At what point should options close?

[Laser Jock]

Yeah, that is why my policy has always been not to ask anyone out until I already know them fairly well. That way, I don't even date someone unless I'm fairly sure there's enough there to foment a relationship.

Heh, that's pretty much my policy in a nutshell as well. Unfortunately, not only is it less effective, it is pretty much exactly what we are counseled against.

Yeah, that's mostly what I do too, but I'm trying to change that. I like the idea of frequent, super casual dates that are intended solely to help you get to know the girl better (and not necessarily express romantic interest), but I haven't yet actually managed to make the transition. And like Tao said, I feel like my current method is both less effective and probably what Elder Oaks was advising against.

While it makes sense logically to me to keep options open clear up till engagement, I had the impression that that philosophy was not common. Hence this discussion; where does the line get drawn?

I agree with you and Elder Oaks that dating shouldn't be as serious as a lot of us make it. However, I also think that it's very common to have a period of dating one person exclusively prior to getting engaged, and I think that's fine. You might find a girl willing to not date exclusively before getting engaged, but I don't think your odds are very good. (I'm still not totally clear on what you mean by "keeping options open," though, so if you mean something else then I apologize for missing the target.)

[Unit of Energy]

I think that early commitment is a problem, in that it does severely limit options. And by that I mean that dating is suddenly the only thing keeping you from marriage, not the whole slew of other issues that will come up as you get to know someone. I'm not entirely sure when options should close, though I do feel it should be before engagement. I don't think I'll be able to say yes to someone who hasn't demonstrated to me that he will be absolutely faithful to me. My dating policy is as follows:

First Dates are always to be accepted, I know too many people who found the love of their life with the person that was a pity date.

Second Dates will be accepted if I think there could be potential. Not necessarily that I'm interested in him, but there is potential for interest. I would never ask on a second date unless I was interested, but I don't expect you to be head over heels for me if you ask me on a second date.

Third dates are pretty much the same as second dates, but sometime between now and the fifth date you should have a discussion about your current expectations.

After that I have no thoughts or experience. I haven't even made it to the third date officially.

[Marduk]

Having entirely too much experience with that talk, I can say that I disagree with the interpretation that has been given.

I feel there is no problem with hanging out in groups (oh no! I said hang out! Disregard this answer immediately!) in order to make a decision about whom I'd like to date. What Elder Oaks was counseling against was not dating at all, and using these group hang outs as a subsitute for dating interaction. When we do these things entirely to analyze potential prospects, then we're not really "just hanging out".

[Tao]

Having entirely too much experience with that talk, I can say that I disagree with the interpretation that has been given.

I feel there is no problem with hanging out in groups (oh no! I said hang out! Disregard this answer immediately!) in order to make a decision about whom I'd like to date. What Elder Oaks was counseling against was not dating at all, and using these group hang outs as a subsitute for dating interaction. When we do these things entirely to analyze potential prospects, then we're not really "just hanging out".

Heh, don't go expecting me to crucify you over it. I'm about as guilty as they come in just about any interpretation thereof. We'd have get-togethers all the time at my apartments, more nights than not, usually. I'm not condemning hanging out, I'm questioning the loss of casual dating. I personally put far too much significance on dating (as attested to by my quarter century of life yeilding about two whole dates that were planed, paired off, and paid for). While analyzing potential prospects, I've been known to go from introduction to break-up within a matter of minutes in my mind. I'd say Unit's rubric sounds reasonable (although; pity dates, really? Hmmm. I'd heard jokes, but never heard anyone admit their veracity. {At least, I assumed they were jokes...whoa.})

You might find a girl willing to not date exclusively before getting engaged, but I don't think your odds are very good. (I'm still not totally clear on what you mean by "keeping options open," though, so if you mean something else then I apologize for missing the target.)

That is in effect what was on the table, though I'm not sure if I'm advocating it or just hashing it out to figure out where I stand. I do know in long-distance relationships I've had, I encouraged my significant other to date around. Seems to me that if there was someone that could make her happy while I was away, she should seize that opportunity. I'd say one's willingness to do so would be roughly what I had in mind for keeping options open.

[C is for]

as attested to by my quarter century of life yeilding about two whole dates that were planed, paired off, and paid for

Oh goodness. I hate it when my dates aren't level with me.

I haven't been stepping in on this conversation because I don't think I have much of an opinion...I know I wouldn't be enthusiastic about my person-I'm-dating going around kissing other people. I probably wouldn't be happy if they were holding hands with other people either. But just going on casual dates? I don't know. It may just depend--maybe if I ever get to a point where this might come up, we'll talk about it. I mostly am stepping in now in case the thing I think is funny really doesn't make sense. Then I won't feel quite as dumb.

[Whistler]

You might find a girl willing to not date exclusively before getting engaged, but I don't think your odds are very good. (I'm still not totally clear on what you mean by "keeping options open," though, so if you mean something else then I apologize for missing the target.)

That is in effect what was on the table, though I'm not sure if I'm advocating it or just hashing it out to figure out where I stand. I do know in long-distance relationships I've had, I encouraged my significant other to date around. Seems to me that if there was someone that could make her happy while I was away, she should seize that opportunity. I'd say one's willingness to do so would be roughly what I had in mind for keeping options open.

Tao, I think you know my opinion about your romantic philosophy. It seems that in our relationship you were either unaware of your emotions or unwilling/unable to let yourself become romantically attached.

Re: This discussion in general. I've dated exclusively both with and without the end-goal of marriage. I think it can be fun either way. I agree that dating exclusively gives a relationship a uniqueness that encourages emotional bonding, but I don't think that exclusive dating is necessary for that bond (depending on the parties involved). I'm a fan of Marduk's "sniper" dating style (as I've termed it). And, uh, it worked for me?

[Tao]

Tao, I think you know my opinion about your romantic philosophy. It seems that in our relationship you were either unaware of your emotions or unwilling/unable to let yourself become romantically attached.

As accurate an assessment as can be made, methinks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, your views seem to be reinforced by the consensus here, it seems my understanding is flawed somewhere. I'll keep working on it.

[Tao]

as attested to by my quarter century of life yeilding about two whole dates that were planed, paired off, and paid for

Oh goodness. I hate it when my dates aren't level with me.

Heh, I'm afraid I've been relegated to IE for an indetermined time, I'm happy when what I type comes out like something appearing legible. A near-miss that actually ends up as a word is somewhat of a miracle, really.

And trust me, I'm about as rough as it comes when dealing with dating, something's gotta straighten me out.

[Craig Jessop]

something's gotta straighten me out.

You might want to see your bishop...

[Laser Jock]

Having entirely too much experience with that talk, I can say that I disagree with the interpretation that has been given.

I feel there is no problem with hanging out in groups (oh no! I said hang out! Disregard this answer immediately!) in order to make a decision about whom I'd like to date. What Elder Oaks was counseling against was not dating at all, and using these group hang outs as a subsitute for dating interaction. When we do these things entirely to analyze potential prospects, then we're not really "just hanging out".

Heh, don't go expecting me to crucify you over it. I'm about as guilty as they come in just about any interpretation thereof. We'd have get-togethers all the time at my apartments, more nights than not, usually. I'm not condemning hanging out, I'm questioning the loss of casual dating. I personally put far too much significance on dating (as attested to by my quarter century of life yeilding about two whole dates that were planed, paired off, and paid for).

I agree with Tao. I don't think it's the hanging out itself that's the problem, it's the fact that it so often replaces casual dating (to a large extent), and since it's an even-more-casual alternative, it's less likely to lead to the experiences and eventually the commitment that help progress toward marriage. At least, that's what I get from Elder Oaks's talk. I'm pretty sure that even when our parents (or grandparents) were our age there was still hanging out; it's the decline of dating that's the real issue, as I see it.

[Marduk]

Right, so there's no disagreement here. As long as we don't avoid dating. But that isn't really what we're talking about, so honestly, the talk really has no reference. It certainly isn't advising against... um... sniper dating.

[vorpal blade]

Some time ago I heard Dr. Laura talk about dating in a way that surprised me. She seemed to think that between the time you first ask a woman on a date and the time you tell her you won’t be dating her anymore that you shouldn’t be dating anyone else. To do otherwise would be “cheating.” As Dr. Laura is my age this was surprising, because it wasn’t the way I grew up. And since I am the age of the parents of most who write in this forum I thought I would try to explain the way it was for me in the 60’s and 70’s.

With some exceptions I don’t remember that guys hung out with girls at all. A guy who was “going steady” with a girl might spend a lot of time at her apartment or her home, but you didn’t do this sort of hanging out before serious and exclusive dating. Now, I did have a roommate who was an exception. He was going “steady” with three or four women at the same time, and spent hours each day with each of them. This was not considered kosher, and these women were somewhat aware of the others, but evidently he was so irresistible that they overlooked this breech of etiquette.

As a high school student I think I dated all the girls in my ward’s laurel class once or twice, some more often than that. I believe it was mutually understood that this was casual—absolutely no commitment was implied. You needed a date for certain activities, but mostly it was just a nice way to spend some time with someone you liked. One week I might double date with a friend of mine, and the next week we might double date again with different partners, or me dating the girl he had been dating, and vice-versa. Some couples got serious, and there was an understanding that they would date each other and no one else. When such an agreement was reached it was “cheating” to go out with someone else. The general procedure was to “play the field” dating freely, but when you got serious you went “steady” or dated exclusively each other. When you were serious enough, and old enough (you thought) you got engaged. For those a few years older than me the time of exclusive dating was marked by the guy giving the girl his pin (class, club, or some such) or his athletic sweater. She was then “pinned.”

I don’t think there were any rules as to how long you dated, or how many dates you were on before you decided to date exclusively or stop seeing each other. Some women definitely had the idea of “fish or cut bait,” but not all. If no one else seemed interested in her she might just go with the flow until something better came along. The danger in this is that she might seem to be “someone’s girl” just because she was always out with him. There was an unwritten rule that you didn’t flirt with or ask out a girl who “belonged” to someone else. The girl might say yes, but the boyfriend might beat you up afterwards. The important thing was to be on the same page as the woman you were dating. She needed to understand that you were not dating her exclusively, and you didn’t expect her to date exclusively. When the time seemed right to the two of you then you increased the level of commitment.

Being shy, and afraid of rejection, I usually waited until I had seen some indication that the girl was receptive to my asking her out. But contact was limited to being in the same Sunday school class, attending the same mutual activity, being in the same school classroom, involved in the same club or social organization. Guys hung out with guys, and girls with girls. But even though I wouldn’t know the girl very well, when I felt brave enough I would ask a girl out that barely knew my name. Sometimes I asked a girl out who I had to explain carefully who I was, and even then on at least one occasion she was surprised to find out who she had accepted a date with. Once I asked a girl out within a couple of hours of meeting her, but this was rare for me. It was not unusual for some other guys. I was almost never turned down for a date, and I dated almost every week (seldom with the same girl).

Then, as now, most girls never got asked on a date the whole year of college. Most guys I knew dated every week or so, but some never dated. There didn’t seem to be a problem dating guys who hadn’t left yet on a mission. Why should there be? Dating was thought of as something very different from a pre-marriage thing, in most cases. So the date wasn’t going to lead to marriage because he still had to serve a mission. That made no difference at all. That attitude sometimes lead to problems, because dating was so common and so casual sometimes couples fell in love and thought they should get married when this had been far from their thoughts. I think people tended to get married earlier then because they weren’t obsessed with the idea of following a path leading to marriage. You didn’t make premature decisions about whom and how long you were going to date and whether this fit into your overall strategy.

I think in today’s culture, where it is assumed that you are having sex with your date if you have been out for three or four dates, women have additional concerns about their reputations. It seems to me that in some circles the acceptance of a date is a tacit agreement that you are willing to have sex with them. Hence you needed to be particularly choosey.

Anyway, I guess I’m just rambling. I believe I’m agreeing with Tao. But, as seen comparing myself with Dr. Laura, never everyone in my generation had the same idea about what dating is all about. I think the LDS culture was unique then, but maybe not so unique now.

[Craig Jessop]

That is really interesting, vorpal. Back then did the Brethren counsel against single dates for teenagers, or was it an accepted thing to do?

As a side note, I think that the counsel for premies to avoid single dates causes a lot of the awward RM syndrome later. Those with no experience one-on-one with a girl tend to feel overly awkward when it happens after a mission, adding several months to the readjustment period. I have a friend (been back a year) who keeps bugging me to plan double dates with him because he likes a girl. He was super obedient in high school, so a single date would have been completely out of the question. When I finally told him to just ask her out, he looked shocked that I would suggest such a terrible, terrible thing as planning, paying, and pairing off *gulp* alone. I've always thought double dates were awkward, but apparently some of the Mormon, ex-choir crowd still thinks they're the only way to go and still be righteous, and that's even more awkward.

(Yes I think that double dates can be fun and productive, I promise -- but only occasionally)

[Laser Jock]

Thanks for your perspective, Vorpal. That's interesting. Do your comments about not hanging out apply to college as well as to high school? I find that hanging out is really, really easy here at BYU simply because you generally live really close to each other. Even if you're not in the same ward, at most you live a couple miles apart. (It also helps, I think, that we're all on our own, which creates a different atmosphere than visiting someone's family's house to hang out. I could be wrong, however.)

[vorpal blade]

Back then did the Brethren counsel against single dates for teenagers, or was it an accepted thing to do?

Rather than just give you my recollection, I thought I would first try to look it up. Here is an official statement from the Church:

“Policies and Procedures,” New Era, Jan 1971, 30
What Does the Church Say About Dating?
The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are most interested in your having successful social experiences. The following policy statement has natural guidelines that can properly lead you to the serious step of marriage when the time is right. “No dating activities should be planned for the Beehive girls and deacons (Scouts) in the programs of the Church. Supervised activities are planned for these young people to socialize together, learn the basics of dancing and the social graces, etc., as a foundation for future dating.
“Mia Maid girls and teachers (Explorers) have many activities of a social nature planned for them, both in their school and Church programs, which they should enjoy in groups. They should avoid boy-girl single-dating relationships.
“When young people enter senior high school (approximately Laurel, priest-Ensign age), they may appropriately date with the consent of their parents, who are the best judges as to whether they are mature and responsible enough for this kind of young-adult experience. It is generally advisable that they double-date with friends. Outside of the United States, where school terminology differs—after girls have been in the Mia Maid class two years and boys in the teacher-Explorer class two years—they may appropriately date with the consent of their parents, if customs of the country permit.
“Youth should observe the policy of their social group (school and Church groups) and observe standards of dating for their particular group, provided that such standards meet the standards of the Church. This policy is for the protection of youth during their early teen years, allowing them to learn and develop adequately before assuming responsibilities of maturity.”

So, it was "generally advisable that they double-date with friends." I don't actually recall that advice, other than some counsel that I might feel more at ease double-dating, and it could be more fun. When I double-dated it was because I was concerned that I might not have something to say to entertain my date the whole time, or because it seemed like it would be more fun to take along a buddy. I never felt like I was going against Church counsel to single date. My parents never told me single dating was not a good idea. I don't they did much double dating back when they were dating. And they were always concerned to follow all of the rules. Single or double, it was totally up to me, and I think most of my dates were single. The counsel seems to be more pointed and restrictive nowadays than it was back then.

As far as requiring the consent of my parents, that is news to me. I never asked my parents for consent. I think it could be true that once or twice, while in High School, my date would first ask her parents if it was okay. As far as I can remember, however, the girls I asked out knew that I was one of the active, good LDS boys, the kind the parents wished their daughters would always date, so their was never any question in anyone's mind about me dating any girl I asked.

I did date a girl a couple of times who was not a member of the Church, and was not yet 16. My father talked to me about that one. But he didn't really object, since she had been going to Church with us since I was 8 years old, and she was not a member because her father wouldn't let her become a member. And I thought she was older than she was.

I definitely feel that a young man should go on lots of single dates before his mission. I didn't know there was any policy against it. My own boys did very little dating before a mission, claiming they didn't want to get involved with anyone. I always thought that was a lame excuse for not having the courage to ask a girl out on a date. Nothing wrong with getting involved, as long as you do go on a mission. I was kind of hoping to have three or four young women write to me on my mission, though none of them did.

[vorpal blade]

Thanks for your perspective, Vorpal. That's interesting. Do your comments about not hanging out apply to college as well as to high school? I find that hanging out is really, really easy here at BYU simply because you generally live really close to each other. Even if you're not in the same ward, at most you live a couple miles apart. (It also helps, I think, that we're all on our own, which creates a different atmosphere than visiting someone's family's house to hang out. I could be wrong, however.)

It was different away from home, at college, but I still recall very little hanging out at college. We almost never had any girls at our apartment - except one young lady we hired to cook dinner for us. And she would leave as soon as she finished cooking the meal. The only times guys could be found at a girl's apartment was when the guy was practically engaged to a young woman living in that apartment. Or a guy might be found there just to pick up the young lady for a date. Guys weren't invited to stay around after the date. When you brought her to the door, the date was over. My daughters and their roommates seem to think nothing of inviting an apartment of guys over to "help them eat too much ice cream in the refrigerator," but I believe that would have been unheard of back in the 60's. Much too forward to invite guys over to your apartment. And guys would never do that, because it seems almost like dating, which you didn't do informally, or in groups like that.

So, even in college there was almost no visiting in apartments of the opposite sex. You might go to the periodicals section of the library to try to meet someone, or you might hang around the lobbies at the Wilkinson Center, but this was a solo activity designed to establish a date, rather than socialize. You tried to attend ward and campus activities to meet people, but not so much to get to know them as to feel confident to ask them out on a date. You might have a study date with someone of the opposite sex, and sometimes this was hardly a date--you met her on campus and mostly talked about the subject at hand. You wouldn't study with a mixed-sex group; that would just be weird. I'm not saying that the system was better than today, in some respects the separation of the sexes led to problems. It is just the way it was, at least how I remember it.

I was looking at some old counsel of that period of time, and I thought you might enjoy some excerpts.

“How do you diplomatically encourage the boys you like and discourage the boys you do not want to encourage?”
Ardeth G. Kapp, “Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, Mar. 1974, 9–10
Answer/Sister Ardeth G. Kapp
You might remember the wisdom expressed in the Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (p. 32):
“Well, I must endure the presence of two or three caterpillars if I wish to become acquainted with the butterflies.”

And now about that special boy you’d really like to encourage! Keep cool! A candle that burns too fast soon burns out. Be friendly. It is easier for a boy to take some initiative if you show interest and ask questions about a game he plays, a committee he serves on, or a class he’s taking. He will appreciate your sincere interest, if not overdone, and it will be much easier to become better acquainted.
Avoid becoming too anxious about dating. A survey shows that over half of the girls who graduate from high school have never had a date. You may be one of these. But the number of dates need not determine your happiness. There are many wonderful things you can be doing rather than just waiting for a date, or for your fairy godmother as Cinderella did. Just learning to enjoy people and develop friends can be exciting if you’ll let it. A girl who has many friends seems to be the one who attracts even more, and as you enlarge your circle of friends, others will be drawn in. And while you may not be dating, you will be sharing experiences, building memories, and having fun.

[vorpal blade]

“What can you do if you’re nineteen and you have never had a date?”
Sharon Staples, “Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, June 1971, 44–45
Answer/ Sharon Staples

Cry a lot—which is probably one of the healthiest emotional releases under the circumstances. However, what you tell your friends and how you spend your Friday and Saturday evenings may require different tactics.

If you lived in one of several Latin American countries, you would be too young to date at nineteen; if you lived in one of several aborigine villages, you would be married at age twelve and would not have to worry about dating at a later time.

What I am saying is that in America, our society, the mysterious ruler of our social behavior, tells us that it is okay to begin dating in our high school years. And if we do not begin our dating career at approximately this time of life, we are punished individually, not by society but by our own feelings of inadequacy. What a penal system! The mysterious “they” set up the rules in such a manner that if we cannot meet those rules, we punish ourselves. Unbelievable!

If we could only get the criminal element of society to do the same, what a lovely and peaceful world we would have.
I think the problem of how to deal with our own feelings of “not-quite-making-it” is a challenge, one that must be met individually, because our society does not provide for a collective substitute.

First things first: (1) I am nineteen and not dating. (2) How does that make me feel? (3) What am I going to do about those feelings? (4) Will what I do, change my dating pattern or my attitude? (5) If it changes my dating pattern, Hurrah! (6) If it changes my attitude, Hurrah! (7) If it does neither, I need to try again.

Situations, problems, and difficulties are not the real issues in life. It is how we handle them.
Since boys are people, not dating may be an indication that one is not relating well on any level to other people. This is a concern worth working on.

A positive attitude about not dating should be supplemented by positive action to improve your social status. An honest personal appraisal is a good starting place. The things that need improving or enhancing in your appearance, grooming, personality, or disposition ought to be dealt with.

Go where the boys are is also a suggestion worth considering. During your dating years, plan your classes, your involvements, your committees, your hobbies so that you are in the company of young men. You aren’t likely to get a date if you don’t know any boys. Getting interested in things makes you more interesting, and that makes you more attractive and more likely to be asked for dates!

Counting friends, not dates, is a better pastime. Life is the greatest gift we have, and to lose even one day worrying about one of society’s silly, unwritten rules is a self-punishment we should never allow.

[thebigcheese]

I don't think it's the hanging out itself that's the problem, it's the fact that it so often replaces casual dating (to a large extent), and since it's an even-more-casual alternative, it's less likely to lead to the experiences and eventually the commitment that help progress toward marriage.

This reminds me of marriage prep class when we discussed the "Power of Pairing." In other words, you are probably going to act differently in one-on-one situations than you would in group settings. Dating is really the only way to explore one-on-one compatibility with another person.