Quitting the Dating Game (ABCs of Choosing a Good Wife by Stephen Wood)

[Rascalking]

Too late, it already did bother me.

With all due respect, I think it is worth calling attention to, for the reasons that are important to me.

I sometimes err on the side of reacting strongly but I might also be the canary in the coal mine or the person who points out that the emperor has no clothes on if you see what I mean.

Two words: Raising awareness.

I obviously see it different.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let’s try and get this back on topic…

.

In this case as a poster, that would mean to put oneself in the position of the reading “audience.” Then bring to mind the fact that the audience is going to consist of no small number of women who wish that men’s attitudes toward them were Christlike and respectful.

How should a male go about finding and making himself available to women who want to be treated in a respectful and Christian manner?

 

[TedDC]

I sometimes err on the side of reacting strongly but I might also be the canary in the coal mine or the person who points out that the emperor has no clothes on if you see what I mean.

I don’t know about any emperor, but if Magickman would keep his clothes on, we wouldn’t be having this discussion

 

[Magickman]

I’ll have you know, that here in Minnesota, we all sleep with our clothes on, just to keep warm.

 

[TedDC]

I’ll have you know, that here in Minnesota, we all sleep with our clothes on, just to keep warm.

Did you see that, 3DOCTORS? Magickman is perfect for you - don’t let him get away!

 

[CountrySinger]

Is it just me, or do any other ladies find Magickman’s post sexist and immodest and in poor taste?

Not at all. I thought it was just very honest. And what men think at times. If a man didn’t think like that at least a little bit of the time, I would think they were gay. No insult to gay men meant at all.

I expect when I’m married that I will be used for “relief” at times. And it doesn’t bother me. It is just the way life is. I read this ultra cheesy books about married life, and just laugh at the over-the-toppness of it all. Sometimes sex is just for fun.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hmmm . . . how to put this charitably. As a woman, I feel objectified by attitudes such as I have highlighted above. I certainly would not put myself in a position to be used. I have more self-respect than that.

I’m not saying that sexual desire itself is wrong, but if a person gets into the habit of gratifying it in ways God didn’t intend, one loses the meaning of love. You’ve probably heard this before and maybe my one additional opinion on the subject isn’t going to make you change your tune. Although I must admit to some confusion since the latter part of your post seem to contradict the beginning of it.

But in the name of politeness for half of humanity (i.e., women) I would like to challenge you to reconsider your motives in making a post such as the above. I truly find it offensive and hurtful. :sad_yes: I’m not out to make enemies or pick fights, but I think honesty is imperative here.

I wanted to post some of my own dating struggles here when I first saw this thread, but after reading the words quoted above, I would not do so knowing that my honest posting would be read by someone with apparently a lack of shame at boasting such a lustful outlook on a forum that ladies are going to read. Frankly, I feel creeped out.

I know, it’s a public forum and I can’t know who reads anything I write. It’s a chance I take, and maybe one I will choose to reconsider.

Perhaps no offense was meant - I’m willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt and hear an explanation. Perhaps the person didn’t think things through sufficiently. It would help, IMO, to put oneself in the other person’s position.

In this case as a poster, that would mean to put oneself in the position of the reading “audience.” Then bring to mind the fact that the audience is going to consist of no small number of women who wish that men’s attitudes toward them were Christlike and respectful.

Awesome post!!

 

[HumbledCatholic]

He was making a funny about chevalier’s use of the term “premarital.”

His point was that, if he did not intend to get married, it could not be considered premarital sex, since it did not precede marriage.

He then put himself into the character of such a man, never intending to marry, and consequently used the term “non-marital” sex to describe those acts.

He was not in earnest.

Not reading for context is no excuse. The post was easily understandable and completely innocuous in the light of the previous few posts.

Posting one’s gut reactions to a post one has not even barely attempted to understand is not charitable.

Let’s return to the topic at hand.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Not at all. I thought it was just very honest. And what men think at times. If a man didn’t think like that at least a little bit of the time, I would think they were gay. No insult to gay men meant at all.

I expect when I’m married that I will be used for “relief” at times. And it doesn’t bother me. It is just the way life is. I read this ultra cheesy books about married life, and just laugh at the over-the-toppness of it all. Sometimes sex is just for fun.

Sex can be for fun, but it is always a renewal of the marriage covenant. To have sex only for fun, without both being open to new life and trying to strengthen the bonds of matrimony cheapens the marital act. Matrimony is a sacrament. There’s a good reason for that.

To be used for “relief” would be extremely offensive to me. It sounds like something out of Portnoy’s Complaint. It doesn’t have to be the way life is and it shouldn’t be.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why would you feel objectified or insulted by someone over the internet? In the long run, while it is very sad that someone thinks this way, who cares?

Me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

He was making a funny about chevalier’s use of the term “premarital.”

His point was that, if he did not intend to get married, it could not be considered premarital sex, since it did not precede marriage.

He then put himself into the character of such a man, never intending to marry, and consequently used the term “non-marital” sex to describe those acts.

He was not in earnest.

Not reading for context is no excuse. The post was easily understandable and completely innocuous in the light of the previous few posts.

Posting one’s gut reactions to a post one has not even barely attempted to understand is not charitable.

Let’s return to the topic at hand.

Wow - an awful lot of assumptions!! Not necessarily true. Probably none of them.

I don’t want to discuss forum members, but posts are a different matter altogether. An offensive post is an offensive post.

And that is all I’m going to say.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

As to this line of discussion, the ridiculous nature of the suggestions which I take to have been forwarded as “solutions” to the “problem” of dating, such as chaperones or parent supervision at all times, shows how far off track this discussion really is.

The problem is not dating. Dating is one way in which good marriages come about. Courtship, in the traditional sense, another. Arrangement, in some instances, also yields good results. Providence uses a great many means to bring people together, and each method has yielded some good fruit in good marriages and strong families, and the couples involved in them largely value and look back fondly on the circumstances which brought them together.

Each has also yielded some bad fruit. All three have yielded bad, abusive, or broken marriages.

Dating is more complicated, however, because, perhaps unlike the other two, it can lead to extramarital intercourse or unchastity. Doubtless people who fall into this regret having dated.

But it is too easy to blame dating for our woes. Dating is not a moral agent. We are moral agents. Dating is, in our culture, a normative way of engaging with the opposite sex and discerning a possible spouse.

For people engaged in this activity, it is necessary, as for people engaged in any activity, in any state in life, to behave morally and to respect the dignity of others. Dating does not in itself preclude this being the case, and so is not intrinsically evil.

If the couple behave morally and respect the dignity of the other, as they should do in any circumstance anyway, where is their fault?

The problem is not dating.

 

[LittleSoldier]

As to this line of discussion, the ridiculous nature of the suggestions which I take to have been forwarded as “solutions” to the “problem” of dating, such as chaperones or parent supervision at all times, shows how far off track this discussion really is.

The problem is not dating. Dating is one way in which good marriages come about. Courtship, in the traditional sense, another. Arrangement, in some instances, also yields good results. Providence uses a great many means to bring people together, and each method has yielded some good fruit in good marriages and strong families, and the couples involved in them largely value and look back fondly on the circumstances which brought them together.

Each has also yielded some bad fruit. All three have yielded bad, abusive, or broken marriages.

Dating is more complicated, however, because, perhaps unlike the other two, it can lead to extramarital intercourse or unchastity. Doubtless people who fall into this regret having dated.

But it is too easy to blame dating for our woes. Dating is not a moral agent. We are moral agents. Dating is, in our culture, a normative way of engaging with the opposite sex and discerning a possible spouse.

For people engaged in this activity, it is necessary, as for people engaged in any activity, in any state in life, to behave morally and to respect the dignity of others. Dating does not in itself preclude this being the case, and so is not intrinsically evil.

If the couple behave morally and respect the dignity of the other, as they should do in any circumstance anyway, where is their fault?

The problem is not dating.

This discussion is off-track but not because of suggestions such as chaperones, etc. The topic of this thread is Quitting the Dating Game (ABCs of Choosing a Good Wife) by Stephen Wood. The book is being discussed.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

Wow - an awful lot of assumptions!! Not necessarily true. Probably none of them.

I don’t want to discuss forum members, but posts are a different matter altogether. An offensive post is an offensive post.

And that is all I’m going to say.

chevalier:

1. Premarital sex is dead wrong, just in case somebody doesn’t know my opinion and would like to comment on that angle.

Magickman:

Chevalier, who I will ever think of as Chevrolet, wrote:

" Premarital sex is dead wrong, just in case somebody doesn’t know my opinion and would like to comment on that angle."

Firstly, if one is fully committed to never entering marriage, how can it be premarital sex? Remember, I am examining the case of the never to be married.

Non-marital sex can be pretty good stuff, in the right position. I, for one, would vastly prefer non-marital sex to being responsible for repayment of the national debt.

This is mostly a non-issue, since there are no women offering me sex of any variety. To be fair, though, I would be quite open to a non-marital honeymoon, involving copious sex, should it become available.

I am only human, and in dire need of a little lovin’.

To which you replied, as was proper, that fornication was the appropriate term.

After which this got very mangled.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

LittleSoldier,

By “this discussion” I meant not the thread but the book and its content, as I understood it from earlier posts. That is to say, I think the author of the book and the proponents of its ideas miss the mark.

My point was that the fault lies not with dating as an institution, but, as always, with a lack of personal holiness, which mere circumstantial change will not cure.

-HC

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier,

By this discussion I meant not the thread but the book and its content, as I understood it from earlier posts. That is to say, I think the author of the book and the proponents of its ideas miss the mark.

My point was that the fault lies not with dating as an institution, but, as always, with a lack of holiness, which mere circumstantial change will not cure.

Your post was unclear. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

Judgments of clarity must lie with the reader, so I apologise for any confusion I caused.

 

[vera_dicere]

I sort of agree I sort of don’t. I like the idea of “courting the whole family” but then it wont’ really work out unless everyone lives in a nice tidy little village.

I’m tryign to do the “dating” thing at the moment, and my only current rule is never bring them to my home, never go to their’s alone.

For one thing, it could cause my neighbours to think scandelous thoughts seeing me a Catholic bringing a guy into my flat where I live alone, and I wouldn’t want him there anyway.

I reckon I can get to know people outside of our homes.

Of course, to be absolutely frank, the more guys I meet through this dating business, the more I wonder if I am meant for God as a nun.

 

[chevalier]

He was making a funny about chevalier’s use of the term “premarital.”

Yeah. That’s one of the favourite sports here on these boards. I think I ranted about the “premarital” designation being illogical and insisted on calling it “non-marital” for a while back in the time too.

But it is too easy to blame dating for our woes. Dating is not a moral agent. We are moral agents. Dating is, in our culture, a normative way of engaging with the opposite sex and discerning a possible spouse.

For people engaged in this activity, it is necessary, as for people engaged in any activity, in any state in life, to behave morally and to respect the dignity of others. Dating does not in itself preclude this being the case, and so is not intrinsically evil.

If the couple behave morally and respect the dignity of the other, as they should do in any circumstance anyway, where is their fault?

The problem is not dating.

(Emphasis added to show what I’m referring to.)

If something is normative, then it forms a system of expectations and can even prescribe behaviours. Then while it’s not an agent, it can be a problem because it forces agents to act in a specific way. And that’s precisely the problem with dating.

The problem with dating is that it sets up a romantic context right from the start between sometimes complete strangers and places an expectation of some kind of reward at the end of a meeting if things go well or at least don’t go strikingly bad. It also places pressure on the person asked not to refuse (unfairly or at all) the person asking and makes room for all sorts of fair chance rhetoric. In short, it allows for lawyering (lawyer - he trained to abuse the system to benefit his cause).

Also, there’s a heckload of trouble when it comes to exclusive vs non-exclusive dating. The “exclusive” version can lead to some form of legal ownership of a male or female after going to Starbucks three times with the same person and talking about football. On the other hand, the “non-exclusive” version can lead to sitting in the tree kissing a different individual every day of the week in cyclical patterns.

Bottom line: dating is a broken concept.

The way it should be done is meeting up for conversation, playing games (chess, checkers, bowling, tennis, not head games), sightseeing, working for a cause, whatever, while keeping one’s hands and lips about oneself. When one finds the supposed love of his life, then is the time for gestures of love.

“Courting” is also a broken concept, for reasons I stated above but will be happy to deliver again (and again and again).

I sort of agree I sort of don’t. I like the idea of “courting the whole family” but then it wont’ really work out unless everyone lives in a nice tidy little village.

The problem with that if you’re presented to ten pairs of eyes early when you’ve only had a coffee or two with a person, then you have those additional ten pairs of eyes looking at you when you decide it’s not the man or woman of your dreams. Plus, frankly, interacting with a whole family is too much of a burden at an early stage between people who are just getting to know each other. And, there’s always the thing that consent is given individually by the man and woman and cannot be replaced by parental consent or anything like that. Therefore, while in-laws should be respected and cared for like one’s own family, and it might even be good to draw advice from the family pool on one’s choice of a mate, I’d be cautious about involving the whole family in the process of a couple’s getting to know each other.

Of course, to be absolutely frank, the more guys I meet through this dating business, the more I wonder if I am meant for God as a nun.

Tried group events, study courses, groups for causes etc. and getting to know guys with less pressure so that you can basically start spending more times with those you seem to like more than others? Should definitely work better than limiting yourself to any randoms that will ask for a date.

 

[HumbledCatholic]

If something is normative, then it forms a system of expectations and can even prescribe behaviours. Then while it’s not an agent, it can be a problem because it forces agents to act in a specific way. And that’s precisely the problem with dating.

I can see that. Highschool-style dating does seem to trickle up.

The problem with dating is that it sets up a romantic context right from the start between sometimes complete strangers and places an expectation of some kind of reward at the end of a meeting if things go well or at least don’t go strikingly bad. It also places pressure on the person asked not to refuse (unfairly or at all) the person asking and makes room for all sorts of fair chance rhetoric. In short, it allows for lawyering (lawyer - he trained to abuse the system to benefit his cause).

I have never felt this pressure nor given it any of the times I’ve dated.

Also, there’s a heckload of trouble when it comes to exclusive vs non-exclusive dating. The “exclusive” version can lead to some form of legal ownership of a male or female after going to Starbucks three times with the same person and talking about football. On the other hand, the “non-exclusive” version can lead to sitting in the tree kissing a different individual every day of the week in cyclical patterns.

I don’t think dating is bound up in kissing; I have never kissed a girl, and not because I’m some sort of romantic failure.

The problem of exclusive vs. non-exclusive dating is a problem with communication. Exclusivity should never be implied, but always frankly discussed before it is expected of the other.

Bottom line: dating is a broken concept.

Or daters abuse dating as people abuse anything else.

The way it should be done is meeting up for conversation, playing games (chess, checkers, bowling, tennis, not head games), sightseeing, working for a cause, whatever, while keeping one’s hands and lips about oneself. When one finds the supposed love of his life, then is the time for gestures of love.

Of course! I don’t think anyone dating would not at least make some pretence of wholesome activity. Dating is taking someone out on the town or out for a good time, not the thing you do in the backseat of your car.

“Courting” is also a broken concept, for reasons I stated above but will be happy to deliver again (and again and again).

It is both broken and, in these days, an artificial, insufficient solution. It is so radical that people think that if they only just do that, they cannot go wrong, which is not the case.