The Demise of Dating

[deleted3782]

According to Charles Blow of the NYT, "there are now more high school seniors saying that they never date than seniors who say that they date frequently."

"Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."
​

Do you guys date, or hook up? Do you see a generational gap in who hooks and who dates? How do you get to know someone?

Is this a good shift in practice? Neutral?

​

 

[edmouse]

I think you are absolutely right from what I see in my experience. I live in a big city though. It may be more 'old fashioned' someplace else. Great observation.

 

[novice_btm]

Heh-heh, you said "Blow".

But seriously, it is an interesting change in behaviour. It's most interesting to me, because I've felt this exact change happen to me. It strikes a cord because it's exactly the way that I just described my "relationships" with others. That is, with women, I've dated, and after I got to know them, then had sex. With men, so far I've hooked up, and had sex, but never dated one.:redface: I don't know how it came about, and I actually wonder about it. I'm not against dating a man, it's just what has happened to me so far.

 

[deleted3782]

Boundaries and definitions are made even fuzzier because of the 'net. A majority of people I have had long-term relations with I first knew through the 'net...so I knew a bit of their personality, interests, and we had some chemistry established.

On the other hand, the number of people I have hooked up with with no previous knowledge I could count on one hand. I just don't enjoy being intimate with someone I don't know. None of the impromptu hook-ups has led to anything meaningful. It was literally let them "suck and run".

I guess that places me squarely in the old skool column.

 

[invisibleman]

According to Charles Blow of the NYT, "there are now more high school seniors saying that they never date than seniors who say that they date frequently."

"Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."
​

Do you guys date, or hook up? Do you see a generational gap in who hooks and who dates? How do you get to know someone?

Is this a good shift in practice? Neutral?

I don't like dating. People are really sophisticated (and judgmental) these days. And the rules change. It is confusing. If I want to go out, I'll go out by myself. Or out with my friends.

 

[marleyisalegend]

AMEN! People fuck first and ask questions later. They sleep with someone after knowing them very briefly, then months later complain about all their differences and that it's not working out. Perhaps you should've gotten to know the person before you put out.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

That is defiantly the switch that's happened. I don't have an opinion either way.

 

[Principessa]

According to

Charles Blow of the NYT, "there are now more high school seniors saying that they never date than seniors who say that they date frequently."

"Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date."
​

Do you guys date, or hook up?

I date. I don't 'hook-up'.

Do you see a generational gap in who hooks and who dates?

I thought it was a younger person thing like those under 30. But apparently anybody who's desperate for sex hooks up at any age. :frown1:

How do you get to know someone?

I'm old fashioned, I date, I like it that way. I think sex first, then getting to know someone shows a lack of self-respect and poor morals.

Is this a good shift in practice? Neutral?

No, this is not a good shift. It is dehumanizing and demoralizing.

 

[BiItalianBro]

Just my pithy 2 cents but I do not think its a 'shift' it has always been that way...it's just that we actually talk about it openly now. The gender dynamics have changed allot since I was a teen in the mid to late 80s. Its not a matter of studs and sluts anymore. Young men are held to the same (some would argue archaic) standards women have been held to for years. eg. manorexia and male obsession with body image are off the charts over the past ten years according to the APA.

Inversely, young women are more assertive and shameless about their sexuality...as men have been since the beginning of time lol. Look at popular culture...'Sex In the City', a show i cant stand BTW, would never have flown in 1990. So all I am saying is that this has been going on as long as I can remember...and yea its kinda bass ackwards, but its nothing new.

 

[Principessa]

I must be older than you because this is new to me. Actually it started in the 1960's with the invention of the birth control pill. Suddenly women didn't have to wait until marriage or risk being an unwed mother or town slut unless they were really indiscriminate about who they chose to sleep with.

Things picked up in the 1970's but slowed down in the 1980's because of AIDS. I think people are sleeping around now because nobody dies from AIDS anymore, they think of it as a disease you can live with like diabetes or herpes. It's not. It's still an awful, painful, and torturous way to live and die.

Another issue is there are no societal repercussions for sleeping around and I think there should be, for men and women. I don't want to date or have sex with a man who has had 50 or more partners. That doesn't say to me he is a good lover because he's had practice. It says he can't commit and has little respect for women or himself. He clearly doesn't know what he wants.

Just my pithy 2 cents but I do not think its a 'shift' it has always been that way...it's just that we actually talk about it openly now. The gender dynamics have changed allot since I was a teen in the mid to late 80s. Its not a matter of studs and sluts anymore. Young men are held to the same (some would argue archaic) standards women have been held to for years. eg. manorexia and male obsession with body image are off the charts over the past ten years according to the APA.

Inversely, young women are more assertive and shameless about their sexuality...as men have been since the beginning of time lol. Look at popular culture...'Sex In the City', a show i cant stand BTW, would never have flown in 1990. So all I am saying is that this has been going on as long as I can remember...and yea its kinda bass ackwards, but its nothing new.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

haha! Had a feeling I was doing this all ass backwards.

Thought the idea was to have casual sex until you found that ONE who was sexually compatible!

Then, the ackward dating starts.


(sometimes communicating sexually does seem easier than communicating face-to-face over coffee. you can always get by sexaully - wing it! - but on de facto dates you have be witty and charming and an easy conversationalist...)

 

[D_Selmus_Swallow]

Boundaries and definitions are made even fuzzier because of the 'net. A majority of people I have had long-term relations with I first knew through the 'net...so I knew a bit of their personality, interests, and we had some chemistry established.

On the other hand, the number of people I have hooked up with with no previous knowledge I could count on one hand. I just don't enjoy being intimate with someone I don't know. None of the impromptu hook-ups has led to anything meaningful. It was literally let them "suck and run".

I guess that places me squarely in the old skool column.

I'm with this guy.

Ha, here I am at 24 years old, and here I'm more old school in my outlook than some people who could have been my parents.

 

[D_Selmus_Swallow]

AMEN! People fuck first and ask questions later. They sleep with someone after knowing them very briefly, then months later complain about all their differences and that it's not working out. Perhaps you should've gotten to know the person before you put out.

You speak the truth. I also can't think of many things more annoying than having to listen to people complain to you about this.

Ah well. We live in a generation after immediate gratification in all areas after all. Unfortunately, well-rounded relationships don't usually come after hooking-up with somebody who managed to pick you up at the bar last night. But try explaining that to anybody these days.

 

[2322]

AMEN! People fuck first and ask questions later. They sleep with someone after knowing them very briefly, then months later complain about all their differences and that it's not working out. Perhaps you should've gotten to know the person before you put out.

Aren't you the guy who said we shouldn't be judging the sexual relationships of others?:suspect:

I am so sick of hearing from guys (and girls) who get off by judging the sexual behavior (or any behavior) of others. As long as both parties consent, are adults, and aren't hurting themselves or anyone else, why do people feel the need to judge?

 

[goodwood]

well, my modus operundi is to hook up and then see if i want to date the woman. this has always been the case. it has saved a LOT of time. of course dating first before sex is a lovely idea. i am not adverse to it. but sexual compatibility is very important. if that is good, then there needs to be a personal compatibility. i have had personal and social compatibility and then gotten to the sex part and was like 'well. that's over with.'.
getting to know a person first is ideal, i will be the first to say. i have done it both ways and have had no success either way.
there is no end of hot, religious, virgin girls that people would love to marry. grils that would theoretically make great wives and mothers. are you KIDDING ME? get married with no sex ahead of time AND they seem socially and relationally stunted and i am tied to that? i don't think so.

 

[deleted213967]

Men being so much more superficial in their sexuality, more likely than women to be extremely turned on or extremely turned off by a single physical attribute (which may be covered at all times in traditional dating models), I can see some advantages in hooking up first.

That being said, without some deeper connection between the 2 (or more?) parties, sex may never get better with time.

I recommend the hybrid technology: Hook-and-Date.

 

[str82fcuk]

I did try dating when I was younger but it was a complete waste of time, money and energy. Nowadays I hook up for whatever and if we both actually enjoy whatever we might do it again and so on or maybe start talking instead or as well. But really sitting through a whole date on the off-chance that it might go somewhere is just a non-starter for me, I mean really I won't go through with sex either if we get half-way and it's not working, why would I waste my time on a date. It's better to know where you're at before wasting any time. I can normally tell within five minutes or less of starting a conversation if conversation is going to be worthwhile and I can normally tell within five minutes or less of physical contact if that is going to be worthwhile. But you can't tell from conversation if sex is going to be worthwhile (and vice versa), so that traditional method just doesn't make any logical sense at all. Life is too short to be wasting time chasing dead-ends.

 

[Calboner]

I read that piece in this morning's paper. It appalled me. I can't imagine wanting to have sex with someone I do not feel close to.

 

[invisibleman]

well, my modus operundi is to hook up and then see if i want to date the woman. this has always been the case. it has saved a LOT of time. of course dating first before sex is a lovely idea. i am not adverse to it. but sexual compatibility is very important. if that is good, then there needs to be a personal compatibility. i have had personal and social compatibility and then gotten to the sex part and was like 'well. that's over with.'.
getting to know a person first is ideal, i will be the first to say. i have done it both ways and have had no success either way.
there is no end of hot, religious, virgin girls that people would love to marry. grils that would theoretically make great wives and mothers. are you KIDDING ME? get married with no sex ahead of time AND they seem socially and relationally stunted and i am tied to that? i don't think so.

I agree.

 

[invisibleman]

I did try dating when I was younger but it was a complete waste of time, money and energy. Nowadays I hook up for whatever and if we both actually enjoy whatever we might do it again and so on or maybe start talking instead or as well. But really sitting through a whole date on the off-chance that it might go somewhere is just a non-starter for me, I mean really I won't go through with sex either if we get half-way and it's not working, why would I waste my time on a date. It's better to know where you're at before wasting any time. I can normally tell within five minutes or less of starting a conversation if conversation is going to be worthwhile and I can normally tell within five minutes or less of physical contact if that is going to be worthwhile. But you can't tell from conversation if sex is going to be worthwhile (and vice versa), so that traditional method just doesn't make any logical sense at all. Life is too short to be wasting time chasing dead-ends.

I agree.