F. J. KOBLER, J. v . RIZZO, and E. D. DOYLE
Dating and the Formation of the Religious OxE ov THE MOST striking aspects of current Catholic thought is the growing concern over, and re-evaluation of, seminary education and practices. In addition to a minor flood of periodical articles, several books have been published attempting to make an appraisal of what have been traditionally accepted practices. One of the most basic of these practices is the self-imposed sexual segregation expected of seminarians. In preparation for an adult life of celibacy, the seminarian or religious is expected to forsake or at least severely restrict the extent and the depth of his heterosexual contacts and relationships. The question has been raised, however, as to whether such expectations are realistic, or whether they are beneficial to the life of the religious, or even whether such restrictions are psychologically sound. Raising questions is only the first step in this evaluative process. One place to seek answers is in the existing empirical and theoretical literature. There is a limited amount of such literature on the importance of heterosexual relationships and dating for psychologically normal development. The studies that are available are generally outdated, or they are of a sociological and demographic character. Explicitly psychological and empirically conducted studies are rare. Despite the paucity of psychological literature in this area, a review of the existing evidence is one way to begin an assessment of the problem. Dating is an experience, and often a problem that almost every adolescent in our society must face. Every textbook on adolescence deals with the problems and purposes of dating. Yet a review of the literature on adolescence and developmental psychology yields relatively little empirical support for the beliefs expressed by most authorities on adoleseent development. While there is general agreement that dating is a worth-while, perhaps necessary experience for the teen-ager, one finds
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
137
little systematic evaluation of the contributions of dating toward normal personality development. Lacking such evaluation, one finds it difficult to judge or predict the effects that might follow a decision to avoid dating because of a given value system rather than through fear, lack of opportunity, or more basic and serious personality difficukies. It is not possible to say, with much scientific certitude, that a young man or woman who avoids heterosexual relationships in adolescence in preparation for an adult life of celibacy will later be deficient in specific social or emotional capacities. The best information available (though rather limited) is suggestive rather than demonstrative of the problems that may arise from not dating during adolescence. Before outlining the empirical data that are available, it will be helpful to present a brief summary of theories on adolescence in general, and the developmental significance of dating specifically. While the psychoanalytic model of personality is not universally accepted, most authors who describe themselves as "dynamic" borrow extensively from the model without accepting all its details and implications. In view of this, the analytic-dynamic approach will be presented first. Subsequently more descriptive and "common-sense" approaches will be mentioned. One representative dynamic approach is that of Cameron) In describing the relevant aspects of adolescent development, Cameron does not present any empirical support. According to his conceptualization, normal adjustment depends on the successful resolution of the Oedipal conflict and the development of masculine identification. The adolescent is represented as having strong aggressive and sexual impulses tinged with guilt and anxiety. Both of these emotional states are diminished by contacts with the opposite sex. They exist because the sexual impulse, for example, is still associated with earlier feelings and attachments to the parent of the opposite sex. By heterosexual peer associations the sexual feelings are redirected from the parent to an appropriate and permissible sexual object. Adolescence is characterized by a less vague and diffuse sexuality than that which typified infantile urges, and it involves more specific and intense biological sources of stimulation. Cameron says that the adolescent, unlike the younger child, cannot renounce these strong urges. He must face them or retreat from reality. Two of the outstanding tasks of adulthood, the choice of a mate and subsequent raising of a family, and the assumption of a role in terms of
138
Journalof Religion and Health
a career choice, are begun in adolescence. In order to feel secure in his sex role, the adolescent is thought to require heterosexual contact for two reasons. First, in order that he will be accepted by his peers, and second, in order that he will himself feel competent in his ability to attract, to interest, and to sustain a relationship with a female. This allows the feeling of sexual attraction to a woman other than the mother, and consequently alleviates the guilt and anxiety previously involved in sexual attraction. It should be emphasized that the dating relationships of adolescence are unstable; that is, they are not meant to terminate in marriage or to culminate in the sexual act. 2 Thus such dating relationships control and protect the individual from the full experience of sexual stimulation. Cameron believes that many adults who choose the life of celibacy on the basis of ideals may very well be more mature than their married peers. This point of view implies that an individual must first experience heterosexual relations before deciding, on the basis of an ideal or value system, to forego continued heterosexual contacts. The absence of such relationships would at least complicate, if not definitely preclude, the resolution of the Oedipal conflict, and it would impair the development of appropriate and healthy means of control over one's impulses. One final point may be made in reference to the function that heterosexual contacts serve in the development of the mature personality. Dating is necessary to develop the knowledge required to choose a mate wisely and to sustain relations with the mate throughout adulthood. This is important, of course, only if the goal of adulthood is the selection of a mate. Few of the texts or articles consulted give any consideration to the possibility that this may not be a goal. Among those authors taking a more common-sense or descriptive approach there is a general consensus that heterosexual relationships may serve any one of several purposes. Primarily, dating is a way of channeling male-female relationships. In the dating process the boy and girl learn about chivalry and exploitation. They have an opportunity to deal with altruism and egoism. They can explore patterns of permissiveness or authoritarianism in their personal relationships. They can learn how to cope with the experience of romanticism or more basic lust. Dating provides an opportunity to work through the attitudes and feelings surrounding self-denial and fulfillment. They learn what it is like to be
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
139
responded to as a male, and what it is to be a female. They learn to establish more effectively, in one erueial area, their own identity and their own feelings of self-esteem. From the viewpoint of the adolescent, heterosexual aetivities such as dating may represent efforts to compensate for some nonsexual affeetional frustration, a surrender to peer group pressure in order to maintain status, or they may indieate an abdication of a capacity for self-discipline and personal responsibility? Gottlieb agrees that dating is often initiated as a result of peer group expectations and pressures to conform. 4 Dating, he states, is one of the characteristics of acceptability revealed in peer group ratings. The importance of peer judgments is supported by Bieber, who emphasizes the effects of peer rejection and humiliation in the potential development of homosexual feelings and behavior. 5 Such rejections often result from failure to engage in usual male adolescent activities such as dating. Dating may also serve as a transitional process, bridging the periods between &pen&nee on the family and adult status. ~ Hurlock gives a summary of the advantages of dating as one form of heterosexual association. 7 She writes that dating gives the adolescent some experience in objectively evaluating members of the opposite sex and in tempering romantic and unrealistic ideas by means of concrete associations. Many other authorities support Hurlock in this contention? Dating serves to reduce emotional excitement and embarrassment upon such contacts? As a result of dating, the fantasies concerning members of the opposite sex are made more realistic so that the individual learns not only what to expect of others, but also what is expected of him. Finally, dating serves the function of role definition by allowing the individual to observe the reactions of others to him in situations that have rather definite and dearly defined role expectations, and by helping in the transition from homoerotic to heterosexual phases of development. 1~ The empirical literature published in the area of heterosexual development has been largely descriptive. Data have generally been colleered by means of self-report inventories and questionnaires administered to a variety of sample populations. Little has been done either by way of clinical evaluation or experimental controls. Nevertheless, some familiarity with the research literature is helpful in evaluating popular and eommon-sense notions about dating. x4o
Journal of Religion and Health
Lucas conducted a study of adolescent needs by means of an experimental test. 11 A pilot form of this test, consisting of items chosen on an a priori basis, was administered to 2oo male and female adolescents. A final form of the test was developed on the basis of this pilot administration, and administered to 725 male and female adolescents in public and parochial schools. A factor analysis revealed several need clusters including an unpredicted need in the category of heterosexual affection and attention. The existence of such a need may be supported to some extent by the fact that dating is an almost universal phenomenon in our culture. 12 Strang predicted serious difficulty if normal heterosexual relations are blocked in adolescence.13 She cites several surveys of adolescent responses to questionnaires. In one survey dealing with college students' responses, the subjects agreed that heterosexual contacts made them feel more at ease and socially more self-confident. More than half of these students indicated that frequent social and intellectual contacts with the opposite sex tended to improve their emotional adjustment and to increase their satisfaction with life. Strang refers to two questionnaires given to 1 ioo and 600 high school students. These surveys suggest that the attitudes expressed by students are not always reflected in their behavior. In these reports most of the students indicated that they did not always take the opportunity to develop heterosexual relationships that were offered by dating contacts. The fact that heterosexual interest and dating are widespread does not necessarily establish the desirability of these practices for normal psychological development. Waller, for example, suggests that dating is an abnormal practice characterized by an attempt at mutual exploitation. x4 The male may attain sexual outlets in the form of petting or premarital intercourse and social prestige, while the female, attempting to yield as little as possible, achieves popularity and opportunities for a variety of experiences of a recreational nature. Mead similarly sees dating as an undesirable form of behavior because it makes male and female relationships situational. 15 Such relationships are used as a means of exhibiting social success and popularity rather than as a means of attaining personal intimacy and closeness. Mead notes that sexual irresponsibility occurs when adolescents are continually engaged in pair relationships. This is particularly true in our mobile society where supervision of dating is minimal, and where fluctuating standards leave little clarity with
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i4i
respect to appropriate sexual behavior. 1~ Thus, for many adolescents, guilt is a natural by-product of dating because individuals are often confused and torn between what they think is expected of them sexually and what adult society has told them is morally correct. 17 These views on dating as situational, as transient, and as exploitative are minority views that are contradicted by other authorities and by the empirical evidence that exists. Lowrie lists a number of positive functions of dating including the attainment of poise and balance, adjustment to those of the opposite sex, and greater objectivity in viewing members of the opposite sex. 18 In support of his conclusions he describes a study of 782 high school boys and 8i 3 high school girls. Included in this study were 2o 3 college males and i8i college females. The students were asked to select from a list of eight possible reasons for dating the three most important. The results of this survey indicate that about 26 per cent of the respondents saw the need for affection as the most important reason for dating. The attainment of social poise ranked next in importance. Twenty-three per cent of the responses fell in this category. Mate selection, and learning to adjust to a member of the opposite sex, accounted for large percentages of the responses. The combined categories of attendance at social affairs, opportunities to neck, and social prestige among peers accounted for approximately I7 per cent of the responses. Necking was ranked lowest. On the basis of these data, Lowrie states that dating should be a consciously fostered developmental process and educational experience. He criticizes Wallin's views because they are based on an unrepresentative sample of college fraternity men. The data offered by other investigators go somewhat further. Schoeppe and Havighurst administered an intensive series of psychometric, sociometric, and projective tests to ~5 males and 15 females at ages io, 13, and i6 in a longitudinal study of development, l~ They conclude that satisfactory peer relations and adoption of appropriate sex roles are closely linked to other developmental tasks, deficiencies in one area having rather pervasive and generalized personality consequences. In conjunction with Cottrell's view that ability to test social roles in situations involving reciprocal behavior is important in social adjustment, 2~ one may reasonably infer that failure to engage in heterosexual activities may not only impede role identification, but also have more general consequences in impeding the completion of other developmental tasks. i42
Journalof Religion and Health
Approaching the problem in a more explicitly clinical manner, Landis found that among married and unmarried, normal and abnormal women, significantly more normals had had their first date before the age of sixteen. 21 Significantly more abnormal women had never dated a boy. In addition, 27 per cent of his abnormal group had never had heterosexual physical intimacies, while none of the normals reported this. Nimkoff and Wood administered a questionnaire on dating and courtship behavior along with the Bell Adjustment Inventory to 500 students in an eastern coeducational college. 22 They conclude that students who seldom date, who start dating late, and who have never had more than one "steady" are predominantly socially retiring and show a slight tendency to be emotionally maladjusted. Those who had earlier and more frequent dating experiences were more socially aggressive and more closely approximated acceptable norms of emotional adjustment. Finally, those who had begun dating in grade school tended to be socially aggressive, but emotionally more maladjusted. The authors suggest that present personality is more likely to influence dating practices. Therefore the importance of nondating as a factor in maladjustment is an open question. Nondating that is undertaken in accordance with a long-range goal or ideal may have a different significance from that for which the reasons are unspecified. A study by Willoughby used 2200 women as subjects. 28 In a subsample of homosexual women, it was found that those from women's colleges constituted about three-fourths of the total homosexual group, while those from coeducational institutions constituted only one-fifth. The author concludes that these data on homosexuality "suggest both that withdrawing types of personality find this adjustment less formidable than a heterosexual one, and that anomalous environments such as prisons or the average women's college can force anomalous expressions upon normal impulses." Other authors also mention the possible dangers of reduced heterosexual contact or exposure. Huffman is one of many who point to the frequently observed high incidence of homosexual experience in situations where the sexes are segregated (prisons or schools). 24 His study dealt specifically with prisoners, so that the generalizability to self-imposed avoidance of heterosexual contacts is limited. Strang reviewed a study from comparative psychology which supports the idea that lack of early heterosexual contact may later impair the capacity for it. 25 Rats
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
I43
who were segregated prior to maturing showed a tendency later to prefer association with the same sex. One finds similar implications in the Kinsey studies36 Finally, a rather comprehensive study of 2200 Catholic adolescents was reported by FleegeY Questionnaires and inventories were administered to a sample of students drawn from twenty schools in eighteeen cities and across twelve states. Schools were chosen with different enrollments and faculty compositions. Both all-male and coeducational schools were included. In the area of heterosexual adjustment Fleege concludes that the chances of a boy's being helped spiritually by girls are a relatively direct function of the degree to which he associates with them. The chances of receiving some type of spiritual aid are nearly three times as great for the boy who associates with girls frequently as for the boy who does not. For the boy who does not date, the effect that girls, or thoughts about them, have on him is indifferent in one out of two cases, harmful in one out of four, and helpful in only one out of six. Thus the chances are greatest that thoughts about girls will have a harmful effect on boys who never go out with them. Moderate association between the sexes is beneficial to a boy's spiritual life, possibly because distortions and fantasy preoccupations are due to a lack of real associations. In general the empirical literature supports the conclusion that heterosexual associations are useful because they provide necessary learning experiences; they lead to social poise and adiustment; and they provide a background for the assumption of adult sex roles and relationships. There is some indication that such relationships may prove beneficial from a spiritual point of view. Finally, it seems likely that there is some relation between social introversion, sexual aberrations, maladjustment, and the degree to which an individual associates with members of the opposite sex. Whether such personality deficiencies cause or are the result of heterosexual adjustments and relationships cannot be decided upon the basis of existing evidence. In locating material relevant to this study, religious publications were also reviewed. The relationship between dating practices and adolescent personality development has been virtually ignored as a topic of concern in Catholic periodical literature. When dating is discussed, it is generally in terms of morally desirable practices or morally dangerous behavior. Dating, though thought to be necessary, is seen as a possible
x44
Journalof Religion and Health
occasion of sin, particularly when the dating relationship becomes prolonged or when it involves frequent contacts between two individuals. Thus, a majority of the articles on dating are concerned with a discussion of types of dates, dating partners, and especially the practice of steady dating among couples for whom marriage is not an immediate possibility. An occasional article, such as that by Springer, makes the assertion that dating is a necessary practice for sound development, but factual material is not offered in support of these claims. =s McAllister and Vander Veldt, in a study of hospitalized clergy, found that many priests felt uneasy in the company of laity, and especially in the company of women, e" They often approached marriage and family problems in naive and unrealistic ways. Hagmaier and Kennedy comment that seminary education hampers the development of appropriate emotional reactions by prohibiting normal contacts during the years of training, a~ Though they do not advocate long or involved dating relationships, these authors do feel that interaction with the opposite sex is most desirable in preventing an unrealistic isolation from women. They suggest that encouragement be given to on-going extracurricular contacts with women's colleges and coeducational institutions as a means of preventing any abnormal detachment. O'Neill suggests that such detachment interferes with a truly informed decision for celibacy? 1 In line with this contention, Hagmaier cites the high rate of defection among Italian clergy, who are rigidly supervised during their seminary years? 2 One might infer from this observation that rigid sexual segregation leads the seminarian to decide for a life of celibacy without a true knowledge of his needs or what he is sacrificing in the celibate life. He is asked to leave behind him heterosexual experiences, affection, and satisfactions before he has had an opportunity to know what he is forsaking. Even where the forsaking of heterosexual associations is made on the basis of a set of values, one may argue that such sexual isolation is unrealistic as well as detrimental to effectiveness as an adult. Little or no empirical support can be offered for most of the inferences and conclusions herein presented. Studies of dating have been concerned with the demographic distribution of dating practices and with sexual behavior in the dating relationship. Little basic research has been done to determine how dating actually affects the development of the individual personality. If such research is lacking, this may be at-
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i45
tributed to a misleading preoccupation with outdated and inoperative conceptions of dating together with a lack of concern about the more fundamental problem of the effects of dating on normal adolescent development. REFERENCES i. Cameron, N., Personality Development and Psychopathology: A Dynamic Approach. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963. 2. Smith, E. A., American Youth Culture. Glencoe, Free Press, i962. 3. Glossberg, B. Y., "Sexual Behavior Patterns in Contemporary Youth Culture: Implications for Later Marriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1965, 27, 19o-192. 4. Gottlieb, D., and Reeves, J., Adolescent Behavior in Urban Areas: A Bibliographic Review and Discussion of the Literature. Glencoe, Free Press, I963. 5- Bieber, I., et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. New York, Basic Books, 1962. 6. Smith, E. A., op. tit. 7. Hurlock, E. B., Adolescent Development. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1955. 8. Lowrie, S. H., "Dating Theories and Student Responses," American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 334-34o. Malm, M., and Jamison, O. G., Adolescence. New York, McGraw-Hill, x952. Schneiders, A. A., Personality Development and Adjustment in Adolescence. Milwaukee, Bruce, i96o. Smith, E. A., op. cir. 9. Allers, R., Sex Psychology in Education. St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., I937. Lowrie, op. cir. Smith, E. A., op. cit. Trevitt, R., The Tree of Life: Sexuality and the Growth of Personality. New York, P. J. Kennedy & Sons, i963. io. Allers, op. cit. Breckenridge, M., and Vincent, E. L., Child Development. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1955. Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P., Engagement and Marriage. New York, J. B. Lippincott, 1953. Campbell, R. J., "Masturbation and Homosexuality." In Bier, W. C., ed., The Adolescent: His Search for Understanding. New York, Fordham University Press, 1963. Cory, D. W., "Homosexuality." In Ellis and Abarbanel, eds., Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. New York, Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1963. Kinsey, A. C., et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948. Laidlow, R. W., "A Clinical Approach to Homosexuality," Marriage and Family Living, 1952, 14, 39-45. Malta and Jamison, op. cir. Schneiders, op. cir. Smith, E. A., op. cit. 11. Lucas, C. M., and Horrocks, J. E., "An Experimental Approach to the Analysis of Adolescent Needs," Child Development, 196o, 3 t, 479-487. i2. Cole, L., and Hall, T., Psychology of Adolescence. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Schneiders, op. cit. 13. Strang, R., Behavior and Background of Students in College and Secondary School. New York, Harper & Bros., I937. I4. Waller, W., "The Rating and Dating Complex," American Sociological Review, 1937, 2, 727-734. 15. Mead, M., Male and Female. New York, William Morrow & Co., 1949. 16. Ehrmann, W. W., Premarital Dating Behavior. New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1959. Reiss, I. L., Premarital Sexual Standards in America. Glencoe, Free Press, 196o. Smith, W. M., "Rating and Dating: A Re-study," Marriage and Family Living, 1952, t4, 313-3179 17. Ehrmann, op. cir. Reiss, op. cit. 18. Lowrie, op. cir. I46
Journal of Religion and Health
19. Schoeppe, A., and Havighurst, R. J., "A Validation of Development and Adjustment Hypotheses of Adolescence," ]ournal of Educational Psychology, 1952, 43, 339-349. 2o. Cottrell, L. S., "The Adjustment of the Individual to His Age and Sex Roles," American Sociological Review, i942 , 7, 617-62o. 2L Landis, P. H., et al., Sex in Development. New York, Harper & Bros., I94o. 22. Nimkoff, N. F., and Wood, A. L., "Courtship and Personality," American Journal of Sociology, 1947, 53, 263-269. 23. Willoughby, R. R., "Sexuality in the Second Decade," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, x937, a. 24. Huffman, A. V., "Sex Deviation in a Prison Community," Journal of Social Therapy, i96o, 6, I7o-I8I. 25. Strang, op. cir. 26. Kinsey, op. cit. ~ , et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1953. 27. Fleege, U. H., Self-revelation of the Adolescent Boy. Milwaukee, Bruce, I945. 28. Springer, R. H., "Adolescent Dating: Is Marriage the Sole Justification?" Homiletic and Pastoral Review, i959, 59, 333-338. 29. McAllister, R., and VanderVeldt, A., "Factors in Mental Illness among Hospitalized Clergy," Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, I96i, 132, 84. 3o. Hagmaier, G., and Kennedy, E. C., "Psychological Aspects of Seminary Life." In Lee and Putz, eds., Seminary Education in a Time of Change. Notre Dame, Ind., Fides Press, Inc., i965. 3 I. O'Neill, D. P., Priestly Celibacy and Maturity. New York, Sheed & Ward, I965. 32. Hagmaier, G., "Today's Religious Candidate: Psychological and Emotional Considerations," National Catholic Education Association Bulletin, I962, Yg, iio-ii8.
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i47
Dating and the Formation of the Religious OxE ov THE MOST striking aspects of current Catholic thought is the growing concern over, and re-evaluation of, seminary education and practices. In addition to a minor flood of periodical articles, several books have been published attempting to make an appraisal of what have been traditionally accepted practices. One of the most basic of these practices is the self-imposed sexual segregation expected of seminarians. In preparation for an adult life of celibacy, the seminarian or religious is expected to forsake or at least severely restrict the extent and the depth of his heterosexual contacts and relationships. The question has been raised, however, as to whether such expectations are realistic, or whether they are beneficial to the life of the religious, or even whether such restrictions are psychologically sound. Raising questions is only the first step in this evaluative process. One place to seek answers is in the existing empirical and theoretical literature. There is a limited amount of such literature on the importance of heterosexual relationships and dating for psychologically normal development. The studies that are available are generally outdated, or they are of a sociological and demographic character. Explicitly psychological and empirically conducted studies are rare. Despite the paucity of psychological literature in this area, a review of the existing evidence is one way to begin an assessment of the problem. Dating is an experience, and often a problem that almost every adolescent in our society must face. Every textbook on adolescence deals with the problems and purposes of dating. Yet a review of the literature on adolescence and developmental psychology yields relatively little empirical support for the beliefs expressed by most authorities on adoleseent development. While there is general agreement that dating is a worth-while, perhaps necessary experience for the teen-ager, one finds
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
137
little systematic evaluation of the contributions of dating toward normal personality development. Lacking such evaluation, one finds it difficult to judge or predict the effects that might follow a decision to avoid dating because of a given value system rather than through fear, lack of opportunity, or more basic and serious personality difficukies. It is not possible to say, with much scientific certitude, that a young man or woman who avoids heterosexual relationships in adolescence in preparation for an adult life of celibacy will later be deficient in specific social or emotional capacities. The best information available (though rather limited) is suggestive rather than demonstrative of the problems that may arise from not dating during adolescence. Before outlining the empirical data that are available, it will be helpful to present a brief summary of theories on adolescence in general, and the developmental significance of dating specifically. While the psychoanalytic model of personality is not universally accepted, most authors who describe themselves as "dynamic" borrow extensively from the model without accepting all its details and implications. In view of this, the analytic-dynamic approach will be presented first. Subsequently more descriptive and "common-sense" approaches will be mentioned. One representative dynamic approach is that of Cameron) In describing the relevant aspects of adolescent development, Cameron does not present any empirical support. According to his conceptualization, normal adjustment depends on the successful resolution of the Oedipal conflict and the development of masculine identification. The adolescent is represented as having strong aggressive and sexual impulses tinged with guilt and anxiety. Both of these emotional states are diminished by contacts with the opposite sex. They exist because the sexual impulse, for example, is still associated with earlier feelings and attachments to the parent of the opposite sex. By heterosexual peer associations the sexual feelings are redirected from the parent to an appropriate and permissible sexual object. Adolescence is characterized by a less vague and diffuse sexuality than that which typified infantile urges, and it involves more specific and intense biological sources of stimulation. Cameron says that the adolescent, unlike the younger child, cannot renounce these strong urges. He must face them or retreat from reality. Two of the outstanding tasks of adulthood, the choice of a mate and subsequent raising of a family, and the assumption of a role in terms of
138
Journalof Religion and Health
a career choice, are begun in adolescence. In order to feel secure in his sex role, the adolescent is thought to require heterosexual contact for two reasons. First, in order that he will be accepted by his peers, and second, in order that he will himself feel competent in his ability to attract, to interest, and to sustain a relationship with a female. This allows the feeling of sexual attraction to a woman other than the mother, and consequently alleviates the guilt and anxiety previously involved in sexual attraction. It should be emphasized that the dating relationships of adolescence are unstable; that is, they are not meant to terminate in marriage or to culminate in the sexual act. 2 Thus such dating relationships control and protect the individual from the full experience of sexual stimulation. Cameron believes that many adults who choose the life of celibacy on the basis of ideals may very well be more mature than their married peers. This point of view implies that an individual must first experience heterosexual relations before deciding, on the basis of an ideal or value system, to forego continued heterosexual contacts. The absence of such relationships would at least complicate, if not definitely preclude, the resolution of the Oedipal conflict, and it would impair the development of appropriate and healthy means of control over one's impulses. One final point may be made in reference to the function that heterosexual contacts serve in the development of the mature personality. Dating is necessary to develop the knowledge required to choose a mate wisely and to sustain relations with the mate throughout adulthood. This is important, of course, only if the goal of adulthood is the selection of a mate. Few of the texts or articles consulted give any consideration to the possibility that this may not be a goal. Among those authors taking a more common-sense or descriptive approach there is a general consensus that heterosexual relationships may serve any one of several purposes. Primarily, dating is a way of channeling male-female relationships. In the dating process the boy and girl learn about chivalry and exploitation. They have an opportunity to deal with altruism and egoism. They can explore patterns of permissiveness or authoritarianism in their personal relationships. They can learn how to cope with the experience of romanticism or more basic lust. Dating provides an opportunity to work through the attitudes and feelings surrounding self-denial and fulfillment. They learn what it is like to be
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
139
responded to as a male, and what it is to be a female. They learn to establish more effectively, in one erueial area, their own identity and their own feelings of self-esteem. From the viewpoint of the adolescent, heterosexual aetivities such as dating may represent efforts to compensate for some nonsexual affeetional frustration, a surrender to peer group pressure in order to maintain status, or they may indieate an abdication of a capacity for self-discipline and personal responsibility? Gottlieb agrees that dating is often initiated as a result of peer group expectations and pressures to conform. 4 Dating, he states, is one of the characteristics of acceptability revealed in peer group ratings. The importance of peer judgments is supported by Bieber, who emphasizes the effects of peer rejection and humiliation in the potential development of homosexual feelings and behavior. 5 Such rejections often result from failure to engage in usual male adolescent activities such as dating. Dating may also serve as a transitional process, bridging the periods between &pen&nee on the family and adult status. ~ Hurlock gives a summary of the advantages of dating as one form of heterosexual association. 7 She writes that dating gives the adolescent some experience in objectively evaluating members of the opposite sex and in tempering romantic and unrealistic ideas by means of concrete associations. Many other authorities support Hurlock in this contention? Dating serves to reduce emotional excitement and embarrassment upon such contacts? As a result of dating, the fantasies concerning members of the opposite sex are made more realistic so that the individual learns not only what to expect of others, but also what is expected of him. Finally, dating serves the function of role definition by allowing the individual to observe the reactions of others to him in situations that have rather definite and dearly defined role expectations, and by helping in the transition from homoerotic to heterosexual phases of development. 1~ The empirical literature published in the area of heterosexual development has been largely descriptive. Data have generally been colleered by means of self-report inventories and questionnaires administered to a variety of sample populations. Little has been done either by way of clinical evaluation or experimental controls. Nevertheless, some familiarity with the research literature is helpful in evaluating popular and eommon-sense notions about dating. x4o
Journal of Religion and Health
Lucas conducted a study of adolescent needs by means of an experimental test. 11 A pilot form of this test, consisting of items chosen on an a priori basis, was administered to 2oo male and female adolescents. A final form of the test was developed on the basis of this pilot administration, and administered to 725 male and female adolescents in public and parochial schools. A factor analysis revealed several need clusters including an unpredicted need in the category of heterosexual affection and attention. The existence of such a need may be supported to some extent by the fact that dating is an almost universal phenomenon in our culture. 12 Strang predicted serious difficulty if normal heterosexual relations are blocked in adolescence.13 She cites several surveys of adolescent responses to questionnaires. In one survey dealing with college students' responses, the subjects agreed that heterosexual contacts made them feel more at ease and socially more self-confident. More than half of these students indicated that frequent social and intellectual contacts with the opposite sex tended to improve their emotional adjustment and to increase their satisfaction with life. Strang refers to two questionnaires given to 1 ioo and 600 high school students. These surveys suggest that the attitudes expressed by students are not always reflected in their behavior. In these reports most of the students indicated that they did not always take the opportunity to develop heterosexual relationships that were offered by dating contacts. The fact that heterosexual interest and dating are widespread does not necessarily establish the desirability of these practices for normal psychological development. Waller, for example, suggests that dating is an abnormal practice characterized by an attempt at mutual exploitation. x4 The male may attain sexual outlets in the form of petting or premarital intercourse and social prestige, while the female, attempting to yield as little as possible, achieves popularity and opportunities for a variety of experiences of a recreational nature. Mead similarly sees dating as an undesirable form of behavior because it makes male and female relationships situational. 15 Such relationships are used as a means of exhibiting social success and popularity rather than as a means of attaining personal intimacy and closeness. Mead notes that sexual irresponsibility occurs when adolescents are continually engaged in pair relationships. This is particularly true in our mobile society where supervision of dating is minimal, and where fluctuating standards leave little clarity with
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i4i
respect to appropriate sexual behavior. 1~ Thus, for many adolescents, guilt is a natural by-product of dating because individuals are often confused and torn between what they think is expected of them sexually and what adult society has told them is morally correct. 17 These views on dating as situational, as transient, and as exploitative are minority views that are contradicted by other authorities and by the empirical evidence that exists. Lowrie lists a number of positive functions of dating including the attainment of poise and balance, adjustment to those of the opposite sex, and greater objectivity in viewing members of the opposite sex. 18 In support of his conclusions he describes a study of 782 high school boys and 8i 3 high school girls. Included in this study were 2o 3 college males and i8i college females. The students were asked to select from a list of eight possible reasons for dating the three most important. The results of this survey indicate that about 26 per cent of the respondents saw the need for affection as the most important reason for dating. The attainment of social poise ranked next in importance. Twenty-three per cent of the responses fell in this category. Mate selection, and learning to adjust to a member of the opposite sex, accounted for large percentages of the responses. The combined categories of attendance at social affairs, opportunities to neck, and social prestige among peers accounted for approximately I7 per cent of the responses. Necking was ranked lowest. On the basis of these data, Lowrie states that dating should be a consciously fostered developmental process and educational experience. He criticizes Wallin's views because they are based on an unrepresentative sample of college fraternity men. The data offered by other investigators go somewhat further. Schoeppe and Havighurst administered an intensive series of psychometric, sociometric, and projective tests to ~5 males and 15 females at ages io, 13, and i6 in a longitudinal study of development, l~ They conclude that satisfactory peer relations and adoption of appropriate sex roles are closely linked to other developmental tasks, deficiencies in one area having rather pervasive and generalized personality consequences. In conjunction with Cottrell's view that ability to test social roles in situations involving reciprocal behavior is important in social adjustment, 2~ one may reasonably infer that failure to engage in heterosexual activities may not only impede role identification, but also have more general consequences in impeding the completion of other developmental tasks. i42
Journalof Religion and Health
Approaching the problem in a more explicitly clinical manner, Landis found that among married and unmarried, normal and abnormal women, significantly more normals had had their first date before the age of sixteen. 21 Significantly more abnormal women had never dated a boy. In addition, 27 per cent of his abnormal group had never had heterosexual physical intimacies, while none of the normals reported this. Nimkoff and Wood administered a questionnaire on dating and courtship behavior along with the Bell Adjustment Inventory to 500 students in an eastern coeducational college. 22 They conclude that students who seldom date, who start dating late, and who have never had more than one "steady" are predominantly socially retiring and show a slight tendency to be emotionally maladjusted. Those who had earlier and more frequent dating experiences were more socially aggressive and more closely approximated acceptable norms of emotional adjustment. Finally, those who had begun dating in grade school tended to be socially aggressive, but emotionally more maladjusted. The authors suggest that present personality is more likely to influence dating practices. Therefore the importance of nondating as a factor in maladjustment is an open question. Nondating that is undertaken in accordance with a long-range goal or ideal may have a different significance from that for which the reasons are unspecified. A study by Willoughby used 2200 women as subjects. 28 In a subsample of homosexual women, it was found that those from women's colleges constituted about three-fourths of the total homosexual group, while those from coeducational institutions constituted only one-fifth. The author concludes that these data on homosexuality "suggest both that withdrawing types of personality find this adjustment less formidable than a heterosexual one, and that anomalous environments such as prisons or the average women's college can force anomalous expressions upon normal impulses." Other authors also mention the possible dangers of reduced heterosexual contact or exposure. Huffman is one of many who point to the frequently observed high incidence of homosexual experience in situations where the sexes are segregated (prisons or schools). 24 His study dealt specifically with prisoners, so that the generalizability to self-imposed avoidance of heterosexual contacts is limited. Strang reviewed a study from comparative psychology which supports the idea that lack of early heterosexual contact may later impair the capacity for it. 25 Rats
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
I43
who were segregated prior to maturing showed a tendency later to prefer association with the same sex. One finds similar implications in the Kinsey studies36 Finally, a rather comprehensive study of 2200 Catholic adolescents was reported by FleegeY Questionnaires and inventories were administered to a sample of students drawn from twenty schools in eighteeen cities and across twelve states. Schools were chosen with different enrollments and faculty compositions. Both all-male and coeducational schools were included. In the area of heterosexual adjustment Fleege concludes that the chances of a boy's being helped spiritually by girls are a relatively direct function of the degree to which he associates with them. The chances of receiving some type of spiritual aid are nearly three times as great for the boy who associates with girls frequently as for the boy who does not. For the boy who does not date, the effect that girls, or thoughts about them, have on him is indifferent in one out of two cases, harmful in one out of four, and helpful in only one out of six. Thus the chances are greatest that thoughts about girls will have a harmful effect on boys who never go out with them. Moderate association between the sexes is beneficial to a boy's spiritual life, possibly because distortions and fantasy preoccupations are due to a lack of real associations. In general the empirical literature supports the conclusion that heterosexual associations are useful because they provide necessary learning experiences; they lead to social poise and adiustment; and they provide a background for the assumption of adult sex roles and relationships. There is some indication that such relationships may prove beneficial from a spiritual point of view. Finally, it seems likely that there is some relation between social introversion, sexual aberrations, maladjustment, and the degree to which an individual associates with members of the opposite sex. Whether such personality deficiencies cause or are the result of heterosexual adjustments and relationships cannot be decided upon the basis of existing evidence. In locating material relevant to this study, religious publications were also reviewed. The relationship between dating practices and adolescent personality development has been virtually ignored as a topic of concern in Catholic periodical literature. When dating is discussed, it is generally in terms of morally desirable practices or morally dangerous behavior. Dating, though thought to be necessary, is seen as a possible
x44
Journalof Religion and Health
occasion of sin, particularly when the dating relationship becomes prolonged or when it involves frequent contacts between two individuals. Thus, a majority of the articles on dating are concerned with a discussion of types of dates, dating partners, and especially the practice of steady dating among couples for whom marriage is not an immediate possibility. An occasional article, such as that by Springer, makes the assertion that dating is a necessary practice for sound development, but factual material is not offered in support of these claims. =s McAllister and Vander Veldt, in a study of hospitalized clergy, found that many priests felt uneasy in the company of laity, and especially in the company of women, e" They often approached marriage and family problems in naive and unrealistic ways. Hagmaier and Kennedy comment that seminary education hampers the development of appropriate emotional reactions by prohibiting normal contacts during the years of training, a~ Though they do not advocate long or involved dating relationships, these authors do feel that interaction with the opposite sex is most desirable in preventing an unrealistic isolation from women. They suggest that encouragement be given to on-going extracurricular contacts with women's colleges and coeducational institutions as a means of preventing any abnormal detachment. O'Neill suggests that such detachment interferes with a truly informed decision for celibacy? 1 In line with this contention, Hagmaier cites the high rate of defection among Italian clergy, who are rigidly supervised during their seminary years? 2 One might infer from this observation that rigid sexual segregation leads the seminarian to decide for a life of celibacy without a true knowledge of his needs or what he is sacrificing in the celibate life. He is asked to leave behind him heterosexual experiences, affection, and satisfactions before he has had an opportunity to know what he is forsaking. Even where the forsaking of heterosexual associations is made on the basis of a set of values, one may argue that such sexual isolation is unrealistic as well as detrimental to effectiveness as an adult. Little or no empirical support can be offered for most of the inferences and conclusions herein presented. Studies of dating have been concerned with the demographic distribution of dating practices and with sexual behavior in the dating relationship. Little basic research has been done to determine how dating actually affects the development of the individual personality. If such research is lacking, this may be at-
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i45
tributed to a misleading preoccupation with outdated and inoperative conceptions of dating together with a lack of concern about the more fundamental problem of the effects of dating on normal adolescent development. REFERENCES i. Cameron, N., Personality Development and Psychopathology: A Dynamic Approach. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963. 2. Smith, E. A., American Youth Culture. Glencoe, Free Press, i962. 3. Glossberg, B. Y., "Sexual Behavior Patterns in Contemporary Youth Culture: Implications for Later Marriage," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1965, 27, 19o-192. 4. Gottlieb, D., and Reeves, J., Adolescent Behavior in Urban Areas: A Bibliographic Review and Discussion of the Literature. Glencoe, Free Press, I963. 5- Bieber, I., et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. New York, Basic Books, 1962. 6. Smith, E. A., op. tit. 7. Hurlock, E. B., Adolescent Development. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1955. 8. Lowrie, S. H., "Dating Theories and Student Responses," American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 334-34o. Malm, M., and Jamison, O. G., Adolescence. New York, McGraw-Hill, x952. Schneiders, A. A., Personality Development and Adjustment in Adolescence. Milwaukee, Bruce, i96o. Smith, E. A., op. cir. 9. Allers, R., Sex Psychology in Education. St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., I937. Lowrie, op. cir. Smith, E. A., op. cit. Trevitt, R., The Tree of Life: Sexuality and the Growth of Personality. New York, P. J. Kennedy & Sons, i963. io. Allers, op. cit. Breckenridge, M., and Vincent, E. L., Child Development. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1955. Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P., Engagement and Marriage. New York, J. B. Lippincott, 1953. Campbell, R. J., "Masturbation and Homosexuality." In Bier, W. C., ed., The Adolescent: His Search for Understanding. New York, Fordham University Press, 1963. Cory, D. W., "Homosexuality." In Ellis and Abarbanel, eds., Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. New York, Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1963. Kinsey, A. C., et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948. Laidlow, R. W., "A Clinical Approach to Homosexuality," Marriage and Family Living, 1952, 14, 39-45. Malta and Jamison, op. cir. Schneiders, op. cir. Smith, E. A., op. cit. 11. Lucas, C. M., and Horrocks, J. E., "An Experimental Approach to the Analysis of Adolescent Needs," Child Development, 196o, 3 t, 479-487. i2. Cole, L., and Hall, T., Psychology of Adolescence. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Schneiders, op. cit. 13. Strang, R., Behavior and Background of Students in College and Secondary School. New York, Harper & Bros., I937. I4. Waller, W., "The Rating and Dating Complex," American Sociological Review, 1937, 2, 727-734. 15. Mead, M., Male and Female. New York, William Morrow & Co., 1949. 16. Ehrmann, W. W., Premarital Dating Behavior. New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1959. Reiss, I. L., Premarital Sexual Standards in America. Glencoe, Free Press, 196o. Smith, W. M., "Rating and Dating: A Re-study," Marriage and Family Living, 1952, t4, 313-3179 17. Ehrmann, op. cir. Reiss, op. cit. 18. Lowrie, op. cir. I46
Journal of Religion and Health
19. Schoeppe, A., and Havighurst, R. J., "A Validation of Development and Adjustment Hypotheses of Adolescence," ]ournal of Educational Psychology, 1952, 43, 339-349. 2o. Cottrell, L. S., "The Adjustment of the Individual to His Age and Sex Roles," American Sociological Review, i942 , 7, 617-62o. 2L Landis, P. H., et al., Sex in Development. New York, Harper & Bros., I94o. 22. Nimkoff, N. F., and Wood, A. L., "Courtship and Personality," American Journal of Sociology, 1947, 53, 263-269. 23. Willoughby, R. R., "Sexuality in the Second Decade," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, x937, a. 24. Huffman, A. V., "Sex Deviation in a Prison Community," Journal of Social Therapy, i96o, 6, I7o-I8I. 25. Strang, op. cir. 26. Kinsey, op. cit. ~ , et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders, 1953. 27. Fleege, U. H., Self-revelation of the Adolescent Boy. Milwaukee, Bruce, I945. 28. Springer, R. H., "Adolescent Dating: Is Marriage the Sole Justification?" Homiletic and Pastoral Review, i959, 59, 333-338. 29. McAllister, R., and VanderVeldt, A., "Factors in Mental Illness among Hospitalized Clergy," Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, I96i, 132, 84. 3o. Hagmaier, G., and Kennedy, E. C., "Psychological Aspects of Seminary Life." In Lee and Putz, eds., Seminary Education in a Time of Change. Notre Dame, Ind., Fides Press, Inc., i965. 3 I. O'Neill, D. P., Priestly Celibacy and Maturity. New York, Sheed & Ward, I965. 32. Hagmaier, G., "Today's Religious Candidate: Psychological and Emotional Considerations," National Catholic Education Association Bulletin, I962, Yg, iio-ii8.
Dating and the Formation of the Religious
i47
