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

[Rascalking]

1. Shotgun exhibitions. If I ever happened upon the receiving end of those, I’d probably look that father in the eye point blank and say, “Fire it now or lay it off forever.” If I were having a good day. On a bad day I might ask, “you’d seriously want your daughter to have a husband who’d cow to that?”
   .

Rock on brother… rock on…Great comment!

 

[chevalier]

Chaperoned dates for adults (presumably we’re not talking about young adults – but even 25 year olds should be rolling their eyes) is not going to work, regardless of what is or isn’t prudent. The immaturity level of a pair of 40 year olds who believe they need a chaperon is sufficient to preclude anything from actually happening.

(Nice comment about the shotgun.)

I was trying not to be mean but I fully share in your opinion. Needing a chaperon is a sign of immaturity, though it’s better than falling to temptation if someone really can’t control it. What upsets me is that chaperoning is becoming fashionable in certain circles because it’s so cool and jazzy and utterly 1890.

(Thanks.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

I was trying not to be mean but I fully share in your opinion. Needing a chaperon is a sign of immaturity, though it’s better than falling to temptation if someone really can’t control it. What upsets me is that chaperoning is becoming fashionable in certain circles because it’s so cool and jazzy and utterly 1890.

(Thanks.)

Really? Chaperoning is becoming “fashionable?”

That is somewhat scary.

 

[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’.

 

[FriendlyFace]

I am reading The ABCs of Choosing a Good Wife by Stephen Wood, published by Family Life Center and sold here at Catholic Answers. The book has been a wake-up call for me in many ways, but specifically in terms of what it says about dating.

Basically, Mr. Wood writes off dating completely as a loser’s game, a constant “pattern of bonding and breaking up” (p. 32).

I am very much eager to quit the dating game. However, I am not sure how to apply his advice, which seems to be written for teenagers and college-age adults. I am a busy postgraduate professional, as are my relationship prospects.

Thoughts?

His ideas sound good in print, but I’ve never been sure how to apply them either. I don’t know anyone in my area who’s interested in “courting” as opposed to “dating” and my parents live very far away. (And they’d laugh at the idea of chaperoning a daughter in her late twenties anyway.)

I think it’s a good idea to become friends with people of the opposite sex, so that you aren’t under so much pressure to decide if the person is “the one” before you really know each other. I don’t know how others see it though.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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’.

How 'bout FORNICATION is dead wrong?

 

[chevalier]

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’.

We can use the term “fornication” for precision.

(Edit: Ooops, late!)

His ideas sound good in print, but I’ve never been sure how to apply them either. I don’t know anyone in my area who’s interested in “courting” as opposed to “dating” and my parents live very far away. (And they’d laugh at the idea of chaperoning a daughter in her late twenties anyway.)

I think it’s a good idea to become friends with people of the opposite sex, so that you aren’t under so much pressure to decide if the person is “the one” before you really know each other. I don’t know how others see it though.

Properly understood, the word “courting” carries far more gravitas and a lot more pressure than the word “dating”. Historically, courting was a process in which there was a “suitor” competing for the hand of a lady in marriage. “Dating”, properly understood, is before that stage (except historically there was often little to no getting to know somebody as a friend or otherwise before making the wedding arrangements).

For illustration, please consider the example with “exclusive” or “non-exclusive dating”. We can have a field day over these two, depending on our definitions of dating and our readiness to accept non-exclusive romantic affairs as moral (or not). On the other hand, imagine non-exclusive courting. What? That’s not even wrong as much as internally inconsistent. Precisely because courting is competing for a lady’s hand in marriage.

(By the way, the statement, “we’re courting,” is thoroughly ungrammatical for lack of a necessary object. Such usage betrays thinking in terms of “dating”, which is a verb tolerating less rigorous syntax, but merely substituting the verb on the surface. Oh the joys of 1890 revival!)

Bottom line: “courting” is far from getting to know people as friends.

Incidentally, getting to know people as friends first is quite a fine way of doing things.

 

[3DOCTORS]

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

 

[chevalier]

For the record, getting to know people first is the way I like to go about it, which is part of the reason I dislike both dating and the modern ill-understood notion of “courting”.

The problem with “dating” is the pronounced possibility of some kissing or holding hands or gazing into the stars while reciting bad poetry, which doesn’t sit well with my impression of propriety. That’s basically too much too early.

Then there’s the pressure of expectations, including the pressure to arrive at a conclusion before the third date (more or less). That is definitely too early unless one is willing to call “next, please!” if one isn’t perfectly smitten by the third date (which would actually be somewhat reasonable but is not likely the actual reason here, as opposed to haste and impatience).

And finally a whole lot of “relationships” one suddenly is in, which doesn’t sit well with my ideas of monogamy. Basically, it’s not anyone’s business who I have a coffee with, but it’s very much the business of anybody involved who I am doing the more lovey dovey things with. Which I shouldn’t be doing on a non-exclusive basis because there is no such thing as non-exclusive romance.

The above paragraphs summarise the problem of dating. And you’ve heard me on the 1890 roleplaying. Bottom line, naturalcy, common sense and a sense of morality are the best way to go.

 

[Cat_Herder]

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

Sex before marriage (or without marriage) is not lovin’. It is usin’…: using someone else’s body for pleasure.

Love means you will lay down your life for your wife, not just use her body as an object without committing to her as a person.

 

[Rascalking]

Sex before marriage is not loving’. It is usin’…: using someone else’s body for pleasure.

Love means you will lay down your life for your wife, not just use her body as an object without committing to her as a person.

I know of people who would lay down their life for their boyfriend/girlfriend. “Marriage” has nothing to do with that feeling.

I’d lay down in traffic for my friends period. Even though I’m single (and happy about it) I’d certainly do the same for a girlfriend.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I know of people who would lay down their life for their boyfriend/girlfriend. “Marriage” has nothing to do with that feeling.

I’d lay down in traffic for my friends period. Even though I’m single (and happy about it) I’d certainly do the same for a girlfriend.

Then why haven’t they taken the opportunity to give themselves in marriage, which is a form of laying down one’s life?

 

[Rascalking]

Then why haven’t they taken the opportunity to give themselves in marriage, which is a form of laying down one’s life?

I don’t know what your saying. Are you saying that only those who are married love people enough to lay down their life for them?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t know what your saying. Are you saying that only those who are married love people enough to lay down their life for them?

No.

Let’s say that you had a high school friend of the opposite gender. You have since become a successful professional. You meet your friend again some 20 years later. He/she has lost his/her parents and was in a car accident that prevents him/her from working except as a part time school teacher.

From your posts I gather that these folks who would lay down their life for a friend would, had they been there at the time of the accident, have done exactly that. But in this hypothetical, they are too late to do so. Clearly the friend in my hypothetical needs a family and domestic support. Since your friends who profess to know how to love in the agape sense would have done so at the time of the accident, would they now do the same by marrying the friend?

 

[Rascalking]

No.

Let’s say that you had a high school friend of the opposite gender. You have since become a successful professional. You meet your friend again some 20 years later. He/she has lost his/her parents and was in a car accident that prevents him/her from working except as a part time school teacher.

From your posts I gather that these folks who would lay down their life for a friend would, had they been there at the time of the accident, have done exactly that. But in this hypothetical, they are too late to do so. Clearly the friend in my hypothetical needs a family and domestic support. Since your friends who profess to know how to love in the agape sense would have done so at the time of the accident, would they now do the same by marrying the friend?

I don’t follow your hypothetical at all, I’m sorry.

 

[3DOCTORS]

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’.

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.

 

[Rascalking]

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.

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?

 

[3DOCTORS]

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?

What difference does it make which medium the disrespect comes through? It’s a person who typed it. (Who hasn’t responded yet so when I say disrespect, it’s with the caveat that I realize it may have been unintentional.)

I care because it makes me feel less safe and trusting of the opposite sex, that’s why. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Can an attitude that makes people feel objectified and unsafe be of God?

You can say it’s just my reaction, that I’m paranoid, but are you female? If you are male, how would you feel if someone talked that way around or toward your mother, sister, wife, daughter?

Nothing personal, Rascalking, I know you were just curious. I hope I’ve answered your inquiry in a reasonable manner.

But I think I’d better leave this thread before I get myself in trouble. :sad_bye:

 

[Rascalking]

What difference does it make which medium the disrespect comes through? It’s a person who typed it. (Who hasn’t responded yet so when I say disrespect, it’s with the caveat that I realize it may have been unintentional.)

I care because it makes me feel less safe and trusting of the opposite sex, that’s why. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Can an attitude that makes people feel objectified and unsafe be of God?

You can say it’s just my reaction, that I’m paranoid, but are you female? If you are male, how would you feel if someone talked that way around or toward your mother, sister, wife, daughter?

Nothing personal, Rascalking, I know you were just curious. I hope I’ve answered your inquiry in a reasonable manner.

But I think I’d better leave this thread before I get myself in trouble. :sad_bye:

The whole point is that someone didn’t talk that way to my daughter, sister, mother, wife (I don’t have a daughter or wife). But yes, if someone did talk to them that way, I’d be irritated. If it even needs to be said, I don’t talk to women that way, and I do look down on people who do.

Again though, I’d say don’t let it bother you. It’s not worth getting upset over.

 

[3DOCTORS]

The whole point is that someone didn’t talk that way to my daughter, sister, mother, wife (I don’t have a daughter or wife). But yes, if someone did talk to them that way, I’d be irritated. If it even needs to be said, I don’t talk to women that way, and I do look down on people who do.

Again though, I’d say don’t let it bother you. It’s not worth getting upset over.

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.