On "Dating: An anti-education"

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
anfurny
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:48 am UTC
Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
Contact:

On "Dating: An anti-education"

Postby anfurny » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:29 pm UTC

This is the title of an article in the magazine N + 1. You can read the article here: http://www.nplusonemag.com/dating.html

On a side note a really enjoy this magazine. Here is a link to an archive of their online content followed by a link to a writing on WOW.
http://www.nplusonemag.com/archive.html
http://www.nplusonemag.com/azeroth.html


Back to the topic, I find this piece touches many things but doesn't solidly prove any (i.e. doesn't cite studies) which makes it very ripe for discussion.

There are probably a good 10 potential discussions in here, both on what is said and is implied. Is it true what they say? Does it apply the same way to us XKCDers? Is the amount of attention and money spent on dating a reasonless cultural obsession, or should we spend even more time trying to find the one or ones we will marry (since marriage ranks so highly on many people's life goals)? Will dating become obselete in the future to internet sites?

Whatever your theory, try to give us the reasons behind it. Also, sometimes a question is more valuable than a statement.

Also, if you're interested in having one-on-one conversations on this same topic simply say so in your post.[/u]
Privilege Revocation: You are not allowed to refer the xkcdians in first person. The exception to the rule is that-- wait, no, you're the exception to the rule of "don't be a dick". --LE4dGOLEM

User avatar
iknoritesrsly
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:22 pm UTC

Postby iknoritesrsly » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:52 pm UTC

*reading the article*

so I can't reply to the first questions yet, but, in my own opinion, most people spend too much money, time, and effort on dating, when there are more fun alternatives.

that said, I like to have fun, and I enjoy being in a relationship even though I'm not searching for someone to get married to. Perhaps this is because getting married isn't high on my life's goals?

Dating will not become obsolete because of the internet. At best, the internet will help people get dates. It will never replace the actual activity of physical interaction.

*done reading*

I agree, mostly. But it depends on how you define dating, I think, as to whether or not it's really worth it or not. I've always felt that dating is a somewhat trivial pursuit, but cast in the right light, I don't see it as harmful or entirely pointless either. Dates can be fun and entertaining. Married couples can go on dates. Etc...

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Postby Brian » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:59 pm UTC

Marriage will become obsolete sooner than dating will. Any moment now, actually...

Reading the articles at the moment. As a WoW player, I'm quite interested to see what they have to say on the game.

-----Edit-----

The article on dating is interesting. I would never date as freely as the article describes, as I tend to think that if you're searching endlessly for the right person, you're just going to wear yourself out. It makes much more sense to figure out and improve yourself than to bang your head against a wall.

Dating, like the tyrant, seeks perfection


Very true.

Not my words - "Relationships aren't two fragments constructing a single piece. It takes two complete people to make a solid relationship."

Sure, everyone has to learn, but frequent dating (as the article stated) will get you nowhere.


The WoW article is a wall-o-text that isn't worth reading unless you know nothing of it and want to understand the lighter side of the game. DIAF, CASUALS!!!
Last edited by Brian on Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lani
Has Boobs (Probably)
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:07 am UTC
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Contact:

Postby Lani » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:17 pm UTC

I think it's pretty ridiculous. Not everyone dates that much - I'm a long term relationshipper than a dater. Also, it's possible to not spend that ridiculous sum of money on a single date. Personally, I'm a fan of the inexpensive dates - cooking up dinner together, for example, instead of eating out.

I have more, but I have to get back to work. Suffice to say, I think the article's premise is a little silly.
- Lani

"They think they're so high and mighty, just because they never got caught driving without pants."

User avatar
iknoritesrsly
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:22 pm UTC

Postby iknoritesrsly » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

yeah, though I agree with some of the ideas, you are right, it's a bit sensationalized and childish. :D

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:22 pm UTC

I barely believe in dating, and really don't believe in marriage (says the married man) but the persistent social imperative is to date, then marry. At least, it used to be.... as far as I know, now the social imperative is "be a whore", then marry. I never understood that part.

User avatar
anfurny
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:48 am UTC
Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
Contact:

Postby anfurny » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Hmm, so far I'd have to say I'm a bit more than disappointed with this "discussion."

Perhaps if you want to say you agree or disagree also say what you believe the primary purpose of the paper is. I assume it's "Dating presents itself as an education in human relationships. In fact it’s an anti-education. You could invent no worse preparation for love, for marriage, than the tireless pursuit of the perfect partner," as the title supports.

Nobody has explicitly said: "I disagree, dating is good preperation for marriage." or "I disagree, dating doesn't present itself this way. For example, I read [popular dating magazine] and haven't ever heard it suggested that dates are meant for anything more than fun or sex."

Lani: It sounds like you're saying people "shouldn't" date as much as this says they do, and I would say it agrees. Or are you disagreeing with its claim that people do date this much (as it tries to support by the prominence of bars, fancy restaurants, and the prominence of other business specifically oriented toward the casual dater)?

Iknoritesrsly: What statements, and why?

Perhaps I misunderstood this "Serious Business" forum. Almost every statement is in the first person.

Also, if you think this article is wrong, try to say what you think instead is right. This kind of thing doesn't get published for no reason (multiple people have to like it), so give it some thought.

For example you might say,
Example smart Response wrote:"This article seems to have been written from the perspective of somebody in New York or another large city. Perhaps at that location, serial dating is more common. But out here in Alabama, I don't know anybody who's dated more than 15 people in the last 10 years, and I'm 27. Also, out here, there aren't many fancy dating restaurants, coffee shops, and other businesses it cites. So the scope of this paper, in my opinion is limited to cities.

Which brings up a good question. We could say they are only serial dating because they are in a city, but it's only relative. Whose to say out here in Alabama we aren't picky enough? How long does it really take to know if somebody is marriage material?"



At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.
Privilege Revocation: You are not allowed to refer the xkcdians in first person. The exception to the rule is that-- wait, no, you're the exception to the rule of "don't be a dick". --LE4dGOLEM

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:16 pm UTC

Are we doing your homework for you? I'm sorry our discussion is not up to your high personal standards.

User avatar
iknoritesrsly
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:22 pm UTC

Postby iknoritesrsly » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:19 pm UTC

*shrug*

pose a more serious question and you'll probably get a more serious debate. :) the article isn't very academic, so accordingly, neither are the responses here.

p.s. you personally might get better responses if you stop giving off the vibe that you think of yourself as intellectually superior to well, everyone. ;) don't mistake this for some ad hominem attack, it isn't, but realize that no matter how smart you are, or how smart other people are, there's no need to flaunt one's intelligence. (especially when talking about the pros and cons of dating, haha)

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:23 pm UTC

anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.


Really?

...

As for the article, I don't mind discussing the topic of dating. I find the article's portrayal of dating to be overblown--in my experience, no one is as obsessed with dating as the author would have us believe. Perhaps there's a cultural bias at play here. I can imagine a metropolitan atmosphere lending itself to this sort of dating game, but I don't believe the concept is endemic in our society. Romance, yes. This very narrow concept of dating, no.

I was especially intrigued by the bit about the modern novel being a series of dates. I haven't read any novels that I would come close to characterizing that way. Has anyone else?

In all, I think someone was looking to write an interesting article, and so sensationalized a topic that could be interesting to discuss seriously.

I've never really dated, personally. I've often had lunch with friends, or gone to dinner and a movie with a friend. I've had friendships develop into partnerships. I've met people in person that I had only known online. But none of those encounters is really what this article is describing. Anyone else? Or is this supposedly far-reaching dating epidemic actually not as far-reaching as the article makes it out to be?
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

anfurny wrote:Hmm, so far I'd have to say I'm a bit more than disappointed with this "discussion."

....

For example you might say,
Example smart Response wrote:"This article seems to have been written from the perspective of somebody in New York or another large city. Perhaps at that location, serial dating is more common. But out here in Alabama, I don't know anybody who's dated more than 15 people in the last 10 years, and I'm 27. Also, out here, there aren't many fancy dating restaurants, coffee shops, and other businesses it cites. So the scope of this paper, in my opinion is limited to cities.

Which brings up a good question. We could say they are only serial dating because they are in a city, but it's only relative. Whose to say out here in Alabama we aren't picky enough? How long does it really take to know if somebody is marriage material?"



At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.



Sounds like you don't even need us to have a debate, eh?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC

New discussion: When a forum's posts are, by halfway down the first page, not up to the standards and hopes of the new and inexperienced poster after less than four hours, do we pull up our trousers and try to appease him with highbrow discussions, or do we explain to him that he is not, in fact, the boss of us, and his condescension is beneath us?

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Postby Jesse » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:31 pm UTC

anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.


In that case, please, please just Fuck Off.


Sorry mods.

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:35 pm UTC

I didn't go highbrow because that's not why I'm here. If he wants a sociology class, he should enroll in a sociology class. This is an online discussion.

I did stay on topic though. It's an interesting topic. Maybe we should axe this thread and just start a Serious Business topic on dating as a phenomenon...

There probably already is one, anyway.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:40 pm UTC

Might as well start a new one.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:48 pm UTC

Is there enough interest? I mean, my contribution will mostly be "I don't do this and I really don't know anyone who does." I don't have too much to say about it other than that.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
Pathway
Leon Sumbitches...?
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:59 pm UTC

Postby Pathway » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:58 pm UTC

Then dinner, another $100.


So maybe this article's a little narrow in its scope. Where I live, for $35 you can get a great, upscale dinner for two. Drinks wouldn't run you $30, either.
SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

Thematic-Device
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:13 am UTC

Postby Thematic-Device » Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:33 pm UTC

People who date a lot tend to learn early on not to spend a lot of money on it. The people who support the "business" as the article suggests tend to be making rookie mistakes.

Depending on the person, dates can be completely free, or at the very least incredibly inexpensive.

Impress the person with your conversation, personality, etc. not with your ability to waste money.

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Postby Brian » Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:08 am UTC

anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.

I sense the ban stick incoming anyway.

People aren't going to take an hour to research a subject before posting, so don't expect citations and deep reasoning on an obviously subjective topic. Different people hold different opinions on dating/relationships. It is not a binary, correct/incorrect topic.

Especially when all you really say is, "here's an article, discuss."

Does it apply the same way to us XKCDers?

Also, this is in direct violation of your sig-rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thematic-Device wrote:Depending on the person, dates can be completely free, or at the very least incredibly inexpensive.

Impress the person with your conversation, personality, etc. not with your ability to waste money.

Especially first-dates. In my experience, dates on which a lot of money is spent are "special" partially because they should be out of the norm. A $200 night spent on a date should say, "Now that I know you, I know you're worth a lot to me and this is just one way I can show it."

If someone spent that much on me every date or even semi-often, I'd ask them to stop because I wouldn't enjoy it.

User avatar
anfurny
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:48 am UTC
Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
Contact:

Postby anfurny » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:47 am UTC

I never asked for highbrow, just serious discussion. I think tessuraea's post was good.

What I find so objectionable, besides what was mentioned earlier, is people saying "Dating, well this three plus page piece said dates cost most than they actually do, therefore everything in this whole piece is worthless, even if the topic sentence doesn't mention price at all." A piece isn't worthless when it has a single error (how would you feel if somebody ignored all your posts with typos? ... Good idea.). A piece is worthless when it has nothing new that isn't an error.

Of course, one thing we should consider when comparing this article to our present lives is the fact that we go online to a forum for conversation. This in and of itself could be a whole additional discussion. So we are expected to have trouble relating to its points; I doubt many of us are in prominent social scenes. The people who can afford a $40 bottle of wine and two $25 steaks probably rarely end up here. But each paragraph is a seperate point, and money is mentioned in only one (of eight) paragraphs.

pose a more serious question and you'll probably get a more serious debate. the article isn't very academic, so accordingly, neither are the responses here.


I don't see what you do not think is serious about this question. I mentioned that finding the/a right partner is one of the highest goals for many. Also, it's a topic where discussing may change something (the way you go about that goal) as opposed to a political argument where even if you convinced every person you ever met it would have no influence on your life (they would walk into a ballot booth, press a different button, and the same election outcome would happen).

Perhaps a lot of people here are young and so don't feel any urgency to find a partner. I think if everybody posted their age with their comment it would make it a lot easier to see where they were coming from. Saying "Oh I don't really date" as a 15-year-old is completely seperate from saying it as a 37-year-old. I personally feel no urgency, but it's a very important topic.

In that case, please, please just Fuck Off.

I'm debating it, but your encouragement won't hasten my departure.

People aren't going to take an hour to research a subject before posting,


I don't think people need to do an hour of research, or any research at all. I think maybe six good minutes of thought each would probably make sense. It took less than that for me to make up the city theory. Basically don't just say "Well the title has the word date in it. I'm going to pick four sentences about myself that have the word date in them too, and say them."

Ultimately it seems to stem from people not caring. If you actually find these things interesting, it's no imposition at all read it, slowly, and give it thought (plenty of people pay $10+ an issue to read this magazine for fun, without a conversation). I don't get the impression that even on serious business, people talk about things not because they want to learn, but because they just want to talk (which I tried to address in my very first post, based on what I had observed).

I sense the ban stick incoming anyway.

If it happens, it happens. In such an event, I hope you find guys find some way to fill your time without having me to hate. I think I was sort of the one guy most people hated, the unifying enemy that pushed you all together. *smiles possibly joking*

I think this discussion also plays into so many women's need to feel attractive (see the cosmetics industry). I can see the response coming already, "I don't wear cosmetics, that's off-base and sensationalism." Why do women want to feel attractive if not for the constant need to be liked by potential suitors and female friends?
Last edited by anfurny on Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:21 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Privilege Revocation: You are not allowed to refer the xkcdians in first person. The exception to the rule is that-- wait, no, you're the exception to the rule of "don't be a dick". --LE4dGOLEM

User avatar
the Cow
Today India, tomorrow the world!
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby the Cow » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:11 am UTC

I found the article to be flippant and glib personal opinion overview with liitle to say that isn't said regularly on "Friends" or "Sex and the City". I'm not surprised that reaction to it is flippant and glib.

And I like saying "flippant and glib" it sounds like a Marx brothers law firm.
...the whim of a hat.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:48 am UTC

anfurny wrote:Why do people want to feel attractive if not for the constant need to be liked by potential suitors and female friends?


There. Fixed it for you. Men are no different than women in the desire to want to be desired.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
yy2bggggs
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:42 am UTC

Postby yy2bggggs » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:52 am UTC

anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.

I agree. I don't think this forum is quite the fit for you.

User avatar
iknoritesrsly
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:22 pm UTC

Postby iknoritesrsly » Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:54 am UTC

anfurny wrote:Perhaps a lot of people here are young and so don't feel any urgency to find a partner. I think if everybody posted their age with their comment it would make it a lot easier to see where they were coming from. Saying "Oh I don't really date" as a 15-year-old is completely seperate from saying it as a 37-year-old. I personally feel no urgency, but it's a very impoartant topic.


au contraire, i have a feeling that the younger you are, the more interesting dating vs. courting type questions are. why? because one is more likely to be curious about said new world of relationships and mistakes. :D

p.s. I know people that pay to read cosmo. ;)

User avatar
RealGrouchy
Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
Posts: 6704
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby RealGrouchy » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:41 am UTC

Jesster wrote:
anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.


In that case, please, please just Fuck Off.


Sorry mods.

Jesster, do you really think that was appropriate?

I mean, I was tempted to just delete his posts altogether.

- RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Postby Jesse » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:39 am UTC

RealGrouchy wrote:
Jesster wrote:
anfurny wrote:At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.


In that case, please, please just Fuck Off.


Sorry mods.

Jesster, do you really think that was appropriate?

I mean, I was tempted to just delete his posts altogether.

- RG>


Not appropriate, but I felt better.

User avatar
une see
Is my girl
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:31 pm UTC
Location: a tenuous grip on reality
Contact:

Postby une see » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:44 am UTC

Hmmm...I read both articles (skimmed the WoW one, more like), and I thought the writing was...questionable, and I didn't really get what the point of either one was. I found n+1's approach to writing articles rather unorthodox, but not in a good way...

But on the topic of dating, in my neighborhood (a predominantly Jewish town in the suburbs with relatively affluent to astoundingly rich citizens), no one really dates. People just "go out," as in they hang out, and they do stuff together, but they don't really date. And when they do go out, it's not so much planned, as it just happens because they're "going out." But then again, I am still in high school, so I guess there's a generational gap here.

And that WoW article was um...interesting, I guess. But really kind of pointless. Was it a review? A heartwarming tale of the author's addiction and subsequent conquest of said addiction to WoW? Long, and boring, and kind of all over the place...was he trying to make a point about something?

But one thing is for sure: Alliance are most definitely not the "good guys," and Horde the "bad guys." That is one thing the author needs to fucking get straight. Not like he even plays WoW anymore, probably, but still...it's the principle of the thing.

Well, I feel like I've been bashing this n+1 magazine too much...Um, the writing wasn't all bad. Just kind of unfocused. (I know what that's like...)

Edit (just read this):
anfurny wrote:For example you might say,
Example smart Response wrote:"This article seems to have been written from the perspective of somebody in New York or another large city. Perhaps at that location, serial dating is more common. But out here in Alabama, I don't know anybody who's dated more than 15 people in the last 10 years, and I'm 27. Also, out here, there aren't many fancy dating restaurants, coffee shops, and other businesses it cites. So the scope of this paper, in my opinion is limited to cities.

Which brings up a good question. We could say they are only serial dating because they are in a city, but it's only relative. Whose to say out here in Alabama we aren't picky enough? How long does it really take to know if somebody is marriage material?"


At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.


Did you really just type that? "Example smart response?" You asked for a discussion of an article you thought was interesting (a discussion includes more than one person, in case you weren't aware), so who are you to say what is or is not a smart response? Why don't you just have a debate with yourself then, if your "typical smart responses" are so up to your standards?

At this point, I'm starting to wonder just how much more condescending you can get.

Edit again: Ooops! Guess it was moved from Serious Business. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Last edited by une see on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:25 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
T.S. Eliot in "The Waste Land" wrote:APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Postby pollywog » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:16 am UTC

une see wrote:But on the topic of dating, in my neighborhood (a predominantly Jewish town in the suburbs with relatively affluent to astoundingly rich citizens), no one really dates. People just "go out," as in they hang out, and they do stuff together, but they don't really date. And when they do go out, it's not so much planned, as it just happens because they're "going out." But then again, I am still in high school, so I guess there's a generational gap here.


Where I come from, most people will "go out" with other people. This can lead to a relationship of a more serious kind, or people could just get bored with it. But I am also still in high school, and most people I know don't really have the time, money, energy or transport options to date, like go see a movie and then go out to dinner. I've never done any of that stuff with either of my girlfriends, mainly because I have no money.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:10 am UTC

une see wrote:Edit again: Ooops! Guess it was moved from Serious Business. My apologies for the misunderstanding.


It was moved because it was discussion of an article, not of a serious issue - it did not belong in that forum, and it wasn't being taken seriously in there. Placing it in News and Articles also allows more freedom of response.

User avatar
ShadeWolf
Not to be confused with the well-lit variety
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 2:17 pm UTC
Location: Lurking some where in the shadows
Contact:

Postby ShadeWolf » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:37 am UTC

Hmmm, I took a look at both articles, and that WOW article was really biased and it just seemed like it was bagging out people who choose to play a computer game rather than watch tv or go out and do something.

In regards to the other article, a lot of it is basically saying don't go and try and have a relationship with other people because it is bad. This i disagree with, as going on dates, having relationships is all about building human experiences, and it is something we as a human race can learn from.
The wolf that walks in the dark is no more.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: On "Dating: An anti-education"

Postby GhostWolfe » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:45 am UTC

anfurny wrote:http://www.nplusonemag.com/azeroth.html


Hmm, how old is this article?

There's over 8 million players now, and the article was clearly written before the expansion.

Apart from that it's an excellent discussion on what it's like to play WoW without the level of judgement that I got from some of my friends when I started; and later from the reformed players who like to insist WoW is the devil (meh, I wasn't doing anything else with my sould anyways).
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:58 pm UTC

anfurny wrote: fun or sex."

Lani: It sounds like you're saying people "shouldn't" date as much as this says they do, and I would say it agrees. Or are you disagreeing with its claim that people do date this much (as it tries to support by the prominence of bars, fancy restaurants, and the prominence of other business specifically oriented toward the casual dater)?

While i cannot speak for Lani in my experience this is certanily the case, Dating as a process of "finding a mate" is something I have almost really only seen or heard of in the media, most relationships I've heard of have started from some non "formal" place, like work, friendship etc. Now "dates" as a concept is basically a couple people going out to have fun and this has hopefully increased as people having fun is good. But my mom will go on a "date" except it's like the hundred and fifty fourth date or something, so it's not dating
Perhaps I misunderstood this "Serious Business" forum. Almost every statement is in the first person.

Huh? how is saying what I think or feel irrelevant? luckily it isn't serious business anymore though
Also, if you think this article is wrong, try to say what you think instead is right. This kind of thing doesn't get published for no reason (multiple people have to like it), so give it some thought.

Oh god yes it's really hard to get published on the internet and have multiple people like something. Want me to link you to some beastiality porn? Because
This kind of thing doesn't get published for no reason (multiple people have to like it), so give it some thought.

For example you might say,
Example smart Response wrote:"This article seems to have been written from the perspective of somebody in New York or another large city. Perhaps at that location, serial dating is more common. But out here in Alabama, I don't know anybody who's dated more than 15 people in the last 10 years, and I'm 27. Also, out here, there aren't many fancy dating restaurants, coffee shops, and other businesses it cites. So the scope of this paper, in my opinion is limited to cities.


Which brings up a good question. We could say they are only serial dating because they are in a city, but it's only relative. Whose to say out here in Alabama we aren't picky enough? How long does it really take to know if somebody is marriage material?"

What the hell? Look, here is what would be a smart responce to this post



[/quote]
I'm sorry

At this point I'm a bit hopeless for this topic and for this forum. I hate to be right.
Yes it's really hard being right when you define right as "what I think", if it didn't come across clearly in your old thread your whole philosophy was more or less BS because you defined all the words in a shitty manner and provided no proof for anything.
But don't lose hope yet, maybe you will realize that what you think is an opinion not the rules chosen by the gods, and so if you join a forum you might want to consider the rules already in place established by the people who are prominent there. You don't show up and try and act as if though everything you say is profound, and writing it in the style of some pompous dimwit.
If you actually speak like that I feel sorry to anyone who has to listen to you, and if not, why not write the way you speak, to make it more personal, and less like ... that

Back to dating, the article also has a faulty conclusion, the only person I can think of (that I remember/know of) that met someone through dating was my dad who met his current wife over the web.
It just sounds like alot of mental masturbation to me, it might have turned out to be decent comedy material if he had been funnier, but utlimately it's not based on any real information outside of "hey here's something i've kinda noticed".

I found the article to be flippant and glib personal opinion overview with liitle to say that isn't said regularly on "Friends" or "Sex and the City". I'm not surprised that reaction to it is flippant and glib.

Yeah more or less, it basically made me think of seinfeld ("She doesn't like the voice!") or some simular unrealistic but entertaining reality. It's probably true to some extent but meh.

I don't see what you do not think is serious about this question. I mentioned that finding the/a right partner is one of the highest goals for many. Also, it's a topic where discussing may change something (the way you go about that goal) as opposed to a political argument where even if you convinced every person you ever met it would have no influence on your life (they would walk into a ballot booth, press a different button, and the same election outcome would happen).

finding a partner is a serious question but this is as much about finding a partner as discussing an article in vogue on how to please your man is about the essential desires in humanity. If you want to discuss the actually interesting questions (which have are often discussed here, in my experience, but not usually in serious business as it is in large part a personal thing) such as "how should you meet a partner" then do so in that thread.
Also the political arguments have no influence? Are you really that stupid?
Well maybe you are. But rethink that, it's more true in america but in most of the (democratic) world this certainly is not the case.

I'm debating it, but your encouragement won't hasten my departure.

Hasten la vista, baby


If it happens, it happens. In such an event, I hope you find guys find some way to fill your time without having me to hate. I think I was sort of the one guy most people hated, the unifying enemy that pushed you all together. *smiles possibly joking*

I guess I could give you a cookie but you would probably say something along the lines of
"this cookie recieved unto me was nto pleassurable beyond a level of distinction commonly found in simular objects manufactured industrially" (spelling error intentional) so meh.

I think this discussion also plays into so many women's need to feel attractive (see the cosmetics industry). I can see the response coming already, "I don't wear cosmetics, that's off-base and sensationalism." Why do women want to feel attractive if not for the constant need to be liked by potential suitors and female friends?

Yeah because NO men go to the gym or exercize or buy doederant or do loads of shit to be considered attractive? No ofcourse not, it's just women being hysterical isn't it? The awnser why only women do it is, first, men do it too, second women are pressured more into it than men. This has been getting better though, but by no means is this equal.
Mens need to feel attractive see the sports car industry, fashion industry (unisexual), penis extension industry, etc

Well this was a nice little rant I think.. meh. Atleast there is some soothing Explosions in the sky.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:34 am UTC

All right, I was trying to be fair again, but the piece about cosmetics made me mad.

Women wear cosmetics because of societal standards we grow up with that tell us we have to in order to be feminine and attractive. It's not just to get a date. A lot of the time, if you don't wear makeup, you won't get promoted at work, or people will ask if you're all right, or decide you have low self-esteem.

I don't wear the stuff except on special occasions or now and then for fun, but when I do, people always point it out. It irks me.

If we had a societal standard for men that included makeup, men would wear it too. We don't. We generally allow men to put less effort into their appearance and still be considered attractive. Men still do go to some lengths, though--with hairstyle, grooming of facial hair, etc.

Women who wear makeup do it because they were taught to and to them it's normal. They will continue to be taught to because the cosmetics industry is huge and marketing is ubiquitous.

People do lots of things to try to find partners, but most of the day-to-day stuff is just done because it's expected.

That got long... but it's just that it's the kind of misconception that pisses me off. "Women wearing makeup are looking for men" turns into "women wearing short skirts are looking for sex." And we all know where that one leads.

Oh, and about the age thing? I'm 29 and married and polyamorous. I don't date and never have, although I've had quite a few excellent relationships. I think relationships that grow naturally out of other kinds of relationships are, in general, better than those that start out on a "date." Anyone else think that? Or disagree?
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:11 pm UTC

If we had a societal standard for men that included makeup, men would wear it too.


History agrees.

Image
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:50 pm UTC

Gayyyy.....

Sorry, I had to. :)

As for the makeup, I am sort of conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, I love women who don't need makeup to be attractive, IE 99% of the women in the world. On the other hand, one of the reasons I was attracted to the woman who would become my wife was because this was her day-to-day clothing: (Not her, but close)

Image

On the gripping hand, I think that "marketing being ubiquitous" and "That's how we were taught" is a bullsh*t cop-out. Marketing is ubiquitous and I was taught a certain way for a lot of things, but when I sat down to think about them, I realized that maybe, just maybe, they were frivolous, ridiculous things. I will admit, though, that a woman who does not go to great lengths to appear like she cares about her appearance too much will often suffer for it, which is the fault of the OTHER people in the world who place too much emphasis on the superficial and superfluous.

Long story short: Most people are stupid, and to make it fair, everyone suffers for it.

User avatar
anfurny
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:48 am UTC
Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
Contact:

Postby anfurny » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:22 pm UTC

Re Fjahnj:

I only read a few paragraphs before you got too offensive for me to bother, but what you did say in that periods was incorrect. N + 1 is a print magazine.


Re Tesseraue (or whatever):

Firstly, I didn't say makeup was only for dating. Saying "it's a cultural norm" is the same thing as saying "they do it to please men and women." Promotion is one good reason to wear makeup, assuming it makes a difference.

Let's instead take a step back then to fashionable clothing (since makeup is gender specific and potentially has career benefits). That industry is just as big as makeup. This is indeed a very round-about way of establishing how many dates there are, but I haven't found any statistics (and I agree we shouldn't turn to TV or movies). What I think we can establish is that people on this site are a completely unbalanced group to poll from, so none of us should use our own immediate experience as
strong evidence (when the population in question is 300 million).

General:
Once again, I want to point out that "Don't go on dates," isn't the point of this article. A lot of people like to try to simplify every single argument into "Attack X" or "Defend X," "Do X" or "Don't do X." Of the many points (such as the drastic increase in the prominence of sex in recent years) the one that may be confused with "Don't date" is -Dating doesn't prepare you for marriage, in fact they are opposites in many ways- (paraphrased)


Re Mighty Jalapeno:
On the gripping hand, I think that "marketing being ubiquitous" and "That's how we were taught" is a bullsh*t cop-out. Marketing is ubiquitous and I was taught a certain way for a lot of things, but when I sat down to think about them, I realized that maybe, just maybe, they were frivolous, ridiculous things. I will admit, though, that a woman who does not go to great lengths to appear like she cares about her appearance too much will often suffer for it, which is the fault of the OTHER people in the world who place too much emphasis on the superficial and superfluous.


I agree that it's not marketing. But this point DOES apply to men, and you yourself do many things like that only to fit in (e.g. shower more often than the french, wear clothing at all, maybe even make an effort to stay physically fit).

We may start to do something because we are taught, but we only continue to do it to fit in. If women were socially mocked for wearing makeup I'm quite sure they'd stop very fast.

Re tessareu:
tessareu wrote:That got long... but it's just that it's the kind of misconception that pisses me off. "Women wearing makeup are looking for men" turns into "women wearing short skirts are looking for sex." And we all know where that one leads

(Not quite what I said, but perhaps you're not implying that).

Saying an argument leads to date-rape is not a refutation of that argument, even if it truly does lead to date-rape. It's almost like saying an argument leads to unpatriotic thinking and therefore should be shunned.
Privilege Revocation: You are not allowed to refer the xkcdians in first person. The exception to the rule is that-- wait, no, you're the exception to the rule of "don't be a dick". --LE4dGOLEM

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:33 pm UTC

Five issues in four years? N+1 looks more like a 'zine to me.

And not date-rape. Rape. The "She was wearing a short skirt in that part of down, what did she expect to happen!" is a common attack on a woman who's been raped. But now we're changing the subject.

Anyway... the author is obviously an idiot. That's really all I can say about it. Even in a hyper-inflation market, spending $200+ on one date is the mark of a tool. I'd say the point of the article is "I'm a tool who has no idea how to make an impression on someone beyond taking them to the most expensive places I know, thereby showing I have money, thereby making me a desirable mating partner. The fact that I rarely get beyond the third date, thus forcing me to restart the impression cycle over has yet to penetrate my thickened, obviously highly intelligent brain, so I stupidly keep making the same mistakes rather than learning from them. Here's me explaining how I try to impress in great detail... Coffee - rather than learning how to actually brew a good cup, I prefer to spend $8 on swill. Genius!"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:36 pm UTC

anfurny wrote:It's almost like saying an argument leads to unpatriotic thinking and therefore should be shunned.

An argument that leads to unpatriotic thinking should be celebrated.

Back on topic, the most I ever spent on dates happened after I was married, and that was $100 for the two of us at a VERY nice restaraunt, with drinks, and dessert, and movie after. Other than that, the most I spent on dating was.... uhm.... 20 bucks? Most of the time, we went to a coffee shop (the kind of place that serves coffee for less than a dollar, and it tastes good!) and hung out, and chatted, or played Scrabble, or went for walks, or went to local live shows, or rented movies, or other things that involved us getting to know eachother better.

We must have been doing it wrong.

Cogita
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:51 pm UTC

Postby Cogita » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:48 pm UTC

The biggest thing about this article that struck me was, as has been said, how narrow the definition of dating was. Dating is not just going to dinner and a movie, or even mostly that. Superficially that may be what it appears to be. But if you take someone to a fancy dinner or a movie, you are (A) trying to get a job, or (B) trying to get in their pants. That's not dating. Dating is about actually enjoying being with the person. Not just in anticipation of evening festivities, but rather the here and now. The most expensive date I’ve ever taken my gf on was 100 dollars, and that included two $30 tickets to Cirque Du Soleil. Most times, one of us goes to the other’s house and we will watch a movie or just talk. About books we’ve read, about people we know about whatever. It’s about hearing her thoughts, because I find something of so much worth in her, that I want to know how she sees whatever it is we are talking about. And that doesn’t need 10 dollar coffee’s.

The another thing that article got wrong was the fact that we are trying to sell ourselves to our dates. Its talks of boasts and confessions to set up boasts sounds like the behavior of 10 year olds on the playground.

“ ‘Be happy,’ advises Tracey Cox in Superdate. ‘Who would you rather hang around with? A depressed unhappy mooner or a funny optimistic?’ The logic is irresistible.â€

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:07 pm UTC

Amortize it: Two hours at $40 an hour (you could have been copy-editing). Then dinner, another $100. Drinks, $30. The cab ride over the bridge to our little room, $15. Coffee the next morning, $8. That’s $233 and on a Tuesday. For Saturday dates add the price of brunch and $4 for the Sunday Times.

I'm going to agree with SecondTalon here, and call the author a tool. Huge tool.

This dude includes the money he could have made if he was working in his cost estimate of the date (Also, he misuses "amortize"). Wow. Just think how honoured his date must feel, knowing that this guy sacrificed $80 to spend time with her.

I really have trouble believing he makes $40 an hour copy-editing. Especially given the poor quality of his writing.

Example: (This is the first paragraph)
[quote]With how many people did people used to sleep? It’s hard to tell. Language changes, and there’s the problem of bragging. Take the French. Stendhal in his treatise on love is expansive on the seduction strategies of his friends (hide under the bed; announce yourself so late in the night that kicking you out would already be a scandal), but in The Red and the Black Julien Sorel sleeps with exactly two women—and for this they cut off his head! A generation later, the dissipated Frederic Moreau hardly does any better in Sentimental Education. Flaubert himself mostly slept with prostitutes. In Russia, one could always sleep with one’s serfs, as Tolstoy did. (He felt terrible about it.) But peers, acquaintances, members of one’s own class? America was the worst. Henry James in his notebooks wonders if he should write a story about a man, “like W. D. H. [Howells], who all his life has known but one woman.â€
The drinking will continue until morale improves.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests