Non-exclusive dating (general discussion)

[flyingfish]

Don’t argue Natural Law if you have no idea what it is. By your logic, ritual human sacrifice isn’t in violation of Natural Law because some cultures in history practiced it. Natural Law has nothing to do with observed behaviors, it has to do with the nature of things as God created them to be.

I think polygamy is on a quite different level than human sacrifice. Look at most other mammals, the percentage of monogamous mammals is in the single digits.

I am not saying that we should be polygamous, merely pointing out our roots as a species. Polygamy is better in certain situations, simply because since a woman can only have so many babies whereas a man can theoretically have an unlimited number. For most mammals it is beneficial for females to choose the most genetically fit male as a partner even if it means sharing him with many other females. (So that precious few pregnancies a woman can have will not be wasted on an inferior male.)

That said, human children take a very long time to grow up, so monogamy is more natural for us than for other mammals. But in environments where food is plentiful (say the tropics), and you don’t need to struggle against harsh cold environments it might be less advantageous.

For a woman who doesn’t need the help of a man to rear the child either because of environment or social structure (like a tribe raising children together), it would be better for her to select the most genetically fit man to father her children (and maybe settle for a less fit man as a companion). Even in monogamous environments, from the perspective of nature it is better for a woman to sneak out on her husband to get impregnated by the strongest, healthiest, smartest man around.

If the way nature works is not natural law, then what is?

 

[chevalier]

… Though I don’t even think you need to go as far as to say that it’s okay to date someone you know you’ll never marry, since the situation with dating multiple people at the same time is that you’re unsure about each individual person.

Except while you’re unsure about each individual person, you are mathematically sure that you won’t be able to marry all of them at the same time. You are therefore starting n-1 relationships which are presupposed to terminate. I do not believe this argument hits with irresistible force, but I can’t see any good counter to it.

When I was young our parents warned us against “steady dating” with only one person. That was called “going steady,” and it was considered much to serious for teens to engage in. Casual dating with many people was much preferred, and also gave one a more rounded experience of different types of people. But that was back in the dark ages.

Romantic relationships aren’t supposed to be casual. I agree with the more rounded experience as far as the “dating” is what most people would describe as “hanging out” rather. That means friendship level, even despite some attraction that might be there (just be there or even be admitted verbally). I doubt that in said “dark ages” it was seen as moral to have several “kissing boyfriends” (coined from “kissing cousins”) at the same time. As far as I know about the “dark ages” right here (we’re considered backwards, I was brought up in ways considered backwards even here, I’ve asked older people specifically about this, anyway), it would have been unacceptable here.

I suppose my question is, are teens now supposed to go steady with only one person from their very first date? Is that the new normal?

I agree with your rejection of that idea and that’s much of the reason why I dislike the concept of dating in general. My proposed solution to this problem is hanging out as friends until one has more information. If the “date” is too much of a stranger to commit exclusively to him, then how come he’s not stranger enough for holding hands and kissing, or exchanging love letters?

I can not even imagine going out on romantic dates that involve kissing, when excusivity is a definite no.

Precisely.

I think it is fine to go out on some getting to know you dates to give you an idea of the possibilities, but I don’t think that those should involve physical affection. I went out with one perfectly nice guy who didn’t seem to get that and was wanting to hold hands and kiss. Needless to say, I turned him down for a second date.

Agreed on both accounts.

 

[chevalier]

I am not sure what the norm is, but I think those against ‘non-exclusive’ dating feel you should only see one person at a time. For instance - If a guy asks out Girl#1, they should go on as many dates necessary to determine if they want to move to a serious relationship prior to him asking out Girl#2 even if Girl#2 seems like a desirable person.

On the contrary, ‘non-exclusive’ would mean the guy asks out Girl#1 and Girl#2, sees them both at the same time to pick the one he one he likes best (or the one doesn’t end it with him).

Precisely.

In your description I don’t have a problem with the “non-exclusive” option just as long as it doesn’t involve kissing (cheek or hand doesn’t count) or declaring love in any form (poems, carved initials, pronouncedly romantic gifts, attending lovers’ lanes and similar avenues). In fact, I’m in favour of exploiting the friendly avenues first and the lack of this option is a flaw of the mating system based on dating. You can’t get to know people naturally if you commit yourself to the dating model.

I think part of dating is simply having fun. Not the physical kind, but the way you laugh at private jokes together, spend time at museums and baseball games, all that stuff. Yes, it’s also about finding what you want in a spouse, but you can have a great time without violating any morals.

I can’t see why laughing at jokes, spending time at museums and baseball games and all that stuff should be exclusive! In fact, they are practically the definition of friendly pastime. To say that this should be exclusive would be excessive and dangerous in my opinion. But on the other hand, dates that are of a decidedly romantic nature, involve kissing, holding hands, sending love letters, forming a bond other than friendship, those should be exclusive.

As long as you say, “I’m not looking for something serious at this point. Let’s just have some fun.” And your open about it, what’s the problem?

The problem is that (and if) it involves kissing (as the primary physical indicator of what I’m talking about), forming actual romantic relationships, honing and developing feelings and so on.

This is a GREAT topic. Very controversial, yet very interesting.

Thank you. :tiphat:

So if a 16 year old guy asks a new girl out to see a movie one Saturday, he’s stuck with her until he formally breaks up? He can’t just ask girl #2 for a date the following Saturday? Does just asking a girl out one time now have the effect that asking her to “go steady” used to have?

The way I see it, it’s pointless to “go steady” that way with someone one barely knows, especially a random attractive stranger at age 16. However, allow me to show you the scenario which I consider very wrong:

Monday: John goes to the cinema with Maggie. They kiss.
Wednesday: John goes to the park with Joan. They kiss.
Friday: John takes Maggie skiing. They kiss.
Sunday: John take Joan to a dance. They kiss.

OR

Monday: John sees Maggie. They talk about “our love” and they engage in romantic activities (what activities is immaterial, let’s suppose it’s something we agree on being a lovers thing, not a friends thing).
Wednesday: John sees Joan. They talk about “our love” and they engage in romantic activities.
Friday: John sees Maggie. They talk about “our love” and they engage in romantic activities.
Sunday: John sees Joan. They talk about “our love” and they engage in romantic activities.

The way I see it, things were not so great on Weds, they looked bad on Friday (but he could be returning to his previous “lover”) and actually bad on Sunday (committed to having two girlfriends at once). Knowledge and acceptance by both Maggie and Joan does not make this right.

As for determining whether they want to move on to a “serious” relationship, the answer is, at this age, they shouldn’t even be considering it. At a later age, yes.

I agree with you, although I believe that there should be “unserious relationships”. Avoiding attachments may be prudent at some points in one’s life, but all too often declaring a relationship “unserious” is license for some kissing and hugging without obligations. This is where I take issue. As for teenagers falling in love, I think they should be supervised, but shouldn’t ever be forbidden from “going steady”. Especially parents forcing John to have dates with Joan too if he wants to keep dating Maggie is something I see as very dangerous.

16yo’s shouldn’t be dating exclusivly. If they want to “hang out” with a girl at a movie thats ok but it shouldn’t be considered a date

Agreed.

 

[chevalier]

Don’t priests take vows to remain single?

So now you are tying dating to marriage. This is also my position - having freedom to marry is not a justification for casual kissing and having all sorts of like fun. Having freedom to marry is having freedom to look for, wed and live with a spouse.

If their only vow is to not have sexual activity, I don’t see any moral issue with them having romantic relationships that don’t include sexual contact (including kissing). But as far as I know their vows go beyond that.

You’ve just acknowledged that there is something other than sex which is there in the marriage-related field (let us call it sexuality in the broader sense). How is never intending to marry a person different from not being free to do it?

Furthermore, from both of your assertions above it follows that lack of sexual contact alone isn’t enough to justify romantic actions.

Natural law or moral law? I don’t think you can say it’s contrary to natural law because of what’s observed in certain groups of people. In some places, polygamy is more common than monogamy, it is a natural choice made by the people. (I wouldn’t be surprised if certain subgroups of human beings naturally tended to polygamy because of genetics.)

**

1645

**

"The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."153 *Polygamy *is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.154

Disclaimer: I’m not claiming that non-exclusive dating being wrong follows full-proof from here. I believe this is a very strong argument, however.

**

1664

**

Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (*GS *50 # 1).

If it is so harmful to have several concurrent marriages, then how can it not be harmful (to a proportionally lesser degree but still harmful) to have several boyfriend and girlfriend type relationships? If you say it’s not boyfriend/girlfriend, then what… declaring love and/or kissing without any relationship whatsoever? It won’t fly. Unless you agree that spin-the-bottle (person indicated by bottle neck kisses person indicated by bottle bottom after every spin) is a licit party game.

I don’t know, it might be enough for some people and not enough for others. To be honest I don’t see that much difference between dating and friendships when Catholic teaching is followed.

I do. Friends don’t talk much about their mutual attraction. Friends don’t kiss on the lips unless in certain limited groups (and that’s generally just the females most of the time). Friends don’t hold hands while stargazing. Friends don’t do a couple more things.

You’re not permitted to have phone sex/cyber sex and the like, passionate kissing is not permitted, sex is obviously not permitted.

Passionate kissing only by reason of practically inevitable sexual stimulation, also understanding “passionate” in a sexual way. For those with low sex drives, things may look different. Also, a kiss merely being flamboyant or vigorous or “big” or even loud, doesn’t put it in the near occasion of sin area, which is the ground on which “passionate kissing” is seen as wrong.

Now, as for normal kissing, I can see romantic love as a reason for it (and if someone puts friendship there, I won’t argue against him). Having a good cause does a lot of progress over not having a cause, the way I see it. Not having a cause makes it rather awkward. And what cause is it that the stranger is attractive and the “movie” wasn’t bad? Obviously, one can’t be really in love with several people at the same time. So what is that kissing for? What purpose does it serve? What does it indicate? I’m talking about modern culture, generally Western, post-Roman civilisation, not barring historical reference (one could probably present men kissing each other on the lips as friends or allies or during feudal homage ceremonies and I’m sure Eastern cultures hold a couple of surprises), but finding one or two bizarre exceptions won’t invalidate the whole thing.

You might still fall in love, and tell the person that you love them and want to marry them, but friends might do that too. Friends might get emotional attachments.

Of a different kind and friendship attachments, which are emotional, are never imprudent to form at any age or living situation of a person’s. They aren’t anything that culminates only in marriage. They are more akin to familial relationships and that’s different. By the way, we don’t take family to “dinner and movie” and we don’t kiss them “like that”. We don’t do that with friends, either.

 

[chevalier]

I just don’t see the immorality in this that you do. (And by the way, I am not saying that you should have deep romantic relationships with multiple people at the same time. The average person wouldn’t be able to do this. Dating multiple people is something to do initially while you are trying to find one you want to be more serious with. Once you find that person you naturally stop casually dating the rest and focus on the one you think you might marry.)

I have issues with casual kissing and casual stargazing. And I have issues with having several boyfriends or girlfriends, too. I have no issue with seeing several attractive *and *eligible people of the opposite gender at a friendly footing, i.e. spending time together talking and taking part in activities (in fact, I try not to miss any opportunity to do so, myself, not like the “eligible” category is overrepresented ).

On a final note, the opposition should kindly be informed that there is a letter by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education saying that young people (teenagers, I’m guessing) shouldn’t treat their love as if it were an engagement, forsaking all others, and that it could harm them. You may to try and locate it to form your minds better and possibly make some arguments from it. I’ve seen it and agreed without getting into detail (it was very general and you won’t find there what’s good or not at a date). Pairing off and away just to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, without any thinking about the future, is bad in my book. Thus teenagers who think they’re in love aren’t on my figurative bad side unless they overdo it, but teenagers who try and get a girlfriend for the kissing and the sparks are on my bad side.

And once again:

I just don’t see the immorality in this that you do.

In fact, I’m somewhat frustrated by the apparent lack of clear and full-proof moral law against it. Obviously, I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me a bit like proving that the grass is green (together with the “What’s green, anyway?” factor).

 

[chevalier]

Don’t argue Natural Law if you have no idea what it is. By your logic, ritual human sacrifice isn’t in violation of Natural Law because some cultures in history practiced it. Natural Law has nothing to do with observed behaviors, it has to do with the nature of things as God created them to be.

Yes. There is the old argument of homosexual dolphins existing in nature. The very existence of something in nature doesn’t make it natural law.

On topic, this thread is very disjointed because it doesn’t make distinctions about age and maturity. For teenagers or early college kids, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to a movie with one person one night and to a dance the next night with somebody else. At that stage in life, the focus SHOULD be on learning about people and being exposed to lots of different kinds of them, not engaging in some form of ‘mini-marriage.’

Teenagers should not be engaging in mini-marriage (although I dread the thought of parents enforcing diversity). Yes, it’s good if they are exposed to many people and are able to form ideas. This, however, with the reservation that our own learning and development doesn’t give us mandate to use people as our experiment subjects. Plus, my beef is not with the meeting and talking at all. My beef is with the bond-building and expressions such as kissing, love letters and other such.

Fun is surely part of it, but shouldn’t be driving the bus - it’s surely a crucial component, but is a lousy substitute for true compatibility.

I won’t err if I conclude that it’s clear from that that you don’t agree with dating for fun alone with theoretical ability to marry being a justifying factor? I mean the full-blown stuff, not just going to places.

I have no idea of the age of posters. But as a general rule, if YOU are mature enough to graduate to the ‘looking for a mate’ stage and the OTHER person on the date isn’t, move on and keep looking.

To be honest, I sense some idea there that I could agree with but I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Would you be so kind as to elaborate a bit?

Just for the record, I’m not thumping down on teenagers acting immaturely, or trying to attribute to them some serious moral fault. Far from that and I already feel uncomfortable forming a sentence like this (it makes me look judgemental and prying into people’s lives while having a lot of my own stuff to account for). But the thought of casual kissing (indiscriminate kissing or otherwise engaging in romantic expressions for the fun of it) or multiple-bonding (that is, building those bonds with those multiple people regardless what labels are used) being the accepted standard is something I take issue with.

Sorry for the wall of fire, but I had some urgent new work on an apparently finished project when I started replying, so I could only reply to that one post then. Now I didn’t want to skip any major point anyone made.

 

[flyingfish]

You’ve just acknowledged that there is something other than sex which is there in the marriage-related field (let us call it sexuality in the broader sense). How is never intending to marry a person different from not being free to do it?

Furthermore, from both of your assertions above it follows that lack of sexual contact alone isn’t enough to justify romantic actions.

I really don’t see how you’re inferring that about my comment about the vows priests take.

If a priest takes a vow before God not to do something, then it would be wrong for him to break that vow insofar as it would be wrong for anyone to break a vow made to God.

If a priest is not allowed by his vows to form non-sexual romantic relationships with women, I think it has absolutely no bearing on what single people seeking marriage may or may not do.

I do. Friends don’t talk much about their mutual attraction. Friends don’t kiss on the lips unless in certain limited groups (and that’s generally just the females most of the time). Friends don’t hold hands while stargazing. Friends don’t do a couple more things.

The Church teaches that kind of kissing is immoral outside of marriage anyway, it’s like feeling someone up, I don’t see why you’re bringing it up.

As for the other things, why not? I flirt with most of my male friends, I’m attracted to several and I let them know. It’s just a part of the way men and women interact in my opinion. I’ve fallen in and out of love with male friends. It happens all the time I think, and is part of being human.

 

[MaggieLou]

I’m a sophomore in college, and this is how I see it:

Yes, I do agree that there is a trend among teenagers nowadays to “go steady” from the first profession of “liking” - most, as far as I know, do not call it “love.” And I also agree that this is not necessarily healthy; “steady” relationships, in my opinion, are like practice for marriage and, at that age, it’s hard enough to figure out where you want to go to college!

Girls especially are prone to this sort of attachment. I completely agree with the person who said he was surprised to learn that the girl he asked to prom had considered herself his girlfriend from the moment of the actual question. We tend to see any sort of invitation to a dance as an invitation to enter a relationship - unless, of course, it is accompanied by the words “just as friends.”

Perhaps this trend began when children started engaging in expressions of romantic affection which used to be reserved until maturity. I cannot imagine being affectionate with anyone other than my boyfriend, and I believe that most women are like this. We don’t - or at least, most of us don’t - kiss Steve on Friday and Tom on Saturday. The thought is unnatural and, for me at least, repulsive. Teenagers easily form these same sort of bonds: if a fourteen year old girl kisses a boy, she is not going to want to kiss any other boys, and a “steady relationship” begins.

The solution, I think, is to encourage children to refrain from physical affection until they are ready to begin a “steady relationship.” I’m not saying it can be implemented, or that I would have been receptive to the idea when I was in high school! I just think it would solve the problem.

I came to college convinced, and embarrassed, that I had not dated anyone ever in my life. Looking back on it, however, there were definitely occasions when I spent time with male friends alone - there was no romance involved, but I think they could be considered “dates” according to the old definition. And there was no exclusivity involved! I met my boyfriend last year, and knew right away that I was ready to be steady

 

[JimG]

Thanks for your observations, MaggieLou, they seem pretty sensible to me.

As you mentioned, many girls, even pre-teens, seem to take one overture or invite as the beginning of a ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ relationship, and that’s not good. And the media does not help by over sexualizing everything.

 

[MaggieLou]

Oh, I know. It’s dreadful. Even seemingly wholesome books like “The Babysitter’s Club” - which I read voraciously in 3rd and 4th grade - enforce the current misconceptions about “going steady.”

I remember talking to my mother about those books when I was ten or something, and I will never forget how astonished she was when I told her that the thirteen-year-old babysitters had steady boyfriends I had begun to think that was normal even after such a small exposure, but she fortunately put me straight.

 

[chevalier]

I really don’t see how you’re inferring that about my comment about the vows priests take.

I will show you.

anyone

to break a vow made to God.

A priest takes a vow not to marry, not a vow not to date. If inability to marry (as a result of a vow) forbids dating for a priest, it does so for everybody. A person who intends not to marry someone (this is clumsy, but you can’t get better with a natural language - this basically means person X knows he/she would not want to or will not be able to marry person Y) ought not to date that person. So, our John interested in Maggie, Joan, Sheila, Tammy and Cammie can marry only any one of the four, which means he cannot marry any four of the five. Therefore, he ought not to date them. Individual uncertainty does not prevent this and let me show you why: if you see five $50 notes of which one and only one certainly belongs to you, you can take any (if what matters is the cash value) or you can investigate which one is yours, but you can’t take all five just because individually they each stand some chance of being yours. You are not entitled to $250 (5 x $50) and you are not entitled to five concurrent romantic relationships. I mean relationships, not feelings (how you react is what matters) or prospects (you are entitled to evaluate).

If a priest is not allowed by his vows to form non-sexual romantic relationships with women, I think it has absolutely no bearing on what single people seeking marriage may or may not do.

See above. The priest makes no vow regarding non-sexual relationships. His only vow is not to marry. From being unable to marry follows being unable to form non-sexual romantic relationships, both in your logic and in mine. Yes, John can marry any one of the five, while Fr Smith can’t marry any. However, John cannot marry five any more than Fr Smith could marry one.

The Church teaches that kind of kissing is immoral outside of marriage anyway, it’s like feeling someone up, I don’t see why you’re bringing it up.

The Church teaches that willingly obtaining sexual stimulation or release (cold shower doesn’t count as release) is wrong for people who are not married to each other, not that a particular type of kissing is immoral (and we also have the respective occasion of sin). The immorality of the kissing depends on it being sexual stimulation or release or occasion of that. This concerns kissing on its own, as a physical gesture itself. Where I say I believe non-exclusive romantic non-sexual kissing to be immoral, it’s because of the polyamorous factor. I wouldn’t make fuss about people kissing friends on the lips if that were something normal in their culture. And I didn’t bring it up, I was only responding to the question whether the kind of kissing I talked about wasn’t forbidden for everybody. Therefore I offered explanation.

As for the other things, why not? I flirt with most of my male friends, I’m attracted to several and I let them know. It’s just a part of the way men and women interact in my opinion. I’ve fallen in and out of love with male friends. It happens all the time I think, and is part of being human.

It is, but feeling a feeling does not result in entitlement to act on that feeling. I refuse to go on a scrupulous hair-splitting spree about merely verbal and jestful flirting between friends (and I’ve done that on occasion), but jokes are jokes and not jokes are not jokes. Furthermore, love letters and romantic strolls down the lovers’ lane and carving all those hearts in tree bark etc. are vastly different from merely verbal, conversational flirting. As always, an, “I love you, my dear friend,” letter doesn’t count and hearts with initials symbolising friendship do not count. Other overt romantic expressions that aren’t coming to my head right now as examples do count. What counts is intentional romantic bonding, howsoever expressed. It is intentional romantic bonding which is wrong to do with more than one person at a time. Reacting to existing multiple romantic attachments by acting on each and kissing all of those people one’s entangled with is less wrong, but I still cannot say it’s all right, in fact, I believe it’s not, although I have no desire to go on a trip examining the potential culpability of it. What is a problem is the acceptance of the non-exclusive model, not those particular acts of romantically distressed people who can’t cope with things from time to time (it’s not like it’s never happened to me, though I consider it wrong from the perspective of time).

 

[chevalier]

I’m a sophomore in college, and this is how I see it:

Yes, I do agree that there is a trend among teenagers nowadays to “go steady” from the first profession of “liking” - most, as far as I know, do not call it “love.” And I also agree that this is not necessarily healthy; “steady” relationships, in my opinion, are like practice for marriage and, at that age, it’s hard enough to figure out where you want to go to college!

Agreed.

Girls especially are prone to this sort of attachment. I completely agree with the person who said he was surprised to learn that the girl he asked to prom had considered herself his girlfriend from the moment of the actual question.

So do I. Actually, my prom date might well have had a boyfriend at the time for all I know. People commonly went with friends they appreciated.

We tend to see any sort of invitation to a dance as an invitation to enter a relationship - unless, of course, it is accompanied by the words “just as friends.”

Yes, I think the “just as friends” thing is unnecessary, although it can be a helpful piece of guidance when there is a suspicion that the asker is acting on a more thna just tentative romantic notion. Tentative romantic notions don’t count - I imagine a normal person experiences a lot of those but without acting on them, sometimes without realising.

I cannot imagine being affectionate with anyone other than my boyfriend, and I believe that most women are like this. We don’t - or at least, most of us don’t - kiss Steve on Friday and Tom on Saturday. The thought is unnatural and, for me at least, repulsive.

Yup.

Teenagers easily form these same sort of bonds: if a fourteen year old girl kisses a boy, she is not going to want to kiss any other boys, and a “steady relationship” begins.

I say that’s worrying. In my view, a 14 year old should be able to form a pre-engagement relationship, but some 14 year olds are still kids. One mere fact of kissing someone is a very shabby basis for a relationship and it certainly does not mean that a relationship has started (though a bond might “de facto” be there, regardless of lack of admission). A girl feeling beholden to stay in a quasi-marriage to some random boy she kissed when she lost control for a moment, and thus failing to have normal interactions with both sexes, is not a good prospect and not something I would like to see. However, I would not like to see that girl kissing guys casually, either. It’s hard for me to say which is worse and I admit that at least in some cases the happy kissing pattern might be less damaging than the “quasi-marriage” one.

The solution, I think, is to encourage children to refrain from physical affection until they are ready to begin a “steady relationship.” I’m not saying it can be implemented, or that I would have been receptive to the idea when I was in high school! I just think it would solve the problem.

In a way, though if we were talking about teenagers who seem to be in love with each other, possibly actually love each other, and have some kind of real bond, I don’t think I would forbid them.

I came to college convinced, and embarrassed, that I had not dated anyone ever in my life. Looking back on it, however, there were definitely occasions when I spent time with male friends alone - there was no romance involved, but I think they could be considered “dates” according to the old definition.

Well, the old definition is generally that unless it’s declared to be a date, it’s not one. And I think your way was quite healthy, not like you were asking for my opinion or like my opinion matters in your life, but for the sake of discussion.

And there was no exclusivity involved!

Obviously. Come on, people who are married, engaged or in a “serious relationship” also socialise with friends of the opposite sex one on one - therefore the only difference between date and not date would be the status of persons involved… and that doesn’t fly.

 

[chevalier]

To finish off, one thing, I have a bit of a problem with the concept of “going steady”. That is, in a common perception, kissing is fine, but exclusivity is not. If we put it this way, it makes me very sad and deeply opposed.

The other thing that I wished to say is that the way I see it, non-exclusive romantic relationships (I don’t wish to say “non-exclusive dating” because under some definitions I don’t have a problem with) teach polyamory and - ultimately - may result in inability or difficulty in focusing on a single person and staying faithful. The “training for divorce” charge against “serial dating” (“serial monogamy”) has a sister charge - not only does non-exclusive romance seem to me to teach polyamory, it may also contribute to divorce as a result of the old person being in the way of the new person (as in who will be chosen if one can’t have two?). What is more, deriving romantic love, romantic appreciation, romantic attention, compliments, gifts etc. from several sources at a time before marriage or engagement could make one dissatisfied with what one can receive from one person.

Say, John is involved with Maggie, Joan and Tammy. Maggie is occupied, so he sets up a date with Joan. Joan cancels in the last minute, but Tammy is free for a casual walk around the park. Later John marries Gwen and ooops… she has to work, she has to look after children, she has family and friends and sometimes she needs to cool off alone. Now what with Gwen if she needs to content herself with attention from John alone, whereas it used to be Chris, Jack and George pining for a date and smothering her with attention?

However, I’ve just realised that the use of dating sites practically by definition makes any real-life meeting a date. However, it would be stupid to go through people one by one and compare notes (and I have moral issues with that approach, I see it as little different from the non-exclusive one). It’s a strange idea to commit to the very first person chosen at random out of several potentials. My solution to this dilemma would be to meet in typical dating scenarios but forego romantic kissing and purposeful romantic bonding, but instead focus on the “discernment” aspect of it and make it quick. But it would still qualify as non-exclusive dating and I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

 

[Consecrated]

i hope this isn’t too off-topic, but there’s one thing that happens in most modern movies, that’s absolutely MADDENING to me… In these movies, the romantic element consists of: 1) Girl meets boy,
2) Girl and boy discover sexual attraction,
3) Girl and boy indulge in sexual attraction, sometimes on several different occasions,
4) Girl (or boy) wakes up one morning next to boy (or girl) and is stunned to discover she (he) has “fallen in love”.

How much more backwards can you get??!

 

[flyingfish]

A priest takes a vow not to marry, not a vow not to date. If inability to marry (as a result of a vow) forbids dating for a priest, it does so for everybody.

Well the initial statement I made was conditional. If a priest only takes a vow not to marry, then I see no issue with a priest falling in love with women and having close relationships with them providing there is no sex, kissing, phone sex, and other sexual sins. (And that the women know he will never be able to marry them.)

I thought their vows went quite a bit further than just “don’t marry”. If it’s only marriage that breaks vows, then it’s the only thing that’s forbidden (that and sins, which are forbidden to all people).

Therefore, he ought not to date them. Individual uncertainty does not prevent this and let me show you why: if you see five $50 notes of which one and only one certainly belongs to you, you can take any (if what matters is the cash value) or you can investigate which one is yours, but you can’t take all five just because individually they each stand some chance of being yours. You are not entitled to $250 (5 x $50) and you are not entitled to five concurrent romantic relationships. I mean relationships, not feelings (how you react is what matters) or prospects (you are entitled to evaluate).

I think taking all 5 notes is equivalent to marrying, not dating all 5 women. You’re allowed to hold all 5 in your hands while deciding which one is yours before walking away with only one.

See above. The priest makes no vow regarding non-sexual relationships. His only vow is not to marry.

If the priest takes no vow regarding non-sexual relationships, then there is no sin in having them.

I wouldn’t make fuss about people kissing friends on the lips if that were something normal in their culture. And I didn’t bring it up, I was only responding to the question whether the kind of kissing I talked about wasn’t forbidden for everybody. Therefore I offered explanation.

Ah, well I think we were just thinking about different things in relation to kissing. The kind of kissing that a couple does generally tends to make you want to have sex pretty quickly. It’s not the same as 2 Italian men kissing each other as a greeting, if that’s the kind of kissing they do, then it’s fine between anyone married/unmarried/religions/whatever.

 

[MaggieLou]

In a way, though if we were talking about teenagers who seem to be in love with each other, possibly actually love each other, and have some kind of real bond, I don’t think I would forbid them.

I agree with you! I do think there are some teenagers who experience real love, and they shouldn’t be discouraged from having a pre-engagement relationship and expressing appropriate physical affection. That’s the best course of action in that sort of situation - I know someone said something about how ridiculous it would be if John felt a strong love for Cindy but was forced to go out with Jane as well because he was “too young” for an exclusive relationship. No, I think it would be terrible to tell two young teenagers who really do love each other that their relationship is somehow wrong or inappropriate - that is a really destructive message to send.

I was just taking issue with the prevailing mindset that getting asked to the Homecoming Dance = exclusivity = kissing, etc…

And I do know what you mean about how it’s not a date unless it’s called a date I was just suggesting that, perhaps in the past, we actually might have called “hanging out” that way a “date.” The terminology may have just changed a little.

 

[chevalier]

Well the initial statement I made was conditional. If a priest only takes a vow not to marry, then I see no issue with a priest falling in love with women and having close relationships with them providing there is no sex, kissing, phone sex, and other sexual sins. (And that the women know he will never be able to marry them.)

I think your position is becoming blurry. What kind of close relationships? What kind of kissing that’s not there? Falling in love is okay but kissing is not? Since you say, “other sexual sins,” I assume you mean a sexually arousing kind of kissing, but what about other kinds? And no, a priest is not allowed to do that. Neither is a person married but petitioning for a nullity sentence.

I thought their vows went quite a bit further than just “don’t marry”. If it’s only marriage that breaks vows, then it’s the only thing that’s forbidden (that and sins, which are forbidden to all people).

I don’t wish to be unkind, but in your logic, those vows would have to include, “don’t romance women,” in order to have that effect, and that’s not something anyone would put in those vows.

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.
§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM

I think taking all 5 notes is equivalent to marrying, not dating all 5 women. You’re allowed to hold all 5 in your hands while deciding which one is yours before walking away with only one.

You can’t start spending. You can’t pocket them. You can’t take them all home to take a better look etc.

If the priest takes no vow regarding non-sexual relationships, then there is no sin in having them.

Alas, there is, as much as for a married person to have “emotional affairs”.

Ah, well I think we were just thinking about different things in relation to kissing. The kind of kissing that a couple does generally tends to make you want to have sex pretty quickly. It’s not the same as 2 Italian men kissing each other as a greeting, if that’s the kind of kissing they do, then it’s fine between anyone married/unmarried/religions/whatever.

There is a kind of kissing which is not near occasion of sin and yet it would make two men feel gay. That kind of kissing is not okay to share with several women or several men at once on a romantic motivation. As I said, I don’t take issue with merely friendly kisses. However, kissing which depends on attraction and which is involved in some kind of romance, is not merely friendly. The difference is intutive and I don’t believe anyone here fails to grasp it.

 

[flyingfish]

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.
§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

Those things to me sound like additional requirements beyond simple celibacy, it also allows bishops to set the rules for whether priests are allowed to be close friends with women they are in love with.

If it was just “don’t marry” or “don’t have sex”, points 2 and 3 wouldn’t be in what I assume is the description of what their vows mean.

Presumably the men who become priests are made aware of what their vows mean before they make them, and aren’t given the impression that they’re only vowing not to marry a woman.

(And if they’re not told that this is what their vows mean, then I would say they are under no obligation to follow anything other than the literal text of the vows they make.)

Alas, there is, as much as for a married person to have “emotional affairs”.

I would think the marriage commitment includes the vow not to have emotional affairs since the spouses promise to be faithful to each other.

Again, not something that applies to single people who have made neither a religious nor a marriage vow.

–

Seems like what you’re saying is that: priests make a vow not to marry, the guidelines for what priests can do includes not having non-sexual love relationships with women. Priest can’t marry, therefore all non-priests who can’t marry some woman also aren’t supposed to have non-sexual love relationship with the woman they can’t marry. When you date multiple people you know you can’t marry all of them, so you’re having non-sexual love relationships with at least some of them and so on.

It doesn’t make sense to me to extend what applies to priests to regular single folk.

 

[chevalier]

Those things to me sound like additional requirements beyond simple celibacy, it also allows bishops to set the rules for whether priests are allowed to be close friends with women they are in love with.

If it was just “don’t marry” or “don’t have sex”, points 2 and 3 wouldn’t be in what I assume is the description of what their vows mean.

Presumably the men who become priests are made aware of what their vows mean before they make them, and aren’t given the impression that they’re only vowing not to marry a woman.

(And if they’re not told that this is what their vows mean, then I would say they are under no obligation to follow anything other than the literal text of the vows they make.)

You’re splitting hairs there. A vow of celibacy is not just the face value of it, i.e. staying unmarried, and no moral rule is just the literal text of it, either. The vow of marriage is not just the face value of it, i.e. no sexual relations with others. From inability to marry follows that one shouldn’t be involved in romantic relationships which are not just a form of friendship but a form of man-and-woman love which involves desire.

I would think the marriage commitment includes the vow not to have emotional affairs since the spouses promise to be faithful to each other.

I’m not a specialist and I can’t tell you what would need to be there in marital vows to create valid marriage - although I’ve seen opinions that even common law marriage, which is basically contracted via cohabitation, can be valid for people not bound to form - but fidelity is of the essence in marriage and it is a part of it, it’s not a design of the parties. Marriage is not limited to things expressly mentioned in the vow. Even a simple contract of purchase in secular life is not.

Again, not something that applies to single people who have made neither a religious nor a marriage vow.

You can’t have not noticed by now that I’m talking about inability, whether as a result of a vow or otherwise. One can’t marry several people because marriage is confined to two people and one person can only have one marriage at a time. We are made to be monogamous. We are to find one person and have a marriage with that person. We are not in a naturally polyamorous state which we should supposedly be free to live out as long as we don’t have sex.

Seems like what you’re saying is that: priests make a vow not to marry, the guidelines for what priests can do includes not having non-sexual love relationships with women. Priest can’t marry, therefore all non-priests who can’t marry some woman also aren’t supposed to have non-sexual love relationship with the woman they can’t marry.

That is correct. This includes romantic relationships with e.g. one’s brother or sister, a person who has made a vow of celibacy/continence, a person permanently impeded or a person permanently unable to form consent. For all those who can’t marry each other friendship is enough.

When you date multiple people you know you can’t marry all of them, so you’re having non-sexual love relationships with at least some of them and so on.

Yes, you are willingly and knowingly feeding feelings which you have to stop feeding at some point and you are willingly and knowingly forming bonds which you will have to cut at some point.

It doesn’t make sense to me to extend what applies to priests to regular single folk.

It was merely illustrative, which I have been saying from the beginning, and not an extension of rules for priests. It’s not fine to make a decision that, “I don’t ever want to marry you because you’re not pretty/handsome/rich/intelligent enough, but you’re fine for a girlfriend/boyfriend until I find a better one, plus, we’ll learn something about relationships this way,” and on the same principle, morally neutral feelings notwithstanding, it is not fine to build several romantic bonds at the same time.

If it’s “just seeing if”, then bond formation is accidental to it, a side-effect. In a way comparable to having a crush on a friend from time to time. However, this kind of “seeing if” does not entitle consumption, cannot be a permanent arrangement, is not a natural state, is not advisable. One person can flirt around but cannot have multiple partners, simply put. Desires that won’t ever find fulfilment should not be created or fed. Feelings and desires of human beings, including one’s own, can’t be toyed with or used as mere tools (in learning or self-knowledge). In my view, from this follows that one can’t build romantic relationships - which are supposed to lead to marriage - with more people than one could marry. This and the fact we aren’t made to have multiple partners. I haven’t seen any good argument to the contrary.

 

[flyingfish]

If it’s “just seeing if”, then bond formation is accidental to it, a side-effect. In a way comparable to having a crush on a friend from time to time. However, this kind of “seeing if” does not entitle consumption, cannot be a permanent arrangement, is not a natural state, is not advisable. One person can flirt around but cannot have multiple partners, simply put. Desires that won’t ever find fulfilment should not be created or fed. Feelings and desires of human beings, including one’s own, can’t be toyed with or used as mere tools (in learning or self-knowledge). In my view, from this follows that one can’t build romantic relationships - which are supposed to lead to marriage - with more people than one could marry. This and the fact we aren’t made to have multiple partners. I haven’t seen any good argument to the contrary.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, but thanks for the discussion.