[This is part two of a series on Dating and Relationships:  bypassing Christian rhetoric and examining the best models for interactions between men and women with candor, honesty, and directness.  Tough questions are encouraged, controversy is invited, and the submission of differing opinions is welcomed -- so please feel free to comment as often as you'd like.]

There are probably just as many philosophies out there about dating and relationships as there are couples in the world.  Every culture, every sub-culture -- even every family seems to have its own set of (spoken and unspoken) rules for the complex interactions between men and women.  To make it even more confusing, everyone seems to use slightly different terminology to discuss these "rules" (i.e. one couple's "dating" is another couple's "getting to know each other"... one couple's "courting" is another couple's "going out").  Sorting through the differences in perspectives and opinions can be extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- at times...

But from my perspective, pretty much all of the philosophies about dating can be plotted along a continuum that ends in two basic perspectives on the topic.

I would call the one end of the spectrum the "Dating is totally no big deal" extreme.  People who tend to think more in these terms would say that it doesn't really matter who, what, where, when, or how often -- dating is merely a social experiment that should be practiced freely and spontaneously.  Of course, prospects are necessarily judged on more superficial criteria such as physical appearance, taste in music, hobbies, and so on (which may or may not be the best measures for long-term compatability).  From this vantage point, dating is viewed more or less as a game -- with winners, losers, points, and trophies -- witty pick-up lines or drinks at a bar serving as game pieces.  And actually, a dating game show is probably just as good a means of any for finding someone of the opposite sex!  A guy coming from this perspective might keep three or four girls "on call" at a time -- maybe going out with one on Friday night, with another on Saturday night, and so on.  People who tend to think more in this direction would say, "You'll never really know the possibilities for romance and relationships until you've tested the field a bit."  By and large, the "totally no big deal" camp emphasizes fun and spontaneity -- which has both its strong points and its weak points...

I would call the other end of the spectrum, then, the "Dating is a very, very, very big deal" extreme.  People who tend to think more in this direction would say that any step in the direction of men and women mixing with each other is a life-or-death maneuver.  Charts, graphs, lists, and equations are used to evaluate potential life partners; emotions should not enter in, because emotionally-based decisions are considered foolish and flighty.  With people coming from this end of the spectrum, it is generally presumed that any mistakes or missteps in the area of dating and relationships will cause deep and permanent scarring.  As a means of protection, there are certain circles (within Christendom) where single men and women are strictly guarded from the potentially corrupting influence of the opposite sex -- chaperoned strictly on any occasion when they might happen to interact, and preferably seated on different sides of the same room -- even separate sidewalks on the same university campus (I've seriously heard of a school in the United States that does this!).  In its most developed form, the "very, very, very big deal" people would just as well see our society return to a system of arranged marriages (which, to be honest, may not be as ridiculous of an idea as it might seem).  But at any rate, on this end of the spectrum, asking a girl out becomes tantamount to asking for her hand in marriage (barring any major show-stoppers).  All in all, the "very, very, very big deal" camp emphasizes purity and wise decision-making -- which, again, has both its strong points and its weak points...

Of course, there are few people who would totally buy into either one of the above characterizations (though I am often surprised by how accurate the stereotypes can be!).  Oh, maybe Arthur "The Fonz" Fonzerelli could be a good representative of the "totally no big deal" camp... And, let's see, perhaps Elinor Dashwood could serve as the archetypical spokesperson for the "very, very, very big deal" camp.  But the fact of the matter is that both of these are fictional characters -- and hyperbole at that.  Even so, the extremes can be instructive.  Especially if viewed as opposite ends of a continuous spectrum, the extremes can be helpful to identify each of our cultural and individual views toward dating and relationships -- though often more in reference to what we are not than in reference to what we are!

So, let me me be the first to state that I have figured out the perfect balance between the two extremes!  My standpoint, of course, is directly on top of the fulcrum in the middle of the playground see-saw between the Fonz and Elinor Dashwood.  My philosophy on dating avoids those bothersome extremes and manages to combine the charm of the Fonz with the sensibility of Ms. Dashwood.  Yes, you should be happy to know that I've learned the secret to absolute balance... But seriously -- the fact of the matter is that we all want to avoid the extremes.  We want to embrace the best of both worlds -- while simultaneously shunning their weaknesses... But in the end, we've all got our particular preprogrammed preferences.  Our perspectives are fluid and shifting -- initially molded by the models that we observe in childhood and further shaped by our life experiences -- but they are almost never completed balanced or objective.  One of the most important things that I've learned about dating and relationships is that each individual comes into a relationship with a certain set of expectations.  And until these expectations can be accurately identified and explained, the relationship is relegated to a rocky road of misunderstandings.  The expectations don't have to be exactly the same (in fact, the statistical likelihood of an exact match is infinitissimally low)... But they need to be understood and articulated.

So where are you on the continuum?

As for me, I think I've come to sit a bit right of center, somewhat closer to Elinor Dashwood's side of the figurative see-saw.  But then again, if I were to be completely honest, I'd have to say that my life experience puts me a bit more on the Fonz's side... I'd like to think that the two sides of me (the rational side and the experiential side) are close enough to the middle to reach out their arms across the center of the teeter-totter and touch each other... you know, somewhere along the lines of "Dating is kind of a big deal -- but not so much."  But then again, maybe it would help to explain a bit more about where I'm coming from -- which is exactly what I plan to do in part three of this series... when I get into more of the details of my and Marci's story...