The Purpose of Dating

[DiscipulusLucis]

I have heard tell that casual dating without the intent of proximate marriage is sinful, because the purpose of dating is to find a spouse. But this seems like an argument based on an unverified premise.

Both of my cases are based around this question: Who says the purpose of dating is to find a spouse? (If that’s what the Church has officially said, then on what grounds does it claim that?) The first is more practical, and the second more hypothetical.

1. Couldn’t a purpose of dating be to develop interpersonal skills in a romantic environment, to discover what you’re really looking for in a mate, or to train yourself through experience not to be one of those clingy-obsessed people who have their first boy/girlfriend ever and nothing else matters?
2. Is it infeasible to imagine a pious girl and guy who don’t copulate, don’t intend to marry (let’s say because they’re planning to go to school on different continents), but date to feel the enjoyment of eachother’s romantic company? Sure, all they need are the basics and God to be content, but that’s not to say that life’s pleasures such as rock climbing or chocolate strawberries can’t be enjoyed.

 

[valentino]

Is to discover if this is the person I want to marry.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I have heard tell that casual dating without the intent of proximate marriage is sinful, because the purpose of dating is to find a spouse. But this seems like an argument based on an unverified premise.

I’ve regularly attended churches in which something like this was taught. They didn’t teach that conventional dating was sin, but that it was something that would lead to sin (fornication). Instead they tried to promote group dates (or supervised dates). If a male and a female did have to be together with out the rest of the group then they were only to meet in public spaces.

At one of the churches the leaders expressed that they thought arranged marriages would be better (though I could never take them seriously on this since their marriages were not the result of planned arrangements between families).

Both of my cases are based around this question: Who says the purpose of dating is to find a spouse?

The purpose of dating is up to the individuals involved. It can be for nothing more than having the company of another person. People date for lots of different reasons. And some times those reasons are incompatible with each other.

 

[Joe_5859]

It depends what you mean by “dating”. Dating as most people think of it today is a rather novel concept.

Certainly, we can hang out with, form friendships with, do activities with members of the opposite sex without marriage as a possibility. That is a good thing for young people to do.

But romance? What benefit is it to get romantically entangled with someone whom one knows they have no interest in marrying? It can only end badly.

Sure, experience can be a useful teacher, but in “romantic” relationships, it can also saddle us with a lot of baggage that we do not need.

 

[tonyrey]

To the pure all things are pure! Even saints had friends of the opposite sex…

 

[Anna_Gregorach]

If you are dating someone just for the sake of company, or attraction, or “just because” without even taking into account the concept of finding a spouse then your reasons for dating are merely selfish.

This isn´t about “who says what”…this is about being responsible and sensitive towards the feelings of others…why would you date someone who could end up falling in love with you when you have no intention whatsoever of commiting yourself to said person?.

Godbless.

 

[Corki]

It depends what you mean by “dating”. Dating as most people think of it today is a rather novel concept.

Certainly, we can hang out with, form friendships with, do activities with members of the opposite sex without marriage as a possibility. That is a good thing for young people to do.

But romance? What benefit is it to get romantically entangled with someone whom one knows they have no interest in marrying? It can only end badly.
Sure, experience can be a useful teacher, but in “romantic” relationships, it can also saddle us with a lot of baggage that we do not need.

Something I read a long time ago about this really stuck with me. We have developed a culture of serial romances. People expect they will suffer a few broken hearts (and break a few hearts) before they marry. The result is a generation of young people who have not learned how to stay together in a relationship. But they have learned very well how to break up.

(And this was in a secular publication.)

 

[DiscipulusLucis]

If you are dating someone just for the sake of company, or attraction, or “just because” without even taking into account the concept of finding a spouse then your reasons for dating are merely selfish.

Sure, all they need are the basics and God to be content, but that’s not to say that life’s pleasures such as rock climbing or chocolate strawberries can’t be enjoyed.

Eating a chocolate strawberry benefits nobody by the taster, therefore it is selfish, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad. Just because something is done for oneself, doesn’t necessarily mean it will hurt anyone (although it may).

This isn´t about “who says what”…this is about being responsible and sensitive towards the feelings of others…why would you date someone who could end up falling in love with you when you have no intention whatsoever of commiting yourself to said person?.

…to develop interpersonal skills in a romantic environment, to discover what you’re really looking for in a mate, or to train yourself through experience not to be one of those clingy-obsessed people who have their first boy/girlfriend ever and nothing else matters.]

…to feel the enjoyment of eachother’s romantic company.]

 

[DiscipulusLucis]

But romance? What benefit is it to get romantically entangled with someone whom one knows they have no interest in marrying? It can only end badly.

I have to disagree with you - I don’t believe it can only end badly, although it may very well. And I have already provided in the original question examples of *benefit * you ask for.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have to disagree with you - I don’t believe it can only end badly, although it may very well. And I have already provided in the original question examples of *benefit * you ask for.

I’m sorry, but I have to question the value of “develop[ing] interpersonal skills in a romantic environment”. What does that mean exactly? Pragmatically, I think it basically translates into learning how to work people to get what you want out of a relationship.

And I don’t think that serial romantic dating is the best way to overcome one’s tendency towards clinginess. If anything, it exacerbates such a tendency. The best antidote for that would be forming real, genuine friendships with members of the opposite sex.

 

[DiscipulusLucis]

I’m sorry, but I have to question the value of “develop[ing] interpersonal skills in a romantic environment”. What does that mean exactly? Pragmatically, I think it basically translates into learning how to work people to get what you want out of a relationship.

And I don’t think that serial romantic dating is the best way to overcome one’s tendency towards clinginess. If anything, it exacerbates such a tendency. The best antidote for that would be forming real, genuine friendships with members of the opposite sex.

I agree that forming friendships with the opposite sex is a good way to fix that problem; however, in college I knew quite a few people who got their first boy/girlfriends, and they pretty much stopped hanging out with everyone else. Those who had already been through that in high school were able to continue to interact normally. If you don’t see that as a great benefit, that’s fine, I don’t really either, but it is a benefit small as it may be.

As for what I meant by developing interpersonal skills in a romantic environment, whenever dealing with something for the first time, a person will stumble and make mistakes. As an extreme example, if you had never had a friend other than your parents until you were, say, 18, you would have a very different experience with that person than you would if you had grown up as most children in America do today.

But let me see if I can make a proposition upon which we all can agree, because I have learnt very much from this thread.

While it is sinful to copulate before marriage, to date before marriage is not a sin in and of itself. We all know that two people with an attraction for eachother are prone to make mistakes, and so due diligence and maturity is required.

Therefore, if two people wish to date without copulation, but express they don’t wish to marry, the Church should have nothing to say about it religiously (although it may very well impart its wisdom on the matter, but that is a different issue).

 

[Joe_5859]

I guess I don’t see it as a problem if a couple stunmbles and makes mistakes with the person they end up marrying. It reminds me of some anecdote I read about a famous model who had proudly and publicly said that she was “saving herself for marriage”. Some interviewer posed the usual question, “But what will you do when you’re married if neither of you know how to do it right?” To which she responded, “Well, if we do it wrong, then we’ll keep practicing till we get it right.”

I’m not trying to be disagreeable with you. I dated several girls before I dated my now wife. And I know I learned from those experiences (though not everything I learned was good or helpful).

But it strikes me as problematic for two people to go into a romantic relationship with full knowledge that marriage is not a possibility and “practice” is their primary goal. It’s as though they are using each other for experience. Even if such an act is “consensual”, I think it would train a person to view relationships in terms of what they can get out of it (i.e. “What’s in it for me?”). They’re treating the other as an object to be used rather than a person to be loved.

To me, that is not good practice for future relationships, nor for marriage. Quite the opposite. Marriage is about self-giving. You can’t learn that by forming relationships with the sole purpose is self-taking.

Not that I feel strongly about it.

 

[Joe_5859]

But let me see if I can make a proposition upon which we all can agree, because I have learnt very much from this thread.

While it is sinful to copulate before marriage, to date before marriage is not a sin in and of itself. We all know that two people with an attraction for eachother are prone to make mistakes, and so due diligence and maturity is required.

Therefore, if two people wish to date without copulation, but express they don’t wish to marry, the Church should have nothing to say about it religiously (although it may very well impart its wisdom on the matter, but that is a different issue).

I guess I should respond to the latter half of your post, too.

You are correct insofar as the Church does not have official specific guidelines on dating. The Church has a lot to say about marriage and family, but there’s really not so much officially about how one goes about discerning for marriage. Probably because different times and cultures have taken many different approaches (arranged marriages, etc.).

But I think you’d have to get really creative theologically to justify making out with lots of girls just for practice.

 

[PatriceA]

I have heard tell that casual dating without the intent of proximate marriage is sinful, because the purpose of dating is to find a spouse. But this seems like an argument based on an unverified premise.

Both of my cases are based around this question: Who says the purpose of dating is to find a spouse? (If that’s what the Church has officially said, then on what grounds does it claim that?) The first is more practical, and the second more hypothetical.

1. Couldn’t a purpose of dating be to develop interpersonal skills in a romantic environment, to discover what you’re really looking for in a mate, or to train yourself through experience not to be one of those clingy-obsessed people who have their first boy/girlfriend ever and nothing else matters?
2. Is it infeasible to imagine a pious girl and guy who don’t copulate, don’t intend to marry (let’s say because they’re planning to go to school on different continents), but date to feel the enjoyment of eachother’s romantic company? Sure, all they need are the basics and God to be content, but that’s not to say that life’s pleasures such as rock climbing or chocolate strawberries can’t be enjoyed.

Back to your OP. First off, I don’t believe in courting. I think there is value in casual dating when one is young and is just beginning to find out one’s likes and dislikes in people and even in themselves. But, at some point, one needs to have discerned what their vocation is in life as a Catholic, and casual dating at some point will lose its value or service. At some point, dating’s purpose is going to be to find a spouse. If your vocation is marriage, in my opinion, it is alright to start out dating someone casually and then get serious if you have discerned they are a potential marriage partner. I say even date several people until you think the person could be the one. I think it is unwise to approach every person you find interesting with a seriousness that the relationship hasn’t yet warranted.

 

[cpsusie]

I’d like to talk about what is meant by dating. If it means going out with people of the opposite sex because of the attraction you feel for them as a member of the opposite sex, I suppose that’s what I consider dating.

I’d hazard “dating” as I’ve just described without the eventual goal of marriage at least somewhat misses the mark for a Christian. Once you’ve determined that you are not going to marry a person, continuing to meet with a person to experience and nurture mutual sexual attraction is inappropriate. This does not mean, however, that it is sinful to continue a social relationship with that person if the circumstances are correct.

Perhaps both of you agree that you are not going to be sexually involved and are just going to meet henceforth as people rather than as people of the opposite sex. If the relationship can be productive for both persons without a sexual aspect to it, by all means, go out to dinner with her/him. You can learn a lot of useful things from people of the opposite sex, get insightful advice, etc. In short, opposite sex friends are very good to have. If you can’t (at least to a reasonable state given our fallen natures) separate the person from the sexuality and focus on mutually beneficial platonic friendship though, that might be a problem.

*** Note, also I think dating without the intent of PROXIMATE marriage is certainly 100% ok for younger people. You have to learn how to relate to people of the opposite sex, what type of person compliments you, etc. The goal of dating is eventually marriage. But, for young people, I think it is fine that marriage be seen as a “long term” goal. Along with prayer and contemplation, dating at this stage can help people discern whether they are called to marry, stay single, etc.

 

[cpsusie]

It’s as though they are using each other for experience. Even if such an act is “consensual”, I think it would train a person to view relationships** in terms of what they can get out of it (i.e. “What’s in it for me**?”). They’re treating the other as an object to be used rather than a person to be loved.

To me, that is not good practice for future relationships, nor for marriage. Quite the opposite**. Marriage is about self-giving. You can’t learn that by forming relationships with the sole purpose is self-taking.**

Not that I feel strongly about it.

Joe, not necessarily. If both people are viewing the relationship as practice and they both know it, whether or not it is good depends on whether each of them is thinking: "what can I extract from this guy/gal by practice dating " vs “what mutual good can we help each other to gain from this arrangement”. Both are possible. As fallen creatures, we need to be mindful to keep the good of the other person at least at the same level as our own good, if not higher.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, not necessarily. If both people are viewing the relationship as practice and they both know it, whether or not it is good depends on whether each of them is thinking: "what can I extract from this guy/gal by practice dating " vs “what mutual good can we help each other to gain from this arrangement”. Both are possible. As fallen creatures, we need to be mindful to keep the good of the other person at least at the same level as our own good, if not higher.

Perhaps it’s possible theoretically, but I have difficulty imagining that anyone could pull of such a thing. It seems to me that one of the two at some point would stop viewing it as “practice”. Even the possibility that such a thing might happen would make me skeptical about it being a good idea.

But I guess I could be wrong. It’s happened before.

 

[valentino]

the purpose of dating is to find an appropiate spouse.What else?

 

[Anna_Gregorach]

Sure, all they need are the basics and God to be content, but that’s not to say that life’s pleasures such as rock climbing or chocolate strawberries can’t be enjoyed.

Eating a chocolate strawberry benefits nobody by the taster, therefore it is selfish, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad. Just because something is done for oneself, doesn’t necessarily