The Purpose of Dating

[The_Catechumen]

I think dating for the sake of experience is something of a misnomer. Experience comes in a retrospective sense far more often than a forward-thinking sense. I rather doubt that most people go out on dates with an attitude along the lines of, “Tonight I’m going to learn how to pick up chicks, spit game, make out and hook up.” Contrary to popular belief, dating is not chemistry class. Instead, our experiences are understood in reflection: this element went well, that one did not, and I’ve encountered a certain pitfall which I can prepare for in the future.

chevalier is right on with his explanation about why we aught not approach potential romances with a dead-end mindset. However, I believe it’s naive to put marriage on the horizon every time we ask someone out for coffee. Dating is about getting to know people; it’s about expression and interaction. Most men do not marry their first girlfriend (at least not in America: YMMV). Not everyone that we meet is worth marrying, and not everyone will have what it takes to put up with our own idiosyncrasies. We have to learn what works and what does not so that when the time comes to resolve a commitment, we don’t go into it unprepared. Dating can prepare people for the eventuality of a lifelong Christian relationship if we guard ourselves in the process and become wise in the ways of the opposite gender.

 

[lmr4524]

*Dating is a way to experience people in various settings, and to then discern if marriage could be the end result for the two of you. I was a serial dater, back in college, and would not recommend that. When you date too many different people, and don’t take it seriously…you hurt others, and yourself in the process. Also, you become overly picky and critical of others, and might end up like the song…Desperado (by the Eagles)
Dating should always be done with God at the center, and a desire to grow in holiness. In whatever we do, that should always be our purpose. *

I’m sorry, I did not mean to imply that people date without commitment in mind at some point, but if we are really honest, the only way we can learn about relationships is to experience them, and not all will end in a lifelong commitment especially when we are teens. Ultimately when one gains the maturity through experience and age, then s/he can draw on those previous relationships to not only know themselves, but also what they desire in a sacramental spouse. And of course all relationships in our lives, not just marriage, should be Christ-centered. I just think our society supports very growth-stunted relationships that have unrealistic and selfish expectations of oneself and the other, and do not focus on humility, generosity, and mutual servitude versus individual gratification. The fifth point reflects not being too picky (at least not for the wrong reasons) and acknowledging not only the other’s flaws - but one’s own.

 

[lmr4524]

Dating is a way to experience people in various settings, and to then discern if marriage could be the end result for the two of you. I was a serial dater, back in college, and would not recommend that. When you date too many different people, and don’t take it seriously…you hurt others, and yourself in the process. Also, you become overly picky and critical of others, and might end up like the song…Desperado (by the Eagles)
Dating should always be done with God at the center, and a desire to grow in holiness. In whatever we do, that should always be our purpose.

I’m sorry, I think my post was misunderstood by several people; I probably did not word it very well. I did not mean to imply that people should date without commitment in mind at some point, but if we are really honest, the only way we can learn about relationships is to experience them, and not all will end in a lifelong commitment especially when we are teens.

The five points mentioned show a continuum of growth from least to more mature, *NOT *equally positive nor suggested mindsets. I just think our society supports very growth-stunted relationships that have unrealistic and selfish expectations of oneself and the other, and do not focus on humility, generosity, and mutual servitude, rather than individual gratification. We can only get to that point when we learn to have realistic expectations of others, and understand ourselves. We have to abandon our immature perceptions of ‘perfection’. A more mature viewpoint realizes the right spouse will be imperfect - but perfect for us.

The lower levels of relational maturity (points one through four), are what many serial daters do, yes - and this is where many people get stuck, and hopefully they don’t married at that point. Or if they do, they are able to get past that level and continue to mature so they can honor their lifetime commitment in the best way possible.

Ultimately when one gains the maturity through experience and age, then s/he can draw on those previous relationships to not only know themselves, but also what they desire in a sacramental spouse. And of course all relationships in our lives, not just marriage, should be Christ-centered.

The latter phases/points reflect being gradually less picky (i.e., accepting imperfection), and the fifth point reflects acknowledging not only the other’s flaws - but one’s own, which many people fail to do. They blame the other person for all the relationship difficulties instead of realizing they both bring good and not-so-good qualities to the table, and both are equally responsible for the condition of the relationship.

 

[chevalier]

I think dating for the sake of experience is something of a misnomer. Experience comes in a retrospective sense far more often than a forward-thinking sense. I rather doubt that most people go out on dates with an attitude along the lines of, “Tonight I’m going to learn how to pick up chicks, spit game, make out and hook up.” Contrary to popular belief, dating is not chemistry class. Instead, our experiences are understood in reflection: this element went well, that one did not, and I’ve encountered a certain pitfall which I can prepare for in the future.

That would be artificial. More along the lines of “experiencing something” than “acquiring experience”, i.e. like the difference between creating some memories and learning through work.

chevalier is right on with his explanation about why we aught not approach potential romances with a dead-end mindset. However, I believe it’s naive to put marriage on the horizon every time we ask someone out for coffee.

So do I, but if you see some red flags already, you just don’t ask that person out for a coffee. You do not specifically consider marriage, but you remain vaguely aware where such things lead because you’re an adult. When you were an adolescent, you were probably more into going with the tide, as was I.

Dating is about getting to know people; it’s about expression and interaction. Most men do not marry their first girlfriend (at least not in America: YMMV). Not everyone that we meet is worth marrying, and not everyone will have what it takes to put up with our own idiosyncrasies. We have to learn what works and what does not so that when the time comes to resolve a commitment, we don’t go into it unprepared.

I do not believe that training is necessary for marriage. It’s a bit like the arguments people use against abstinence: that you’ve got to try or you won’t know what it’s like etc etc. The answer is you don’t have to.

Dating can prepare people for the eventuality of a lifelong Christian relationship if we guard ourselves in the process and become wise in the ways of the opposite gender.

I do not believe training is necessary. You need to get to know the person, and you also need some interaction with the opposite gender to develop properly, but you don’t really need to train by previous relationships.

In my example, I practically never skip a coffee with a nice lady, but it rarely if ever goes beyond strictly verbal conversation. If there is no specific reason to bring it further than friendship, one doesn’t bring it further than friendship.

 

[Bataar]

Meeting people socially is a social activity. Holding hands, kissing on the lips and other such physical expressions that involve two people are a different thing. Thus the purpose of dating depends to some extent on your definition of dating.

I strongly oppose the idea that it’s fine to have a romantic relationship on a temporary basis or for mere fun or **with more than one person at the same time. **That’s too far from the natural law pattern of one man and one woman, looking at marriage and family. Similarly, spin the bottle is not a licit party game.

As far as just meeting up for coffee or a dance is concerned, the purpose is social and there’s not much to be said there.

The idea I bolded is one I have mixed feelings of. If a person is simply looking for the right person from them to marry, wouldn’t it be beneficial to date (nothing sexual of course) multiple people? What if you date someone for a year or two and decide that they’re not the right person for you. You’ve just wasted that time. Once you get to thinking about engagement with someone, you’d probably want to cut it off with the other person(s). I don’t know, I’ve never been in a relationship but it seems to me that if it doesn’t work out and let’s face it, most probably don’t, that’s a lot of wasted time.

 

[chevalier]

The idea I bolded is one I have mixed feelings of. If a person is simply looking for the right person from them to marry, wouldn’t it be beneficial to date (nothing sexual of course) multiple people?

The fact it might be beneficial to you, by learning some experience, does not make it moral.

What if you date someone for a year or two and decide that they’re not the right person for you. You’ve just wasted that time.

That’s a false conclusion, but it will take a moment to explain.

DATA (this shouldn’t be contentious)

1. In every relationship, you invest a certain amount of time.
2. According to you, if a relationship fails, the time invested in it is wasted.
3. If you have multiple romantic relationships at the same time, you know from the beginning that EITHER all of them OR all of them minus one will not end in marriage.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION

1. If you have multiple relationships, EITHER all of them OR all of them minus one are a waste of time (necessary conclusion from data 2 and 3)

OBSERVATION

1. The amount of invested time wasted is the same in concurrent relationships as it is consecutive relationships. If you make a decision to devote little time to each particular relationship, then time wasted on it is smaller only because little time was spent, not because of the nature of those relationships or their concurrent status.

THEREFORE

1. Concurrent relationships are not better than consecutive relationships in terms of amount of time wasted.

OBSERVATION

1. The only difference is in the number of people who go through your filter and in the fact that if you spend N hours on 4 people instead of 1, you will have processed 4 relationships instead of one, BUT in the same total time, EXCEPT the timespan over which the time spent will have been spent will have been longer.

OBSERVATION TO OBSERVATION

1. If you spend 4 times as much with a person because there is 1 relationship and not 4, then the timespan over which your invested time is spent, is shorter.

This reinforces the final conclusion that concurrent relationships do not provide advantage over consecutive relationships. Time invested is always equal to time wasted and allocation of time invested within timespan elapsed is INDEPENDENT of the number of relationships - it is simply your decision to allocate X amount of time to Y task.

 

[chevalier]

Let me offer you some mathematical illustration.

Suppose you have 12 hours a week to spend on dating activities (DATINGTIME = 12). You meet a girl. It is one girl (NUMBEROFGIRLS = 1, let her be GIRLS[1]). Therefore you allocate all your dating time to her.

Every girl receives your dating time divided by the number of girls.

TIME(GIRLS[N]) == DATINGTIME / NUMBEROFGIRLS

Therefore, if there is one girl:

TIME(GIRLS[N]) == DATINGTIME / 1
TIME(GIRLS[N]) == DATINGTIME

TIME(GIRLS[1]) == 12

You spend with her 12 hours a week.

Now suppose you have 4 girls.

TIME(GIRLS[N]) == DATINGTIME / NUMBEROFGIRLS
TIME(GIRLS[N]) == DATINGTIME / 4
TIME(GIRLS[N]) == 12 / 4
TIME(GIRLS[N]) == 3

You spend with each girl 3 days a week.

Therefore you need to spend 4 weeks (12 / 3 = 4) on the whole enterprise in order to have given each girl 12 hours of your time.

On the other hand, if you want to give 12 hours to each girl in the one girl at a time alternative, then you need to spend 4 weeks on the whole enterprise, one week with each girl.

Therefore in both examples time investment is equal.

Now you may say that you spend a longer timespan in some form of relationship. Correct but this advantage is balanced out by the fact that your relationship is one in which you invest only 3 hours a week, therefore nothing major in your schedule. It may safely be said that the advantages and disadvantages come to zero sum in a rough approximate calculation.

Therefore, as you can see, the concurrent relationship scheme is not beneficial over the consecutive scheme.

Now let us approach the moral matter of it.

If you develop interest in a woman and start seeing her romantically, you make a bona fide attempt to find out whether she’s the one for you. If she is, the relationship will continue. If not, it will be interrupted for a just cause, i.e. that you don’t work well together.

Now if you develop interest in three women, and you decide to pursue them romantically, instead of limiting yourself to friendship, you make a try-before-buy attempt, tasting the fruit before eating it, with all of them at the same time. You pick the fruit which tastes the best. You throw away the other fruits after biting them once or twice. In my book, that counts as using people.

We are not entitled to use people as objects just because it appears to help us get ahead in life and make ourselves a better living. On this point, Christianity agrees with Kantism (Kant is the father of relativists, although he was a Christian himself) - you don’t use people as objects because they are people, therefore always subjects, just as you are.

Now you may say that everyone knows the “rules” and consents to the whole operation. This is in line with the volenti non fit iniuria (no injustice is done to the willing) principle. However, that principle is legal, not moral. Consent does not make right. If two people consent to being objectified in an act of premarital intercourse, which harms them spiritually but they accept the harm willingly, the consent does not remove the harm. Therefore, consent does not automatically remove harm (there instances in which there is harm despite there being consent).

I say that this is one such example. Multiple concurrent romantic relationships, in my view, are incompatible with human dignity and the imperative always to treat people as co-subjects, never as tools (not even mutual tools).

I further say that it is understandable that when one is uncertain of his commitment, one does not want to limit himself to one person for a longer time. HOWEVER, in such a case, one should learn more about the person concerned WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FRIENDSHIP and NOT by CHECKING WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP with that person.

If the problem outlined above is solved by a simple, “but I need to try how it feels to kiss him/her,” then that is a similar attitude to the one that, “I need to check how it feels to be in bed with him/her,” except the degree is smaller. But it’s still a self-centred try before buy approach.

Furthermore, if one is motivated by a desire for sheer romantic experience such as holding hands, kissing, exchanging love letters, so far that one cannot limit himself to one person but one has to make attempts with basically anyone one is interested in, then one is acting on wrong motivations. It means that one simply doesn’t want to give up all those gestures of affection or expressions of admiration or fondness.

Therefore my conclusion is that people should limit themselves to friendship and only start a romantic relationship and engage in romantic gestures (kissing, cuddling etc) when they are sure that - as long as no red flags appear before the time comes to marry and no similar circumstances happen - the relationship will lead to marriage or is intended or hoped to lead to marriage. In my view “hoped for” is enough to mark honest intent.

 

[chevalier]

Once you get to thinking about engagement with someone, you’d probably want to cut it off with the other person(s). I don’t know, I’ve never been in a relationship but it seems to me that if it doesn’t work out and let’s face it, most probably don’t, that’s a lot of wasted time.

The time “wasted” is the honest price that you pay for any negotiations which fail in business. It is also a fair and natural price for any interpersonal relationship that does not work out.

Furthermore, if a person is not worth time investment to you, I do not see how that person could possibly count as a viable candidate for marriage.

Finally, as I have shown, having multiple relationships at the same time, does not prevent a single hour from being wasted.

One more thing before I end, we all know that polygamy is wrong. The Catechism says it’s contrary to natural law.

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.” *Polygamy *is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.
1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement “until further notice.” The “intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them.”

Needless to say, people who are not yet married, do not yet have a residual right to unreserved affection (however, promises and commitments are to be kept, therefore “cheating” on a boyfriend or girlfriend is a moral offence). HOWEVER, the affection which drives people to marry exists before marriage, not only after the wedding. People come to the wedding ceremony with a certain disposition towards each other. This is the, shall we say, pre-marital love, which is a certain stage in their interpersonal relationship. They feel that unreserved affection and they want to cement it with the sacrament. This is the natural course of events. Love between a man and a woman, of its nature, seeks to make itself unreserved, exclusive and permanent.

Therefore the only attempt at justifying premarital non-exclusive relationships can be that they are a transitory stage and they serve making up one’s mind about things. This argument I addressed above. I believe it conflicts with our dignity as human persons. I believe the transitory stage is no excuse because a transitory wrong is still a wrong and friendship is already sufficient for learning about a person and finding out whether he or she is honest, reliable, compatible with your character.

Furthermore, polygamy is not only about sex. The split affection is already unnatural and it is an arrangement that cannot hold. From here follows that even without sex, polygamous (polyamorous) relationships are contrary to nature. In my view, this makes them wrong because they conflict with the natural order of things.

What is even more, a person who enters into a romantic relationship giving it a fair chance of leading into marriage, does not accept any futilities. A person who enters into more than one relationship at the same time, accepts fully the futility of all of those relationships except one. This is because from the very start, out of all those relationships, all except one are doomed to fail.

As an illustration, if you have 5 girlfriends, you know from the beginning that 4 of those relationships are futile and - according to you - a waste of time.

If you spend that time in friendship, you do not build any relationships doomed to failure. You make friendships which will hopefully last. After a while, you pick one of those girls who appeals to you more than the others. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t work, you will have “wasted” some time (I don’t believe it’s truly wasted) but in a honest attempt to make it work - or with honest hopes that it will work. After a while, you try again. By the time you reach four, you will probably be engaged.

In this context, it must be pointed out that concurrent dating means that you “process” more people than in the traditional one attempt at a time scenario. And here I mean an honest attempt, not a random trial by error relationship. You “process” more failed relationships. That is in no way “healthier” than what is being called “serial monogamy” at the dating stage. What is more, it teaches the mind that human affection - and love - can be split between multiple people. Which is false because it cannot. In the end, those people will have to choose.

Therefore as in the original conclusion.

 

[CTA1967]

I never knew dating could be so mathematical! But yeah, I agree with chevalier.