Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Singles and Dating
#1
I had a thread on this topic over on the old forum. I couldn't figure out how to retrieve it so I decided to start anew here. Do you all feel as if so many in the dating realm expect idealism and perfection in their relationships? Are both genders equally guilty of this? Are they more reluctant to accept things and people as they are? (Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, etc. notwithstanding). Do we all want to be loved  unconditionally?

I have my own thoughts on this issue, and I often feel that we may have come in the wrong direction since the days when dating had a more genteel approach to it. When I started in the 1970s there was still a certain amount of old-fashionedness left, as it was still customary for the man to make the date, picked the lady up wherever she lived, go out for dinner, movies, dancing, etc., and bring her back at the end of the evening. Contrary to popular belief, sex was seldom on the menu for dessert. That all began to change in the late 1970s when it became much more commonplace for the couples to meet in a public place such as restaurant or park. By the mid-1980s the AIDS scare cut the heart out of the sexual revolution and made dating more complex. But an even bigger factor was the advent of the professional yuppie class and the whole "I don't have time" syndrome which hasn't really led up much to this day. To me the only real "pro" from this trend was that dating services gained respectability and will no longer considered the last resort for losers as had been the case before. They also, however, became ridiculously expensive, sometimes costing a grand or more.

Singles dances may still be around but they are much less numerous today. What do you see ahead to be the dating customs of the future, and might we someday see a return to more genteel approaches?
Reply
#2
(07-24-2018, 03:45 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I had a thread on this topic over on the old forum. I couldn't figure out how to retrieve it so I decided to start anew here. Do you all feel as if so many in the dating realm expect idealism and perfection in their relationships? Are both genders equally guilty of this? Are they more reluctant to accept things and people as they are? (Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, etc. notwithstanding). Do we all want to be loved  unconditionally?

Obviously I am speaking from a male perspective.

There are people without ideals. Lowered expectations can get people something -- someone broke, unattractive, unhealthy, witless, abusive, mentally unstable, or with a criminal record. Or, for that matter, people who have nothing in common. Anyone can dip low enough and find something. That's not that I suggest such. What people accept as tawdry substitutes for their dreams quickly show themselves as mistakes. Do you remember the awful car that you bought because it was $200 cheaper? You had plenty of time in which to kick yourself. Remember the dead-end job that you took just to pay off some bills? Did you keep that job when you had a chance to do something else?

Some compromises are realism. Some are self-destructive.


Quote:I have my own thoughts on this issue, and I often feel that we may have come in the wrong direction since the days when dating had a more genteel approach to it. When I started in the 1970s there was still a certain amount of old-fashionedness left, as it was still customary for the man to make the date, picked the lady up wherever she lived, go out for dinner, movies, dancing, etc., and bring her back at the end of the evening. Contrary to popular belief, sex was seldom on the menu for dessert. That all began to change in the late 1970s when it became much more commonplace for the couples to meet in a public place such as restaurant or park. By the mid-1980s the AIDS scare cut the heart out of the sexual revolution and made dating more complex. But an even bigger factor was the advent of the professional yuppie class and the whole "I don't have time" syndrome which hasn't really led up much to this day. To me the only real "pro" from this trend was that dating services gained respectability and will no longer considered the last resort for losers as had been the case before. They also, however, became ridiculously expensive, sometimes costing a grand or more.

The cycle suggests that practices lost in the past may return in somewhat different forms. People don't have time for dating? When they get lonely, they just might. People will get into accidental situations in which they might start talking about going out for dates that begin with dinner at some mass-market restaurant and then go further. Then there are mutual friends who try to set people up. If one is foolish there might be semi-pornographic sites that offer sex and nothing else. I do not suggest them.

There are dating sites. Put in your demographics, and meet someone. Some even have such fantasies as interracial liaisons (as in "such-and-such ethnicity" want to meet you). OK, so maybe her English is at best rudimentary, you will tire of her favorite cuisine, she can't get accustomed to your country music or to American sports, or she will hate a cold climate. Minneapolis isn't Manila even if it is better by practically any objective measure.   If you think that foreign women will show more tolerance for your drinking, drug use, gambling, or use of pornography, then think again. In such a case it is you who has a problem to deal with. Deal with your vices before you seek female companionship.

My suggestion is to get involved in activities that have nothing to do with romance -- religious activities, civic and fraternal organizations, hobby clubs, ethnic associations (like attracts like, as a general rule)... and you might show yourself interesting, available, and desirable. If you like bowling -- bowling alleys have people of both genders. Or sign up for a course at a community college... food dating is roundabout.

Quote:Singles dances may still be around but they are much less numerous today. What do you see ahead to be the dating customs of the future, and might we someday see a return to more genteel approaches?

Technologies and available venues will change, but core human nature doesn't. The rating-and-dating system works. It is surprising how some primitive traits in human nature operate. Dancing is a show of health. Flowers excite a sense that rarely gets excited. Financial circumstances matter greatly.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#3
(07-24-2018, 10:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 03:45 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I had a thread on this topic over on the old forum. I couldn't figure out how to retrieve it so I decided to start anew here. Do you all feel as if so many in the dating realm expect idealism and perfection in their relationships? Are both genders equally guilty of this? Are they more reluctant to accept things and people as they are? (Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, etc. notwithstanding). Do we all want to be loved  unconditionally?

Obviously I am speaking from a male perspective.

There are people without ideals. Lowered expectations can get people something -- someone broke, unattractive, unhealthy, witless, abusive, mentally unstable, or with a criminal record. Or, for that matter, people who have nothing in common. Anyone can dip low enough and find something. That's not that I suggest such. What people accept as tawdry substitutes for their dreams quickly show themselves as mistakes. Do you remember the awful car that you bought because it was $200 cheaper? You had plenty of time in which to kick yourself. Remember the dead-end job that you took just to pay off some bills? Did you keep that job when you had a chance to do something else?

Some compromises are realism. Some are self-destructive.


Quote:I have my own thoughts on this issue, and I often feel that we may have come in the wrong direction since the days when dating had a more genteel approach to it. When I started in the 1970s there was still a certain amount of old-fashionedness left, as it was still customary for the man to make the date, picked the lady up wherever she lived, go out for dinner, movies, dancing, etc., and bring her back at the end of the evening. Contrary to popular belief, sex was seldom on the menu for dessert. That all began to change in the late 1970s when it became much more commonplace for the couples to meet in a public place such as restaurant or park. By the mid-1980s the AIDS scare cut the heart out of the sexual revolution and made dating more complex. But an even bigger factor was the advent of the professional yuppie class and the whole "I don't have time" syndrome which hasn't really led up much to this day. To me the only real "pro" from this trend was that dating services gained respectability and will no longer considered the last resort for losers as had been the case before. They also, however, became ridiculously expensive, sometimes costing a grand or more.

The cycle suggests that practices lost in the past may return in somewhat different forms. People don't have time for dating? When they get lonely, they just might. People will get into accidental situations in which they might start talking about going out for dates that begin with dinner at some mass-market restaurant and then go further. Then there are mutual friends who try to set people up. If one is foolish there might be semi-pornographic sites that offer sex and nothing else. I do not suggest them.

There are dating sites. Put in your demographics, and meet someone. Some even have such fantasies as interracial liaisons (as in "such-and-such ethnicity" want to meet you). OK, so maybe her English is at best rudimentary, you will tire of her favorite cuisine, she can't get accustomed to your country music or to American sports, or she will hate a cold climate. Minneapolis isn't Manila even if it is better by practically any objective measure.   If you think that foreign women will show more tolerance for your drinking, drug use, gambling, or use of pornography, then think again. In such a case it is you who has a problem to deal with. Deal with your vices before you seek female companionship.

My suggestion is to get involved in activities that have nothing to do with romance -- religious activities, civic and fraternal organizations, hobby clubs, ethnic associations (like attracts like, as a general rule)... and you might show yourself interesting, available, and desirable. If you like bowling -- bowling alleys have people of both genders. Or sign up for a course at a community college... food dating is roundabout.  

Quote:Singles dances may still be around but they are much less numerous today. What do you see ahead to be the dating customs of the future, and might we someday see a return to more genteel approaches?

Technologies and available venues will change, but core human nature doesn't. The rating-and-dating system works. It is surprising how some primitive traits in human nature operate. Dancing is a show of health. Flowers excite a sense that rarely gets excited. Financial circumstances matter greatly.

But yet the heyday of the big dance bands and ballrooms was right in the midst of the Great Depression. But this 4T you are not seeing anything even remotely similar. Could the reduction in dating and sex life tie in with the fact that most of us are not happy with the current state of the country and how we're seen around the world?
Reply
#4
(08-24-2018, 09:33 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: ...
But yet the heyday of the big dance bands and ballrooms was right in the midst of the Great Depression. But this 4T you are not seeing anything even remotely similar. Could the reduction in dating and sex life tie in with the fact that most of us are not happy with the current state of the country and how we're seen around the world?

I think the desire for social interaction is just as relevant with this generation compared to that one, it's just manifested very differently (i.e. this time it's the Grand Social Media Experiment)
"But there's a difference between error and dishonesty, and it's not a trivial difference." - Ben Greenman
"Relax, it'll be all right, and by that I mean it will first get worse."
"How was I supposed to know that there'd be consequences for my actions?" - Gina Linetti
Reply
#5
(08-24-2018, 11:23 AM)tg63 Wrote:
(08-24-2018, 09:33 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: ...
But yet the heyday of the big dance bands and ballrooms was right in the midst of the Great Depression. But this 4T you are not seeing anything even remotely similar. Could the reduction in dating and sex life tie in with the fact that most of us are not happy with the current state of the country and how we're seen around the world?

I think the desire for social interaction is just as relevant with this generation compared to that one, it's just manifested very differently (i.e. this time it's the Grand Social Media Experiment)

True but sad.  Social interaction between avatars is not true social interaction.  We don't really know how this will play for certain, but it may mean that the New Silent generation will be a lot smaller than the last.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#6
Although we are in a Crisis Era and were in one eighty years ago, we are in very different ones. The 1930s led Americans into an omnibus culture that homogenized tastes. People were not looking for ways to offend sensibilities in their cultural expressions.  Just consider the American cinema of the late 1930s and early 1940s -- it is still highly watchable. Music was gravitating toward Big band, arguably the greatest popular music ever, the only challenges to that label being whether Strauss waltzes are "popular" or "classical" or whether the music of Haydn and Mozart were considered "popular" in their time.

The big political difference from eighty years ago could hardly be more different. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had the calming effect of Barack Obama -- on a far-wider swath of Americans. Maybe it helped that expectations of most Americans were far lower because by 1932 they had far less to lose than they now are. I look at some of the approval ratings of Donald Trump and I see a country in which a huge proportion of the American people are dissidents. FDR  was as good at appealing to the best in human nature as Donald Trump is at offending it. Add to this, the Great Depression humanized Americans (better be nice to others, because you may need their help) while the Lesser Depression brought out the worst in economic elites.

Are we objectively worse than we were in the 1930s? No. We have long rejected Jim Crow practices, although we have some loud, abrasive racists and (even worse and more dangerous) religious bigots.  We have largely accepted same-sex marriage. If we have more exposure of sex scandals it is because we have less certainty of concealing them, and no tolerance of such. Women obviously have more choices in life (if they are reasonably competent) than they used to have. Crime rates are much lower than they were forty to fifty years ago.

But -- American politics have not been any worse in a very long time. We have polarization rivaling that that preceded the American Civil War, and that analogy scares anyone who can connect the polarization of American politics 160 years ago to what happened 157 years ago. American political life eighty years ago was comparatively placid. .  

From an essay by Sean Wilentz  "George W. Bush -- Worst President Ever?"


Quote:How does any president’s reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties — Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush — have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush TRUMP, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures — an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush TRUMP has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/po...ry-192899/


I'll go further with Trump: this is the first President to give us more than a non-zero chance of a military coup. Dubya may have created a bigger economic mess by supporting a corrupt boom in real -estate lending than the recession that America had gotten into due to the implosion of the dot.com industry and Enron Corporation... but it seemed sensible enough to a majority of Americans. He might have bungled America into a pointless war in Iraq, but he did so with the best intentions if perhaps flawed info.

But consider what Dubya never did, or at least did less of. He did not mock the disabled. He did not promote ethnic or religious bigotry. He did nothing to divide NATO. He may have had some losers in his cabinet, but nowhere near the collection of fanatics and self-serving profiteers as Trump. Dubya seems to have been loyal enough to his wife that he would never risk a big chunk of money and, worse, its exposure in a court of law, to cover up involvement with a porn star. Although the Bush-Cheney administration had its own Orwellian turns of phrase (like "clean coal", an oxymoron, and "healthy forests", which means that the forest is clear-cut -- horrible for conservation, but good for one-time profits), Donald Trump has turned even more words into Orwellian lies.

If we Americans had been a bit more patient, maybe we would have given Obama more of a chance to solve some of our problems. Maybe conservatives would have been more willing to improve Obamacare or to create a more solid foundation for it, perhaps imposing or increasing some 'sin taxes'  or pushing tort reform to make it less expensive, or removing the ban on negotiating pharmaceutical prices. Maybe they would have recognized that shoring up the financial system without sending hordes of bankers to prison just because they did what all other bankers had to do to stay in business that the President deserves a little leeway. Maybe they would have decided that rational thought achieves more than does demagoguery as with the Tea Party Movement and then Trump.

But haven't I gone a long way from "Singles and Dating" by explaining how dangerous and unpromising our world is?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#7
(07-24-2018, 03:45 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I had a thread on this topic over on the old forum. I couldn't figure out how to retrieve it so I decided to start anew here. Do you all feel as if so many in the dating realm expect idealism and perfection in their relationships? Are both genders equally guilty of this? Are they more reluctant to accept things and people as they are? (Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, etc. notwithstanding). Do we all want to be loved  unconditionally?

I have my own thoughts on this issue, and I often feel that we may have come in the wrong direction since the days when dating had a more genteel approach to it. When I started in the 1970s there was still a certain amount of old-fashionedness left, as it was still customary for the man to make the date, picked the lady up wherever she lived, go out for dinner, movies, dancing, etc., and bring her back at the end of the evening. Contrary to popular belief, sex was seldom on the menu for dessert. That all began to change in the late 1970s when it became much more commonplace for the couples to meet in a public place such as restaurant or park. By the mid-1980s the AIDS scare cut the heart out of the sexual revolution and made dating more complex. But an even bigger factor was the advent of the professional yuppie class and the whole "I don't have time" syndrome which hasn't really led up much to this day. To me the only real "pro" from this trend was that dating services gained respectability and will no longer considered the last resort for losers as had been the case before. They also, however, became ridiculously expensive, sometimes costing a grand or more.

Singles dances may still be around but they are much less numerous today. What do you see ahead to be the dating customs of the future, and might we someday see a return to more genteel approaches?

Meh. Toxic feminism has ruined lots of stuff wrt males. Check out MGTOW for example. High tech also provides the Japanese outlet of sex dolls. Cool





There's also the old standby, dogs.

If you want a friend,[in Washington] get a dog . - Harry Truman [Lost Generation]
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#8
(08-24-2018, 06:41 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Toxic feminism has ruined lots of stuff wrt males.

Who made up that idiotic term anyway? Show me a man more toxic than those obscenity-spewing, ugly, mentally disturbed feminists...
Reply
#9
(08-24-2018, 09:33 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: But yet the heyday of the big dance bands and ballrooms was right in the midst of the Great Depression. But this 4T you are not seeing anything even remotely similar.

No, definitely not. The stupid cult of "Glee"?? No thanks.
Reply
#10
(09-03-2018, 08:01 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(08-24-2018, 06:41 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Toxic feminism has ruined lots of stuff wrt males.

Who made up that idiotic term anyway? Show me a man more toxic than those obscenity-spewing, ugly, mentally disturbed feminists...

I might use the term "female chauvinism" with women who think that by adopting the vices that feminists ascribed to men they get empowerment.

We have much to work out. Women cannot be men in some basic things, and this is not about economic matters.

OK, men -- put the toilet seat down after you use the commode. Don't brag about going to the strip club, and don't buy suggestive lingerie as gifts to women. Don't waste family funds on overpriced toys like sports cars.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)