Practically speaking, don't we need to "test drive the car before we buy it?"

[Peter_Plato]

I can sympathize with that mindset to a good degree - there is definitely prudence to be exercised in following the advice of Christians/Catholics under any circumstances, as there are definitely customs and traditions that don’t quite hold up to modern knowledge.

It isn’t so much that “customs and traditions” don’t hold up to modern knowledge as that some customs and traditions have changed BECAUSE circumstances have changed.

Obeying traffic lights or speed limit signs may be crucial given the invention of automobiles, paved roads and urban areas, but they would have made no sense in Palestine 2000 years ago. That doesn’t mean residents of the ancient world were smarter, more knowledgeable or more moral because they didn’t “need” traffic lights or speed limit signs to function day to day. Only chronological snobbery would make such a claim - which also applies when chronology is reversed.

Similarly, normative social mores or pragmatic dietary rules that may have been necessary at some times and places may not be so today. It isn’t knowledge that has changed, it is circumstances*.

“Customs and traditions” are not transposable in the sense that they ought to apply in all times and places. It is, in fact, knowledge that tells us they shouldn’t be understood to apply in that way. So, claiming “modern knowledge” is what makes us more competent to judge ancient customs and traditions is simply malformed as an argument.

*Now it may be true that improved scientific knowledge, is in fact, an aspect of changing circumstances. So, for example, improved medicine due to scientific advances may have made certain past proscriptions unnecessary or irrelevant today, but in this case it isn’t knowledge itself that has made the moral rule obsolete in the sense that “we now know such a rule was mistaken,” rather that human knowledge has changed circumstances so that the rule has been rendered obsolete and no longer applicable.

 

[MacQ]

It is a “weird analogy” precisely because human beings, unlike toothbrushes, are NOT disposable commodities. To view other human being as “testable” in this sense presumes a view that human beings are, at some level, disposable commodities, which is morally abhorrent.

Now this does not preclude the possibility that there is a legitimate sense in which some form of “testing” might be morally licit - suitability for employment, for example. However, marriage is simply not THAT kind of reality because it is not simply some skill or quality that is on the line, but the person him/herself is qua person. Marriage is unconditional love for the person, not conditional “love” of some trait or ability the person may or may not exhibit. Such a “test” misconceives what marriage is, at its core, which means the person misconstrues what they are “testing for” to begin with.

The fact that they think this kind of “testing” is central to, rather than incidental to, what marriage is, is evidence that they don’t understand what a marital relationship is founded upon to begin with.

My sentiments exactly (except you expressed them so much more eloquently).

 

[Xantippe]

I can’t link to it right now because I’m on my phone, but there’s an article I read recently which domes up a large part of the problem. Essentially, that the courtship model puts way too much pressure on relationships.

Another issue I have with it is with the idea that the couple can never spend any time unchaperoned. And, yes, I totally get they can still have deep conversations in public places. But, I’m sorry, if you are so sex-crazed and sex-driven that driving somewhere together without a chaperone is going to lead you guys to have sex then there are some serious issues going on and neither of you belong in a relationship at all. I really could go on but its late and I’m tired and I know I won’t give my thoughts justice.

Can you point to anybody that you know in real life who is doing the courtship model?

Because it’s not something you can do by yourself, or even just with your sweetie. And it would be rather a chore to figure out how to do it given high mobility. If I’m new in town and my sweetie is new in town, how do I secure a chaperon? Does that need to be added to the cost of dating? What a pain. And doesn’t the paid chaperon have a conflict of interest?

My personal feelings about it are that if you’re big enough to date, you’re big enough to be unchaperoned, and if you’re not big enough to be unchaperoned, you’re not big enough for marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is way too much over-thinking going on here.

No, sexual incompatibility is not a likely cause of marital break-up, particularly if problems that preclude a valid marriage are not included. There is no practical need to engage in pre-marital sex in order to increase the likelihood of marital success. Arguing all day about whether it hurts or helps is not going to establish a need that does not exist.

Meanwhile, Catholics have a very practical need to avoid serious sin and develop self-mastery with regards to development of virtue, since obviously a Catholic’s most pressing goal is to allow the work of God’s grace to make him or her into a saint. There is no necessity that surpasses that one in importance and nothing that should dissuade Catholics from making that their first priority. Period.

 

[Neildown]

It isn’t so much that “customs and traditions” don’t hold up to modern knowledge as that some customs and traditions have changed BECAUSE circumstances have changed.

I don’t know what’s being said here. I was addressing the fact that some traditions and customs are inherently flawed. Such as the earth being flat, or that it’s wrong for women to wear anything other than dresses. The same may or may not apply to other traditions Catholics hold as well. Yes some were “relevant” traditions whilst they had the benefit of the doubt, but not all were objectively true.

Obeying traffic lights or speed limit signs may be crucial given the invention of automobiles, paved roads and urban areas, but they would have made no sense in Palestine 2000 years ago. That doesn’t mean residents of the ancient world were smarter, more knowledgeable or more moral because they didn’t “need” traffic lights or speed limit signs to function day to day. Only chronological snobbery would make such a claim - which also applies when chronology is reversed.

I’m not poo-pooing on the fact that ancients did the best with what they had, nor am I suggesting that old traditions in general need be applied today anymore than new traditions need be applied then.

Similarly, normative social mores or pragmatic dietary rules that may have been necessary at some times and places may not be so today. It isn’t knowledge that has changed, it is circumstances*.

That’s entirely dependent upon what kind of traditions you’re speaking of. I spoke in generality because I found it superfluous to address in detail.

“Customs and traditions” are not transposable in the sense that they ought to apply in all times and places. It is, in fact, knowledge that tells us they shouldn’t be understood to apply in that way. So, claiming “modern knowledge” is what makes us more competent to judge ancient customs and traditions is simply malformed as an argument.

Here you’ve misinterpreted my stance. You can’t say that traditions are subjectively applicable throughout time unless you inherently admit that they are subject to change (and scrutiny), including a beginning and an end to their appropriate time in society, in the first place. I’m not claiming modern knowledge makes us competent in the interpretation of traditions - I’m claiming that modern (more specifically, “continuously developing”) knowledge makes us competent in the dissolution of falsities that were previously unknown. You seem to be reproving me for stating that we are capable of proving some long-held traditions to be false in their essence.

*Now it may be true that improved scientific knowledge, is in fact, an aspect of changing circumstances. So, for example, improved medicine due to scientific advances may have made certain past proscriptions unnecessary or irrelevant today, but in this case it isn’t knowledge itself that has made the moral rule obsolete in the sense that “we now know such a rule was mistaken,” rather that human knowledge has changed circumstances so that the rule has been rendered obsolete and no longer applicable.

However, such a principle is not inherently relevant to every tradition in its essence. Many believed the earth was flat, then we learned it was probably round. Eventually concluded that it is round. The flat-earth model is henceforth known to be false. Yes, it had a relevant application in its time, but it was not objectively true in any case, insofar as being an objectively accurate geometrical model. That’s what I’m getting at. There are many similarly flawed “traditions” which integrate directly with a person’s moral and spiritual faculties in a negative manner - only these are obviously more appropriately acknowledged as superstitions arising from the misinterpretation of real traditions and their spiritual values.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s an awkward kind of question to ask but I’m curious because I’ve only ever slept with one man and that was after marriage, but the pro ‘test drivers’ could enlighten me… What if you are highly compatible on most levels but the sex is bad… and alternately what if the sex is good but the compatibility in other areas is wanting? How do you choose a marriageable partner then?

Also for the pro ‘test drivers’… since sexual bonding is stronger than just non sexual romantic bonding, what if you are initially aware that this person is not the one for you but the sex is holding the relationship together or results in premature pregnancy? Is the great sex going to be sufficient to hold a relationship together forever?

 

[Xantippe]

It’s an awkward kind of question to ask but I’m curious because I’ve only ever slept with one man and that was after marriage, but the pro ‘test drivers’ could enlighten me… What if you are highly compatible on most levels but the sex is bad… and alternately what if the sex is good but the compatibility in other areas is wanting? How do you choose a marriageable partner then?

Also for the pro ‘test drivers’… since sexual bonding is stronger than just non sexual romantic bonding, what if you are initially aware that this person is not the one for you but the sex is holding the relationship together or results in premature pregnancy? Is the great sex going to be sufficient to hold a relationship together forever?

Good question.

I suspect that there have been only one or two actual “pro drivers” on the thread who believe in the practice, so you may not get an answer.

 

[BiffRuffle]

It may have been mentioned earlier, but Jason Evert mentioned something on this topic, along the lines of if your sex is not up to your standards (whatever they are) will you love your wife/husband less? If so, then why are you even getting married, if the love is conditional? If not, then what difference does it make if the sex is ‘good’(whatever that means)?

Edit: I’ll also include this article from Evert’s Chastity Project site, titled "Three Myths People use to Promote Premarital Sex"chastityproject.com/2014/06/busted-three-myths-people-use-promote-premarital-sex/

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

In many cultures the bride and groom barely meet before taking vows. In some other cultures there is no marriage in the usual sense of the word, and it’s all essentially “test driving.” So it seems to me that any claim that “test driving” is either inherently necessary or inherently dangerous is contradicted by the facts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t know what’s being said here. I was addressing the fact that some traditions and customs are inherently flawed. Such as the earth being flat, or that it’s wrong for women to wear anything other than dresses. The same may or may not apply to other traditions Catholics hold as well. Yes some were “relevant” traditions whilst they had the benefit of the doubt, but not all were objectively true.

If you recall, your reply was to the effect that…

I can sympathize with that mindset to a good degree - there is definitely prudence to be exercised in following the advice of Christians/Catholics under any circumstances, as there are definitely customs and traditions that don’t quite hold up to modern knowledge.

Customs and traditions include ways of doing things or behaving in daily life.

Believing in a flat earth is neither a custom nor a tradition, it is an interpretation about the way the world is. It can be objectively assessed, given the proper methods and technology, but there is no way that it can be considered a custom or tradition.

Your other example of women wearing dresses is a both a custom (a widely accepted way of doing things) and a tradition (the transmission of customs forward through time,) but there isn’t a sense that wearing dresses can be subjected to objective assessment as if it is objectively true that all women should or should not wear dresses.

It is no more true or false that women should wear dresses than it is true or false that people should keep pets. It is a choice about how to act or behave that reduces to a preference like a preference for a certain flavour of ice cream.

Now, some customs and traditions do have the force of moral obligation because behaving in a certain manner could affect the well-being of people at that time. It is these morally important customs and traditions that can be objectively determined as moral or immoral. Driving a car under the influence of alcohol to the point of impaired judgement is a moral question, but a tradition of making a certain wine or beer from specified ingredients is not a moral question. Driving under the influence in a modern urban centre carries with it moral consequences that did not exist in, for example, the ancient Near East.

It is these “customs and traditions” that I assumed you were talking about because only these can possibly be assessed as true or false moral “facts” and are the only ones which may not, in your words “quite hold up to modern knowledge.”

The problem with your response is that you are changing “customs and traditions” to include widely held beliefs about the world - the earth being flat, as your example - but there is no sense in which this kind of knowledge is a custom because customs involve behaviour - acting in a prescribed way - which is not what thinking the earth is flat pertains to.

As an aside, it should be pointed out that there is legitimate doubt whether such a view of the earth was ever as widely accepted as some today make it out to be, but that certainly is not an issue for this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In many cultures the bride and groom barely meet before taking vows. In some other cultures there is no marriage in the usual sense of the word, and it’s all essentially “test driving.” So it seems to me that any claim that “test driving” is either inherently necessary or inherently dangerous is contradicted by the facts.

Facts don’t, on their own, create the necessary and sufficient conditions for a moral judgement.

That some behaviour exists or existed in some culture somewhere does not, ipso facto, make the behaviour morally good.

In some cultures human sacrifice was practiced. So, according to your reasoning, whether human sacrifice is inherently wrong or inherently right is, likewise, “contradicted by the facts.”

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

In some cultures human sacrifice was practiced. So, according to your reasoning, whether human sacrifice is inherently wrong or inherently right is, likewise, “contradicted by the facts.”

I didn’t say right or wrong; I said necessary or dangerous. Clearly human sacrifice is not necessary. I don’t know of any culture practicing human sacrifice for religious purposes today, so perhaps it was or is dangerous.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I didn’t say right or wrong; I said necessary or dangerous. Clearly human sacrifice is not necessary. I don’t know of any culture practicing human sacrifice for religious purposes today, so perhaps it was or is dangerous.

I am not sure that being or not being current or happening “today” can be the criterion by which practices can be judged. ISIS is slaughtering people of other religious beliefs “today” so perhaps that makes it okay and NOT dangerous?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

This is getting far afield of the original question, but clearly slaughtering people of other faiths is not inherently dangerous to culture and society, since every major faith has practiced this at one time or another.

The original question was in the spirit of, “disregarding the Bible, isn’t it practically necessary to ‘test drive’ the sexual aspects of marriage?” And the intent of my response was in that context. Practically speaking, outside of moral proscriptions of same, neither extramarital relations nor religious pogroms are necessary – but neither are they ultimately a road to ruin (again, practically speaking and disregarding moral instruction, per the original question). Both have been around for as long as we have had civilization.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is getting far afield of the original question, but clearly slaughtering people of other faiths is not inherently dangerous to culture and society, since every major faith has practiced this at one time or another.

The original question was in the spirit of, “disregarding the Bible, isn’t it practically necessary to ‘test drive’ the sexual aspects of marriage?” And the intent of my response was in that context. Practically speaking, outside of moral proscriptions of same, neither extramarital relations nor religious pogroms are necessary – but neither are they ultimately a road to ruin (again, practically speaking and disregarding moral instruction, per the original question). Both have been around for as long as we have had civilization.

OK, but disregarding the Bible, the moral law is the same:

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. Rom 2:14-16

On that account, we have to hold it as an axiom that natural law is the same for both the believer and the non-believer, and that it is not an arbitrary rule, but a rule based on the best expression of the human person as the image and likeness of God.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

I think we are actually in agreement. My point – much too obscurely made, looking back on it – was mainly to say that “…practically speaking…” is

A. not actually what’s being asked in the original question and

B. not a good place to start from, since “practically speaking” can allow for things like religious massacre and murder and all sorts of things that most of us have a natural moral aversion to most of the time. It also allows for arranged marriages and walking marriages.

I don’t think you’ll find many intellectually serious advocates of the “test drive” idea, because there is a contradiction between considering marriage serious enough to “pick the right one” and yet unserious enough to flout the typical commandments and commitments that come along with participating in marriage.

I liked Flame4’s response at the beginning of the thread.

 

[newcatholicwife]

Of course the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

But we know that sex is a major issue that can make or break a marriage. It is important for people to know what their partners like and don’t like in sex, and how much libido their partners have. We know that a marriage that is not open to life is also a sin, in Catholicism. We know that lack of sex, or bad sex, can ruin relationships and destroy marriages.

So practically speaking, despite what the Bible says, don’t people need to “test drive the car before they buy it,” in other words, have sex before marriage to test each other’s sexual compatibility? Isn’t it a foolish risk to not “test drive a car before buying it?” Wouldn’t it be a possible setup for failure to not have sex before marriage?

Let’s discuss.

Oh yea of course!!! Especially if you think of your future husband or wife as an object, like a car! If you are planning on marrying an object like a car, dishwasher, robot…

 

[EasterJoy]

I think we are actually in agreement. My point – much too obscurely made, looking back on it – was mainly to say that “…practically speaking…” is

A. not actually what’s being asked in the original question and

B. not a good place to start from, since “practically speaking” can allow for things like religious massacre and murder and all sorts of things that most of us have a natural moral aversion to most of the time. It also allows for arranged marriages and walking marriages.

I don’t think you’ll find many intellectually serious advocates of the “test drive” idea, because there is a contradiction between considering marriage serious enough to “pick the right one” and yet unserious enough to flout the typical commandments and commitments that come along with participating in marriage.

I liked Flame4’s response at the beginning of the thread.

Yes.

I think Flame4 explained very well why the idea, even though initially well-meant, is repugnant even from the vantage point of a natural law: that is, even a human prospect with a proper regard for the dignity of the human person and the intimacy and true import of marital relations will not be willing to go to this length in order to spare a married couple difficulties that can admittedly be a true trial. We aren’t saying there is no such thing as marital difficulties between spouses of good will. We are saying that premarital sex is not a legitimate means to avoid these problems.

 

[thewanderer]

Can you point to anybody that you know in real life who is doing the courtship model?

Because it’s not something you can do by yourself, or even just with your sweetie. And it would be rather a chore to figure out how to do it given high mobility. If I’m new in town and my sweetie is new in town, how do I secure a chaperon? Does that need to be added to the cost of dating? What a pain. And doesn’t the paid chaperon have a conflict of interest?

My personal feelings about it are that if you’re big enough to date, you’re big enough to be unchaperoned, and if you’re not big enough to be unchaperoned, you’re not big enough for marriage.

I would say the only exception is for young teenagers who are dating casually, I can understand parents putting restrictions on them for that.

As for whether or not people actually do this I’ve had multiple conversations on here with teenagers who were dead set on following this kind of courtship model. People really do set that kind of relationship (extremely serious with no time together when they are the only two people around) as the model for them and their kids to follow. In fact, the article I promised to post is written by someone who grew up as a huge supporter o this courtship model, but as he and all those he knew who followed this model grew older they began to realize it just didn’t work very well. So there really are whole groups of people that follow that model.

 

[thewanderer]

And here is the promised article.

thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/