Dating is a process. To say there should be “no non serious relationships” is naive.
No, it’s not. Not every relationship has a high degree of commitment. But this is not the same as being diligent to act morally and not hurt or disrespect the other person.
Entangling your heart with all persons you are going on a date with could put you in a perpetual state of being hurt.
That is one thing but the use of sexual faculties, even in the broad sense, for mere recreational fun with no strings attached is not something particularly appealing to me on the moral side.
Webster defines dating as “dating persons”, plural.
Cambridge defines to date (verb) as “* mainly US to regularly spend time with someone you have a romantic relationship with.”
The purpose of dating is to see who is the best possible mate.
In a way yes but a human being has dignity above that of animals and cannot allow himself to replicate animal mating selection processes without thought to that dignity.
It is the level of commitment to the person that would change the exclusivity.
As long as we agree that kissing crosses the line, then there’s still basically no disagreement between us other than semantics.
Dating a couple of people on different nights is far from abnormal and I would suggest it over putting yourself as a man into the , “I must make it work with this one girl” approach .
Which does not entitle consumption anyway.
Turning a kiss into “spin the bottle” is 'poor style" on your part. A kiss is a sign of affection unless your turning it into some devient act between an adult man and women.
A kiss between a man and woman (not necessarily adult) is not a deviant act. It is a sign of love, perhaps of a natural desire to marry someone (establish a future with, a family, children). This is part of what makes kissing so enjoyable to men and women. It engages the sensual faculty, well, even the sexual faculty in a broad sense.
By contrast, the friendly kissing on the cheek is different. This because friendship is not a non-exclusive affection, whereas the type of affection that inclines people to enter intro matrimony is an exclusive one. Sorry for some 19th century English here.
Can’t claim friendly affection when the very reason and immediate cause of the action is that man and woman are not just friends to each other. (For the record, I have no problem with people who use that type of kiss as a genuine friends greeting. In which case it shouldn’t feel wrong between two big hairy men or two siblings of opposite sexes.)
Not everybody meets the man or women they will marry on date number one.
Of course not. But honest attempts, more or less subconscious, unmeditated, intuitive, are different from just running a dating harem by design. Or, to avoid the fallacy of an emotional argument, from engaging in multiple relationships at the same time, which by definition cannot all last, not even if one perfectly exercised all care, diligence and reason and sincerely willed for that result to happen.
If you start a relationship with a girl, you know it may or may not work. If you start relationships with three girls, you know from start that two or three of them (you just don’t know which but this is a poor excuse) are not even possible to last, nor intended to. Two letdowns, two futile trial relationships, are intended as such from start. Which is wrong.
And you seem to have missed my point that getting to know people and finding out about them does not necessarily need to include (and justify) trying them out actually at a rate of two, three, four of them a go. I believe it is wrong to harbour in oneself simultaneous desire for a monogamous union with several different people at the same time, which is basically what that is doing.*
