Old People On Dating

[chevalier]

BLB_Oregon:

I haven’t dated two guys at once, but I’ve had two guys interested at once. It was awful.

We seem to be a lot more in agreement than I had supposed… It’s painful when more than one lady is interested - first a guy would only feel better about himself, pumping his ego up to the size of the moon, but after growing up a little, it’s only painful. Been interested in more than one once or twice, never dated more than one. Dating as non-romantic socialising would sound all right… guess it comes down to what we understand by a date. If it’s non-romantic it’s the same kind of thing one does with family or friends or priests or married friends or whatever. I have some nice memories. Dating in an even slightly romantic way (holding hands, kissing, swapping tiny flirtacious letters etc) is what should be courting and yes, courting is exhausting.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:
Dating in an even slightly romantic way (holding hands, kissing, swapping tiny flirtacious letters etc) is what should be courting and yes, courting is exhausting.
Oh, but when the altar is in sight, it is fun, and not just because of the sense of relief. (Fun, yes… but not so much fun that you’d dawdle around about getting married! )

I agree with you on this much: the natural course of romance is to end in either marriage or heartache. The period when you don’t know which way it’s going to go is really hard, I think. Having lots of female friends is very healthy for young men, but for my money, the fewer romances you have in one lifetime, the better. There may not be any sin in heartache, but there isn’t any sin in missing out on it, either.

 

[Annunciata]

thann:

I absolutely love being married to my husband (26 years next week). I enjoyed dating when I was young, but don’t think I’d have the energy and emotional fortitude to go through that again, especially in this day and age.

If I were, God forbid, to lose my husband, I would seriously consider entering a religious order.

'thann

Hi Thann,
Never close yourself to God’s will…
I was married 26 years when my husband died of cancer…I loved him more than anything… I too thought that I would enter a third order… I remarried not quite a year and one half later…
I have been married to him for 13 years now and though the love is different from the first, it’s still love and a deep commitment to each other…
A day doesn’t go by that I don’t think of my first husband…his picture is on the wall beside the wife of my present husband…she too died of cancer… Did I tell you we met in a widows support group…I was helping him discern a vocation…he thought that he might be a late vocation or that he might consider becoming a permanant deacon…
God had other plans for both of us…

 

[savone]

It just seems to me that dating is a hassle. Been there. Done that. I’ve been trying to simplify my life lately: more of fewer things as opposed to less of more things. I doubt dating would fit.

 

[Island_Oak]

chevalier:

If I’m not old but am visibly backwards, may I speak? I’m also done dating, even if not married.

Dating is a bad concenpt, stemming from sexual “liberation” and it can’t be christianised because it simply doesn’t belong here. The idea was light-hearted and carefree semi-sexual semi-romantic social activity leading possibly to something wrong. With some proper training, Christians can cut sex out of it, but the romantic theme is even more dangerous than the sexual one because it’s less easy to give up (everyone can give up sex, but it’s way more difficult to give up the feeling of male-female closeness, affection and all the fuzzy feelings). No matter how you handle it, it’s still wrong. If you cut intercourse out and leave it alone, it still feels too sexual in nature. If you cut all sex out and leave only romance, it’s still promiscuous on the account of creating romantic entanglements, conscious or otherwise, between multiple people at one time, even more dangerous for the illusion of chastity. If you cut both sexual themes and romantic themes out of it, it becomes awkward and no longer fun. My idea is keep it at “hanging out” for friends and courting for romantic lovers looking at marriage. The worst thing dating does is creating a whole new group between the agape love and the eros love (more or less theologically speaking) and a group of people who are more than friends but less than lovers, which is not Christian (agape is strictly non-erotic and eros is exclusive at all stages). Not like it’s Christian to keep your loved one from meeting people, even if it’s already wife or husband. My opinon is: shut the whole thing down. Restore good old group meetings. Teach people to meet as friends only and not for some “kinda” romantic fun which ultimately still leads to sexual vibes and same kind of psychological and biochemical entanglements, realised or not. This way people won’t behave like “kinda” married when they aren’t, which is a horror, and won’t behave as if they were “kinda” courting a group of people (or pretending to court), which is a big joke. Do it like in the old days when friends were friends and loves were loves. St Paul said “flee immorality” and he knew what he was doing.

That’s it!! You no longer have my vote for cruise director!! Next candiate, please.

 

[Island_Oak]

puzzleannie:

well, sonny, let me jist settle down here in my rocking chair on the porch and cogitate on this a little, my generation invented “dating” in the modern sense you youngsters mean by hooking up. we were the first generation to man the barricades of the sexual revolution, embrace the pill and woman’s lib and equate social activity with a member of the opposite gender with a roll in the hay. We were wrong, and your generation is paying the price. Dating in that sense (your basic old fashioned fornication) is a destroyer of personal integrity, sexual wholeness, and of marriages because it destroys intimacy. Be warned, although I doubt you will pay any attention, young folks never do.

Annie…as usual…right on and too funny!

Were I ever to find myself on the dating scene again (heaven forbid anything happen to dh!!) I’d like to think my more mature morality would save me from some of the mistakes of my impulsive youth. However, if I have to be honest I think it would have more to do with the fact that I don’t look nearly as cute in a bikini since having had three kids. Nothing like figure flaws to keep you pure!!

 

[chevalier]

BLB_Oregon:

Having lots of female friends is very healthy for young men, but for my money, the fewer romances you have in one lifetime, the better. There may not be any sin in heartache, but there isn’t any sin in missing out on it, either.

To be honest, looking back in the past, I must say that with some of the great friends it had more of what I would see in a marriage than all the crushes and romances did. Because friendship is more like marriage than a crush is but this takes some time to realise… At any rate, it’s the crush and the romantic fascination who is seen as the potential lifelong one and this is where it heads. Then it fails… There is no fault in failing. But there is fault in toying. Having one romance that fails lives scars. But having two romances going at one time will always leave more permanent scars of a more dangerous kind. Enjoying external manifestations of a sincere romance with many or even with one without having it in heart will do the same. Failing in one romance is at least an honest try. But having many is not so. It’s always one’s way of cheating life out of something one shouldn’t be getting. And that can’t be done. That’s my main problem with the relaxed dating customs.

 

[Island_Oak]

Chevalier: My friend…this one man crusade to rid the world of casual dating is getting out of hand. You presume evil, immorality and spiritual destruction in the most simple and innocent interactions. Deep emotional scars are not what most of us are carrying around from our casual dating days. Quite to the contrary, the practice of dating led most of us to the successful match with our spouses. Get out, take a walk, breathe deeply and often. What you need is some fresh oxygen and perspective.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Island Oak:

Chevalier: My friend…this one man crusade to rid the world of casual dating is getting out of hand. You presume evil, immorality and spiritual destruction in the most simple and innocent interactions. Deep emotional scars are not what most of us are carrying around from our casual dating days. Quite to the contrary, the practice of dating led most of us to the successful match with our spouses. Get out, take a walk, breathe deeply and often. What you need is some fresh oxygen and perspective.

Yes, and the posts are very long… you can’t sway the forum by wearing us out! (Don’t think I haven’t tried it! ) Still, most of us weren’t juggling more than one “love” at once, nor being juggled by someone who is. I can’t speak for him, but I get the feeling that he thinks this is prevalent among people who are dating, and that they do it for fun. I don’t doubt that some do, but I think they are at the narcissistic extreme. (At least I hope they are!)

I do remember a fellow from college, though. I think he was serious with four or five different women in our dorm. Serially, but barely. And these women were mad at each other!! Why they didn’t take him out to the parking lot and work him over with nail files was beyond me then and still is now. He must have had some sweet nothings that wouldn’t quit. If that is what Chevalier is railing against, I’d have a hard time arguing with him. I don’t know if it’s a mortal sin, but back when I was on board with the death penalty I would have given the death penalty for less!

Still, I can imagine circumstances where a fellow might throw “true-love” kisses at more than one girl over the course of a weekend and not deserve a stoning for it. (Just don’t let it happen again, buddy! That’s our sisters you are messing with! :tsktsk: )

 

[Mom_of_5]

I was alone for three years after 32 years of marriage. (To the same man.) Dating was not in my vocabulary. I planned to live in my little house, tend to my flowers and babysit for grandchildren. Then…I met him at a Parents Without Partners dance. We were married 8 months later and have been married 12 + years. Would I date if my husband died? Again, I would say, “no way”…but one never knows what God has planned for us, so I say, never say never and consider it cut in stone.

Love and Peace

 

[Annunciata]

Mom of 5:

I was alone for three years after 32 years of marriage. (To the same man.) Dating was not in my vocabulary. I planned to live in my little house, tend to my flowers and babysit for grandchildren. Then…I met him at a Parents Without Partners dance. We were married 8 months later and have been married 12 + years. Would I date if my husband died? Again, I would say, “no way”…but one never knows what God has planned for us, so I say, never say never and consider it cut in stone.

Love and Peace

Good for you, Mom of 5! Never say never…

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Mom of 5:

I was alone for three years after 32 years of marriage. (To the same man.) Dating was not in my vocabulary. I planned to live in my little house, tend to my flowers and babysit for grandchildren. Then…I met him at a Parents Without Partners dance. We were married 8 months later and have been married 12 + years. Would I date if my husband died? Again, I would say, “no way”…but one never knows what God has planned for us, so I say, never say never and consider it cut in stone.

Love and Peace

Yep, you’re right. I feel as if “never again, thank you very much”, but when the Good Lord puts the “Right” in “Mr. Right”, I’d have to be an utter fool not to listen! God can serve up happiness on a platter for you, but you still have to take it.
Congratulations and way to go!

 

[chevalier]

BLB_Oregon:

Still, I can imagine circumstances where a fellow might throw “true-love” kisses at more than one girl over the course of a weekend and not deserve a stoning for it. (Just don’t let it happen again, buddy! That’s our sisters you are messing with! :tsktsk: )

Hmm… hmm… you seem to be agreeing with me more and more. Or were you from the beginning? I don’t know. I agree with you on that one. I agree on the fellow from your dorm – but what is the “serially” adverb doing there? If he had done the same with all of them at one time, that would be even worse. Or if he hadn’t been serious but merely playing.

And now at Island Oak: As we don’t allow married people to get a little sexual with anyone else than the spouse on condition it’s light, un-serial and un-serious, same way I regard love before marriage, especially as there’s ultimately no such thing as non-sexual love if we aren’t talking charity. And when there’s no love, there’s no reason to act like in love – see the previous sentence. Therefore, all the kissing and embracing on dates is self-serving and not self-giving. It feels innocent because it’s light, but it’s a broken principle where people start from. Just why can’t they behave like friends or like siblings? Do they really have to get at each other the male-female style and at least have some kissing if sex isn’t allowed? Can’t a girl and a guy keep friends in the sex-saturated culture? I’ve done a lot of socialising with women, but somehow survived without kissing or groping all of them, so it’s doable. The fact that something is light and unserious doesn’t make it good. Venial sins aren’t deeds of charity and imprudent acts aren’t feats of virtue the same way. The idea that you can’t spend time getting to know a girl without kissing her is a product of sexual revolution and includes the presumption that we’re animals that can’t control ourselves and think about mating all the time. And the fact that we don’t get scars from it doesn’t mean that others don’t. Neither does the fact it feels good mean we have the right to do it. Casual seeing? Sure. I’ve done that a lot. A huge huge lot. And talking, lots of. And dancing. But no indiscriminate mouth kissing and no multiromancing. That would be bad.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

Hmm… hmm… you seem to be agreeing with me more and more. Or were you from the beginning? I don’t know. I agree with you on that one. I agree on the fellow from your dorm – but what is the “serially” adverb doing there? If he had done the same with all of them at one time, that would be even worse. Or if he hadn’t been serious but merely playing.

Oh, who knows. These struck me as some foolish, foolish people, but you can’t read hearts and I didn’t know them that well. By “serial,” I mean I’d ask, upon seeing him with Carol on his arm, “He’s dating Carol? Wasn’t he just dating Shannon? And wasn’t Judy about ready to take Shannon to the mat for “stealing her man”? What is it with him?” I never heard that he was dating two girls at the same time, but he never did anything that impressed me, either. By his lights, it was okay if they were his “girlfriends”, one at a time. By my lights, he was in there as long as it was good for him, and then he was gone. Monogamy, my foot. I’d far rather find myself in a triangle with a guy who had just started a serious thing with me and then couldn’t decide between me and some other woman that hit him like a load of bricks than go steady with a loser like that. At least with the load of bricks, I could have some respect for the guy.

Actually, I was engaged to a guy who “couldn’t decide.” That was his decision right there, as far as I was concerned. I was outta there. Still, I wouldn’t have sent him straight to hell for getting cold feet or for his clumsy, gutless exit. Don’t get me wrong: he lied to me and he was not being fair to her, either, but he was playing with my affections far less than “Mr. Serial-Monogamy.” All I can say looking back is “Thank heavens”, because if my “good Catholic” fiance hadn’t started dating someone else, I probably wouldn’t have had the sense to tell him to get lost. He was a bad match for me, but I don’t know what else would have made me see that. My fiance couldn’t (or thought he couldn’t)… I was a wonderful girl, the dress was ordered, his family was thrilled, his friends were all thrilled, and so he just didn’t have the courage to stop the train. My family? They were far less than thrilled, but wouldn’t say so. That he alone should get eternal separation from God, for that… always? Oh, mercy, you are a hard-hearted one! That it is hell on earth is enough.

Tell people that while social dating is fine, this juggling of hearts is both foolish and mean, that “romantic” dating not only has its perils but is not the fun it’s cracked up to be, that you’re not at the altar until you’re at the altar and the "I DO"s are said. Tell them they may always turn back and there’s no sin in that! Drill THAT into their heads! I would even tell them to forbid themselves a date of any kind for a month or two at least after they break off a long-time courtship. One at a time and then some… I could get on board with that. But telling them that those imprudent things are always a mortal sin, enough to earn them a one-way ticket to eternal damnation? Particularly since these are decisions made while running on fumes in the brain department, that is a tall statement, and one that should not be made lightly.

 

[chevalier]

Mortal? Nah. Not likely with that state of knowledge and will. Wrong? Objectively yeah, very. My exact point. But what has full knowledge and full consent is the Catholic chastity speakers and writers who promote non-exclusive romance and non-exclusive romantic dating. They have full knowledge and full consent…

I did say it contradicted Commandments V to VIII, but I didn’t mean to say it’s always mortal – for the reason alone that it’s hard to speak of the actors’ full knowledge or consent. Much would have to depend on the message of particular actions and the degree of premeditation.

Triangles are tough. I remember finding myself attracted to two girls a couple of times, maybe even three at some point, but I’ve never acted on both attractions. There’s a difference between feeling it and acting on it. I remember girls who couldn’t decide. I actually remember helping them decide and I even remember telling one to chase the other guy. Still, kissing the other guy wouldn’t earn my respect. The girl would most likely be out. I wouldn’t really kiss her knowing she weren’t able to decide, either. Flowers, cheek kisses for a greeting, maybe holding hands. But I wouldn’t probably kiss her other than the cheek if I knew she had a problem deciding which guy to choose. I could be tolerant about struggling with temptation and doing something not relatively too gross, but I wouldn’t find much tolerance for trying both out.

Note: sticking to one person and foregoing the other “chances” creates and reinforces a bond that takes time to build. The force of attraction or compatibility won’t do the job. When we’re doing match-making or another kind of search for a mate then that’s going to be a problem. But sometimes people feel so special to each other for a very concrete reason and they don’t even want to give a try to anyone else. This is probably most true for childhood loves which manage to survive to late teens, early twenties and further.

As for what you call “serial”, yes, I have a problem with that. If something like that happens, there shouldn’t have been any relationship in the very first place. That sort of romance is sluttier if multilateral, but it isn’t right if it’s exclusive, either. Friendlly meetings would have sufficed for some discernment.