Explaining the process of Courting

[thewanderer]

This will have to be my last post for the night

My approach would be letting the spouse determine frequency/presence of relations. I must point out that I wouldn’t be refusing any relations; I understand that is forbidden. What I am articulating is that the frequency of relations would be determined by the minimum of two frequencies (if not just one). I am curious as to how that could be considered objectionable. The topic would of course be broached at some point in the dating/courting process.

You certainly make relations sound far too contractual for my taste, but . I was just making sure you were aware of the importance of this issue and talking about it beforehand as it was not clear from your posts.

In general, starting with the absolute highest standards and strictest methods is a good idea (in my mind). If that is fruitless, one may slowly ease restrictions (within reason) until a suitable person is found. This thread, I believe, is mainly centered on the aforementioned starting point.

Here I must contest that you are starting from the flawed premise that those who prefer courting are better marriage material than those who prefer dating. I have known too many amazing Catholics who wouldn’t dream of courting and too many people with idealistic views of realtionships such as those found sometimes in courting couples for me to accept this premise. Choosing to court does not set a higher standard for a future spouse than choosing to date. My threefold division was not from low to high standards as to the quality of those involved as potential spouses, but rather simply in terms of the way you expect your partner to live and act. Courting is not more likely to end up well than good healthy dating, it is not intrinsically better than dating, it simply has more rules which some people like to live by. In this sense, it has more ‘standards’ that it expects potential spouses to live up to, and so narrows the field. One could just as well decide that they want to marry someone brown hair or a college degree. These are arbitrary standards set by an individual that make no difference as to the marriagability of their partners.

There are indeed many things that are not required, but are important. I am simply stating that attraction (especially physical) is not as important as other optional/non-required things. In fact, for me, it is near the bottom.

-Byrnwiga

 

[Byrnwiga]

The fact that you are male makes no difference

Well, I think it does make a difference, if what I’ve read on the subject is correct.

You certainly make relations sound far too contractual for my taste

I’m not sure how that would qualify as “contractual”. Basically, I won’t refuse relations. That’s it.

I have known too many amazing Catholics who wouldn’t dream of courting and too many people with idealistic views of realtionships such as those found sometimes in courting couples for me to accept this premise.

We’ve had the exact opposite experiences it seems. As for courting versus dating in terms of standards (qualities): no, they need not differ between the two approaches. However, one does set a higher standard for behaviour and interaction on the part of any person one courts, I believe (and which you seem to be touching on).

One could just as well decide that they want to marry someone brown hair or a college degree. These are arbitrary standards set by an individual that make no difference as to the marriagability of their partners.

How arbitrary does a standard need to be in order to be considered “arbitrary”?

-Byrnwiga

 

[chevalier]

Also, it seems like you want to call courting ‘dating’ just for the sake of it, as in the suggestion that everything done in courting can be done in dating. It’s now almost an issue of semantics rather than practices.

The problem is that many people are stuck with the idea that dating=bad and courting=good, regardless what meaning is understood there.

For the record, both concepts are wrong anyway.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

What you are advocating doesn’t seem much different to dating…other than the supervision and the more explicit (rather than implicit and gradual) pressure of discerning marriage from the very start
I don’t think you’ll find that scriptures or the Church reveal a model of courtship over dating. You seem to presume that your model is more holy than others. Anyway…

 Courtship is different than modern dating. The divorce rate is 50%.  This statistic alone should make someone aware of the preciousness of finding the right person who God wants you to marry the first time around.  When I marry, it will be with NO divorce option.  I have seen how divorce tears up families (my extended family and friends included.)  I want to marry the man God has in mind for me, and I want to remain with him until death do us part! So I am taking this process very seriously.  Which leads me to this quote on biblical courtship backing up my standards:

 "Modern dating, on the other hand, need not have marriage as a goal at all. Dating can be recreational. Not only is "dating for fun" acceptable, it is assumed that "practice" and learning by "trial and error" are necessary, even advisable, before finding the person that is just right for you. The fact that individuals will be emotionally and probably physically intimate with many people before settling down with the "right person" is just part of the deal. Yet where is the biblical support for such an approach to marriage? There is none. How many examples of "recreational dating" do we see among God's people in the Bible? Zero. The category of premarital intimacy does not exist, other than in the context of grievous sexual sin."

Now as for biblical COURTSHIP? There is a lot of verses that back that up:

 "Numbers 30:3-16 talks about a transfer of authority from the father to the husband when a woman leaves her father's house and is united to her husband. The Song of Solomon showcases the meeting, courtship, and marriage of a couple — always with marriage in view"

Or

 "Biblical courtship recognizes the general call to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Phil. 2:3, NIV). It also recognizes the specific call that Ephesians 5:25 gives men in marriage, where our main role is sacrificial service. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her. That means loving sacrificially every day. Biblical courtship means that a man does not look for a laundry list of characteristics that comprise his fantasy woman so that his every desire can be fulfilled, but he looks for a godly woman as Scripture defines her — a woman he can love and, yes, be attracted to, but a woman whom he can serve and love as a godly husband."

In other words, modern dating asks, “How can I find the one for me?” while biblical courtship asks, “How can I be the one for her?” That is the difference.

It’s great to trust in God. You also have to cooperate with God. I trust that God will provide for me and my family, and I cooperate with this by going to work each day. I hoped that God would lead me to my bride, and trusted He would if that was His plan, but I also made sure to go to events to meet people my age and I dated several girls before finally finding my lovely wife. My wife is not perfect, so I had to lower some standards I would like to have stuck to, all things being equal (but don’t tell her that). But all things are not equal, and the guy you marry will be a sinner, just like the rest of us. He will have faults, and he will not live up to your ideals; sorry to break this to you

 I have standards, I do!  And I don't want to go out into the world advertisting that  I would like a slacker who is lazy, can't support my future family, has no respect for me as a person, and isn't even thinking about marriage.  If I start with my standards low, I cannot raise them.
 Standards to be lowerd? Physical expectations.  Maybe I would like to marry a young man who is taller than me.  But if I feel like God is calling me to another man who is shorter than me, I'm definatly not going to tell God No, just because he is short.
 Standards to raise high and keep high?  Friendship, spiritual leadership, respect of me as a woman and not as an object, CATHOLIC, love for God and others, etc.  When my standards are high, the young man, if truely interested is going to rise to them.
 The way I'm reading it (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are afraid for me becuase I will have such a small dating pool - yes!  That is what I'm looking for! I don't want to have to weed through the worthless guys who have no intention of seriousness and are only in it for what's in it for them.  I'm looking for a young man who I can see spending the rest of my life with.  And if he's scared off just by the fact that I advocate courtship, he's obviously not the right one.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

The problem is that many people are stuck with the idea that dating=bad and courting=good, regardless what meaning is understood there.

For the record, both concepts are wrong anyway.

 Purpose-less dating = bad.
 Abuse of courtship =bad
 Purpose filled, God centered dating = good
 Purpose filled, God centered courtship = good.

If both concepts are wrong, what are we left with?

 

[thunderboom]

Forgive my obvious ignorance, but the very idea of “courtship” seems to me to be outdated and irrelevant to modern society. I mean, maybe if you come from a subculture that advances this idea, you might find a prospective spouse who wants to be courted, but the vast majority of people today have no idea what courtship even is. Frankly, even if courtship does have its benefits, I think that when you put it forward as the only possible model of finding a spouse, you’re making a mistake. There is nothing inherently wrong with dating - in fact, I think it’s much more desireable than courting for a mature couple. I was homeschooled, so I’m no stranger to alternative ideas, but seriously, if a woman told me she only wanted to be courted, I would have some serious reservations. Why can’t two adults go to dinner without supervision to get to know each other better? I mean, come on… If you don’t trust yourself enough to have dinner with another person in a public place, finding a spouse should not be at the top of your list of concerns.

 

[chevalier]

Purpose-less dating = bad.

You’re talking in generalities and code-words that you don’t feel with meaning. What do you understand “purposeless to be”?

 Purpose filled, God centered dating = good
 Purpose filled, God centered courtship = good.

Again, “God-centred” is an adjective that can be used for validation but without conveying a specific meaning. I presume you mean a relationship in which the couple obey the commandments of God, follow the teaching of the Church, are interested in finding someone to marry for the kind of marriage that God and the Church have in mind (I don’t really like the “discernment” language because I don’t like the use of 19th century English as a bludgeoning weapon in debates).

I don’t really want to say that “God-centred” doesn’t have meaning. Obviously, you can say it’s a relationship that has God in its centre and there’s clear meaning in that. Except as I said, you can attribute general, broad categories any way you want and your opposition can do the same. In order to have meaningful discussion, everybody needs to narrow things down and avoid fighting for the nice labels (or using the bad labels as weapons against the opponent).

If both concepts are wrong, what are we left with?

I’m happy to oblige! We’re left with polite social discourse which does not assign definitions too early. Just because people are attracted to each other and want to learn more about each other, it doesn’t mean they need to formalise it right away and come up with a set of rules, something of a contract. Nope. As long as they mostly just talk, spend time, there is no overt romantic talk or gesture, they can just continue to meet and talk. Only when they’ve made up their mind that they want to pursue a romantic relationship or when they actually fall in love, is when they should have a conversation about it (if at all). Also, if things like holding hands or kissing on the lips happen spontaneously, that marks the beginning of a relationship (and it’s not fine to do the same things with other people or have multiple such relationships). But even then, there’s no need to pile definitions and rules, obsess and overreact and get all exalted.

In fact, I reject dating because it’s too in-your-face with the proposal of a romantic pastime between two strangers. I tend to view that as incompatible with the dignity and decorum of the woman but I can’t say with certainty that modern people are wrong in being so direct as they are.

As for “courting”, I reject its artificiality and the stiffening labels and definitions that come too early. If you formalise love, it loses flavour.

In fact, dating and courting have the same bad thing in common: forcing the definitions, expectations, “contracts”. As a result, people need to live up to the bargain rather than finding out how they feel about it.

 

[chevalier]

Is it really? You make it sound like it’s a requirement. For example, the chance of me meeting someone I’m attracted to, is a devout Catholic, and has some common interests is very unlikely, so I’ve simply dispensed with the attraction part.

You’re free to do that to yourself, although I don’t believe it’d be a good idea. But you’d better be honest with a man you’re not attracted to and are merely settling for when he is much more taken with you than that. You’d generally better be open and honest with men about the fact you’ve removed attraction from the equation.

I’m not sure I’d want to marry a woman who were not attracted to me. The circumstances would need to be very special for that. I would need to know that she had some special respect for me, as well as sympathy and warmth and other good feelings, and that she would be able to deal with the situation if she actually were to become attracted to someone later (and I can tell).

There is not just one person that would be suitable for a particular individual. Also, a person can set whatever ideals, requirements, or practices they want for someone who wishes to date them. If the other person doesn’t like it, that’s fine.

In theory, yes. But not when there is already some bond, some closeness, some history together and one party begins to set some rules, dabble with definitions and generally make life difficult. That party still has the right to do that strictly speaking, but it’s no longer as ethically sound as it would be in the abstract.

Defining the Relationship to pursue marriage: "So now you have four green lights, and you must face the time where you will define the purpose and direction of the relationship…I believe the young man needs to ‘make the first move’…How should this happen? I believe the young man needs to say something like this: “We’re growing closer in friendship and I need to be clear about my motives. With your parent’s permission, I want to explore the possiblity of marriage. I’m not interested in playing the game of boyfriend and girlfriend. I’m ready to be tested by you, your family, and those who love you. My desire is to win your heart.”

A ton of non-contemporary English there, as well as language that’s laden with statements, and plenty of negations. That smells trouble. Being able to use contemporary English and keep it real is a crucial part of my sanity check. And my sanity check is a crucial part of my eligibility check.

For the record, there’s a lot of Protestant references in the passages from the book, something I’d associate with conservative Protestantism. Not really the environment I’d choose to blend into.

Also realise that just because somebody got published and is talking about Christian morals doesn’t mean that he’s some form of oracle that speaks with religious authority. He’s a person like you or I, sharing his thoughts.

It is much easier to fail in ones marital duties if someone, especially the woman, is not attracted to their spouse. Have you read some of the threads on here that talk about men(and sometimes women) who are stuck in marriages where their spouse just doesn’t want to have relations because they aren’t “in love”? It really is a very important aspect of marriage. No, it is not a complete requirement, I actually argued that quite extensively in another thread here in the past, but it is extremely important and helpful. Spouses are supposed to be attracted to each other. Thats how God created marriage. I am merely trying to make sure the OP doesn’t fall into the trap of belittling such attraction or worse, beginning to view it as a negative, shameful, or harmful thing.

That should be bolded and underlined. I totally support Thewanderer here.

My point is that marriage, and so the relationship leading up to it, is full of compromises.

Yes, and citing the right of either party to terminate the relationship isn’t a good answer to that. It solves nothing (except the relationship).

Courting and dating differ essentially in that when courting one never spends time alone with their significant other. Besides that I know of no essential difference between the two.

The problem is that some people who oppose some problems with dating look for a name for what they propose instead. So they come up with “courting”. Then other people read them, get hyped, and “courting” becomes a magical word.

There is the season of deepening friendship, where you are involved as friends looking into a relationship, and then the relationship itself. And the young man, I don’t believe, is husband-in-training, but a partner in discerning God’s will.

I sense a lot of seriousness and pathos in that and I’m not sure it’s good. Can’t it be more positive, can’t there be some more cheer in it? Anyway, a romantic relationship is not a deeper type of friendship. Women can be inclined to view it that way, as in a boyfriend or even husband is a deeper type of friend and a friend is a mini husband, a restricted type of husband. But things don’t really work that way from a man’s point of view. A deep friendship is a deep friendship. Romance is romance. Romancing someone is not the same as deepening friendship (as much as deepening a friendship is a great thing and to find a wife who can actually be your good friend is a huge blessing).

I’ll first explain a deepening of a friendship. As per said by Joshua Harris in “I kissed dating goodbye,” the defintion of the relationship at this stage is this: “The first priorty is to know each other well as individuals.”

Stop there! You’re talking like a lawyer talks about law when he distills binding rules from court decisions or quotes a statute. You’re falling victim of a legalistic mindset. Quit before it destroys you.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, I think it does make a difference, if what I’ve read on the subject is correct.

Only with respect to the likelihood of a male marrying a woman who wants relations more frequently than himself. But from what you have said it sounds like this is a very real possibility for you. Women can be just as hurt by a refusal to have relations as men. Perhaps it would be beccause of slightly different reasons, I don’t know enough to know that for sure, but it still hurts women tremendously. Just because they are women does not mean that relations are not meaningful or important to them. There are threads on here somewhere where women talk about how hurt they are by their husbands lack of interest in relations, if you care to you can attempt to dig them up to see for yourself. Whatever it is that you have read on the subject this is the reality and so you will need to be very careful not to end up hurting your future spouse by a lack of interest in relations.

I’m not sure how that would qualify as “contractual”. Basically, I won’t refuse relations. That’s it.

We’ve had the exact opposite experiences it seems. As for courting versus dating in terms of standards (qualities): no, they need not differ between the two approaches. However, one does set a higher standard for behaviour and interaction on the part of any person one courts, I believe (and which you seem to be touching on).

Sure, one always sets a higher standard in courting, but one is also more likely to fall prey to idealistic understanding of relationships and so to fail to get to know the other person because it is easier to end up behaving as you think a courting couple should rather than as you actually are, which can be extremely problematic for marriage. As you noted with dating, high standards can certainly be involved, all that needs to happen is the people dating need to set them. If they’re courting, they still need to set these standards. So it really isn’t correct to assume that through courting one is better off or will find better marriage material.

How arbitrary does a standard need to be in order to be considered “arbitrary”?

-Byrnwiga

Something which doesn’t make a difference with respect to finding a good future souse is arbitrary. Yes, it will be based on some preference of the individual involved, but with respect to finding a spouse it is completely arbitrary. Laying down the rule that you will never spend time alone is completely unnecessary and so I consider it arbitrary in the processes of finding a spouse.

 

[chevalier]

It is in purpose-less dating that the dilema of “twiglight zone between recreational dating and enggement occurs. Neither person knows exactly whatthe other is thinking. ‘Are we dating just for fun, or is this serious? What’s our committement?’ We want to avoid all states of limbo, so doing so will involve honesty and courage on the part of both people.” This is when the young man steps in, takes the lead and provides direction for the relationship so it doesn’t result in a perpetual “friend zone.”

But we need to live life as opposed to acting it out from a script. We need to live it well, live it morally, live it responsibly. But it would be good not to become scrupulous in that, and actually preserve some ability to enjoy life. There is nothing wrong with giving each other a lot of time and no pressure in simply getting to know each other (values, hobbies, preferences, personality traits) and there’s no need for formal commitment there. When it comes to “directionless relationships”, it’s only bad when it’s obviously some form of a relationship but it’s getting nowhere (e.g. because the people aren’t compatible enough to handle marriage to each other but won’t stop the dating because it gives them some personal satisfaction, so they indeed hang in a limbo).

My answer to that is that sober-minded approach to getting to know each other is good. Not driving up the dating tension, not driving up the sensual interplay, not driving up the sexy, but also not stiffling things with forced definitions. As long as things feel natural. Nobody has the time to do this forever if no conclusion seems to be on the horizon. (But in both dating and “courting”, the conclusion tends not to be on the horizon but rather breathing on your neck, the way some people’s expectations sound, which I say as a fierce, personal enemy of the “no obligations” approach to relationships, which I’ve been hurt by and biased against.)

Something which doesn’t make a difference with respect to finding a good future souse is arbitrary. Yes, it will be based on some preference of the individual involved, but with respect to finding a spouse it is completely arbitrary. Laying down the rule that you will never spend time alone is completely unnecessary and so I consider it arbitrary in the processes of finding a spouse.

It’s counterproductive and it’s weird. People have the right to do that just like I have the right to my own antics, of which I have quite a couple (I pay a lot of attention to good manners and good grammar, for example). But they need to realise the consequences. It may be very difficult to find a spouse, and the spouse found might be a less than well-adjusted person. Personally, I’m scared cold by people who won’t use contemporary English when talking about things. I can operate 19th century English pretty well and talk in the “thou hast” language pretty much at ease (without the grammatical mistakes that typically abound when people try to go there), most of what I write would probably have been viable 100 years ago, but I’m still scared by the type of language courting advocates use. It freezes my socks cold. I instantly suspect an indoctrination attempt and the person using that type of language tends to appear indoctrinated to me as well.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Chevalier and thewanderer, I think you’re both talking a lot of sense here.

 

[thewanderer]

But we need to live life as opposed to acting it out from a script. We need to live it well, live it morally, live it responsibly.

Very well said. I was about to justify your comment that neither dating or courting was the correct way when I saw you had posted this which pretty much sums it up for me. It is wrong to take either dating or courting as some ideal or script and start following it, ie behaving in the way you are told/ have come to believe dating/courting people ought to behave**. This is very dangerous**. Instead you have to live life and live it authentically. If that also happens to involve you not wanting to hang out with someone in private so be it, so long as it really is authentically a part of who you are.
This is why I think there is much less danger to courting when it is a part of the culture, because then it comes more naturally and is less likely to be looked to idealistically and treated like a script.

 

[chevalier]

Very well said. I was about to justify your comment that neither dating or courting was the correct way when I saw you had posted this which pretty much sums it up for me. It is wrong to take either dating or courting as some ideal or script and start following it, ie behaving in the way you are told/ have come to believe dating/courting people ought to behave**. This is very dangerous**. Instead you have to live life and live it authentically. If that also happens to involve you not wanting to hang out with someone in private so be it, so long as it really is authentically a part of who you are.
This is why I think there is much less danger to courting when it is a part of the culture, because then it comes more naturally and is less likely to be looked to idealistically and treated like a script.

Thanks.

Chevalier and thewanderer, I think you’re both talking a lot of sense here.

As well.

 

[Byrnwiga]

You’re free to do that to yourself, although I don’t believe it’d be a good idea. But you’d better be honest with a man you’re not attracted to and are merely settling for when he is much more taken with you than that. You’d generally better be open and honest with men about the fact you’ve removed attraction from the equation.

Well, I’m not a woman, but your point doesn’t really change: I realize how statistically unlikely it is for me to find someone attractive and also someone who both shares my interests (or a few, at least) and is a practicing Catholic. This is not to say that I am opposed to marrying someone who is attractive, just that I don’t have any particular requirement in that realm.

That should be bolded and underlined. I totally support Thewanderer here.

I agree that spouses should certainly be attracted at some levels, but not necessary physically. Physical appearance changes and, in general, wanes over time; therefore, I’d rather a stronger attraction based on intellect and ideals and forgoing physical attraction (if need be).

Women can be just as hurt by a refusal to have relations as men.

Just to be clear: I’m not suggesting that I would refuse. I understand fully that that is a sin.

easier to end up behaving as you think a courting couple should rather than as you actually are, which can be extremely problematic for marriage

I recognize that as a possibility, but you must concede that is also true for dating. If courting brings out the good in people, due to the ideal, I can’t see any downside to that. I think we’re still blending these practices together to the point where the terms are interchangeable (they’ve lost their semantic value).

As you noted with dating, high standards can certainly be involved, all that needs to happen is the people dating need to set them. If they’re courting, they still need to set these standards.

I think simply the mention of courting (in lieu of dating) is enough to raise the standards of interaction. Even if courting is (mis)understood as dating with higher standards, I think the improvement over secular practices is enough to make it worthwhile.

-Byrnwiga

 

[thewanderer]

(SNIP)
I recognize that as a possibility, but you must concede that is also true for dating. If courting brings out the good in people, due to the ideal, I can’t see any downside to that. I think we’re still blending these practices together to the point where the terms are interchangeable (they’ve lost their semantic value).

The problem is that courting doesn’t necessarily form the best relationships, there is a particular danger today because courting is not cultural that people will enter it idealistically and so act more as they think a courting couple should than as they actually are which is very dangerous as it prevents the couple from truly getting to know each other. In other words, I would contend that courting necessarily brings out the good in people, it can also bring out a false facade.

I think simply the mention of courting (in lieu of dating) is enough to raise the standards of interaction. Even if courting is (mis)understood as dating with higher standards, I think the improvement over secular practices is enough to make it worthwhile.

Its enough to either raise the standards (along with unnecessary restrictions) or to bring out a complete facade in the person you are interested in. The first is good the second is very problematic. Raising standards is done just as easily outside of courting if you are just honest. Tell them that such and such a thing is not ok with you, and guess what, the standards are raised! It is not harder to do and can avoid problems with idealistic facades. Again, this is not to say that it is always better to date rather than to court, there are dangers with both of them, but rather it is me trying to make sure you don’t paint courting as some perfect way of finding a spouse, it has its own problems.

 

[thewanderer]

Chevalier and thewanderer, I think you’re both talking a lot of sense here.

Thank you.

 

[chevalier]

Well, I’m not a woman,

I apologise for the jumped conclusion.

but your point doesn’t really change: I realize how statistically unlikely it is for me to find someone attractive and also someone who both shares my interests (or a few, at least) and is a practicing Catholic. This is not to say that I am opposed to marrying someone who is attractive, just that I don’t have any particular requirement in that realm.

Again, the other person might not want to marry someone not attracted. And you could break a woman’s heart in coming clean on it.

I agree that spouses should certainly be attracted at some levels, but not necessary physically. Physical appearance changes and, in general, wanes over time; therefore, I’d rather a stronger attraction based on intellect and ideals and forgoing physical attraction (if need be).

Ah, well, people can be sexually attracted to each other without considering appearance attractive. On the other hand, I personally tend to focus on the aesthetic side rather than any sort of steam (pretty > sexy). I guess it’s subjective and different from person to person. But you’d better be on the same page with your partner when you decide to ignore something a normal person would or could expect.

I recognize that as a possibility, but you must concede that is also true for dating. If courting brings out the good in people, due to the ideal, I can’t see any downside to that. I think we’re still blending these practices together to the point where the terms are interchangeable (they’ve lost their semantic value).

They don’t have any clear semantic value as it is anyway.

I think simply the mention of courting (in lieu of dating) is enough to raise the standards of interaction. Even if courting is (mis)understood as dating with higher standards, I think the improvement over secular practices is enough to make it worthwhile.

I’m all for raising the standards of interaction* and I believe we’d need to “abolish” dating to achieve this goal. Still don’t buy into the courting stuff.

• In fact, I actually don’t even like first name basis at the initial stages, you know; English is not a great example but in French I’d be using the vous form (like the usted in Spanish or lei/loro in Italian, with some differences, in English I guess the use of professional or courtesy titles conveys a similar meaning) and rather old-fashioned etiquette (except without making a theatre of it. I actually like the comfort this distance gives, it helps keep the conversation at an appropriate level. Despite all this social conservatism, I’m still not a fan of Victorian “courting” reconstructionism. Mostly because of the exaltation and how scripted it is.

 

[Byrnwiga]

I apologise for the jumped conclusion.

No worries.

Again, the other person might not want to marry someone not attracted. And you could break a woman’s heart in coming clean on it.

I meant in the sense of physical attraction. Attraction on other levels (intellectual, and so forth) is a must.

Ah, well, people can be sexually attracted to each other without considering appearance attractive. On the other hand, I personally tend to focus on the aesthetic side rather than any sort of steam (pretty > sexy). I guess it’s subjective and different from person to person. But you’d better be on the same page with your partner when you decide to ignore something a normal person would or could expect.

Yes, but my use of the term “physical attraction” encompassed both sexual attraction and attraction surrounding appearance. I suppose it may be best to split “physical attraction” into more finely demarcated terms.

They don’t have any clear semantic value as it is anyway.

It would seem that way, at least at this point. Perhaps an effort to gather all we’ve said and agree on definitions?

Despite all this social conservatism, I’m still not a fan of Victorian “courting” reconstructionism.

Well, I have a Victorian etiquette guide right next to me, and I would say the standards are indeed different. It may seem like Victorian reconstructionism on the surface (especially the stipulation of places of meeting), but it is still different. As an aside, I think dispensing with the reservedness towards “incautious familiarity” in modern dating has seen a lot of undesirable practices emerge.

-Byrnwiga

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

Forgive my obvious ignorance, but the very idea of “courtship” seems to me to be outdated and irrelevant to modern society. I mean, maybe if you come from a subculture that advances this idea, you might find a prospective spouse who wants to be courted, but the vast majority of people today have no idea what courtship even is. Frankly, even if courtship does have its benefits, I think that when you put it forward as the only possible model of finding a spouse, you’re making a mistake. There is nothing inherently wrong with dating - in fact, I think it’s much more desireable than courting for a mature couple. I was homeschooled, so I’m no stranger to alternative ideas, but seriously, if a woman told me she only wanted to be courted, I would have some serious reservations. Why can’t two adults go to dinner without supervision to get to know each other better? I mean, come on… If you don’t trust yourself enough to have dinner with another person in a public place, finding a spouse should not be at the top of your list of concerns.

I believe in the "old-fashioned" moral because, in reality, today's "modern" morals aren't really that great to base anything on. Yes, many do not know about courtship, but if a young man is interested in a committed relationship, then it just takes discussion on the topic. Two adults CAN go to dinner - it involves not being seculded.

 

[LaMusicaSenior]

You’re talking in generalities and code-words that you don’t feel with meaning. What do you understand “purposeless to be”?

purposeless dating is the modern look at dating. It’s just to have fun and see where things go, and has no direction.

Again, “God-centred” is an adjective that can be used for validation but without conveying a specific meaning. I presume you mean a relationship in which the couple obey the commandments of God, follow the teaching of the Church, are interested in finding someone to marry for the kind of marriage that God and the Church have in mind (I don’t really like the “discernment” language because I don’t like the use of 19th century English as a bludgeoning weapon in debates).

Actually, I do prefere the word discernment. It pertains to the two young people discerning God’s will in the relationhip, which is very important! And to be honst, God-centered is just what it says it is - God is the center of the relationship and your decisions are based on this center. It is not a broad term, it’s specific.

I’m happy to oblige! We’re left with polite social discourse which does not assign definitions too early. Just because people are attracted to each other and want to learn more about each other, it doesn’t mean they need to formalise it right away and come up with a set of rules, something of a contract. Nope. As long as they mostly just talk, spend time, there is no overt romantic talk or gesture, they can just continue to meet and talk. Only when they’ve made up their mind that they want to pursue a romantic relationship or when they actually fall in love, is when they should have a conversation about it (if at all). Also, if things like holding hands or kissing on the lips happen spontaneously, that marks the beginning of a relationship (and it’s not fine to do the same things with other people or have multiple such relationships). But even then, there’s no need to pile definitions and rules, obsess and overreact and get all exalted.
Would this infact be the seasons of friendhsip that lead up to the couple deciding if the friendship will be a relationship between exclusivly them, and then discerning if marriage is the proper direction, and then acting on that decision? The way your proposing is a mirror to the four steps of a Godly relationship that I pointed out using Joshua Harris's book, I kissed dating goodbye.