Explaining the process of Courting

[alphawoman]

I find this thread interesting. To the OP: set your standards to attract the type of mate you’d like. What is important is that you not morally compromise yourself.

That being said, I find it difficult to see how a dating relationship could be deemed “courtship” at the outset if two people hadn’t previously known each other platonically. Perhaps, instead of asking prospective beaux to intend marriage to you specifically at the outset, you ask them to behave as they would to a future spouse. A comment like, “I’m not looking for a casual relationship, I want to find a lifelong partner and need to know that you do too” would work. It’s not being uptight; it’s ensuring that you don’t waste your time.

WRT only chaperoned dates, I think you might reach a point where achieving emotional intimacy will be hampered by others’ presence. The process of discerning whether someone makes a suitable spouse requires lots of personal sharing. IMO, you and your suitor should be delving into controversial topics that shouldn’t be shared with others. Marriage requires total mutual self-giving. While the physical aspect of this is certainly off-limits outside marriage, it is your responsibility to know your future mate intellectually and spiritually for the sake of any future children’s upbringing in the faith. Frankly, your suitors’ answers to these weighty issues are nobody else’s business.

As a final note, I hardly dated in high school. I didn’t even try dating in university, and I just happened upon my now-husband by chance in class. Focus on your own goals above all else. Men of value will be attracted to you regardless.

 

[Greg_N]

ME: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing… it’s like you can’t have one without (at least) a portion of the other.

YOU: Yes, though that stretches eros so far that it includes those forms of love which don’t involve sexuality. I wonder where this places the love of spouses.

It’s all teleological dude , I actually do think you were onto something though when you said:

Perhaps sexual intercourse itself has a simpler and more teleological role than a modern person would be inclined to believe

you did kind of refute that point already (Song of Songs, Wedding at Kana etc.) but anyhow…

ME: *The idea to pursue agape together seems appealing (but that’s not going to be the case for many) *

YOU: But I’d say that “white marriage” (and I know one) is still marriage, it’s not the same type of relationship as between siblings or parent and child.

You’re right… It’s like there is always a sense of what we call ‘eros’ between two people who are chemically compatible. Could this be the teleological role we both have somewhat mentioned previously and not eros? What do you call this “different” love? —and before I go on— this entire conversation is in no way objective/infallible in any way… I’m just putting my thoughts to paper(pixels?) and hoping I can draw some conclusions from it - I’m not trying to teach (even if it seems like I’m trying to).

ME:…agape is not only the correct moral decision but (you could say) also paves the way for hope (in the context of the relationship)…

YOU: I’m not sure I follow you there.

I was just rehashing the idea that agape is what initially provides the “openness” to eros.

Depends how you define eros but yeah, shutting off is what kills the romance, to overcome that shutting off one needs to be rather selfless, put that marriage above the urge to find a second chance with a different person or forget it altogether.

yessir

Well, “we can argue,” is a long way from, “we declare and define.” I’d argue that our beloved Panzer Pope is still dissecting the idea.

Yep, I agree…

Marriage is not celibacy, you know. I suppose at the end of the day you could probably prove that the best thing to do in marriage is to switch to white marriage but at the very least the other spouse must be fully on board with that. In reality, that other spouse is IMHO likely to be pretending and playing along for the sake of the one that came up with the idea. Which probably brings a lot of merit. Which probably means I should shut up. Which might be a good idea because I’m nowhere near a qualified theologian. I can only really talk about canon law to an ex etent with any credit.

Haha, we’re not re-writing canon law - just thinking out loud. I agree though, I think I’m trying to bite off a little more than I can chew. Regardless, I do find this discourse quite interesting.

Spousal love can’t be reduced to eros anyway. Mutual fascination with each other and all the good wishes and impulses towards greater things that result from it can’t really be reduced to a very carnal side of sexuality.

Yes… but could you classify “good wishes and impulses etc.” as agape? or is that what you meant?

Yeah, true. But there’s not much agape in hypothetically announcing, “honey, we’re doing agape only from now on.” In fact, there might be self-directed eros there (as in egoism, putting the desire to please ourselves above the rights of the other person).

Haha, well of course it sounds egoistic if you put it like that. I was thinking more along the lines of…

It’s a sulty night… "my fair lady” he (the husband) softly whispers, “shall we attempt agape in the hopes of rekindling that once ferocious flame?"etc. #50shadesofagape you feel me? lol

In the extreme case, spouses can mutually give each other permission to join a monastic order once the children are grown, but that needs to be mutual.

Very interesting; never knew that.

But I’m not sure I can dissect this. I’ve already gone way above my paygrade here. As a minimum, I can say it intuitively **feels rather silly **to e.g. marry a person who doesn’t appeal to us just to avoid the suffering that would come if that person left us: in other words marry someone we wouldn’t mind losing. Self-preservation instinct is a bad advisor sometimes.

That is a bit silly, and I really believe that’s looking far too much into it. In fact thinking like that will probably end up in reductio ad absurdum.

Anyway…I agree that we’re both above our pay grade here, all good brain-stimulating stuff but.

No, I think it’s an example of the triumph of love of God and love of neighbour (or rather several million neighbours along with millions of their offspring) over the love of a man, which in a way is what you’re saying

Yes, it is what I’m saying… kinda… If we can look at marriage (mutually) with God consistently in the foreground, we won’t have a problem - that’s where I assign the absolute height of agape, (not to confuse egoism with selflessness). To factor in agape, the “selflessness” in marrige would encompass both parties’ as they are now ‘one flesh’ in the eyes of God… (or am I oversimplifying?)

but it had nothing to do with looking at one’s marriage in a specific way. It relied on sacrificing love (and actually a childhood “marriage”, which was then regarded as more than simply betrothal but still required confirmation after reaching the age of maturity and that confirmation actually almost happened but the rebellious courtiers seized the queen’s groom) in order to marry someone who promised to convert himself and his subjects if given her hand in marriage, the additional huge problem being the security of her own kingdom. And she understood what she was doing.

You say it had “nothing to do with looking at one’s marriage in a specific way” but I disagree. This was a marriage, in the very real and sanctimonious sense, that’s a fact, and the reasons as to why she did what she did (I believe) plays into the aforementioned hierarchical idea of agape/spiritual > eros/material (as somewhat universal).

You probably somehow associated my words with the possibility of allowance of divorce but that’s absolutely not there. Just because a lesser good can distract one from the greater good doesn’t mean we should eradicate the lesser good. Love of one’s family can prompt one to betray the love of his country. Or even God in some situations. Doesn’t mean we should stop having families. Just an example.

Great point and I agree 110%. Sorry about the confusion, in the same way though; I am in no way purporting the idea of eradicating the “lesser good”, but merely pointing out that it is indeed that; a lesser good.

My worry is that marrying too often has a bait and switch aspect to it. Wooing and preening, and then poof it goes after the oath is made and the other party has given up freedom; forget any more romance and you were delusional to begin with. Welcome to real life.

Boom! so true.

I can imagine a Catholic dating show with you as the host.

 

[chevalier]

Re: St. Jadwiga, I think we have a little misunderstanding. There were two marriages: one “marriage”, which was effectively betrothal (although according to the customs of the time it was celebrated as marriage, it was basically a bit of a limbo to spare you the legalese), with the Austrian prince, and the final marriage with the ruler of Lithuania (that being the guy who promised to convert along with his entire populace).

As for the rest of our discussion, we’ve already ventured too far off the topic. I suppose the conclusion is that prospective spouses should know how they imagine marriage, where they stand with feelings, opinions etc. There needs to be disclosure and that disclosure should be full and true. Baiting and switching is not acceptable (particularly not acceptable just because the withdrawn bait is not something required for a valid marriage or perhaps not required at all). At the same time, it’s really hard to contract an invalid marriage, and the ecclesiastic court (“tribunal”) won’t bail anybody out of a wrong choice. So one’s got to do his homework.

And perhaps it’s worth noting that personalist theology dating more or less from around Vatican 2, JP2 being the most notable proponent, is far more humane than the mediaeval views.

 

[Byrnwiga]

I saw this posted on a website: youtube.com/watch?v=YbIySi4qDjk.

It’s a slightly different take on the whole issue, but the blog associated with the YouTube channel has interesting content as well.

Just thought I’d post it here for those interested.

-Byrnwiga

 

[Greg_N]

Yeah, agreed chevalier…

Sorry for going off topic OP. :imsorry:

 

[destrecht]

I have been trying to convince my son to be involved with courting. My main points are that divorce rates are far lower. It’s up to parents to raise their sons that way (a tough task, I know) as well as raise their daughters to expect it.
I saw Steve Ray a few days ago, and he said he takes his daughters on a yearly date to teach them what to expect from a boy. ‘If they don’t treat you like I do, they aren’t good enough.’ I’m starting that this month.

 

[Baelor]

I have been trying to convince my son to be involved with courting. My main points are that divorce rates are far lower. It’s up to parents to raise their sons that way (a tough task, I know) as well as raise their daughters to expect it.
I saw Steve Ray a few days ago, and he said he takes his daughters on a yearly date to teach them what to expect from a boy. ‘If they don’t treat you like I do, they aren’t good enough.’ I’m starting that this month.

When you are with your daughters, how do you decide what they should expect from a man? I imagine that some behaviors depend on individual preferences, so how do you discern what behaviors are inherently to be expected?

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

When you are with your daughters, how do you decide what they should expect from a man? I imagine that some behaviors depend on individual preferences, so how do you discern what behaviors are inherently to be expected?

I was just discussing this with my Dad - he was saying that some women will go into relationships looking for a father-like figure in their lives because their father is either not physically present or physically present, but not emotionally present. So it is a Father’s responsibility to provide his daughters (and sons!) with a great example.

It is the same with how the father/husband treats his wife infront of his kids. If the kids grow up with their father treating his wife with love and respect, going on dates with her, giving her flowers, taking care of her, etc, that is what they will look for in their future spouse.

 

[Baelor]

I was just discussing this with my Dad - he was saying that some women will go into relationships looking for a father-like figure in their lives because their father is either not physically present or physically present, but not emotionally present. So it is a Father’s responsibility to provide his daughters (and sons!) with a great example.

It is the same with how the father/husband treats his wife infront of his kids. If the kids grow up with their father treating his wife with love and respect, going on dates with her, giving her flowers, taking care of her, etc, that is what they will look for in their future spouse.

What if the daughter does not care about getting flowers? That is what I am wondering – what is being considered as necessary behavior? And at what point does the daughter get to decide what is important to her? Some women may be told by their fathers that a man who does not insist on paying for the date is not worthy. What if, for whatever reason, she would prefer to split the bill or to trade off paying?

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

What if the daughter does not care about getting flowers? That is what I am wondering – what is being considered as necessary behavior? And at what point does the daughter get to decide what is important to her? Some women may be told by their fathers that a man who does not insist on paying for the date is not worthy. What if, for whatever reason, she would prefer to split the bill or to trade off paying?

Maybe flowers and splitting the bill are trivial matters in comparison to the example of a Godly man that is to be set by her father? Each family will be different, obviously. It’s the principle of the Godly example that matters.

Also, one must realize the importance of the spiritual leader role that the father should play in both his children and his wife’s life. This is the goal of the marriage - to lead one’s spouse and children to Heaven.

 

[AthenaC]

Maybe flowers and splitting the bill are trivial matters in comparison to the example of a Godly man that is to be set by her father? Each family will be different, obviously. It’s the principle of the Godly example that matters.

Also, one must realize the importance of the spiritual leader role that the father should play in both his children and his wife’s life. This is the goal of the marriage - to lead one’s spouse and children to Heaven.

But what does a “principle of the Godly example” look like? I believe that’s Baelor’s point. How does one recognize the “principle of the Godly example” when one sees it and how does one know when it is sufficiently replicated? Conversely, how does one recognize when the “Godly example” is NOT sufficiently replicated? Also, how does one recognize when one’s “Godly example” is less than optimal and shouldn’t be too closely replicated?

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

But what does a “principle of the Godly example” look like? I believe that’s Baelor’s point. How does one recognize the “principle of the Godly example” when one sees it and how does one know when it is sufficiently replicated? Conversely, how does one recognize when the “Godly example” is NOT sufficiently replicated? Also, how does one recognize when one’s “Godly example” is less than optimal and shouldn’t be too closely replicated?

The principles of a Godly example can be found when actions follow this verse:
1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

When the father exemplifies the actions of Our Heavenly Father, a Godly example is given. The parent’s goal is to be a reflection of God in their children’s lives.

The Godly father trains his children to love and honor God and his goal is to bring their children to Heaven.

When the earthly father’s actions are contrary to the actions of the Heavenly Father, and go against the Catholic Church’s teachings, and lead their children into sin, or show the children that sin is acceptable, the example is insufficient.

Also realize that I am not a father figure (although my father has been a great Godly example) so my thoughts come from what I have seen, not what I have done.

 

[AthenaC]

The principles of a Godly example can be found when actions follow this verse:
1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

Your answer is just more abstractions that say nothing about how the theory applies to practice. If this is something that you actually expect to follow, you need to be able to be specific about what all these abstractions mean and how to interpret whatever “Godly example” you are seeing. The principle of “imitating Christ”, although well-intentioned, is vague, broad, and ultimately not very useful in practice standing on its own.

I will give you an example from my own life to illustrate the type of answer I think you ought to be able to give:

My parents’ marriage is a “Godly” marriage. They are very devout, intellectual Catholics that have been together for over 40 years and are still going strong. They have a lot in common and they pray together frequently, in particular a set of prayers before and after the Rosary that they say in unison (and that I have never heard anyone else say). Dad is an intellectual titan who converted to Catholicism because meeting my Catholic mom got him thinking and reading and ultimately concluding that he should be Catholic. Because he is an intellectual convert, he is an apologetic powerhouse.

Dad is the breadwinner who makes the money; Mom’s job is to spend it. Not on herself, mind you, but on food, clothes, and things we need. Mom is very strong-willed and a micromanager; she calls all the shots and Dad does whatever she wants. Occasionally (rarely) Dad will put his foot down, and Mom will go along with it. The division of household chores has not changed in at least 30 years; Mom does all the inside stuff and Dad does all the outside stuff.

They do not ever touch each other (although clearly they did at one point, since they had three children). In addition, Mom speaks disdainfully of physical affection: “Real intimacy is with your mind.” Mom always dresses very modestly and has had the same clothes, haircut, and makeup for 30 years. Dad always dresses very modestly and has had the same clothes and haircut for 30 years (longer actually - I’ve seen his college pictures).

Now - look at my parents’ marriage (keeping in mind it is happy and strong) and tell me - which parts are considered a “Godly example” that I should imitate? Which parts should I not imitate? How do you know?

Think about your own parents and the “Godly example” they set for you and answer the above questions for yourself.

 

[chevalier]

I was just discussing this with my Dad - he was saying that some women will go into relationships looking for a father-like figure in their lives because their father is either not physically present or physically present, but not emotionally present. So it is a Father’s responsibility to provide his daughters (and sons!) with a great example.

It is the same with how the father/husband treats his wife infront of his kids. If the kids grow up with their father treating his wife with love and respect, going on dates with her, giving her flowers, taking care of her, etc, that is what they will look for in their future spouse.

Exactly. I’m pleased to see people still cherish this knowledge.

What if the daughter does not care about getting flowers? That is what I am wondering – what is being considered as necessary behavior? And at what point does the daughter get to decide what is important to her? Some women may be told by their fathers that a man who does not insist on paying for the date is not worthy. What if, for whatever reason, she would prefer to split the bill or to trade off paying?

Neither flowers nor paying for stuff are important per se, they stand for a greater thing: courtesy, respect, kindness, responsibility, interest.

As for insisting on paying, it’d be very error-prone for a woman to initiate a lengthy scene about who will pay and judge the man on the outcome as in if he budged after 5 minutes of that or not. A gentleman will generally not make a scene and will always be inclined to grant a lady’s wish if at all possible (physically or morally), and will be very disinclined from literally opposing her wish and forcing his position of her (which could actually be a bit of a warning sign), being a gentleman is not about forcing your way. Then again, most ladies drop the subject after you say, “I insist,” or meaningfully ignore whatever they’re saying.

Also, there’s nothing wrong in allowing a working professional lady, or a lady with substantial means other than from work, to split the bill or actually take the entire bill every other time or some other frequency she offers to. Furthermore, I believe a gentleman just pick up the bill and pay it, no talking. Make it as invisible as possible is the gentlemanly way, I believe. Taking turns paying the entire bill looks better to me than splitting, too.

Once upon a time a girl actually suggested I paid for her and she paid for me. Pity it never work out, I could really love a mind and brain like that.

 

[Baelor]

Maybe flowers and splitting the bill are trivial matters in comparison to the example of a Godly man that is to be set by her father? Each family will be different, obviously. It’s the principle of the Godly example that matters.

Viz…what, exactly?

Also, one must realize the importance of the spiritual leader role that the father should play in both his children and his wife’s life. This is the goal of the marriage - to lead one’s spouse and children to Heaven.

This is too vague – as others have noted, I am interested in particulars. This is because I am concerned about the idea of parents forcing particulars on their daughter that do not permit her to determine for herself what is appropriate and important to her.

Neither flowers nor paying for stuff are important per se, they stand for a greater thing: courtesy, respect, kindness, responsibility, interest.

Indeed.

As for insisting on paying, it’d be very error-prone for a woman to initiate a lengthy scene about who will pay and judge the man on the outcome as in if he budged after 5 minutes of that or not. A gentleman will generally not make a scene and will always be inclined to grant a lady’s wish if at all possible (physically or morally), and will be very disinclined from literally opposing her wish and forcing his position of her (which could actually be a bit of a warning sign), being a gentleman is not about forcing your way. Then again, most ladies drop the subject after you say, “I insist,” or meaningfully ignore whatever they’re saying.

Indeed, although different people have different conceptions of gentlemanly behavior, hence my post in the first place.

 

[CyberAngel]

they are. The percentage of women pressured into sex is much higher for women than men (like, 0% for men).
X

0%

that is not true !!!

 

[CyberAngel]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis#Paralipsis ?
chevalier;9633372:

Won’t play that game with you.

I followed up the link and I found this
“As I have elsewhere observed, it is like the Mark Twain story of the little boy who was told to stand in a corner and not to think of a white elephant.”

I think it describes the situation if you concentrate on the boundaries and chastity only

Wake up. Or are you assuming all men are just like you?

This goes for everyone here
In my not-so-humble opinion:
the girl who asked the question is both right and “right”

1. courting>dating - even if your personal success shows otherwise
2. she has her ] check-this -boxes and this is one of them
   AND yes, she will meet the right guy for her
   and obviously those who object her attitude are not belonging to the prospects
   Why should she change her attitude at all?

Later on I will give you more than just opinions

 

[CyberAngel]

Did she say that she herself was more trustworthy than the young men who might court her? I don’t remember her saying anywhere that she trusted herself but did not trust them.

No, she cannot look down on men, but I don’t think she’s doing that. There is a reason that Our Lord counselled against the attitude “thank you that I am not like other men.” she is quite sensible to realize that sexual desire is not confined to the cerebral cortex, but also resides in those regions of the brain that cause sharks to strike at surf boards and truck tires. Yes, self-denial is a cognitive ability that can be cultivated, but it is also a physical ability of the brain, and as such it is subject to limits. (Yes, I mean that research has indicated that people who have been subjected to temptation earlier are more likely to give in to a different temptation that is presented to them later than controls who were not confronted with situations requiring resisting via will power earlier in the experiment.)

The path of the upright avoids misfortune;
he who pays attention to his way safeguards his life.
Pride goes before disaster,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Prov. 16:17-18

As for the questions…as much as it is unrealistic to ask a guy to resist what he sees no point in resisting, it is also not realistic to ask questions in such a way that they encourage someone to lie. Whether consciously or unconsciously, people are unlikely to self-report honestly on questions like those. Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to tell a man that he has unsavory intentions towards the man’s daughter, not unless what he really wants is some kind of “suicide by protective dad.”

Good points here!
Someone with bad intentions would not lie?
I would not answer all questions and maybe I would not be accepted then?
OK by me - I would not fit in.

 

[Baelor]

1. courting>dating - even if your personal success shows otherwise

Since the entire purpose of courting and dating is based on success at a personal level, your statement is self-contradictory.

 

[CyberAngel]

Since the entire purpose of courting and dating is based on success at a personal level, your statement is self-contradictory.

You have been shown in this thread that dating may include “casual” dating
yet courting is courting
You can’t accept this then don’t