Seeing #Destiny’s brain got broken by the concept of “talking”, “seeing”, and non-exclusive dating without labels is HILARIOUS to me.
I do think that “dating” without labels is stupid and shouldn’t be on the list. After all, if you’re dating without labels, you’re just in denial that you’re in a relationship tbh. But, I do generally believe in these concepts:
Talking (Speaking regularly to someone you like because you like them with the goal of flirting with them at least)
Seeing (Going on dates with someone you’re not in a relationship with)
Dating (An exclusive boyfriend-girlfriend relationship)
Married (An exclusive lifelong husband-wife relationship)
@freemo Maybe this is one aspect in which I am benefited by being a #Christian, there’s a general consensus in the community that to be a boyfriend or girlfriend means being monogamous. But also of course each boyfriend-girlfriend relationship has its own set of specific rules so I lay those out when initiating the relationship.
Although if what I heard at my #Christian college was correct, at least 50% of dating relationships among college-aged #Christian folks do not include any sort of formal drawing up of rules or boundaries 👀
@realcaseyrollins That may be, but how your benefitting by having two words that mean the same thing, and how does an additional label like "girlfriend" which carries no additional information benefit?
Like you can just say "we are monogamous" and that conveys all the info needed.
Thats sorta my point, there are a handful of useful labels, and a bunch that arent. The "girlfriend" label, for you, just means "monogamous", so its still a label that is largely useless and redundant, not to mention somewhat ambiguous because they are only synonymous for you, so less useful unless someone knows your personal definition.
@freemo Well, I would think that the expectation would be that if one isn’t in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, they’re free to date however many different people they want, and I think the distinction between monogamy and non-monogamy is important enough to warrant its own label.
Like you can just say “we are monogamous” and that conveys all the info needed.
At the same time, one can also say “we are boyfriend and girlfriend” without saying anything about monogamy.
> I think the distinction between monogamy and non-monogamy is important enough to warrant its own label.
Sure but you are claiming they are equivelant, at least for you. So now monogomy has two labels that mean the same thing.
> At the same time, one can also say “we are boyfriend and girlfriend” without saying anything about monogamy.
But no you cant because "girlfriend" only means monogamy to you, and some christian. It isnt universal. So unless someone specifically knows that girlfriend means monogamy to you, then you cant say that and convey the information. You would have to say "She is my girlfriend, and I believe girlfriend is the same as monogamy"
Even if we accept that 100% of christians think like you, which they dont, you'd still have to say "I have a girlfriend and I am christian" where otherwise you could just say "I am monogamous"
@freemo I mean…the point of the labels is to clarify the relationship status to the parties involved, not other people. If I start dating a girl and they ask us “so do y’all sleep with other people”, that’d be a very rude and weird thing to ask.
@realcaseyrollins Yea thats true. but even then I'd hope you want to be explicit... "Hey you wanna go on a date" doesnt convey the same message, even to most christians as "Hey, do you want to be exclusive".
While you might be quite strict and assume the two are the same for the overwhelming majority of Christians you date someone, usually for some time, before becoming "exclusive".
So if you have a partner, even a christian one, a phrase like "monogamous" still holds more value since it is clear and explicit in what it means.
@freemo I disagree slightly, as there seem to be virtually no polygamous dating relationships in the #Christian community (but also to be fair I’m not up to speed on what the #Mormons are up to in #Utah at the moment), but it also wouldn’t hurt to mention that now that I’m older and no longer in such a culturally (and unfortunately to a degree racially) homogeneous setting as a #Christian college where my peers all have very limited life experiences.
I disagree slightly, as there seem to be virtually no polygamous dating relationships
Polyamourous is totally different. That is when you love and are intimate with multiple people. I agree that is fairly rare in christianity. Thats not what I am talking about.
I am talking about dating multiple people, at the same time, because you havent falled in love with or been particularly intimate with any one of them. This isnt polyamoury, this is just dating people.
Dating multiple people before committing to any one person is absolutely very common int he christian community, and very much the norm.
@freemo Ah I see. Yes you are correct, although to date multiple people while being a boyfriend or girlfriend in the #Christian community is VERY rare.
Certainly more rare to use that title and not be monogomous yet.. but not unheard of or quite as rare as you suggest. Though I usually find the pattern goes the other way, people who are BF/GF when they first adopt the title it coincides with monogomy. However once they have been together a long time if they want to see other people as they begin to question the relationship they may do so without breaking up... "We are on a brake [from monogomy]" is usually how i hear it described and it seems to be somewhat common.
@freemo> However once they have been together a long time if they want to see other people as they begin to question the relationship they may do so without breaking up… “We are on a brake [from monogomy]” is usually how i hear it described and it seems to be somewhat common.
Ah okay, I see your point now. Yes, this is generally true. It’s a way to end the relationship without guaranteeing that the relationship will not resume at a later date. But, if you’re “on a break”, you’re not dating nor in the relationship anymore. Many times, couples go on a break and never leave that state, starting other relationships with new people and not talking to each other ever again.
> But, if you’re “on a break”, you’re not dating nor in the relationship anymore. Many times, couples go on a break and never leave that state, starting other relationships with new people and not talking to each other ever again.
It depends, a lot... I know lots of people who are on a break and still see eachother and even occasionally have sex still (though it happens in the heat of the moment). In fact I usually find the "we are on a brake state" resembles pretty closely the "we are dating but not monogomous yet" state... different ends of the same candle.
@freemo Hmm, so I kinda agree with this too, but I’d put this in the “seeing” state.
It’s interesting, being “on break” kind puts your relationship in an asynchronous state. Like, it kinda exists, but you’re not engaging in it. It’s like pausing one game on a #PS5 to play another on your #NintendoSwitch. You still need to go back to it to turn it off/end it but it almost doesn’t matter since it’s on pause, you can do whatever.
I think your point is really "Christians dont sleep around"... and I'd say that is true a lot of the time, though not always... depends how orthodox the christian is. I do know a few Christians whoa re polyamourous (though again they are rare if they are serious Christians)
Add comment