This guy, apparently:
"When I wasn’t lifting and courting, I was building a network of intellectuals interested in problems of governance from beyond the established liberal democratic paradigm."
What a sentence.
>"I feel like it's a term used by somebody from the Edwardian era who needs a refill on their moustache wax."
I knew someone like this. The running joke was that they were a purveyor of 19th century elixirs, tonics—things of that nature. Then they shaved, and the magic ended.
"Perchance good sir, could you point me in the direction of the nearest apothecary?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbq6Wfh9fi4&ab_channel=Key%2...
So... communists? Hippies? Not that there's anything wrong with either, I just find that such people are really into work-trade and barter, but they always have cash for alcohol and cigarettes.
Businesses court each other. So do nations. Their ambassadors sometimes court each other, not for a personal fling, but to broker an important deal between nations.
Courting is that process of trying to make a connection that works equally well for both sides. It's a practice we should encourage more of. The outcomes are typically better than quick and dirty deals where neither side bothers to adequately understand the interests and motives of the other.
So these days you aren't necessarily trying to decide if you want to marry. In Edwardian times, that was more likely to be the goal of seeing someone: to try to establish a serious, committed relationship under the bonds of marriage.
Dating seems to be a broad term that can mean anything from casual hookups to courting for purposes of trying to marry. And the fact that it's broad has two positives to it: It gives the couple latitude to sort their own feelings without deciding ahead of time if this is a casual hookup or a serious courtship (or something in between) and, secondarily, it protects their privacy.
It protects their privacy by allowing them to communicate to others that "We are seeing each other romantically" while sidestepping questions like "How serious are you two?" or "What are your intentions?"
It also protects their privacy by declining to indicate if they just had dinner together or if they actually slept together. And it's not anyone's business in many cases, though people tend to be nosy.
Sometimes, a broad umbrella term that is not making such specifics clear is a feature, not a bug, of using it. But I agree that the broader term would have communicated something different in this case and the more specific term is the correct term for what he likely desired to communicate.
They did get married. Now that he is married, he has no need to obfuscate the fact that he wanted a serious relationship.
I feel like it's a term used by somebody from the Edwardian era who needs a refill on their moustache wax.