Do People still Date?

[hwriggles4]

I think you can get away with not using the word date if that’s implicit in the situation (for instance, meeting somebody off of an online dating site or getting set up for a blind date by a friend).

However, if it’s a person that you know well already but just as a friend or acquaintance or classmate or former coworker, I think it’s important to emphasize that this is an actual date and you are taking them out. Otherwise, they might not understand that you were at all attracted to them. They might assume that it was supposed to be a minor platonic social event or even (heaven forbid!) professional networking. That’s one of the reasons why I think coffee by itself is kind of a terrible date idea for people that already know each other pretty well–coffee is just too platonic and prosaic and associated with the working day.

This is good advice.

Last year, a sociology professor at Boston College gave an assignment to her students. These students had an assignment to go out on a date. The criteria was:

1. The date had to last at least an hour. Going for a “one on one” lunch, dinner, a walk around campus, or sightseeing in the Boston Commons together, was acceptable
2. The asking out for the date had to be “in person”.

This was to help address things like “face to face” communication, not texting, e-mail, facebook, etc., courtesy, and to avoid “the hookup culture”.

Responses were good. Some of the ladies said it was nice just to get to know someone in a low stress environment, without strings being attached.

FYI - I was in a fraternity at one college in the 1980’s (that helped me get out of my shyness) and once a semester I had to ask a girl to be my “date” for a formal. I would always have a few girls in mind at least two to three weeks before, mostly for courtesy reasons (and if I did get turned down I had time to ask someone else), since a formal event requires some preparation, where a girl may need some time to either borrow a dress from a friend or buy one if she doesn’t have a formal dress in her closet. I’m sure the ladies reading this will appreciate the extra time - since being asked to a formal three days before can show that a guy was a procrastinator.

I recall quite a few ladies liked to attend formals, particularly if they liked to dance (and they got a free meal too). If a guy didn’t have a steady girlfriend, it was a little more relaxing (and less awkward) if you asked someone you knew a little already (a girl you had class with, a girl you knew from campus ministry, or someone you met through a friend), since a “first date” or a “blind date” can be an awkward situation at a formal, especially if she doesn’t know anyone else who is going.

Some colleges I’m sure still have weekend dances and socials on campus. Most will come in groups, unless it’s a formal or semi-formal type event that sells tickets for couples. I recall some colleges having dances for fundraising efforts.

Back when my uncle was at West Point in the olden days (1950’s), dances were held quite a bit on Saturday nights. West Point was all-male in those days (dates for cadets were allowed on campus on Saturdays in the late 1960’s, and could use the library, etc. as long as they were with their cadet boyfriend - I don’t think they were allowed in the dorms). Quite a few ladies (if the cadets didn’t have dates already) would arrive on a bus from some of the all girls schools like Vassar, Smith, Radcliffe, Bryn Mayr, and there was an all-girls Catholic college down the street from West Point (it closed in the late 1970’s, nursing was a big program, and it was run by an order of Franciscan nuns), and several cadets married girls they met at these dances and at the Catholic school. These dances also helped the cadets develop social graces and social expectations for officers, which involved “gentlemanly conduct”.

One girl gave me some good advice when I was younger - never take a “first date” (a girl you just met) to a wedding, a family function, or a company party - that’s awkward.

 

[chevalier]

If someone says they went on a date with a member of the opposite sex, it only implies that they had a social outing in which exploration of the possibility of a romance was on the table. Sex is not implied, but true openness to a romantic relationship is apparently implied.

And that’s already offensive enough to some sensibilities, such as my own, for example. I’m a reasonably well-travelled and well-read person, at least according to the declining modern standard , so I can get somewhat used to it, but it’s still something foreign of feeling.

Dates never used to be so serious as that! In the old days, a first date is what some would now call a “pre-date.” (Life has gotten so complicated, oy vey.)

But what you speak about is a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one. There’s still ‘all that’, only a smaller measure, lower intensity of it. But granting that kind of request is still tantamount to acknowledging the requesting person as at least remotely and conditionally but still a potential mate. That’s what feels improper to me — it shouldn’t be so direct, so up front, so early to come. I’m not saying it would always be improper by my standards, but it would be improper to make a norm of that rather, between unacquainted strangers.

What your standing is is just not a subject you should touch until having become closer acquaintances, even at an accelerated rate, but still not just the first coffee or film or something. Or a night out dancing even (not like a night out dancing necessarily implies romantic interest).

Even in secular circles, as it turns out, it has become very important for people to officially hold to the position that sex is never “implied” and that there is never a time in which anyone is entitled to a “yes” to sex.

Yeah, in secular circles it isn’t as bad as implied sex on a first date, although I do feel that the way things are now at least some heavy PDA would normally be implied in the event things didn’t go abysmally bad, except among either particularly inhibited or particularly conservative seculars. Heck, I think a prospect of sitting-in-a-tree-kissing would have a good chance of being implied among Catholics too.

Even the pagans and the atheists believe this now! Good grief, anyone these days who acts as if he or she is entitled to demand sex is practically branded as a sex offender.

Getting branded as a sex offender is actually easier than that.

 

[chevalier]

I recall quite a few ladies liked to attend formals, particularly if they liked to dance (and they got a free meal too). If a guy didn’t have a steady girlfriend, it was a little more relaxing (and less awkward) if you asked someone you knew a little already (a girl you had class with, a girl you knew from campus ministry, or someone you met through a friend)

Formals are different. One’d tag a sibling along, even. Or a parent.

 

[Xantippe]

And that’s already offensive enough to some sensibilities, such as my own, for example. I’m a reasonably well-travelled and well-read person, at least according to the declining modern standard , so I can get somewhat used to it, but it’s still something foreign of feeling.

But what you speak about is a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one. There’s still ‘all that’, only a smaller measure, lower intensity of it. But granting that kind of request is still tantamount to acknowledging the requesting person as at least remotely and conditionally but still a potential mate. That’s what feels improper to me — it shouldn’t be so direct, so up front, so early to come. I’m not saying it would always be improper by my standards, but it would be improper to make a norm of that rather, between unacquainted strangers.

What your standing is is just not a subject you should touch until having become closer acquaintances, even at an accelerated rate, but still not just the first coffee or film or something. Or a night out dancing even (not like a night out dancing necessarily implies romantic interest).

Yeah, in secular circles it isn’t as bad as implied sex on a first date, although I do feel that the way things are now at least some heavy PDA would normally be implied in the event things didn’t go abysmally bad, except among either particularly inhibited or particularly conservative seculars. Heck, I think a prospect of sitting-in-a-tree-kissing would have a good chance of being implied among Catholics too.

Getting branded as a sex offender is actually easier than that.

Chevalier,

Don’t take this the wrong way, but how is your system working for you?

If it isn’t, maybe you should try something different?

If it is working out for you, carry on.

 

[EasterJoy]

And that’s already offensive enough to some sensibilities, such as my own, for example. I’m a reasonably well-travelled and well-read person, at least according to the declining modern standard , so I can get somewhat used to it, but it’s still something foreign of feeling.

But what you speak about is a quantitative distinction, not a qualitative one. There’s still ‘all that’, only a smaller measure, lower intensity of it. But granting that kind of request is still tantamount to acknowledging the requesting person as at least remotely and conditionally but still a potential mate. That’s what feels improper to me — it shouldn’t be so direct, so up front, so early to come. I’m not saying it would always be improper by my standards, but it would be improper to make a norm of that rather, between unacquainted strangers.

What your standing is is just not a subject you should touch until having become closer acquaintances, even at an accelerated rate, but still not just the first coffee or film or something. Or a night out dancing even (not like a night out dancing necessarily implies romantic interest).

Yeah, in secular circles it isn’t as bad as implied sex on a first date, although I do feel that the way things are now at least some heavy PDA would normally be implied in the event things didn’t go abysmally bad, except among either particularly inhibited or particularly conservative seculars. Heck, I think a prospect of sitting-in-a-tree-kissing would have a good chance of being implied among Catholics too.

Getting branded as a sex offender is actually easier than that.

Here’s the thing: When you hear someone say they went on a “date,” or that they are “dating” someone new, don’t assume there is any sex going on. That would be rash judgment.

Having said that, if this kind of rash judgment is the norm in your local area, I would spare other people a near occasion of sin against the truth and avoid using the term. The vocabulary police don’t like it, but you and I both know that words mean what our listeners take them to mean, whether any of us likes it or not. If some woman you respect is never going to look at you the same way if you ask her if she’d be interested in a “date,” then by all means avoid the word! She is your jury, so talk to her, and horse feathers to everyone else.

I am old enough that if I were widowed tomorrow and could never marry again if I refused to “date,” I’d probably never go on a date again.

 

[chevalier]

Chevalier,

Don’t take this the wrong way, but how is your system working for you?

If it isn’t, maybe you should try something different?

I’m single, so I obviously can’t claim much ‘success’, but not due to my reluctance to use the word ‘date’ when asking a stranger out. Right now it’s mostly a matter of working long hours from home, which removes both the need and the opportunity to go out much, along with a bunch of problems at work and a degree paper long overdue. In the long term, it’s more of a matter of getting along with almost anybody just enough to be mates, but with no one enough to feel really close in an other-half sort of way, mutually at that. This really has little to do with whether I use the word ‘date’ or not.

 

[Naskor]

Chevalier,

Don’t take this the wrong way, but how is your system working for you?

If it isn’t, maybe you should try something different?

If it is working out for you, carry on.

I’m not Chevalier, but since me and my Catholic friends gave up on dating and began trying a more traditional and Christian approach to seeking out relationships it has been a huge improvement.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m not Chevalier, but since me and my Catholic friends gave up on dating and began trying a more traditional and Christian approach to seeking out relationships it has been a huge improvement.

What is it?

Unless you’ve got some sort of arranged marriage system going, I suspect that it’s what I or most Americans would call “dating.”

 

[EasterJoy]

What is it?

Unless you’ve got some sort of arranged marriage system going, I suspect that it’s what I or most Americans would call “dating.”

There are a lot of words that do not mean the same thing among people under 35 as the words meant when I was a girl–and quite a few used now that would have meant nothing at all back then, LOL!!

 

[Xantippe]

There are a lot of words that do not mean the same thing among people under 35 as the words meant when I was a girl–and quite a few used now that would have meant nothing at all back then, LOL!!

My favorite is “talking.”

Example:

“Mark and I have been talking for a month now.”

???

My best middle aged person translation of that is, “Mark and I have been communicating heavily by electronic means, but haven’t yet spent much time together doing stuff in real life.”

 

[EasterJoy]

My favorite is “talking.”

Example:

“Mark and I have been talking for a month now.”

???

My best middle aged person translation of that is, “Mark and I have been communicating heavily by electronic means, but haven’t yet spent much time together doing stuff in real life.”

As nearly as I can gather, it is your friends who are doing the whispering and talking. Apparently pre-dating is what you do when you’re still at the talking stage. Suffice it to say that a lot of people who go on dates are loathe to call them that.

Oh, well. Our parents’ generation looked at ours funny once, too. (OK, they still do.)

 

[pensmama87]

There are a lot of words that do not mean the same thing among people under 35 as the words meant when I was a girl–and quite a few used now that would have meant nothing at all back then, LOL!!

I’m under 35 and I have no earthly idea what Naskor is talking about that he considers “not dating.” Even the “courtship model” incorporates what would be considered dating by most people - unless it’s the extreme version you find in certain fundamentalist Protestant enclaves.

I will say I still chuckle to myself every time my MIL asks DH or I if we’ve “hooked up” with any of our friends lately.

 

[EasterJoy]

I will say I still chuckle to myself every time my MIL asks DH or I if we’ve “hooked up” with any of our friends lately.

Oh yeah. Used to be, a guy showing his junk was just having a garage sale. Spam used to be edible. No one wanted anything to do with something sick. Thongs were flip-flops and rubbers were boots.

It used to be one had to go to the UK to get confusion like this!

 

[Xantippe]

I’m under 35 and I have no earthly idea what Naskor is talking about that he considers “not dating.” Even the “courtship model” incorporates what would be considered dating by most people - unless it’s the extreme version you find in certain fundamentalist Protestant enclaves.

Right. Even arranged marriage/matchmaking models use some version of dating (for instance Indians and Orthodox Jews).

I understand that some people need a little help in fine-tuning their search and selection process. (You’re having trouble finding nice girls in bars and dance clubs—you don’t say! Or, alternately, you’re having trouble meeting women in your electrical engineering graduate program/favorite comic book store/game store/baby seal clubbing club–quelle surprise!)

 

[Naskor]

This is what I am talking about.

amazon.com/Kissed-Dating-Goodbye-Joshua-Harris/dp/1590521358

 

[EasterJoy]

This is what I am talking about.

amazon.com/Kissed-Dating-Goodbye-Joshua-Harris/dp/1590521358

The proposal is not to stamp out any idea of taking someone you are courting to the movies. The proposal is to forge friendships first and to pursue romance and the possibility of marriage with someone you already came to know as a friend worthy of a lifelong commitment first.

In other words, he is talking about refraining from stirring up emotional intimacy with someone you barely know. That is a wise thing.

His left hand is under my head,
and his right arm embraces me.
I adjure you, Daughters of Jerusalem,
do not awaken or stir up love
until it is ready! (Songs 8:3-4)

 

[UbiCaritas]

This is what I am talking about.

amazon.com/Kissed-Dating-Goodbye-Joshua-Harris/dp/1590521358

And how would you respond to the criticisms a lot of us have raised about the ideas in that book? For example, the notion that the couple in question can have no expectation of so much as a private conversation pre-marriage, or that young professionals are unlikely to be living with their parents (statistically, in today’s world, they’re probably living pretty far away), or that if two people can’t go out for dinner without having sex right then and there, then they probably aren’t mature enough for marriage?

 

[UbiCaritas]

The proposal is not to stamp out any idea of taking someone you are courting to the movies. The proposal is to forge friendships first and to pursue romance and the possibility of marriage with someone you already came to know as a friend worthy of a lifelong commitment first.

In other words, he is talking about refraining from stirring up emotional intimacy with someone you barely know. That is a wise thing.

His left hand is under my head,
and his right arm embraces me.
I adjure you, Daughters of Jerusalem,
do not awaken or stir up love
until it is ready! (Songs 8:3-4)

I absolutely agree with your post, but have you read the book in question? According to Harris, you shouldn’t even go out to dinner alone as a couple until you’re married, or have any sort of private conversation ditto lest you fall into sin. It’s a very all-or-nothing approach, no middle ground: you’re either engaging in serial sexual monogamy via the “dating scene,” or you’re living a Good, Pure, Christian Life ™ by never being alone with someone of the opposite sex lest you fall into sin, even if by “alone” you mean “in a restaurant full of people,” when the fact is, there is middle ground, and it is, as usual, much saner and more workable than either of the two extremes.

 

[EasterJoy]

I absolutely agree with your post, but have you read the book in question? According to Harris, you shouldn’t even go out to dinner alone as a couple until you’re married, or have any sort of private conversation ditto lest you fall into sin. It’s a very all-or-nothing approach, no middle ground: you’re either engaging in serial sexual monogamy via the “dating scene,” or you’re living a Good, Pure, Christian Life ™ by never being alone with someone of the opposite sex lest you fall into sin, even if by “alone” you mean “in a restaurant full of people,” when the fact is, there is middle ground, and it is, as usual, much saner and more workable than either of the two extremes.

I think the stance of the actual people on this thread is that you do not go around stirring up romantic affections in others when you are not ready to seriously explore the possibility of a real commitment. Don’t encourage a woman to fall in love with you and develop a desire to marry you when you are not prepared to fall in love with and marry her. You expect more from yourself than that.

Even in the concept of “dating” that I grew up with, there were a lot of difficult break-ups between people who were never well-suited to each other in any long term sense in the first place. Couples would grow extremely attached when marriage was not a realistic possibility for a long time and while they still had a great deal of maturing to do emotionally. That is not a good situation.

 

[UbiCaritas]

I think the stance of the actual people on this thread is that you do not go around stirring up romantic affections in others when you are not ready to seriously explore the possibility of a real commitment. Don’t encourage a woman to fall in love with you and develop a desire to marry you when you are not prepared to fall in love with and marry her. You expect more from yourself than that.

Even in the concept of “dating” that I grew up with, there were a lot of difficult break-ups between people who were never well-suited to each other in any long term sense in the first place. Couples would grow extremely attached when marriage was not a realistic possibility for a long time and while they still had a great deal of maturing to do emotionally. That is not a good situation.

Well, Naskor’s only response thus far has been to say that we should follow “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” but has refused to elaborate much on that when questioned, so it’s not exactly unreasonable to assume that he’s suggesting following the whole program rather than the common-sense points you’ve made above.