Explaining the process of Courting

[zenith15]

I’m not sure what you mean by seclusion, and I do not think it is clear that she intends to turn her marital decisions largely over to her parents as an adult, what she has so far said could also just mean that she respects their oppinion and will take it into account, but I must admit that the idea that she was in constant need of a protector did strike me as kind of odd. OP, just so you are aware this is not a Catholic idea, women are supposed to be strong independant people, just as men are, there are many examples of such women saints that you could look up to with respect to this, St. Joan of Arc, for one. I realize that because you are still young you currently look to your parents still for advice and authority, but part of growing up and maturing is that you learn to take care of yourself. The idea of the father being the protector of his daughters until they are passed onto their husbands is a very protestant idea, and is, incidentally, where the whole bride walking down the aisle with her father came from, the rubrics actually proscribed for a Catholic ceremony is that the bride and groom process together, this is because the Catholic understanding is not that the bride is under the protection of her father and handed off to her husband at marriage, but rather she and her husband come together as equal adults to the marriage ceremony. Perhaps you do realize this, and I certainly hope that you do, but since Zenith brought it up again I thought I would throw out another point of view to think about with respect to it. It is not a Catholic, but rather a protestant way of thinking about women. I do hope you will come back to this thread and give some more (name removed by moderator)ut, but even if you don’t post any more, do spend some time thinking, and praying, about what has been said here. I wish you all the best.

Well, by seclusion I meant the whole homeschool, few if any acquaintances outside their own circle of belief, discouragement of holding a regular job as a single adult or attending college in favor of being a “keeper at home” for Dad, etc.

I appreciate your explanation of a Catholic understanding of marriage preparedness, etc. That sounds like what I have been taught as well.

 

[Chevaleresse]

Changing the subject, aren’t we (and bold font does not a bold point make). You started off implying that a young man can’t control himself, judging by the average rate of failure. I possibly shouldn’t have reacted strongly basing on the “average”, since you weren’t referring that observation to the Catholic populace. Still, the dating and courting (and all the rest) that we’re talking about here, we are referring it to practicing Catholics as well, to ourselves even. In this context, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t make statements to the effect that men are animals. As for your nonsequitur about being pressured, I can assure you that men too can be pressured. That is not a male vs female issue, it’s more an abstaining person vs one not so.

Catholics are part of the general pop. Statistically they act like animals. No, not all. Fine. But most. A male pressuring the female is more likely (a lot more).

How about this thread, that you actually participated in a while ago, yourself? Should you even assume 100% offhandedly, how much would 100% differ from 89%?

I don’t any comments that are mine. It’s still lower.

I decline to participate in that type of discussion.

Too late.

I’m not accustomed to using the sort of language with a lady that I’d need to use here, so I’ll decline comment again. This said, it pains me to hear what experience you must have gone through to think that way. I wish you find the peace and love you need.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis#Paralipsis ?

Seriously. I mean–what on earth do you base THAT on? Please don’t assume your personal experiences mirror those of society at large. There are a great many men with high moral character, and a great many women without it.

Statistics. You should read them, you know. My personal experiences do in fact mirror those of society at large. Just read threads on here about “Catholic men” (“Catholic” “men”) on Catholic dating sites who end up pressuring women. Yes, there are exceptions. No, they are not even close to being the rule.

There are not a great many men with high moral character. There are few who have “high moral character” and the rest who do a terrible job pretending. Wake up. Or are you assuming all men are just like you?

 

[zenith15]

Also I guess I am bothered by the implication that the bride in these protestant evangelical courtship situations is a not-quite-bright child who needs to be constantly protected from herself and others, and have her adult judgments largely influenced by her father, particularly with regard as to whom she will marry and exactly how and when they may spend time together before said marriage, and that dad will lead her down the aisle and hand her off to her next guardian if he feels the guy is up to the task of “taking care of her”, etc.

My understanding is that both husband and wife are to care tenderly for one another, encourage each other, care for their children if any, and work as a team.

 

[zenith15]

Catholics are part of the general pop. Statistically they act like animals. No, not all. Fine. But most. A male pressuring the female is more likely (a lot more).

I don’t any comments that are mine. It’s still lower.

Too late.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis#Paralipsis ?

Statistics. You should read them, you know. My personal experiences do in fact mirror those of society at large. Just read threads on here about “Catholic men” (“Catholic” “men”) on Catholic dating sites who end up pressuring women. Yes, there are exceptions. No, they are not even close to being the rule.

There are not a great many men with high moral character. There are few who have “high moral character” and the rest who do a terrible job pretending. Wake up. Or are you assuming all men are just like you?

I think I will go with Blue Eyed Lady on this one. “Wow----just wow.”

 

[zenith15]

Just as a general comment, I wouldn’t mind at all being asked these questions. In fact, I’d take it as a good sign that I was being asked these.

:twocents:

-Byrnwiga

While some of them may be appropriate, quizzing someone about their sexual feelings, demanding in depth job information, asking for immediate declaration of “intent” towards the daughter before even a first “date”, and quite a few other questions are frankly nervy and downright rude. How would a young lady feel, I wonder, were she to, say, be invited to a family picnic with the young man, and his father came over and asked her if she masturbated or had impure sexual thoughts, etc? I’d probably slap him and leave. Why should a young man be treated this way? And as someone else said–do they really expect a straight answer from someone who may BE struggling with an addiction, a pornography habit, etc? I doubt seriously many young men would deign to discuss such problems with the father at all, and especially prior to the first date. ANd particularly if asked in such a demanding, interrogational style by a total stranger.

 

[Chevaleresse]

I think I will go with Blue Eyed Lady on this one. “Wow----just wow.”

Ad Hominem Fallacy: 1
Refutation: 0

 

[chevalier]

As I understand it the one real difference between courting and dating is that with courting one never spends time with each other without other people being present, at least visually, even without being within the range of hearing. As such, it can be done well or ill, just like dating. If you think there is something in particular that the OP has said about courting that sounds dangerous please bring up that specific aspect and not just assume all sorts of things about the OP which are not necessarily true.

The only tangible difference perhaps. But the tangible difference is not the greatest difference or the core difference there at all. It’s more of a cultural difference that you can’t define in narrow, specific terms, so it’s also hard to compare and it’s hard to apply formal logic when discussing it.

But to try and seize up the difference. Dating does seem to focus on entertainment and bling, isolated and not very natural interaction that doesn’t really tell that much of a person or what life could look like together. The again, people go about it in various ways, while for some people dating will depend on how much and how entertaining entertainment you can organise, others will have conversations in parks, use the time to learn about each other.

Dating and courting would normally be synonyms (with a tendency for courting to mean simply pursuing a woman). It’s a recent phaenomenon that the word “courting” has been appropriated to describe something in opposition to dating. I think some people will focus on the typical old, casual meaning from the dictionary because that’s how they associate the term, which will make them comfortable, others will focus on what the thing is supposed to mean in the new context. I see it the latter way, myself. That quotation from Douglas Wilson, which Zenith provided, is a good example of what I imagine when someone mentions “courting”. There, the actual content is one thing, the language is another. The language is an important aspect of the “culture”, as it conveys attitudes, shades and overtones that you can’t really tell from the bare content. (Just like the programme itself doesn’t cut it when you need to compare political parties that have a history and a culture behind them.)

Personally, I have a problem with that language, I sense a lot of things from it that seem stern, obsessive, give the impression the speaker isn’t in ful control of himself or his emotions or is not in touch with reality. There is also a strong Evangelical Protestant vibe, with a hint of burgher middle class mores. Perhaps the chief reason why it’s not a thing for me, while I’m actually closer to it, objectively, than to dating, as I have neither a burgher nor an Evangelical background.

Another important thing to note is the emphasis of subjection of the woman to the point of denying her her sui iuris status of an adult person (which personalist Catholic theology emphasises), while doing the same for the young man (which is a bit similar to the type of parenting where parents are oblivious to that their children age and mature, with 10 p.m. curfews and monitoring for legally adult children etc.). Bad intentions and low personal worth seem to be presumed of the man (or boy), which shows in the condescending treatment (which I would, personally, have no patience for) he is supposed to receive at the hands of the strong male figure of the woman’s (or girl’s) family as a sort of rite of passage. Not unlike the cliché from war films, where recruits are abused by drill sergeants in initial scenes. That’s a caricature.

Worse still, the above seems likely to me to be connected with a cold, haughty, condescending and dispassionate attitude on the part of the bride-to-be. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover a materialistic bent there too.

Back to the woman’s father, though, a cynical, overbearing and disrespectful attitude is unacceptable. It’s not “cool” to be slightly insane, slightly mean, slightly offensive (“badass”, I guess). That kind of attitude will not teach the young man respect, will not build trust with him, it will only humiliate him (or traumatise him in some other way), which is likely to hit back at some point. Nor will that type of behaviour guarantee the choice of a good husband for the woman or girl. In fact, it can harm the man’s impression of the woman’s family. I realise it’s a pose and in certain cultures I suppose it can be natural and nobody’s paying attention to it, but I’d have a hard time not snapping back.

I believe a Catholic version of the “courting” thing, for which apparently there is much need, would need to rely on Catholic theology, a Catholic understanding of marriage, and a Catholic understanding of an individual, along with his dignity (which includes respecting the freedom of adult people as independent moral agents, sorry for the lingo). It would need to be Catholic culturally and to rely on common Catholic traditions rather than identifying with a particular social class or other group. It would also need to rely on learning, convincing and setting example rather than indoctrination by intimidation, with which I associate the type of language sometimes (often) used by people from the courting scene.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make people use contemporary English and lose the stick.

 

[Byrnwiga]

While some of them may be appropriate, quizzing someone about their sexual feelings, demanding in depth job information, asking for immediate declaration of “intent” towards the daughter before even a first “date”, and quite a few other questions are frankly nervy and downright rude. How would a young lady feel, I wonder, were she to, say, be invited to a family picnic with the young man, and his father came over and asked her if she masturbated or had impure sexual thoughts, etc? I’d probably slap him and leave. Why should a young man be treated this way? And as someone else said–do they really expect a straight answer from someone who may BE struggling with an addiction, a pornography habit, etc? I doubt seriously many young men would deign to discuss such problems with the father at all, and especially prior to the first date. ANd particularly if asked in such a demanding, interrogational style by a total stranger.

I guess I’m always the outlier in these cases . I suppose that since my answers would actually be the ones the father would want to hear, I have no qualms about answering them. My opinion therefore suffers loss in generality .

I think you’re right about the “nervy” part; some are worded quite bluntly (if they were worded with a little more gentility, that would be better). I would see them as rude if they were asked in situation like a family picnic (if they were, yes, I’d probably be taken aback, to say the least).

-Byrnwiga

 

[zenith15]

The only tangible difference perhaps. But the tangible difference is not the greatest difference or the core difference there at all. It’s more of a cultural difference that you can’t define in narrow, specific terms, so it’s also hard to compare and it’s hard to apply formal logic when discussing it.

But to try and seize up the difference. Dating does seem to focus on entertainment and bling, isolated and not very natural interaction that doesn’t really tell that much of a person or what life could look like together. The again, people go about it in various ways, while for some people dating will depend on how much and how entertaining entertainment you can organise, others will have conversations in parks, use the time to learn about each other.

Dating and courting would normally be synonyms (with a tendency for courting to mean simply pursuing a woman). It’s a recent phaenomenon that the word “courting” has been appropriated to describe something in opposition to dating. I think some people will focus on the typical old, casual meaning from the dictionary because that’s how they associate the term, which will make them comfortable, others will focus on what the thing is supposed to mean in the new context. I see it the latter way, myself. That quotation from Douglas Wilson, which Zenith provided, is a good example of what I imagine when someone mentions “courting”. There, the actual content is one thing, the language is another. The language is an important aspect of the “culture”, as it conveys attitudes, shades and overtones that you can’t really tell from the bare content. (Just like the programme itself doesn’t cut it when you need to compare political parties that have a history and a culture behind them.)

Personally, I have a problem with that language, I sense a lot of things from it that seem stern, obsessive, give the impression the speaker isn’t in ful control of himself or his emotions or is not in touch with reality. There is also a strong Evangelical Protestant vibe, with a hint of burgher middle class mores. Perhaps the chief reason why it’s not a thing for me, while I’m actually closer to it, objectively, than to dating, as I have neither a burgher nor an Evangelical background.

Another important thing to note is the emphasis of subjection of the woman to the point of denying her her sui iuris status of an adult person (which personalist Catholic theology emphasises), while doing the same for the young man (which is a bit similar to the type of parenting where parents are oblivious to that their children age and mature, with 10 p.m. curfews and monitoring for legally adult children etc.). Bad intentions and low personal worth seem to be presumed of the man (or boy), which shows in the condescending treatment (which I would, personally, have no patience for) he is supposed to receive at the hands of the strong male figure of the woman’s (or girl’s) family as a sort of rite of passage. Not unlike the cliché from war films, where recruits are abused by drill sergeants in initial scenes. That’s a caricature.

Worse still, the above seems likely to me to be connected with a cold, haughty, condescending and dispassionate attitude on the part of the bride-to-be. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover a materialistic bent there too.

Back to the woman’s father, though, a cynical, overbearing and disrespectful attitude is unacceptable. It’s not “cool” to be slightly insane, slightly mean, slightly offensive (“badass”, I guess). That kind of attitude will not teach the young man respect, will not build trust with him, it will only humiliate him (or traumatise him in some other way), which is likely to hit back at some point. Nor will that type of behaviour guarantee the choice of a good husband for the woman or girl. In fact, it can harm the man’s impression of the woman’s family. I realise it’s a pose and in certain cultures I suppose it can be natural and nobody’s paying attention to it, but I’d have a hard time not snapping back.

I believe a Catholic version of the “courting” thing, for which apparently there is much need, would need to rely on Catholic theology, a Catholic understanding of marriage, and a Catholic understanding of an individual, along with his dignity (which includes respecting the freedom of adult people as independent moral agents, sorry for the lingo). It would need to be Catholic culturally and to rely on common Catholic traditions rather than identifying with a particular social class or other group. It would also need to rely on learning, convincing and setting example rather than indoctrination by intimidation, with which I associate the type of language sometimes (often) used by people from the courting scene.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make people use contemporary English and lose the stick.

I agree. Thanks for an insightful, thought provoking post.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are not a great many men with high moral character. There are few who have “high moral character” and the rest who do a terrible job pretending. Wake up. Or are you assuming all men are just like you?

If only we were talking about terrible people with low moral standards. If “those kind of people” were the only ones who ever fell to the power of sexual desire, this wouldn’t be an issue. A young woman could simply find a young man with similar morals, and that would be that. St. Paul’s admission that is better to marry than “to be on fire” lets us know that this is not about principles, but about brain functions that are not entirely under conscious control.

We know that is not how it works: that is, that only people with low morals who intend to do so indulge in sex outside of marriage. Quite decent people with the highest of morals may still both be very naive about the power of desire and the limits of will power! In the case of an 18 year old, we may well be talking about someone who thinks it in her eventual family’s best interest if she does not marry until she completes college. She’s not going to meet a guy her own age this year and then marry next year. She cannot afford to get someone she cares about into an indefinite holding pattern of what are, in a purely biological sense, frustrating sexual experiences. (I mean spending time alone and expecting to go no further than chastity allows…no matter where you draw that line.)

An older woman who is truly of marriageable age might be able to expect a far shorter period of courtship is another thing. She could prudently have boundaries for herself that are far less confining than were sensible for her to have at 18.

If some Protestant’s parents are out there is expecting a 26 year old to conduct her courtship in ways that demean her or treat her as they would a 16 year old still under their roof, that is not the OPs problem. She’s 18, and she is deciding for herself what she wants for herself. If I had it to do all over again, I’d not put myself in so many difficult situations as “dating” typically leads to. If a person wants to preserve their chastity, that is not sensible. Not spending time alone with young men until I was already in college would have been a good idea, and it would not have killed or stunted anybody.

 

[bstorm]

While some of them may be appropriate, quizzing someone about their sexual feelings, demanding in depth job information, asking for immediate declaration of “intent” towards the daughter before even a first “date”, and quite a few other questions are frankly nervy and downright rude. How would a young lady feel, I wonder, were she to, say, be invited to a family picnic with the young man, and his father came over and asked her if she masturbated or had impure sexual thoughts, etc? I’d probably slap him and leave. Why should a young man be treated this way? And as someone else said–do they really expect a straight answer from someone who may BE struggling with an addiction, a pornography habit, etc? I doubt seriously many young men would deign to discuss such problems with the father at all, and especially prior to the first date. ANd particularly if asked in such a demanding, interrogational style by a total stranger.

Those questions remind me of a visa questionnaire of a country that shall remain nameless: Are you entering x with the intent of criminal activity? Are you mber of terrorist organization? Are you a drug dealer? …

OP: By all means go ahead with courtship. It is what you want and what your family wants as well. I think what some people here are trying to tell you is that life is not black and white. You are still very young and very idealistic and that is good, it comes with stage of life you are at. Pursue your ideals. At the same time, I do not understand why you are thinking about having a relationship with men, if you clearly believe that they have no morals and they are a pile of dirt? I do not think this attitude will help you to build a lasting relationship whether it is through courtship or dating. Living good and holy life in this world is not easy, but it is possible for men and women alike. You need to be prudent, but not prejudiced.

 

[bstorm]

While some of them may be appropriate, quizzing someone about their sexual feelings, demanding in depth job information, asking for immediate declaration of “intent” towards the daughter before even a first “date”, and quite a few other questions are frankly nervy and downright rude. How would a young lady feel, I wonder, were she to, say, be invited to a family picnic with the young man, and his father came over and asked her if she masturbated or had impure sexual thoughts, etc? I’d probably slap him and leave. Why should a young man be treated this way? And as someone else said–do they really expect a straight answer from someone who may BE struggling with an addiction, a pornography habit, etc? I doubt seriously many young men would deign to discuss such problems with the father at all, and especially prior to the first date. ANd particularly if asked in such a demanding, interrogational style by a total stranger.

Those questions remind me of a visa questionnaire of a country that shall remain nameless: Are you entering x with the intent of criminal activity? Are you mber of terrorist organization? Are you a drug dealer? …

OP: By all means go ahead with courtship. It is what you want and what your family wants as well. I think what some people here are trying to tell you is that life is not black and white. You are still very young and very idealistic and that is good, it comes with stage of life you are at. Pursue your ideals. At the same time, I do not understand why you are thinking about having a relationship with men, if you clearly believe that they have no morals and they are a pile of dirt? I do not think this attitude will help you to build a lasting relationship whether it is through courtship or dating. Living good and holy life in this world is not easy, but it is possible for men and women alike. You need to be prudent, but not prejudiced.

 

[EasterJoy]

…At the same time, I do not understand why you are thinking about having a relationship with men, if you clearly believe that they have no morals and they are a pile of dirt?..

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.”

 

[chevalier]

Catholics are part of the general pop. Statistically they act like animals. No, not all. Fine. But most.

All right. I guess you need to vent. Your concern is justified and your experience is valid. Any personal suffering you may’ve gone through is relevant. But you don’t need to make condescending statements about the other sex. That’s a bit declassé.

A male pressuring the female is more likely (a lot more).

Perhaps, perhaps not. Times are changing.

I don’t any comments that are mine. It’s still lower.

You’re slipping from the high standard of logic that you seem to hold on to. Without sugar coating, you basically make a statement to the effect that women are morally superior to men. You could base that statement even on some statistics that showed 89% for women and 90% for men but it’s up to debate how serious you’d look doing that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis#Paralipsis ?

Won’t play that game with you.

Statistics. You should read them, you know.

You should provide them if you want to make claims based on them. It’s easy to tell other people to go read up (on things that you won’t even narrow down in a precise way), it’s less easy to make a convincing argument. If you want to make the claim that women are statistically more moral sexually than men are, please show me some numbers. Preferably from a reliable source.

My personal experiences do in fact mirror those of society at large. Just read threads on here about “Catholic men” (“Catholic” “men”) on Catholic dating sites who end up pressuring women. Yes, there are exceptions. No, they are not even close to being the rule.

I am sorry to hear about your personal experience. But don’t presume too quickly that Catholic men have it easier than Catholic women. Most of all, don’t start hating men or regarding them with contempt. You won’t be able to be happy with one if you believe that and it sinks in.

There are not a great many men with high moral character. There are few who have “high moral character” and the rest who do a terrible job pretending. Wake up. Or are you assuming all men are just like you?

I think men and women are generally comparable.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Without sugar coating, you basically make a statement to the effect that women are morally superior to men. You could base that statement even on some statistics that showed 89% for women and 90% for men but it’s up to debate how serious you’d look doing that…

There is not a moral difference, but in the biological area of choosing when to mate and who to mate with, women are typically more reserved than men. The biological stakes are higher for the female than for the male, and even lower animals in which harem behavior exists know this instinctively. We are a species in which promptings toward harem behaviors do exist.

IOW, males have greater pressure towards more-or-less indiscriminate procreation from the lower areas of their brains, while females have a biological urge to resist promiscuity that attentuates their biological urge to procreate. That doesn’t make women better, because of course any of us can override a biological urge by decisions made in the “higher” areas of the brain, and it is what comes from the higher thought processes that counts as morality. I only mean that it is not an unfair prejudice to say that there is a real difference in the nature and power of the sexual urges of men and women.

I mean to say that there is no moral superiority in avoiding gluttony if you don’t have an appetite, or in acting humble when it comes not out of control of a desire to indulge pride but rather a primal fear of being noticed. So it can be said that women have more “won’t power” in the sexual realm without making it out to be something that comes from moral superiority.

 

[chevalier]

If only we were talking about terrible people with low moral standards. If “those kind of people” were the only ones who ever fell to the power of sexual desire, this wouldn’t be an issue. A young woman could simply find a young man with similar morals, and that would be that. St. Paul’s admission that is better to marry than “to be on fire” lets us know that this is not about principles, but about brain functions that are not entirely under conscious control.

We know that is not how it works: that is, that only people with low morals who intend to do so indulge in sex outside of marriage. Quite decent people with the highest of morals may still both be very naive about the power of desire and the limits of will power! In the case of an 18 year old, we may well be talking about someone who thinks it in her eventual family’s best interest if she does not marry until she completes college. She’s not going to meet a guy her own age this year and then marry next year. She cannot afford to get someone she cares about into an indefinite holding pattern of what are, in a purely biological sense, frustrating sexual experiences. (I mean spending time alone and expecting to go no further than chastity allows…no matter where you draw that line.)

I believe we may be prone to empathising with people of our own sex more than with others. Or if not sex, then some other group solidarity. It’s easier to justify something we identify with, easier to condemn something that’s alien to us.

If some Protestant’s parents are out there is expecting a 26 year old to conduct her courtship in ways that demean her or treat her as they would a 16 year old still under their roof, that is not the OPs problem. She’s 18, and she is deciding for herself what she wants for herself. If I had it to do all over again, I’d not put myself in so many difficult situations as “dating” typically leads to. If a person wants to preserve their chastity, that is not sensible. Not spending time alone with young men until I was already in college would have been a good idea, and it would not have killed or stunted anybody.

I’m not sure it wouldn’t have stunted anybody. I had a lot of enriching friendships back in what would be highschool in American terms. We’ve been through some together, we’ve walked a lot, talked a lot. It was all part of growing. Segregation of sexes does stunt growth, I think. And if you tried to segregate friendships and romantic relationships, that would be artificial and similarly stunting.

For the record, the Douglas Wilson list of question implies the answering man is a graduate with a job. While the woman can be several years younger and more dependent on her parents, it gets close to the 26 years you mention.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe we may be prone to empathising with people of our own sex more than with others. Or if not sex, then some other group solidarity. It’s easier to justify something we identify with, easier to condemn something that’s alien to us.

I’m not sure it wouldn’t have stunted anybody. I had a lot of enriching friendships back in what would be highschool in American terms. We’ve been through some together, we’ve walked a lot, talked a lot. It was all part of growing. Segregation of sexes does stunt growth, I think. And if you tried to segregate friendships and romantic relationships, that would be artificial and similarly stunting.

For the record, the Douglas Wilson list of question implies the answering man is a graduate with a job. While the woman can be several years younger and more dependent on her parents, it gets close to the 26 years you mention.

Now, see, I think a lot of walking and talking can take place in a context where opportunities for more complete privacy are absent. I don’t mean that high schoolers need to have their parents or some other adult eavesdropping on every conversation! That is overprotective; a future priest should have more experience with women than that would allow.

Yes, I think there are parents who go overboard from “keep yourself in situations where the situation will keep you honest”, which I think is reasonable, to “if you wait until you’re old enough to choose a mate competently, you’ll be too old to marry”, which is not only toxic but arrogant. Yes, this “courtship” thing can be taken way too far by controlling parents, to the detriment of children who do not recognize the trade-offs necessary for what they are being asked to submit to. I can agree with that.

 

[chevalier]

There is not a moral difference, but in the biological area of choosing when to mate and who to mate with, women are typically more reserved than men. The biological stakes are higher for the female than for the male, and even lower animals in which harem behavior exists know this instinctively. We are a species in which promptings toward harem behaviors do exist.

True but we’re also a species with free will and a high degree of advancement. In fact, we can’t be said to be simply the highest form of animals, the difference is more qualitative than that. Both sexes face temptations of promiscuity, cheating, bigamy. I’ve just been Googling for some marriage betrayal statistics (in a loose connection with “harem”). Last ones I saw were around 15% for both sexes, with some number of men bringing up children of other men (which I’d suspect to be harder on the family than the knowledge that the father has a child on the side). I realise that adultery is a separate subject but I want to argue that immorality is a problem shared between the sexes and while we have some differences, it can’t really be said that either sex is morally superior in its behaviour. We don’t seem to have a disagreement on this, which I’m glad to see.

IOW, males have greater pressure towards more-or-less indiscriminate procreation from the lower areas of their brains, while females have a biological urge to resist promiscuity that attentuates their biological urge to procreate.

I’m not sure to what extent that remains true in a world where women are more emancipated, birth control is available, social stigma on premarital relations is less etc. Also, from an evolutionary point of view, you could argue, in theory, that a female being only needs to keep the male being around (or even a male being, not necessarily the same one all the time – you must be familiar with at least some of those articles that deal with the difference between the man to have children with and the man to bring children up with), doesn’t necessarily need to limit relations to that one specific male being other than the male being refusing to cooperate if he doesn’t receive exlusivity or if he questions the paternity of the offspring etc.

It could be in the selfish interest of either sex to tolerate promiscuity in that sex while outlawing it in the other but overall, it’s in the shared interest of both sexes to stamp out promiscuity completely: so that the females are not abandoned and so that the males are sure of the paternity of the offspring. On the other hand there is always a temptation, regardless of the sex, to cheat the system and assure some additional benefits for oneself.

That doesn’t make women better, because of course any of us can override a biological urge by decisions made in the “higher” areas of the brain, and it is what comes from the higher thought processes that counts as morality. I only mean that it is not an unfair prejudice to say that there is a real difference in the nature and power of the sexual urges of men and women.

I used to think that way but experience (subjective as it is) has taught me otherwise. Nowadays I tend to think that both sexes desire sex equally and all the more so where the most traditional roles of the sexes are no longer the case (e.g. where everybody has a degree, works for a corporation, is part of the rat race) and for obvious reasons where birth control is available and believed to be acceptable. I especially definitely don’t think that men have more temper, more appetite, than women do. I think there are various myths and when people encounter behaviour that can be seen to confirm a myth, they will see it that way. As a result, we end up having stereotypes and thinking they’re all confirmed in real life.

So it can be said that women have more “won’t power” in the sexual realm without making it out to be something that comes from moral superiority.

I really don’t want to get into some kind of ping-pong but in old moral theology there’s the pattern of the woman as the temptress of man. Or even of men as more capable of controlling their desires presumably on account of supposedly more willpower.

Please note that there are at least as many threads at the CAF about uninterested husbands as there are about frigid wives.

Now, see, I think a lot of walking and talking can take place in a context where opportunities for more complete privacy are absent. I don’t mean that high schoolers need to have their parents or some other adult eavesdropping on every conversation! That is overprotective; a future priest should have more experience with women than that would allow.

Yes, I think there are parents who go overboard from “keep yourself in situations where the situation will keep you honest”, which I think is reasonable, to “if you wait until you’re old enough to choose a mate competently, you’ll be too old to marry”, which is not only toxic but arrogant. Yes, this “courtship” thing can be taken way too far by controlling parents, to the detriment of children who do not recognize the trade-offs necessary for what they are being asked to submit to. I can agree with that.

I’m concerned that such controlling behaviour by parents is pretty much written into the system, at least the way the system seems to be with most people. Or at least most of the people who talk about it. See the pattern? 19th century English. Phrasing from a telepreacher. Language that makes you feel like you’re a guilty child in the process of being justly admonished by its protectors and care-takers (yes, I am emulating that language right now on purpose, to illustrate the point), who in their wisdom see through through all of the child’s excuses and juvenile errors (and if your parents say you did, you did it). That’s something I see as a sick atmosphere, as sick as tropical fever. And it’s contagious. If it rubs off too much on the youngsters, there’s doom coming. I can easily see a host of canon 1095 claims in the perspective of a couple of years.

Those questions remind me of a visa questionnaire of a country that shall remain nameless: Are you entering x with the intent of criminal activity? Are you mber of terrorist organization? Are you a drug dealer? …

Exactly. And that’s not a standard acceptable in polite society.

OP: By all means go ahead with courtship. It is what you want and what your family wants as well. I think what some people here are trying to tell you is that life is not black and white. You are still very young and very idealistic and that is good, it comes with stage of life you are at. Pursue your ideals.** At the same time, I do not understand why you are thinking about having a relationship with men, if you clearly believe that they have no morals and they are a pile of dirt?** I do not think this attitude will help you to build a lasting relationship whether it is through courtship or dating. Living good and holy life in this world is not easy, but it is possible for men and women alike. You need to be prudent, but not prejudiced.

Just to clarify, it was not the Opening Poster who made that statement, it was a different person.

For the record, I too think that the OP should pursue her dreams with the courting, so to say. If you believe that’s right, and if your family supports you in it and if you’re ready to accept the consequences, then by all means. But I’d like to warn you about the dangers of falling victim of formulaic thinking, casuistry, oversimplifications, prejudice against other people or even against yourself. You need a type of courting that will be liberating and elevating, not a type that will make you small and controlled, and keep you low. Understand what precautions are for and why they are there, don’t fall in love with the precautions themselves. Don’t fall in love with the strictness of the discipline, it’s not a goal to itself, it’s only a method, even a precaution, simply. At the same time, it will not relieve you of the need to be prudent and keep thinking for yourself and fighting for your purity (no set of rules will do that for you on its own). Don’t fall in love with the tough talk of fundamentalist preachers, either. Don’t let the courting you want be stiffening, it must be something to help you grow.

 

[chevalier]

Time to edit has run out, while there’s something I’d like to add. If you actually are, or become, interested in something we could call a little of historical reenactment (how things were in, say, 19th century), then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that (I’ve done it and found it amusing). You just need to see the difference between that and the actual moral problems. See what falls where. The idea that a young couple should not stay completely alone for a prolonged time is sensible. On the other hand, an attitude such as, shall we say, “never will I ever enter the same car with a man!” (an etiquettal point made in the abstract) sounds more along the lines of societal mores of 19-20th century bourgeoisie with a hint of thinking than men are inferior beings than women. As if unsupervised contact with a man makes a woman ritually unclean. Developing a tendency to hold men in at least a slight degree of contempt is a strong danger there.

 

[Byrnwiga]

So I think I’ll just summarise a few things I’ve said and maybe offer some clarification.

I support courtship, even to the point of where something like a letter of introduction is required by the parents, or a battery of questions. That being said, I’m not opposed to (proper) dating either (should the person I’m interested in wish that), but I do nonetheless recognize the benefits of courtship, even where said benefits are not directly resultant from courtship but instead incidental to it (for example: just the suggestion of courtship typically attracts better people).

I seem to be in the minority in my support of courtship (at least here), but I think there are a lot of valid points as to the weaknesses of [a] secular [style of] dating (and expectations concomitant). I think perhaps people give themselves too much credit in terms of dealing with situations they are unaccustomed to, such as being alone with a member of the opposite sex. In those cases, starting off in a more cautious way is prudent and advisable. If both parties are found to be able to “handle themselves” after a few meetings in (reasonably) public places, they can either continue on the same path, or loosen the restrictions (as it were) on interaction.

Anyhow, I’m starting to smell napalm and hear ricochets, so I’ll head back into my giant fortification and wait for everyone to take the long way around .

-Byrnwiga