Discuss:Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed

[EasterJoy]

So do you support the kind of courtship that never lets a couple be alone with each other, or pressures them to marry the first person they have any attraction to at all, because it’s better to marry than burn? Or shames people for breaking off courtships even for very good reasons? The ends do not justify the means, after all.

Now I realize not all courtship models are that extreme. But some really seem to assume the only way young people can avoid sexual sin is to have external, not internal, controls set upon them. But people need to have the ability to set their own boundaries, too.

There is time alone and then there is time alone. And yes…if the boundaries aren’t based on the internal priorities of the couple, someone will find a way around them. (Romeo will find his way over the orchard wall.)

 

[edwest2]

I’m curious what you mean by being “on the same page”?

Let me put it this way. Time doesn’t change anything. Only people change things. To say “We don’t live in those times anymore.” is not helpful because it doesn’t explain anything. My observation is that groups of people, for a finite number of reasons, take a system that works well, not perfectly, but well, for the most part, and use whatever means they see fit to break it, to fragment it.

Pope Benedict

“If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible.”

When these common things exist, society functions a lot better. What we have now is what we had before the internet, people who are detached from common things and who want us to detach from those things as well, but magnified. When common things are no longer common, only tribes remain under whatever label they choose. I’m no longer on the same page than a lot of people, male and female, because they have been raised to be a certain way.

Fragmentation is bad and separates, not just because one person doesn’t like what this or that tribe does, but because too many people are no longer “on the same page.”

Ed

 

[DarkLight]

I feel like at this point “courtship” has become such a buzzword that it’s hard to have a conversation about it. I’ve seen everything from basically dating while being chaste, to systems that are practically arranged marriage, described as courtship.

 

[EasterJoy]

I feel like at this point “courtship” has become such a buzzword that it’s hard to have a conversation about it. I’ve seen everything from basically dating while being chaste, to systems that are practically arranged marriage, described as courtship.

I feel the same way. The word “courtship” is a loaded word that can imply that men and women just do not have interpersonal relationships that do not lead to marriage. There was a time when courtship in that sense might have been a relatively liberating thing–that is, the idea that the couple could actually have some chance to get to know each other before marriage, rather than making a commitment by what they knew "on paper’ about the other person. The concept is kind of silly for people who attend co-educational schools or who work outside the home. Let’s face it: it is even a little silly for people who are allowed to* leave* the home unattended.

I’d argue that being able to have chaste friendships and true working relationships with members of the opposite sex who are not and never will be your spouse is a required skill of modern living. In order to choose to live in a world where the only members of the opposite sex they ever have contact with are members of their family and their spouse, one has to join a monastery. Otherwise, SOMEBODY in the house has to go out and mix with the rest of the world. That is how contemporary society in the developed world works.

 

[Xantippe]

I feel the same way. The word “courtship” is a loaded word that can imply that men and women just do not have interpersonal relationships that do not lead to marriage. There was a time when courtship in that sense might have been a relatively liberating thing–that is, the idea that the couple could actually have some chance to get to know each other before marriage, rather than making a commitment by what they knew "on paper’ about the other person. The concept is kind of silly for people who attend co-educational schools or who work outside the home. Let’s face it: it is even a little silly for people who are allowed to* leave* the home unattended.

I’d argue that being able to have chaste friendships and true working relationships with members of the opposite sex who are not and never will be your spouse is a required skill of modern living. In order to choose to live in a world where the only members of the opposite sex they ever have contact with are members of their family and their spouse, one has to join a monastery. Otherwise, SOMEBODY in the house has to go out and mix with the rest of the world. That is how contemporary society in the developed world works.

And even in much of the developing world, men and women still have to mix–see for example street markets.

 

[bitterhope]

For what its worth, where I grew up dating was called courting but it’s nothing like the model that has been presented. It was simply dating someone exclusively. Some people were chaste, others were not. Just like dating couples because that’s what they were. So for me, and probably others in the world, the terms are viewed as interchangeable. That may be the reason there is a miscommunication in what is so wrong about courtship versus dating.

 

[Xantippe]

I guess there’s courtship and then there’s Courtship ™.

Small “c” courtship is great–Big C “Courtship” can be really weird.

I often use the term courtship to describe the pre-engagement period when I was dating my future husband. I hadn’t read any Courtship books, but we were very marriage-minded, from very early on. That’s not always feasible or desirable, though.

 

[DarkLight]

For what its worth, where I grew up dating was called courting but it’s nothing like the model that has been presented. It was simply dating someone exclusively. Some people were chaste, others were not. Just like dating couples because that’s what they were. So for me, and probably others in the world, the terms are viewed as interchangeable. That may be the reason there is a miscommunication in what is so wrong about courtship versus dating.

Right. For me it was a system where you weren’t ever supposed to be alone with a guy (even solo dates at a restaurant were questionable), were supposed to make sure 100% that you never had any sexual thoughts about anyone not your husband or future husband, refrained completely from physical contact prior to marriage, heavy parental involvement, that sort of thing. It was actually kind of funny to me looking back. They said the rules were supposed to keep you focused on marriage and not just serial dating. But the rules seemed much more focused on teenagers. I don’t even know how I’d set up the kind of environment they seemed to want now.

 

[reader124]

Ok, I think we’re actually on the same page about this.

I’d also point out that the extreme of “the female body itself is an occasion of lust” and therefore must be covered up as much as possible, really is closer to fundamentalist, Sharia law supporting Muslim ideology than a Christian one. You mentioned past times when “men and women spent no time with members of the opposite sex who were not their relatives or spouses”.The idea that a woman should only come in contact with male relatives and be hidden from all others, is still current in many Muslim societies.

To bring this back to courtship, one problem with the extreme “the couple must always be chaperoned and never be alone together” attitude is that such a couple does NOT have a chance to actually learn how to control their sexual temptations. Many also wind up not really knowing what the partner is really like in private, though certainly people can be dishonest when dating as well.

Some also get a rosy picture of marriage as involving sex on demand, and may have trouble accepting that fact that even within marriage, there are times for sexual restraint. Maybe that’s not as much of an issue for the “quiverfull” types, or to Christians who accept ABC use, but even if ABC is used there are times that abstinence is required.

I agree about the “what a person is really like” point. I once knew a “friend” who seems like a nice girl when she was talking to me in the library, but whn I agreed to meet her in the cafiteria to help her with her chemistry homework, she basically propositioned me; naturally, I refused.
But there is no reason for a male and female to be completetly alone together. I would never ask a girl to go for a hike alone or something like that. Point being, evil people exist in this world ,unfortunately.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree about the “what a person is really like” point. I once knew a “friend” who seems like a nice girl when she was talking to me in the library, but whn I agreed to meet her in the cafiteria to help her with her chemistry homework, she basically propositioned me; naturally, I refused.
**But there is no reason for a male and female to be completetly alone together. I would never ask a girl to go for a hike alone or something like that. **Point being, evil people exist in this world ,unfortunately.

I’ve seen a CAF guy recommend a hike + trail mix as a good first date idea.

I tried to persuade him that that was going to scare off a lot of young women, but probably to no avail.

(It wouldn’t be bad as part of a co-ed group thing, though.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve seen a CAF guy recommend a hike + trail mix as a good first date idea.

I tried to persuade him that that was going to scare off a lot of young women, but probably to no avail.

(It wouldn’t be bad as part of a co-ed group thing, though.)

I live in southern Missouri where everything outdoors scratches, stings, poisons, or bites. (mild exaggeration, but not by much). By sustaining a million of each as a child and young man, I gained a certain degree of immunity, but my wife grew up in an urban environment farther north, and certainly didn’t. Our “walk in the woods” lasted maybe ten minutes until I told her what ticks do for a living. We’ve been married a long time now, but she still won’t go into the woods.

I am only vaguely aware of what courtship is like now, and I wasn’t dating back when it was all ritualized and such. I dated a lot of women, but I was always looking for a spouse, at least somewhat. I did have one girlfriend for whom there was no spouse hunting going in. The only reason I did was because she was a really great dancer. She knew it too, and didn’t mind. So all of our dates were simply to go dancing.

But there was always a certain expectation on their parts too, and it was easy to cause hurt if a person stayed with someone too long after deciding this one isn’t “Miss Right”. And it wasn’t easy to do that except with “the dancer”.

I was probably mercenary to an extreme. I always wanted to know how open a woman was to having children. If the answer was “one” or “two”, that was the end. “However many” was my “right answer”. I even paid attention to their spoken English and (this is embarrassing) always manipulated them into writing me at least one letter so I could see how their written English was. That really was over the top, I know.

But always I was looking for a spouse. When my wife and I met, we really didn’t like each other, but became a mixture of friends and verbal sparring partners, then “confidants” as we mutually described it. We still dated others but just gave it up because other relationships just weren’t the same and held no promise of ever being the same.

I was very much sexually attracted to her, and admitted it. She didn’t take it badly and preferred that I was. (that “confidant” thing) But, of course, she knew that wasn’t all there was that I admired. I didn’t feel a bit bad about all of that. I figured that’s why God made them mind-blowingly lovely and made me such that I would be attracted.

I’ll admit that I actually did ask her father for his consent and blessing to our marrying. I knew I didn’t need to do it, but it seemed respectful, and he took it that way. One of those old customs that simply showed respect. My wife was in the next room with her sister, giggling fit to die over it, she later told me.

She picked out her own engagement and wedding rings, and it didn’t seem odd. Our relationship was just like that. She had good taste and I didn’t. Might as well admit it.

I don’t see courtship as being flawed. But it’s different for different people, and the personalities have to fit the way it’s done.

I do feel sorry for young people nowadays, though. At one level, they’re far more mercenary than I was, wanting to know family wealth and that kind of thing. On another level, pitiable because it does seem immediate sex is almost required.

 

[Wesrock]

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”.

Dating doesn’t necessarily involve cohabitation, which seemed part of the question of the topic… Ultimately the aim of dating is a marital and sexual union, anyway.

 

[Xantippe]

I live in southern Missouri where everything outdoors scratches, stings, poisons, or bites. (mild exaggeration, but not by much). By sustaining a million of each as a child and young man, I gained a certain degree of immunity, but my wife grew up in an urban environment farther north, and certainly didn’t. Our “walk in the woods” lasted maybe ten minutes until I told her what ticks do for a living. We’ve been married a long time now, but she still won’t go into the woods.

[snip]

I was probably mercenary to an extreme. I always wanted to know how open a woman was to having children. If the answer was “one” or “two”, that was the end. “However many” was my “right answer”. I even paid attention to their spoken English and (this is embarrassing) always manipulated them into writing me at least one letter so I could see how their written English was. That really was over the top, I know.

I understand your wife’s feelings. I’m from a pleasant green part of the country (admittedly with the occasional bear or cougar) and living in TX has made me very negative about the outdoors, what with venomous snakes, scorpions, burrs, etc. In our area of TX, the outdoors is always out to get you.

I don’t think the written English thing was out of line–a lot of illiteracy is only visible in print. A bit unfair if the lady had dyslexia or was ESL, of course.

A very sweet story!

 

[DarkLight]

I’ve seen a CAF guy recommend a hike + trail mix as a good first date idea.

I tried to persuade him that that was going to scare off a lot of young women, but probably to no avail.

(It wouldn’t be bad as part of a co-ed group thing, though.)

On the other hand, I wouldn’t necessarily rule out a guy and a girl who knew each other well going on a hike together. I suppose it depends on the couple, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider a daytime hike an automatic risk against chastity.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

On the other hand, I wouldn’t necessarily rule out a guy and a girl who knew each other well going on a hike together. I suppose it depends on the couple, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider a daytime hike an automatic risk against chastity.

I think Xantippe was actually cautioning the male poster against proposing a hike for a first date, sadly not because women might be worried he merely wanted to seduce them, but because they’d actually be worrying about being raped, murdered, and dumped in the woods somewhere, never to be found again.

Of course if a couple is both committed to chastity and trust each other not to be homicidal maniacs, that is a completely different issue. Or merely choose a trail that is isolated enough to be romantic, but is busy enough in terms of foot traffic, that they know that a fellow hiker could pass by at any moment.

I agree with EasterJoy that “There is time alone and then there is time alone”. I’m sure many couples who can handle being in a house “alone”, but with family members hanging out in the backyard having a pool party who might stroll in any moment to use the restroom or grab something from the fridge. Or, perhaps be in the backyard “alone”, but with the party guests inside the house. Or be out on a hike in a group, and get some “alone time” when the others graciously lag behind to give them privacy so their conversations are out of earshot of the others, but not completely out of sight, either.

I think one problem with the Courtship ™ movement, is that, much as many other fads that have come and gone, they assume All Men Are The Same and All Women Are The Same and there is some Universal Dating/Courting Method Guaranteed to Work.

And while many tout Courtship ™ as the best way to avoid sexual sin, I think that while some couples are certainly weaker, both individually and together, in terms of resisting urges to sin sexually than others, and may indeed never be able to be alone together for more than 15 minutes without slipping, not all couples are like that.

Some can actually live together “as brother and sister”, even sleep in the same bed, and not have sex - though I’d caution against this kind of living arrangement anyway considering it may encourage couples to stay together just out of inertia.

 

[Xantippe]

I think Xantippe was actually cautioning the male poster against proposing a hike for a first date, sadly not because women might be worried he merely wanted to seduce them, but because they’d actually be worrying about being raped, murdered, and dumped in the woods somewhere, never to be found again.

Of course if a couple is both committed to chastity and trust each other not to be homicidal maniacs, that is a completely different issue. Or merely choose a trail that is isolated enough to be romantic, but is busy enough in terms of foot traffic, that they know that a fellow hiker could pass by at any moment.

Yeah–the raped/murdered/buried in a shallow grave thing was my primary concern. That’s the appeal of more populous settings when you’re dealing with a new acquaintance–safety in numbers.

Going off in the woods with a strange man or alone anywhere with a strange man is one of those things that nice girls are traditionally expected not to do.

A really negative outcome is statistically unlikely, but it’s a nicer experience for everybody if one party is not expecting sexual assault/etc.

(I’m going to try to remember to be very clear with my girls–don’t let any guy you don’t know well and trust drive you anywhere!)

 

[DarkLight]

I think Xantippe was actually cautioning the male poster against proposing a hike for a first date, sadly not because women might be worried he merely wanted to seduce them, but because they’d actually be worrying about being raped, murdered, and dumped in the woods somewhere, never to be found again.

Oh definitely. I wouldn’t do it with a guy I didn’t know quite well either. There’s plenty of guys out there with less than honorable intentions. And there’s even plenty if you leave out the worst-case scenarios of rape - it’s not as bad but I’d rather not, for example, be stuck with a guy who kept trying to get handsy.