Your post highlights one of the most vital practical issues for parents.
One could very abstractly describe the "old courtship procedures" as follows, keeping in mind that all of these steps were expressly understood by the participants as directed at a decision on marriage:
1. couple interacts at public events (some created partially to afford opportunities for this)
2. couple interacts with both families
3. couple interacts privately
4. young man and young woman consult with their own families
5. families consult with each other
6. both couple and families decide for or against marriage
A decision for or against marriage was possible at each step, with this becoming increasingly explicit as the couple stepped through the process. Of course, these customs weren't universal, nor were all of them always followed in this order. Elopement represents the couple overriding the families' consensus at the last step, or omits the steps involving the familes (as in a "secret love"). Our dating customs devolved from courtship, especially in the postwar United States.
Arranged marriage, the other prevalent set of matchmaking customs, starts with the "families consult" step first, considers the others optional, and excludes decisions from the couple. Kidnapping and conquest, which were historically common ways of forming marriages, we can leave aside, as not really forms of "matchmaking," though in some societies (e.g., among the Bedouin), the distinction between elopement and kidnapping was fuzzy.
The central problem is the absence of a real community. There are vanishingly few public events, such as festivals, at which all or most households and age cohorts would be present and participating. There is only the weakest residual expectation that the members of the couple will interact with the other family, much less that the families will consult with each other. (In the degree-holding managerial class, all of these people are likely to be hundreds of miles apart.)
If one has a real community already, then these problems are readily solvable: inculcate the expecations that marriages will be endogamous, that families are involved in the decision on marriage, and that social interactions between young men and women are directed at this decision. If one lacks a real community, as the vast majority of the United States does, then it would seem that they aren't.
You hit the nail on the head. It really comes back to community and "building a village". It requires parents working together in a way that is foreign to most now. I don't think we can recreate a super thick and robust communal approach to getting kids married in just one generation, but there are things parents/adults who live in the now, currently absent community, can do to pick up the pieces. And I'm planning on tackling that in more detail in my next post.
This is a fascinating post. Would love to have more conversations on the issue. I am totally opposed to dating (and courtship) but agree that the current system is totally broken.
So you are more of an outright arranged marriage guy? I think to a large extent dating is fake as well but not so much courtship. And I can only write about one thing at a time. lol.
Arranged marriages have a lot of problems. I think what you mean is community. The young people need a community of people who are educated (spiritually etc.) that they can pick a spouse from.
I agree. I'm not advocating for arranged marriages. Community, involvement from parents, shared values across families, but not deciding or contracting at a young age who will marry who.
Here's an idea for a church calling that's been knocking around in my head for awhile: Ward Matchmaker. I know it sounds archaic, but it's how courtship has been done for arguably most of human history, and many cultures still do it. The Matchmaker would pass around a sign-up sheet for anyone who wants help finding their eternal companion. Those who sign up get emailed a questionnaire about their interests, life goals, and what they are looking for in a spouse. Sign-ups may even suggest matches they are interested in. The Matchmaker prayerfully goes over each person's answers, and when they find two that seem compatible, goes to each one privately saying, "I think you would be a good match with so-and-so, would you like me to help arrange the first date?" If they go on the date, each party separately reports to the matchmaker on how it went. They can then decide if they want to proceed to the next date together or not. All of this should be done in strictest confidence, just like a bishop's interview. Now, this next part will be tricky, but I think it's important: if a person says no to a match, the matchmaker should respect their decision, but the person should be willing to say why they are rejecting the match. The matchmaker should NOT argue with the answer, but it can be helpful in the following ways: the matchmaker can identify potential patterns in the kind of person an individual keeps rejecting, or if a person keeps getting the same kind of rejection over and over. It can also help the objector understand his/her own mind. If your reasons for rejection sound shallow when you say them out loud, even if the matchmaker doesn't say anything (and again, the matchmaker shouldn't argue), then it may mean you need to rethink your priorities.
I think this kind of nudge will help participants get over the awkwardness of first dates, and help participants spend more quality time with new people. I think it will also help get around the shallow expectations of the natural man/woman, which tend to be most prevalent in speed-dating and online matching. What say you all?
I like the idea. intentional matchmaking is part of it. But I think a precursor to that is everyone has to be bought in. And that's where I circle back to the parents.
Love this! Definitely points out a lot of the problems with marriage and dating. But the solutions presented were a bit vague. For example, teaching your kids about sex and not letting porn do it: how would you give practical tips to parents about how to teach their kids about sex?
I'll elaborate on what I think some of the solutions are in the next post. I try to keep my posts from going over 2000 words if possible. To fully answer your particular question though, I'd want to understand more about your particular circumstances and what you face/are concerned about with kids.
But off the top of my head, for formal instruction, I'd find friendly sources, someone who has the same goals. For example, my church has created several manuals that teach basics, purpose of sex, role within our belief system that I have used and will continue to use as my kids age. There exist many such guides out there if your goal is to help your kid avoid porn and live a chaste life before marriage. Can't afford to be silent on this stuff when not just porn, but romance stories of all kinds are willing to be out and proud and share competing messaging, induce anxiety and give kids the false impression that dating or marriage are not that important. But a lot of "instruction", in my mind, comes from modeling and practice. Do the young people have opportunities for constructive, age-appropriate interaction with the opposite sex? Do their parents belong to a community which models healthy marriage? etc. I don't think we were meant to teach all this to our kids in a vacuum.
Your post highlights one of the most vital practical issues for parents.
One could very abstractly describe the "old courtship procedures" as follows, keeping in mind that all of these steps were expressly understood by the participants as directed at a decision on marriage:
1. couple interacts at public events (some created partially to afford opportunities for this)
2. couple interacts with both families
3. couple interacts privately
4. young man and young woman consult with their own families
5. families consult with each other
6. both couple and families decide for or against marriage
A decision for or against marriage was possible at each step, with this becoming increasingly explicit as the couple stepped through the process. Of course, these customs weren't universal, nor were all of them always followed in this order. Elopement represents the couple overriding the families' consensus at the last step, or omits the steps involving the familes (as in a "secret love"). Our dating customs devolved from courtship, especially in the postwar United States.
Arranged marriage, the other prevalent set of matchmaking customs, starts with the "families consult" step first, considers the others optional, and excludes decisions from the couple. Kidnapping and conquest, which were historically common ways of forming marriages, we can leave aside, as not really forms of "matchmaking," though in some societies (e.g., among the Bedouin), the distinction between elopement and kidnapping was fuzzy.
The central problem is the absence of a real community. There are vanishingly few public events, such as festivals, at which all or most households and age cohorts would be present and participating. There is only the weakest residual expectation that the members of the couple will interact with the other family, much less that the families will consult with each other. (In the degree-holding managerial class, all of these people are likely to be hundreds of miles apart.)
If one has a real community already, then these problems are readily solvable: inculcate the expecations that marriages will be endogamous, that families are involved in the decision on marriage, and that social interactions between young men and women are directed at this decision. If one lacks a real community, as the vast majority of the United States does, then it would seem that they aren't.
You hit the nail on the head. It really comes back to community and "building a village". It requires parents working together in a way that is foreign to most now. I don't think we can recreate a super thick and robust communal approach to getting kids married in just one generation, but there are things parents/adults who live in the now, currently absent community, can do to pick up the pieces. And I'm planning on tackling that in more detail in my next post.
This is a fascinating post. Would love to have more conversations on the issue. I am totally opposed to dating (and courtship) but agree that the current system is totally broken.
So you are more of an outright arranged marriage guy? I think to a large extent dating is fake as well but not so much courtship. And I can only write about one thing at a time. lol.
You would probably call me that. I think courtship has some of the serious problems with dating, in some way they even seem to be worse.
Arranged marriages have a lot of problems. I think what you mean is community. The young people need a community of people who are educated (spiritually etc.) that they can pick a spouse from.
I agree. I'm not advocating for arranged marriages. Community, involvement from parents, shared values across families, but not deciding or contracting at a young age who will marry who.
Here's an idea for a church calling that's been knocking around in my head for awhile: Ward Matchmaker. I know it sounds archaic, but it's how courtship has been done for arguably most of human history, and many cultures still do it. The Matchmaker would pass around a sign-up sheet for anyone who wants help finding their eternal companion. Those who sign up get emailed a questionnaire about their interests, life goals, and what they are looking for in a spouse. Sign-ups may even suggest matches they are interested in. The Matchmaker prayerfully goes over each person's answers, and when they find two that seem compatible, goes to each one privately saying, "I think you would be a good match with so-and-so, would you like me to help arrange the first date?" If they go on the date, each party separately reports to the matchmaker on how it went. They can then decide if they want to proceed to the next date together or not. All of this should be done in strictest confidence, just like a bishop's interview. Now, this next part will be tricky, but I think it's important: if a person says no to a match, the matchmaker should respect their decision, but the person should be willing to say why they are rejecting the match. The matchmaker should NOT argue with the answer, but it can be helpful in the following ways: the matchmaker can identify potential patterns in the kind of person an individual keeps rejecting, or if a person keeps getting the same kind of rejection over and over. It can also help the objector understand his/her own mind. If your reasons for rejection sound shallow when you say them out loud, even if the matchmaker doesn't say anything (and again, the matchmaker shouldn't argue), then it may mean you need to rethink your priorities.
I think this kind of nudge will help participants get over the awkwardness of first dates, and help participants spend more quality time with new people. I think it will also help get around the shallow expectations of the natural man/woman, which tend to be most prevalent in speed-dating and online matching. What say you all?
I like the idea. intentional matchmaking is part of it. But I think a precursor to that is everyone has to be bought in. And that's where I circle back to the parents.
Very interested to read your post about the role of parents.
So am I!
Love this! Definitely points out a lot of the problems with marriage and dating. But the solutions presented were a bit vague. For example, teaching your kids about sex and not letting porn do it: how would you give practical tips to parents about how to teach their kids about sex?
I'll elaborate on what I think some of the solutions are in the next post. I try to keep my posts from going over 2000 words if possible. To fully answer your particular question though, I'd want to understand more about your particular circumstances and what you face/are concerned about with kids.
But off the top of my head, for formal instruction, I'd find friendly sources, someone who has the same goals. For example, my church has created several manuals that teach basics, purpose of sex, role within our belief system that I have used and will continue to use as my kids age. There exist many such guides out there if your goal is to help your kid avoid porn and live a chaste life before marriage. Can't afford to be silent on this stuff when not just porn, but romance stories of all kinds are willing to be out and proud and share competing messaging, induce anxiety and give kids the false impression that dating or marriage are not that important. But a lot of "instruction", in my mind, comes from modeling and practice. Do the young people have opportunities for constructive, age-appropriate interaction with the opposite sex? Do their parents belong to a community which models healthy marriage? etc. I don't think we were meant to teach all this to our kids in a vacuum.