Discuss:Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed

[ToeInTheWater]

thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

This is a spin-off topic from the “So, I’m bisexual” one. The OP asked it was OK to have a romantic same sex relationship if she didn’t do anything sexual in it. Some posters stated no, and one, thephilosopher6, stated “No, the Church does not condone homosexual relations in anyway. Being in a romantic relationship with someone always inclines those persons to sexual acts”.

I then made the case that if this was the case, that a romantic relationship always “inclines those persons to sexual acts” then even heterosexual dating couldn’t be justified, as the only place for sexual acts is marriage. Then I brought up arranged marriage and courting, and I got some interesting responses. Including from Lucretius, who linked to a blog that linked to the blog I am quoting now.

edwest then posted a description of courting that, to me, seems more like what Mr. Umstattd would call “Traditional Dating”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14710982&postcount=29

Real courtship is part of a process.

1. You meet some, in my case, young ladies. You spend some time with them. A few you ask on a date.

1. No pressure, nothing super serious, it’s just “let’s have fun.”

1. Then you may become friends. But, unlike the others, this one has so many qualities you like and she feels the same. You spend more time together. You earn each other’s trust. Then, if willing, you choose each other.

1. Sincerity and honesty matter. If both of you trust each other then the relationship continues. There is no “clock” on this.

1. You know when courtship begins when marriage is brought up. Ideally, you meet her family and she meets yours. Both families get to know the other, and about the boyfriend and girlfriend.

1. If the courtship is working out then engagement occurs. Now, your parents were your age once. They get it. They can see past the emotions and attraction and help get the conversation going about what’s practical and about planning.

1. In working class families, it is/was common for the young man to sit down with the girl’s father and ask his permission. Marriage is not to be entered into lightly or with immaturity. He sizes up the young man and asks the right questions. He doesn’t want his daughter to end up with a bum or a drunk or someone who can’t control his temper. If he doesn’t see a strong work ethic, that had better get straightened out because marriage is good but it requires work and dedication and commitment.

I’ll leave it at that for now to allow people to read the blog post. BTW, no paywall, and while the author did write a book on the topic as well, I have not read it, and I do NOT require anyone else to buy and read the book before commenting. But I would like it if people read the blog post, at least

 

[pianistclare]

2 questions:
One, is the word “fundamentally” a pun?

Two, did all those other CAFers agree to be quoted?

 

[reader124]

How do you then propose we get married? Go rape some girl from a neighboring viking tribe?
This is 2017, not 400 BC.

 

[GEddie]

It may be flawed, but it is still better than playing relationship games into mid life.

IMINWHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I get the feeling no one replying has actually read the article, so here’s an excerpt:

The Greatest Generation was encouraged to date and discouraged from going steady while in middle school.

This is different from my generation, which is encouraged to “wait until you are ready to get married” before pursuing a romantic relationship. This advice, when combined with the fact that “the purpose of courtship is marriage”, makes asking a girl out for dinner the emotional equivalent of asking for her hand in marriage…

As the decades moved on, our language and behavior changed. We stopped using the phrase “going steady” and changed “dating” to mean “going steady”. For example, we would now say “John and Sarah have been dating for 3 months.” when the Greatest Generation would have said “John and Sarah have been going steady for 3 months.”

We then started using new pejoratives like “dating around” and “playing the field” to describe what used to just be called “dating”. Each decade added more exclusivity, intensity, and commitment to dating and saw a subsequent rise in temptation and promiscuity.

It is easier to justify promiscuity when you are exclusively committed to just one person, even if that commitment is only a week old.

In the late 80s and early 90s this promiscuous culture reached its peak. People would “go steady” for just a few weeks and then move on to the next relationship. It was this “hookup and breakup” culture that the founders of courtship were reacting to.

But their proposed solution involved adding even more commitment, exclusivity and intensity, the very things that lead to the problem in the first place. This is why courtship is fundamentally flawed.

The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing.

Or, put another way, they replaced dating with engagement. The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date.

 

[DarkLight]

I’ve actually seen similar issues in secular circles. People wonder what to do when it seems like going out with a potential romantic partner for coffee means you can’t go out with someone else. How soon they have to “break up” before they’re allowed to see someone else, when it’s clearly far too early to be focused on one person. Basically, you have to either go casual sex, or be 100% committed to one person right away. And that’s not how it works.

 

[MaryT777]

It may be flawed, but it is still better than playing relationship games into mid life.

IMINWHO.

ICXC NIKA

I agree. If this system is considered flawed by some I am curious as to what system they might use instead.

Mary.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Life is Rather complex isn’t it !!

 

[Dorothy]

Life is Rather complex isn’t it !!

Yes, that is why us fallen humans need the Lord.

 

[pnewton]

I do not think there is any one right way to date. There are advantages to dating multiple people, and disadvantages. The same is true for dating serially. There are advantages to waiting until one is ready for marriage and disadvantages. I will be dealing with this issue soon, so here is my thought.

Dating multiple people should be focused on having fun and enjoying the company of the other, like friends, with a clear understanding one is dating others. If one becomes romantically involved with another, then dating multiple people becomes problematic.

Dating serial, like above is fine, but the odds of becoming romantically involved is much more likely. This is the path my oldest daughter took and it worked out very well. In fact, she only had one other date with someone other than the man she is now married to.

Dating only once one is ready for marriage is a great idea, but a difficult one. Young people might still become romantically involved, even if parent do not allow dating until one is eighteen. This is what my wife is proposing. I do not know if I agree.

I think what I will do when this becomes an issue is advise that dates remain either group or chaperoned for a while, after discussing the above pros and cons in depth. Fortunately, my son has a head for logic. Yes, I know that will go out the window rather quickly. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. But I still see the benefit of this discussion while the head is clear and emotions have yet to be a factor. The most important thing is to have back-up plans to deal with those emotions and to help maintain sexual purity. Will there be temptation at some point, some chink in the armor devised beforehand? Absolutely. Satan always finds our chinks. All I can do is arm my son, pray, and be willing to forgive, as I know God is.

 

[TechieGuy]

From the linked post:

“If I had only gone out with 3 or 4 guys I wouldn’t have known what I wanted in a husband,” she said.

Grandma knows what’s what.

 

[EasterJoy]

thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

This is a spin-off topic from the “So, I’m bisexual” one. The OP asked it was OK to have a romantic same sex relationship if she didn’t do anything sexual in it. Some posters stated no, and one, thephilosopher6, stated “No, the Church does not condone homosexual relations in anyway. Being in a romantic relationship with someone always inclines those persons to sexual acts”.

I then made the case that if this was the case, that a romantic relationship always “inclines those persons to sexual acts” then even heterosexual dating couldn’t be justified, as the only place for sexual acts is marriage. Then I brought up arranged marriage and courting, and I got some interesting responses. Including from Lucretius, who linked to a blog that linked to the blog I am quoting now.

edwest then posted a description of courting that, to me, seems more like what Mr. Umstattd would call “Traditional Dating”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14710982&postcount=29

I’ll leave it at that for now to allow people to read the blog post. BTW, no paywall, and while the author did write a book on the topic as well, I have not read it, and I do NOT require anyone else to buy and read the book before commenting. But I would like it if people read the blog post, at least

a) It is silly to suppose that “real courtship” is a defined process with rules and a predictable progression. It does not work like that.

b)* I then made the case that if this was the case, that a romantic relationship always “inclines those persons to sexual acts” then even heterosexual dating couldn’t be justified, as the only place for sexual acts is marriage*.

This is a flawed argument. There is a legitimate pathway for not only a moral but a holy outcome to the inclination of heterosexuals to desire to consummate a marriage. More to the point, it is questionable whether any pathway to marriage in which the couple does not have a chance to form a friendship prior to making their commitment is not fraught with dangers to the marriage and the moral formation of the spouses as well. The idea is to become “one”–you’re supposed to do that with someone more or less chosen out of a catalog? I don’t think so. It is not impossible, but there is no reason to make that some kind of ideal.

Let’s also be real: women give their own consent for marriage with all the autonomy and rights that men do, and the Church does not at all encourage parents to believe they have any veto power in the decisions of their daughters. There was a time that women were kept much more naive than they are now, making some argument for parental protection, but we do not live in those days.

In my opinion, “dating” in middle school is silly, as well.

 

[DarkLight]

In my opinion, “dating” in middle school is silly, as well.

I think this is actually part of the issue with a lot of courtship models - it encourages boys and girls to think of opposite-sex relationships as automatically sexually charged. I think it’s good for boys and girls to get to know each other and have practice relating to each other as friends without having to worry about the pressure of romantic involvement.

 

[fin]

I do not get why it has to be so complicated.

Guy likes girl, girl likes guy. They agree to be in a relatiomship, that’s it. Of course there are plenty of other things to consider, but basically that is it. Why be in a relaionship with someone you do not like?

 

[Beryllos]

I get the feeling no one replying has actually read the article, so here’s an excerpt:

The article is good but quite lengthy. I’ve read the first quarter or so…

Now at least I understand the point of the title, that youth in some communities are discouraged from friend-like (uncommitted) dating and somehow expected to start with a committed relationship.

I agree with the author and his grandmother, this is not a good setup.

… I’ll read the rest of the article later.

 

[DarkLight]

I do not get why it has to be so complicated.

Guy likes girl, girl likes guy. They agree to be in a relatiomship, that’s it. Of course there are plenty of other things to consider, but basically that is it. Why be in a relaionship with someone you do not like?

I think the idea is to have relationships with people you might like, but don’t necessarily know you like yet. You don’t have to commit to “I like this one person and I want to date exclusively them!” right away - it’s better to have some coffee or go to the movies with a few different people. It’s too much pressure too early on, especially if you’re also in an environment where there might not be a lot of platonic friendships between men and women.

 

[UbiCaritas]

The article is good but quite lengthy. I’ve read the first quarter or so…

Now at least I understand the point of the title, that youth in some communities are discouraged from friend-like (uncommitted) dating and somehow expected to start with a committed relationship.

I agree with the author and his grandmother, this is not a good setup.

… I’ll read the rest of the article later.

Yeah, I grew up in one such community. It was…really odd.

Basically, as a young single person (say, middle-school age or older) you weren’t supposed to talk to someone of the opposite sex because Near Occasion Of Sin, but you were also supposed to follow the courtship model. This led to a fairly messed-up situation: the guys were often discouraged from higher education because they might meet gasp girls, especially girls who weren’t gasp traditional Catholic, and the girls were discouraged from higher education because they both generally weren’t educated enough to enter college and might meet someone who wasn’t traditional Catholic. And how are you even supposed to decide you’d like to court someone if you can’t talk to them, even in a big social church situation?

So, you had a lot of young adults at very loose ends (no school, rarely a job for the same reasons as the school objections), with no real goals except “get married and start a big family ASAP,” and no way of accomplishing even that goal because so much as talking to another young 20-something after Mass meant you were practically sleeping together per church gossip, and you’d better be engaged ASAP or risk being seen as promiscuous, since that sort of behavior was only acceptable if you were seriously courting the person involved.

Not a really great setup.

Because the standards were so crazy and weird, the outcome of all of that is that well over half the kids in the church’s teen youth group from the time I was in it ended up either leaving the church entirely, having kids out of wedlock with the first person who showed them any sort of attention, getting into drugs, or some combination of the above.

I suspect that if they had been encouraged to set and meet personal goals, get educated, and yes, learn how to communicate/socialize effectively with their peers of both sexes, things would have turned out a lot better for most of those kids.

 

[Beryllos]

Oh dear! Things in my town are not great, but in different ways.

Let us pray for all students and young adults!

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah, I grew up in one such community. It was…really odd.

Basically, as a young single person (say, middle-school age or older) you weren’t supposed to talk to someone of the opposite sex because Near Occasion Of Sin, but you were also supposed to follow the courtship model. This led to a fairly messed-up situation: the guys were often discouraged from higher education because they might meet gasp girls, especially girls who weren’t gasp traditional Catholic, and the girls were discouraged from higher education because they both generally weren’t educated enough to enter college and might meet someone who wasn’t traditional Catholic. And how are you even supposed to decide you’d like to court someone if you can’t talk to them, even in a big social church situation?

So, you had a lot of young adults at very loose ends (no school, rarely a job for the same reasons as the school objections), with no real goals except “get married and start a big family ASAP,” and no way of accomplishing even that goal because so much as talking to another young 20-something after Mass meant you were practically sleeping together per church gossip, and you’d better be engaged ASAP or risk being seen as promiscuous, since that sort of behavior was only acceptable if you were seriously courting the person involved.

Not a really great setup.

Because the standards were so crazy and weird, the outcome of all of that is that well over half the kids in the church’s teen youth group from the time I was in it ended up either leaving the church entirely, having kids out of wedlock with the first person who showed them any sort of attention, getting into drugs, or some combination of the above.

I suspect that if they had been encouraged to set and meet personal goals, get educated, and yes, learn how to communicate/socialize effectively with their peers of both sexes, things would have turned out a lot better for most of those kids.

Lawdamercy!

 

[reader124]

The breakdown of marrige is the problem. As in people not being able to get married through no fault of their own.
What on earth did peopel think would happen when they pushed the average marriage age toward what used to be the average death age? Famines create bread theives; masses of lonely people who should have been married by now creates premarrital sex. What about this did they not comprehend? Why should we struggle to remain pure when every generation before us got to have sex by this age without sinning?

This courship garbage does not work. I garuntee anyone who spouts this nonsense, if they are married, either did not follow this lunacy themselves or is part of some dark misogynistic subculture.

Christians should get married in the only way that has ever worked in recent history to get married. Date another Christian of the opposite sex to get to know them in a public place with other people around so their is no question of morallity. Get married and make their wedding kiss their first.

Rant over.