places to meet young catholics in my area, so I kind of figured I needed some place to meet like minded women.

Anyway, good luck in your search. You’ll be in my prayers, and as a fellow man, I hope you find an awesome and Godly woman:thumbsup:

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I have learned God and His plan is never “rational”

I apologize; I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that you were being irrational for believing as you do, merely that I have been unable to discover any rational basis for this particular conclusion.

 

[chevalier]

Taking all physical contact out of the equation there is still a definite point when you need to be exclusive. A coffee date isn’t it, but if the relationship/friendship progresses to the point where you are sharing secrets, hopes, dreams, and opening up about your families, upbringing, etc then it is time to seriously consider exclusivity. If I found out that as I was moving forward with someone he was spending one night having these meaningful conversations with me and the next taking another woman out for dinner and dancing I would end it. He would have shown me that he doesn’t respect the people who open up to him and either doesn’t take the idea of marriage seriously, or is too immature to go about it the right way.

Well, you see, the problem is that people share such secrets with friends, especially people who are in need of a willing ear. Conversations between friends of opposing sexes can be quite advanced too, although it normally takes more time to get there than in a romance.

The problem with the dating scene is that those things are “soft hints” and they build up your hopes without giving you concrete proofs or binding the other party to anything.

 

[RedSparklyShoes]

I haven’t read all the responses, so I apologize if this is repetition.

When I was searching for a husband, I couldn’t wrap my brain around the idea of dating more than one person at a time. Not that there has ever really been an opportunity for me to have even ONE at a time, let alone multiple. I was on eharmony a couple of times in my 20s and even that felt strange to me in trying to have email conversations with several men at the same time.

It was certainly quite a surprise to me when I “met” my husband and started dating him. We had known each other for about 11 years at that point. I had no idea that God was allowing me to get to know someone as a good good Christian friend long before anything romantic was on the table. I had prayed for a husband who had a strong faith. I knew I was called to marriage and when I was single for so long, I was so frustrated. The very day I finally said to God that I was happy being single and if that’s what he’d called me to do, I would be happy the rest of my life is when André phoned me up and said he’d be in town, would I like to go to dinner. Any other man I had tried to date, it was made VERY obvious to me that it was MY choice not God’s…one of them died and the 2nd told me he was gay when we’d been dating a while).

The rest is history.

 

[mrajax]

Thing is OP, as a traditionalist myself, even though I have never dated or been in a relationship before although I sincerely wish to marry and have a woman who will love me and whom I will be able to protect, you can’t simply meet up with someone, look at their religion/finances/morality etc… and say I’m going to marry them. Thats not love; frankly it’s forcing your will on someone. You should consider their own feelings and not simply your own. How would you feel if a woman dated multiple men and only regarded you as a candidate for marriage?

Honestly, your thought process makes marriage nothing but a job. It’s like having a a man join the Priesthood with no passion for converting souls or love for God and the Virgin Mary; you just don’t do it. Ever. Men should love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and wives should love their husbands as the Church loves Christ. This comes from Ephesians 5:25 so I’m not making it up.

Women (and men for that matter) don’t want to be treated as candidates for marriage. There certainly are a lot of women who want to become a bride but they want to become the bride of a man whom they can trust and share affection to wards. Someone who will take interest in what they love, someone who will be not only a husband and a father but also their best friend.

Sorry to offend those already in such a marriage but I don’t care how much stronger an arranged marriage is, it insults those marriages built from real love and downplays the role men and women have in influencing each other. It’s one thing homosexuals don’t get, in that men and women look at things diffirently and when their relationship is really deep, the two together make the perfect home to live in. A boyfriend and a girlfriend without emotional affection are a bad thing. Why do you think Catholic writers stress that a relationship should be chaste before marriage? So that the two may find good qualities in their fiancee and marry them because of those qualities and not because of lust. Sorry for the rambling, it’s just that I had to get it off my chest as I used to have the same thought process as the OP before and I’m more than glad that I dropped it.