Golden Age of Dating

I think it must be dating week here on Seraphic Singles, which strikes me as a bit of an anachronism, although who can say? What seems ludicrously out-of-date in New York City may be just ordinary life in Rolling Prairie, Indiana and Kielce, Małopolska Swietokrzyskie. And I never went on a date with B.A., not really. I just arrived in the Edinburgh bus station via Toronto and London, and when he asked if I wanted to eat in the city or back at the Historical House, I said "I want a meat pie and a pint of ale." Frankly, I don't remember who paid.

My mother's parents most definitely went on dates in the 1930s. I cannot remember where they went for these dates. I only remember that my grandmother's family home was a long walk from the bus stop, and it was a long (and in winter extremely cold) wait for the bus, and my grandfather's marriage proposal was, "Well, I'm tired of walking back to the bus stop. We should get married."

My guess is that the 1930s was the golden age of dating, and here is a lovely Polish song to celebrate it. I will provide a translation underneath. A cynical Polish man of my acquaintance commented on how much Eugeniusz (the singer's name is Eugeniusz) is shelling out for some girl who might break up with him. However, I  myself am not so cynical that I do not find the song very sweet.

(The singer is listening to the radio.)

Translation of first verse and refrain:

8:04, some record.
8:10, someone is reading something.
It's not important. Today she is most important.
First--seven o'clock, three o'clock, five o'clock...
Someone confused everything for me today,
but one thing, one thing I know.

I have arranged to meet her at nine.
I miss her so much already.
Soon I will ask for an advance from the boss.
I will buy her a [corsage] of roses.
Then the cinema, the patisserie and the walk
in the moonlit bright night
and we will be happy, cheerful
until midnight separates us
and I will make an appointment to see her at nine,
at nine just like today.

Why nine, I simply do not know. Frankly, I think it must be because "dziewiąta" (9:00) scans better than "siódma" (7:00) or "ósma" (8:00).

Ah, the 1930s. Comic books about Archie Andrews first came out in 1941, and the characters were based on people their creator met while travelling around the American Mid-West, presumably before that. Given the continued popularity of Archie comics among children, especially girl children, my guess is that our first impressions of teenage life and dating come from dear Archie, Betty and Veronica, who were teenagers before the Second World War. How sad to discover that life is not as it is in Archie Comics. Alas, alas.

Seraphic Singles Dating Manifesto

Dating culture is before us in pieces, and it up to men and women of good will to put it back together again. And therefore I propose my dating manifesto, in the hopes that it will miraculously catch on and improve the lives of Single people immeasurably.

Preamble: Men and women are made in the image and likeness of God and therefore must be treated with dignity and never as a means to an end,  e.g. a free dinner, a sexual adventure. God having ordained that men and women should be "fruitful and multiply," the natural end of the human being is marriage although God may call upon a human being to forego that natural end to assist his or her spiritual end, which is happiness with God forever.

Over the centuries, courtship has taken many forms or, when parents arranged marriages for their children, dispensed with altogether. It is worth noting that from the earliest days of the Christian community, Single life, particularly consecrated Single life, has been privileged over marriage, and therefore it has been recognized that there are not only spiritual joys, but spiritual sacrifices, involved in the married state. (Even after Vatican II, Catholic marriage ceremonies feature special prayers over the bride.) And therefore it behooves men and women not to hold themselves cheaply, and be willing to do anything in the hope of marriage, but to consider carefully whether they ought to marry and whom they should marry.

Traditionally, perhaps for reasons as psychological as they are cultural, it has been the difficult privilege of men to court women for marriage. There have been, of course, exceptions to this rule, e.g.  as the heir to the throne, Princess Elizabeth (now H.M. the Queen ) had to propose to Philip of Greece (now the Duke of Edinburgh). But there is no denying that this rule has caused pain to women, who feel that if only they could openly pursue their chosen love interest, their suit would be successful. This is, in fact, sometimes true. However, it is rather often not, particularly when it comes to men who are sick of being chased by women.

Crikey. I do not think I can keep up this tone all morning.

In short, we need some rules, so here they are:

1. Whoever asks, pays.

2. Seraphic Singles do not ask men out on first, second or third dates. Seraphic Singles invite them to their  parties and make sure they are fed, watered and having a good time. Whenever tempted to ask out a crush object, they have a party and invite him to that.

If asked (at a party, say) by the crush object's pal if she likes the crush object, she should say that she thinks he's great and leave it at that.

3. Seraphic Singles cheerfully go on as many first dates that are offered by kindly men of good reputation whom they like in the knowledge that although a man might not look like Ryan Gosling now, he might look like Ryan Gosling later, should Cupid's arrow strike. In short, it's just a coffee.

4. Seraphic Singles signal that they are willing to consider a man a potential boyfriend and not "just a friend" by not paying on the first date. If by the end of the first date she knows without a shadow of a doubt that she does not like him at all, she should insist on splitting the cheque.

5. Seraphic Singles signal that they are not just spending time with a man for the free food and treats (should there be any doubt on this score, e.g. in a very economically depressed area like a university or a ghetto) by occasionally offering to pay for something, e.g. on a second venue on a second date, i.e. the popcorn stand after the ticket booth or the cafe after the restaurant.

That said, if a man ever complains about the money he spent on dates that were his idea, then he is a toad. And if a man as much as hints that he expects sexual favours in return for the money he has spent, he is a super-toad and the Seraphic Single tells him off and never speaks to him again.

6. Seraphic Singles do not go to men's houses for dates, nor do they invite them into their own houses for dates or after dates, unless the house is ablaze with light and brimming with relations or housemates. (Taking pity on a heavy smoker for whom restaurants were agony, I once agreed to come to his house for supper, but said I had to bring a chaperone. He was so super-trad, he was delighted. My chaperone wore flowing black draperies and brought her own cigarettes.)

7. Seraphic Singles despise the Third Date Rule. However, three dates is enough time to decide if one wants to continue seeing a man or not. If a Seraphic Single wants to continue seeing a man after the third date, then she should wait to see if he asks her out for a fourth date, and only after that start thinking about (A) the future (B) initiating dates (C) paying for dates (see Number 1).

8. Seraphic Singles are careful to listen for clues that a man believes that the Third Date, not marriage, is when modern men and women have sex. For example, if a man says the following, don't agree to a third date: "Well, we can go to only so many cafes and restaurants. Why don't you come to my house on Friday night?"

9. Seraphic Singles resist the temptation of being a career girlfriend, dating a man for a year or two and then dumping him when he gets boring. A Seraphic Single breaks up with a man as soon as she realizes she really does not want to marry him, and in the case of adults-out-of-education this really must not take more than a year.  A Seraphic Single also resists the delicious drama of lovers' triangles and racking up as many male hearts as she can break before her reputation has more holes in it than a target in the local rifle range. A Seraphic Single is kind.

10. Seraphic Singles resist the fate of being made into career girlfriends. If the subject of marriage has not come up in conversation within a year of her first date with her boyfriend, a Seraphic Single needs to bring it up herself. The conversation does not have to be a marriage proposal; it just has to be an indication that marriage is on the cards.

11. Seraphic Singles do not write love letters, love emails, love texts or love tweets to state how they really feel and to clear the air. I wonder if I burned that agonized note from that seminarian or whether I will still have it in 30 years when he is an archbishop and I am dead broke. Hmm... Hmm... Actually, I think I burned it.

12. Seraphic Singles do not persecute men with their attentions or yell at non-boyfriends for not being sufficiently attracted to, attentive to, or in love with them. They imagine how much they would hate it if men did that to them and keep a firm hold of themselves.

13. Seraphic Singles do not knowingly go on first or second dates with discerners or seminarians, even if the seminarian is on summer holiday and his bishop supposedly told him to date. If while dating a man he becomes a discerner, a Seraphic Single is within her rights to break up with him or "support him with her loving friendship" as she chooses. If he becomes a seminarian, she breaks up with him.

14. Seraphic Singles do not give men-not-their-relations gifts except on very special occasions, and then only very modest, inexpensive presents. A Seraphic Single never inadvertently gives a man the impression that she is trying to buy him. Silver cigarette cases are right out.

15. Seraphic Singles never, ever judge their worth by how many times they are asked out on a date, or if they have ever been asked out on a date. If feeling blue about this whole datelessness thing, a Seraphic Single organizes a party.

Update: I think I should remind everyone that it seems that dating is in itself less frequent for the young now than it was for previous generations, including my own, as more and more men are more and more reluctant to marry until they are much older. Therefore many of these rules, though I think they are practical in themselves, may prove to be more theoretical than anything else.

Who Pays Redux

In my book, there is a discussion of the thorny issue of who pays on a date.  Someone suggested to me recently that it is absolutely unfair and ridiculous for men to constantly buy dinners for women who have just as much, or more, expendable income than they.

"But it's symbolic," I argued. "It doesn't have to be a lot! Although I admit if  he takes her to an expensive restaurant, that could be impressive."

"Oho," said my esteemed colleague, as if I had just admitted to knowing how the murder was done.

"But it might not," I added and explained that many women are very uncomfortable with men who throw the cash around and suspect they might be trying to buy them. My mother only ever let me accept flowers, books, candy---and trinkets, I now recall.

I feel rather guilty now about the many dinners I ate at the expense of others, and now rather wish I hadn't, but had stayed in with a book or done more homework. My usual argument is that women spend a lot of money getting ready for a date with someone we really like, and if we were to spend all that AND pay for the dinner the guy asked us to, then we would end up paying more than him, for something that was his idea, and this would be crazy.

My revised thought is that "Whoever asks, pays" is a great rule, and doesn't really violate my earlier thoughts, since I don't think women should ask men out on dates. Women can, however, invite men to their parties, which of course the hostesses themselves have to finance.

That said, there is nothing wrong with saying, "Why don't I get this?" if a date should move from one venue to another. For example, if Mr Date has invited you out to dinner (which still happens occasionally, even in these decadent times) and you both decide to have coffee somewhere else, then you can proffer your little wallet at the cafe and squeak, "I'll get this."

This is how the conversation would go in Canada:

She: I'll get this.

He: Oh, no. Allow me.

She: No, no. You paid for dinner. Please let me get coffee.

He: Oh, but you don't have to. Really

She: But I'd like to. Honestly.

He: Well, thank you/No, I've got it.

N.B. If a guy rejects your third offer to pay for coffee, don't insist. Subside prettily and then go home and debate with your friends about whether or not Mr Date is an old-fashioned guy who loves to pay on dates or if he is a control freak and if you really like him and if actually not having to pay ever would be a massive relief or an erasure of your autonomy.

I should mention that this is how the conversation would go in Canada back when everybody seemed to have a lot more expendable income. It occurs to me that the explosion of "hanging out" and the rumoured death of dating may have to do with economics. I love to say "It's just coffee," but maybe it isn't "just coffee" when a cappuccino now costs £4 and everyone is poor.

Perhaps the message to get across is that dating is not about spending money but merely about symbolic courtship gestures. A single flower, for example, does not cost very much, but it is still an absolutely huge deal if a nice young man gives a nice young lady who likes him a single flower. To hold a Single woman's coat when she is struggling to get into it is now so rare as to constitute a gesture of personal interest. A valentine cut from red paper (very cheap at the dollar store) given at any time of the year would thrill anyone love-besotted.

I do not recommend homemade poetry, however, except for published poets. Men should stick to what they know when it comes to the homemade gift department, and very few men know how to write a poem. VERY FEW.

Meanwhile, since dates have to happen somewhere, I believe there are incredible deals to be had for students at dozens of houses of culture (e.g. the symphony) and I know that many museums (like in Edinburgh) are free. If I were an enterprising young man in Edinburgh, I would invite whichever pretty girl who caught my eye for coffee at the place on George IV Bridge that has half-price pastries after 3 PM and then suggest a visit to the nearby Royal Museum of Scotland, which is free.  The Royal Museum of Scotland has a dead Viking in the floor; surely every woman would love to see the Royal Museum of Scotland. Several times. But if she admits she was at the Museum yesterday, well, the deliciously creepy Black Greyfriars cemetery is even nearer.

Actually, a walk in Greyfriars is a rather good idea, especially if one enjoys being clutched by terrified women, e.g. at horror films. Whereas horror films are fake and expensive, Greyfriars is real and free.

Once upon a time, e.g. before the Second World War, dating was not called dating but "walking out." It took its name from what the date consisted of, which was going for a walk. The walk might end up at a tea shop, or it might not, but at any rate walking was free. The point then, as is the point now, was not the expense of the whole proceedings, but the symbolic gesture of asking a woman to go for a walk and the time shared together.

Even More Sad News from Edinburgh

I'm glad I was with friends when we got the new bad news. The Cardinal hasn't admitted to the allegations and, really, only the only allegations from this guy (still anonymous, still over 50) have become clearer. But the Cardinal has confessed that at times his "sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of [him] as a priest, bishop and cardinal."

That's really sad, and it's also sad that he had to make a public admission of this instead of just taking it to the confessional, like everyone else whose sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of him or her as a Catholic, according to his or her state in life.

I don't know if he ever did those things whatever-it-was to/with those priests who complained decades later, although it certainly seems more likely now. I don't know if they say he apologized to them at the time. Obviously to all today, if your spiritual director touches you inappropriately, tries to kiss you and tells you out-of-the-blue he that he loves you, he owes you an apology. And obviously if a priest makes lewd remarks to other priests, or a bishop makes lewd remarks to priests, whom he may think of as friends, but are also his subordinates, he owes them apologies. And maybe, if these things happened, Cardinal O'Brien did apologize and did go to confession. As yet we have no way of knowing. 

I mention these allegations because as personally damaging as inchastity is, it seems to me that attempting inchastity with students and subordinates is much worse than just inchastity in general, with self, friends or friendly strangers, or (maybe) prostitutes. Meanwhile, all that Cardinal O'Brien has admitted to, right now, is inchastity. 

Of course Catholics would prefer it that priests, bishops and cardinals did not commit any sexual sins whatsoever. We'd prefer it if nobody did. We'd prefer it if we didn't. But, sadly, a lot of us do.  And unless we are dragged up on the carpet because these sins happened in the context of work, we confess them to a priest in the confessional, and not to the entire world 

As for those saying that the Cardinal is a hypocrite just for having sexual sins on his conscience, they might want to remember what he said back in 2005, when he was defending the presence of gay teachers in Catholic schools: "I don't have a problem with the personal life of a person as long as they are not flaunting their sexuality." He may be a sexual sinner, but I don't think he's a hypocrite. 

Another Glimpse into Hell

I want to get this over with as soon as possible. In short, a reader sent me a link into the black heart of the manosphere to read a post on seducing virgins. It was simply the most disgusting thing I have read for a very long time. It was like listening to the chuckling of demons.

My response was to thank God that, so far as I know, I know only decent men, good men who would never target, trick, hurt, exploit and discard young, inexperienced women and then brag about it online. 

Your fellow reader thought someone should expose the tactics of these freaks, which work along the same lines as negging. Frankly, I don't even want to think about them, but I'll do it because it fills me with horror that such men exist and of course they get away with such things. One of the men in the combox claimed he was operating in Poland. He was amazed at how many 20 year old virgins there are in Poland. I hope he is caught by Polish guys and beaten within an inch of his life.

So here are the tactics. (I'm certainly not linking to the post!) By the way, I would like to remind you for about the twelfth time that you should not tell anyone except your mother, doctor, confessor (if necessary) and your fiance, if you have one, if you are a virgin or not. Do not bring it up in conversation with your female friends because there is a strong chance they will talk about it later, perhaps around male friends, who will tell their male friends...

The Demons' Tactics:

1. Express disappointment that the girl is a virgin. The freak author goes on and on to his victim about how he's only into "fun sex" and how sex with virgins is such a drag.  (I assume this is to shock and confuse her if hitherto everyone has been telling her what a special thing virginity is. This is also to insult her and make her feel less valuable.) 

2. Tease her about it. He says things like "How can you have lived twenty percent of your life without experiencing the greatest thing on earth?" 

3. Tell her he would not want to have sex with a virgin. In a caring way, he tells his victims that they should find someone who will do it in a caring way. He simply doesn't want the responsibility, blah, blah, blah, blah.

4. Put up with the initial awkwardness and physical suffering of the girl as an investment in the (short-term) future. This was the most disgusting part, so be warned. In short, the demon disguised as a human being knows perfectly well that sex is a learned skill. It is not necessarily enjoyable the first time or the second. However, said the DDAHB, if you plan to keep the girl around for at least a month, after the boredom and the hassle of early sex you will be able to get her to do all kinds of sex acts that more experienced women wouldn't do because she is too inexperienced to know what is normal. She will be eager to please, etc., etc.   

The reader sent me to this post because guys have tried these tactics on her, although at the time she did not know they were tactics. She says she would have been devastated if she had succumbed to them and read this post later, so I hope anyone who has succumbed to these things and is feeling wretched will now go and talk to a good friend or good priest about it.  

The reader also wanted to know what I would say to this post, so here is what I have to say.

1. "Game" tactics work on some women and not on others, and this doesn't seem to have anything to do with how smart, educated, religious, high-earning, kindly or beautiful they are. Some women fall for them, and others do not. End of.

I believe they work because they are confusing. They mess with a woman's expectations so that her brain scurries around trying to sort everything out and putting everything back into order, as in Tetris. Lots of women got almost addicted to Tetris. 

It is confusing and unsettling when a guy talks casually and flippantly about such a personal thing as a girl's virginity. It is confusing and unsettling when a guy says it is a bad thing a guy should run from, not a precious thing he (like Don Giovanni) covets or (like a man who loves you) honours. It is confusing and unsettling when a man tells you he's a bad guy, not a good guy, because would a really bad guy tell you that he was a bad guy?

Yes. A bad guy will tell you anything to get laid. ANYTHING. Anything they think will work, and thanks to Game and the internet, the kind of men who think women are living sex dolls share their miserable store of magic words.  

3. And this is one of the reasons why I am adamant that teenagers and young women should not tell anyone other than your mothers, your doctors, your confessors (if necessary) and your fiances (should you have one) that you are still virgins. The subject should just not come up. Ever. If the subject does come up in casual conversation, you should consider keeping the guy who brought it up at arm's length. 

I realize that by saying this I am standing up against a lot of professional chastity educators, purity rings, and the whole "I'm a Virgin and Proud" movement. Yes. I think they are moronic. If you put your head over a parapet, expect it to be shot at. It's okay one thing for married old toughies like me to be attacked; it's another for inexperienced, innocent and sweet teenage and twenty-something girls who just want to be loved. Old married ladies have a lot of armour; young Single girls, not so much.

4. You should also--this was mentioned at Seraphapalooza--keep away from occasions for sin. A cute funny guy whom you still like and think is cool and funny even after he has told you he would never have sex with a virgin because he prefers "fun sex" is a walking occasion for sin.

As we are all sexual beings, we all have to be humble. No matter how good and pure others tell us we are, we are all subject to sexual temptation, and the reason why we are not tempted, if we aren't, is not because we are all that and a bag of chips but because a serious occasion for sin hasn't arrived yet. So when one does, get out of there. 

5. Meanwhile, don't chase men. Game tactics are all about a man chasing a woman while pretending not to, creating just enough interest so that the woman, craving his approval, will chase him. If you train yourself not to chase men, not to pick up the phone, not to send him the text, you will be safer from the tactics of the demons of the post I hope soon to expunge from my memory.

At theology school we were warned against seeing demons in human beings. However, community standards rule that I can't use bad language. And believe me, whoever the guys on that post are, Satan is definitely calling the shots in their lives.   

Where Were You?

I wasn't going to say anything about the Papal Abdication, as it is rather OT for this blog and it is more specifically a Catholic thing, but where were you on Thursday night at 8 PM Rome time (7 PM GMT)?

B.A. and I were in a house chapel, hearing Mass. We and our friends all seem to have different opinions of what was going on with the hall clock chimed seven o'clock. I think we were singing the Agnes Dei, but I could be wrong. My thoughts were all over the place.

Afterwards we went to a dinner party to celebrate the pontificate. It was splendid, and it certainly cheered me up.

Talking Boundaries

One question that came up during Seraphapalooza was about boundaries. How much should girls in romantic relationships share about those relationships with their Single friends and acquaintances?

And my feeling is, practically nothing.

I'll go easy on the truly love-struck. Chatty people love to talk about the people they love. It probably increases our endorphins. Chatty new mothers prattle about their babies. Chatty grandmothers bring out the photos of their grandchildren. Chatty teenage girls interpret the utterances of their idols with the enthusiasm of graduate students of linguistics. Chatty professors go on too long about their star students. When we were engaged, B.A. talked about me so much one of his friends told him he had to stop or he wouldn't be invited round any more.

But the truly love-struck, though dull, tend to tell us happy things. It's the people who have gone past the shallow sugar-coating of the creme brule that is Human Relationship who tend to tell us things that make us squirm.

We really should not be saying personal things about our boyfriends and husbands to anyone else without a really, REALLY good reason. A really good reason is that one has grown afraid of one's boyfriend or husband and wants another woman's opinion. Another good reason is that one is not sure how to handle a boyfriend's or husband's sexual demands and wants another woman's opinion. A less compelling, but still valid, reason is that one is unsure how to get along with her boyfriend's or husband's family.

These conversations are best held in private with ONE woman friend, perhaps a best friend, or an older married woman, substitute-aunt, friend. Super personal information about boyfriends or husbands, i.e. men who trust you not to make them laughingstocks, is not good material for girls-together-having-drinks. It is just as horrible for a woman to share intimate details about a man with a group of women as it is for a man to share intimate details about a woman with a group of men.  

Meanwhile, I think it is incredibly insensitive to have any complaining conversation about a boyfriend with a woman who has no boyfriend and about a husband with a woman who doesn't have a husband.  There is also the virgin factor. It is rude, disrespectful and incredily unladylike to tell women with very little sexual experience information that they will not understand or are not prepared to handle.

The fastest way to derail a woman who is dying to tell you things you don't want to know, is to raise your hand and say "Whoa, TMI."

"TMI", in case English is not your first language, is an acronym for "Too Much Information." It is a reproof, but it is a very gentle reproof, and should do the trick. And the other women around may be very grateful to you and back you up right away. If she persists, and she is a friend, say "No, really. I feel uncomfortable hearing such personal things." And if she still persists, she's in line for a row. Don't let her row with you. You row with her. Draw the line. Tell her you do not want to hear about her sexual life; it forcibly puts images in your head you don't want there.

Meanwhile, I wonder if a lot of terribly abusive relationships aren't prolonged artificially because the woman gets rid of her actually useful anger and disappointment by venting them in conversations with her pals. How much better if she just spoke to one friend, and that friend gave serious and solid advice!

Anyway, sound off in combox.