Dating/courtship

[Unicornlover]

Ooh don’t forget retreats. While the real reason for going on a retreat is to grow in your faith and get closer to Jesus, all of the different people you meet and new friends you make are a nice bonus! Plus a majority of them are Catholic. And it never hurts to take random trips to different parishes in your area. It’s interesting to see how the parishes are different, and it’s a good opportunity to meet new people.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Dating does not allow for normal getting to know, which is possible when you spend time with someone at work or in long conversations or while managing business or whatever. This all the more when you’re expected to make your decision regarding your “relationship status” by the third date (with a heretefore complete stranger to boot). You probably wouldn’t begin to trust an insurance dealer within such a timeframe. The product is people not knowing each other much when they marry.

At the same time dating, while more on the formal side than casual hooking up, does not really respect good old manners all that much. It establishes a low-level, nascent romantic relationship between two strangers. When you ask someone for a date, the word “date” conveys the dinner and movie and some kissing thereafter unless things go bad. That sits ill with me, I cannot accept the idea of conveying such a suggestion to a stranger (it feels irreverent). Call me a wet blanket. I generally believe that dating is insufficient in its respect for women. At any rate, it fails to provide a solid structure with a moral highground, it just enjoys some respect due to its longevity, reaching back to the fifties, which gives six decades of tradition.

Finally, there’s the whole deal with exclusive vs non-exclusive dating, wherein “exclusive dating” often means two mid-teens acting like married, and “non-exclusive dating” tends to mean kissing a different boy or girl every day of the week, sometimes actually openly having two boyfriends or girlfriends (whether also in name or not). A healthy ground in between is something I’d love to see but don’t often. At least not in CAF threads (more so in real life, though).

Make no mistake, I’m no big fan of Victorian reconstruction either (good morals is one thing, good manners is another, resurrecting a dead bourgeois lifestyle from a past historical period is a completely different cup of tea). I believe people fail to appreciate polite social exchange as between a lady and a gentleman (which does not need to hurry to affirm or disavow any potential future romantic twitterpations from the very get-go). Just meeting people respectfully and talking, without enacting any sort of a script and without an artificial framework of milestones sounds like a better idea to me.

Apologies for the tongue-in-cheek language if anyone feels offended. I probably should edit it out.

Another poster asked you for the synopsis rather than the thesis, I’m going to ask you for the thesis rather than the synopsis. You seem to have a very interesting take on this subject, but I can’t figure out what it is…

Is it fair to say you are for the “friends first” concept, because if not, I’m really not sure where you’re coming from.

 

[chevalier]

Another poster asked you for the synopsis rather than the thesis, I’m going to ask you for the thesis rather than the synopsis. You seem to have a very interesting take on this subject, but I can’t figure out what it is…

Let me try. But there is no one thesis unless we put everything together in one large sentence.

#1 Dating tends to lead to intimacy before there is trust to merit it. By intimacy I don’t even understand sexual connotations. In fact, the mating connotations are such that to call a meeting a date is already somewhat intimate, and to ask someone on a date is an intimate action–as is to accept. Which isn’t wrong per se but in most cases will not be warranted. It doesn’t run against the traditional notions of reverence and decorum (which I’m not seeing as absolute rules but as good guidelines).

#2 Dating makes you buy or sell before trust is gained–simply because of the time-frame and fast-paced schedule with clear milestones. In marketing, you earn trust first, you try to make a transaction only later. Like I said, the consequence is poor match quality resulting from rushed choice under pressure.

#3 Exclusive or non-exclusive (as defined by a promise) is a seriously flawed way of looking at it. When it’s just talking without bonding, especially conversations over coffee, it doesn’t need to be exclusive unless the flirting or other conduct could legitimately resemble a declaration in the eyes and ears of a reasonable person. When it actually has you acting like somebody’s romantic interest or like the somebody is your love interest, when there is bonding and a relationship different from another addition to your circle of friends is being built, then that has to be exclusive. I’m not sure what exactly they did when they actually met them, but Catullus and Petrarca wrote their poems for one woman each, didn’t they? But this should go without saying.

Is it fair to say you are for the “friends first” concept, because if not, I’m really not sure where you’re coming from.

I’m criticising dating on some points of efficiency, and on the point of propriety and decorum, the latter two of which do ultimately touch on the dignity of a human being, so it’s not just a bunch of societal taboos (which could have me looking the other way if it just came to them).

I’m in favour of keeping as much naturalcy as it gets and especially getting rid of the milestone framework. This is better achieved when you don’t call those meetings dates. Not calling them dates also allows for more diplomatic exits when either of the parties isn’t satisfied to go further. There is no pressure of real or implied promises. Doubts don’t have you declaring yourself back and forth, you can just sit back for a while (e.g. 2-3 meetings) and talk about stuff while clearing your mind enough to evaluate the situation in a rational way.

 

[Kamaduck]

Finally, there’s the whole deal with exclusive vs non-exclusive dating, wherein “exclusive dating” often means two mid-teens acting like married, and “non-exclusive dating” tends to mean kissing a different boy or girl every day of the week, sometimes actually openly having two boyfriends or girlfriends (whether also in name or not). A healthy ground in between is something I’d love to see but don’t often. At least not in CAF threads (more so in real life, though).

Most of the adults I know like to tell my peers about the many benefits of non-exclusive dating. It’s weird, because absolutely none of my friends date non-exclusively. Most of them would consider it irresponsible and “leading people on” without intending to commit.

I’m not even sure how non-exclusive dating would work for us. Nobody I know goes on physical “dates” unless it’s to a school dance or they are a senior. They just sort of hang out after school and talk, or sit together at group events.

 

[chevalier]

Illustration:

John sees Alice on route to a LAN party and drops his computer on his foot. He MUST do something about that girl. Basecamping won’t get him anywhere, this is a call for action! Since Zerg rush is not a societally acceptable solution in such a case, he needs to come up with a more standards-compliant response that will validate. Seems to be dating. WHEW. But then, on a longer, fuller axis:

*Well, she’s hot and seems kinda smart and reminds me of mum and all, but what do I know of her? I need to scout! * But scouting is kinda illegal and gets you restraining orders. Which means you need to harass. But wait, that too can go down wrong with the legal system. Err… well, just gotta ask her out.

Do I or don’t I ask her out? This is a decision with weighty consequences but based on a bunch of approximations and guesses. It’s also one hard to pull yourself out of if things go wrong. (You’re directly offering something along the lines of, “dinner and move and some strollin’ in the moonlight’n’kissin’ if things don’t go wrong.” Which is quite a bunch of stuff to other to someone you haven’t much talked with.)

Do I accept or not? It probably puts even more pressure on the woman. She’s basically settling a claim on her time and attention and making concessions. The society will see her–no matter if that is true–as essentially having given her conditional acceptance to “strollin’ in the moonlight’n’kissin’”, should prerequisites be met. Oh no, I’m trapped!

…And I need a way out!

John brings up the processes tab and sees “Alice not responding” (and 100% CPU load and swap file slowly trickling out). This is a familiar situation. Time for a bathroom break or perhaps a sandwich and a reset if things don’t change by the time he’s back.

…But Alice eventually frees up some RAM and her CPU fan rises to the task. She will be able to return one message prior to emergency shutdown.“Yes” or “no”? Oh come on! Gotta bite my nails! Houston, we got a problem. Alice, are you with us? Yeah, yeah, whatever.

If yes:

(Wow, this doesn’t happen every day!..Or month. Or year.)

Alice thinks: Oh no, what have I done?
On the other hand, John thinks: Oh no, what have I done?

Both prepare to meet the firing squad (not that one, John) and even Alice eventually hits Google on the night before (having consulted all her Facebook friends and her MyGossip group on Drama.com; girls are literate these days).

The awkward moment finally comes. Oh wow, you did come. | Why wouldn’t I? (Yeah, lol, right. Actually…)

Now there is some awkward silence, which is sometimes broken nonverbally by a girl less closefisted with the PDA (no, John, this is not Personal Data Assistant). She might even take him by his hand and lead him to a table, which will burn his circuits red and block his ports for a while.

After some more awkwardness, when the evening is eventually over:

Decision, decision, is there going to be a next one? Come on, this is so unfair! thinks Alice, while John is processing a couple of hopes and temptations and slowly running out of paged pool until he hopefully responds to his guardian angel’s ping.

Fast-forward two other evenings:

Alice thinks: Oh no, this is the third date.
John thinks: Oh no, this is the third date.

…the nasty $boyfriend? query is popping up, and freedom’s expiring in their respective comfortable cache, which is riping for a brutal refresh.

→ Yes | No <— (Expires: 10 secs)

Tiny dots of sweat perspire (or should we say perspirate?) on Alice’s brow as she thinks like a hungry cornered PacMan making for big flashy power pellets before monsters* get him.

• This is what Wikipedia has to say about them: “Despite the seemingly random nature of the enemies, their movements are strictly deterministic, which players have used to their advantage.”

(Now, if you used this metaphor with John, he might actually understand what’s going on. But right now he’s reaching for CTRL+ALT+DEL again while waiting for the end quest screen. Because he doesn’t realise this is only the beginning of a new quest line. After all, he’s never been past this stage yet, so it’s hard to blame him!)

Come on, Alice, this is your last chance to return an LJBF error!

She wants to stay safe, and her world is coming down crumbling. She reaches for the default No button, while suddenly:

[John:] LOL srsly?!!1 I mean, wow, that’s great, thank you, thank you! [Runs to post on his Facebook page.]
[Alice:] ?

Well, he will still get his LJBF sooner or later anyway.

On the other hand, suppose she did really return LJBF (and statistics are on our side with this).

[John:] Oh no, my life is over. I need to blog!
[Alice:] Oh, what have I done? I’ve lost my chance! /whereis my iPhone? I need to send him a convoluted, teary message that I will disavow in the morning!

And so on and so forth.

 

[chevalier]

Most of the adults I know like to tell my peers about the many benefits of non-exclusive dating. It’s weird, because absolutely none of my friends date non-exclusively. Most of them would consider it irresponsible and “leading people on” without intending to commit.

Benefits to oneself while ignoring detriment to others isn’t an acceptable decision-making method from a Christian viewport, I mean, viewpoint.

I’m not even sure how non-exclusive dating would work for us. Nobody I know goes on physical “dates” unless it’s to a school dance or they are a senior. They just sort of hang out after school and talk, or sit together at group events.

Yup, that’s the way I think it should be. Just sitting out and talking, going to places together perhaps, but it’s mostly about talking anyway. Per se, this doesn’t need to be exclusive because this is what we do with friends and family too. On the other hand, when those conversations get intense and advanced and deep (and all), somebody could be in for a big disappointment in the end.

Personally, I believe it’s nobody’s business who I have a coffee with; on the other hand, I have no business trying the fruit when I’m not buying the tree. Perhaps a bad metaphor. But finding out which of them five girls (or guys) is the best kisser doesn’t strike me as an example of good conduct.

 

[Kamaduck]

Illustration:

That was hilarious.

I guess that’s what my peers are trying to avoid these days. They still “date”, but they don’t actually go on many dates. If they go places (other than a dance) it’s always in groups, not pairs. They spend time together and talk before they are “dating”, and continue to do the same after they are. The difference between “dating” and not seems to be that dating couples may send “I <3 U” text messages, may give each other gifts on Valentine’s day, are expected to attend dances together as opposed to separately, and are allowed to kiss without stigma after at least a few weeks (though generally not in public).

We still get mad at each other and have somewhat frequent drama, but when the proper method of entering a relationship is

Meet person > become acquainted > get to know them > ask if they want to be your boy/girlfriend > go on dates (optional)

It seems to work a little better than

Meet person > become acquainted (optional) > go on dates > become boy/girlfriend at some unspecified point

At least the way my friends do it, nothing very romantic happens until after people are in an exclusive relationship (not necessarily a “serious” one, mind you). This minimizes the risk of serious heartbreak and misinterpreting the actions of others.

I’m obviously talking about high school students, though. I have no idea if our model would make any sense outside of our school.

 

[chevalier]

That was hilarious.

I guess that’s what my peers are trying to avoid these days. They still “date”, but they don’t actually go on many dates. If they go places (other than a dance) it’s always in groups, not pairs. They spend time together and talk before they are “dating”, and continue to do the same after they are. The difference between “dating” and not seems to be that dating couples may send “I <3 U” text messages, may give each other gifts on Valentine’s day, are expected to attend dances together as opposed to separately, and are allowed to kiss without stigma after at least a few weeks (though generally not in public).

Yup, that looks like it. The part I took the liberty to bold looks bad in so called non-exclusive dating.

Personally, I don’t like the group stuff, I tend to prefer a measure of seclusion–generally enough to talk without needing to involve other people in the conversation but still in a place public enough to avoid the awkwardness of finding yourself in a small room with the other person. Walks in nature are good for this, even if there aren’t actually many people in sight. Chess is good. You can always shut up for a while, move some pieces, get lost in thought. And there’s something physical in between the two of you, so it doesn’t feel like an interview or interrogation.

We still get mad at each other and have somewhat frequent drama, but when the proper method of entering a relationship is

Meet person > become acquainted > get to know them > ask if they want to be your boy/girlfriend > go on dates (optional)

It seems to work a little better than

Meet person > become acquainted (optional) > go on dates > become boy/girlfriend at some unspecified point

Yeah, though the point often actually is specified, which is for the worse rather than for the better because it forces a rushed choice. What do you know really about each other after seeing three films together?

At least the way my friends do it, nothing very romantic happens until after people are in an exclusive relationship (not necessarily a “serious” one, mind you). This minimizes the risk of serious heartbreak and misinterpreting the actions of others.

I tended to see it similarly when I was in highschool, I guess, although I’d take it that when something particularly romantic happens it implicitly marks the beginning of a relationship. As in could lead to an “official” relationship or not (in which case it’d dissipate over time) but it would have been awful to be in that place with two different people at the same time.

As for misinterpreting, everybody does it all the time. The biggest problem with communication is the presumption that it’s taking place.

I’m obviously talking about high school students, though. I have no idea if our model would make any sense outside of our school.