Resolved: Dating more people makes for a better marriage

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I feel this has been a very thorough debate, so thank you for your part in it. Evidence does not have to be a scientific study or a poll. It can also be a chain of logic, personal observation, or a simple fact from which you choose to extrapolate. You may use whatever "evidence" you choose of course. Plausible scenarios are helpful at times, but do not always represent something that common, relevant and/or real. Lack of evidence does not indicate fallacy per say, but perhaps an incomplete argument or idea. To the good stuff: 1. I do not fail to see that people are different.I acknowledge, accept and embrace that fact. I likewise agree that different people will produce different experiences from which you can expect to learn different things. However, I do not agree that these lessons and experiences are all relationship-related. In fact, I would argue that the differences that are apparent between people are much more varied than the actual differences that result in relationships with them. Actually, the differences between people are seemingly innumerable. However, I argue that the actual relationship(s) fit into a smaller array of archetypes or molds. Variety, yes. But endless? No. Essentially, though you could probably successfully try a different restaurant every day, how many of them offer a "Sandwiches" section of their menu? And after a certain number of sandwiches, you will probably feel like you've seen 'em all. While obviously you cannot have possibly seen every sandwich, it's a well-defined category. You know what to expect. And, after a certain point (before having"seen them all"), you just know what you like. In fact, you may know BEFORE your exploratory venture what you like. So, project this idea onto relationships. They fall into categories. And even though there is variety within each category, it does not take long, nor does it take bountiful experience, to figure out which categories you like [for the moment at least, as this can (like a sandwich preference) change--and believe it or not, some people just don't like sandwiches! (..or long-term relationships)]. Likewise, within your category of choice, it does not take long to know what you like. If you're not down with salami (..orrr tall girls), you just won't order it. So, yes, I agree that there is variety to be explored and variety to be learned, BUT my estimates of variety are much more conservative than yours. And if you simply do not want or like something, beyond learning that you don't care for it, there is little more to gain there. 1.5. I agree that there are probably not any major relationship lessons to be learned after cohabitation, but before marriage (ie: "the engagement") IF a couple follows the prescribed path of one after the other. Problems can still arise, but I see that as different from lessons to be learned. So yes, I think we're on the same page there. 2. I understand what you meant by "pick-up" but I still maintain that it comprises a very small amount of time and energy relative to everything that follows. Thus, while it certainly deserves some attention, yes, it does not require bout after bout of practice. Maybe some need more help, but I think its important to remember that few people go into the world of dating knowing nothing. Between the media (TV, movies, magazines, internet) older influences (siblings, neighbors, friends), and a handful of "instincts," many people don't actually need that much practice. Its more about fine tuning and then looking for "the one." Further, the phenomenon of reaching a point with a partner whereby they want marriage and you may not is not gendered. It can just as easily happen that the woman does not want it and the man does (and I have seen this happen in real life). So, skills for both sexes I would argue. But ultimately, I think you said it best: "Not just getting her to say yes to a date, but getting her to say yes to a lifetime." Exactly!! And getting someone to say yes for a lifetime takes concentration on one person and one relationship. It takes time to foster and energy to keep going AND being in fewer relationships makes a person MORE likely to have and hone these very skills- the skills that matter in the long run! 3. As for the life experiences, I have decided that I think it really depends on the event(s) and the people involved. I agree you shouldn't eliminate someone just because they cannot or do not want to complete certain activities. Yet, its also nice to be able to do such things with each other and couples that do more things together tend to be closer (makes sense). On the flip side, I also think its reasonable to expect that having completed certain life milestones with someone else could take away from those moments with your special person. In the end, I really don't think it's related to dating a lot/a little. These things are probably a bit more likely to be completed with a committed partner, however I think the jury is out on whether or not this is a good thing. Maybe both? 4. Of course I know the law of averages! Here's the thing-you're saying that dating more people familiarizes you with what's normal, thus avoiding doubt, panic, etc. However, there are two equally important pieces to why that's not really helping anyone at all. First, while certain attributes or behaviors may fit a lovely, normally distributed bell curve, those are independent of the people who carry those traits or behaviors. Having a "normal" tendency does not make you a "normal" person, and vise versa. And when it comes to dating, you have to decide on the whole person, not a series of statistically analyzed features. So, back to my R3 argument, I think that this can skew things and make important decisions that much harder. Second, I think you are vastly overvaluing normal. In the end, even if some things are normal, that does not mean you are ok with them. Normal only helps if it perfectly aligns with what you want. And that, I believe, is a supremely rare case. For the average person, normal really does not properly describe what they want, because it really does not properly describe anyone. 5. Baggage. For a determinist, you suddenly have a lot of faith in the control we have over our actions ;-) Regardless, there are obviously situations beyond our control. You say " previous healthy relationships" actually help a marriage. Maybe. But you also say "if we never let ourselves get too close with someone... then we won't carry that emotional baggage." HOW is keeping a partner at arm's length healthy? In my view its really not. I mean sure, maybe as you are getting to know someone, but if you are truly, properly dating someone, you cannot possibly hope for success, nevermind marriage, if you have an upper limit for closeness. I agree with you about exiting relationships to avoid baggage. However, you must realize that its never as simple as you make it sound and that tendency alone can hurt a relationship if a person is TOO eager to peace out at the 1st sign of trouble, not giving good things a fair shot. Further, I completely disagree with your assessment of chronic dating vs. ONE unhealthy relationship. I would be more worried about a chronic dater than someone who suffered ONE bad relationship. Why? Easy. Despite the past, its over, in the past and hopefully more of a lesson than a wound as the person moves on. I've never seen a single bad relationship "ruin" someone. A chronic dater (serial monogamist) on the other hand often has deep-seated feelings of incompleteness, low self-worth and truly does not know who they are outside of a relationship. THIS would worry me. And it rather well-describes the type of dating you favor. In closing, there may be much to learn from dating around, but it does NOT help, but rather harms a marriage. Dating fewer people better allocates time and skills towards successful marriage. I'vemuchmoretosaybutnospace!Thx&miss u <3