Dating inc

[Kamille]

The internet and the emergence of social media has had a tremendous impact on how we go about relating to each other romantically nowadays. Dating sites are competing for big bucks, dating experts have emerged and a plethora of books have been published about mars, venus, into-i-ness, rules, etc. Webforums such as Loveshack, Sosuave, etc have emerged alongside the commercial dating enterprises.

 

What impact do you feel this commercialization of love has had on how we humans relate to each other?

 

Here is some of my observations, in no perticular order:

 

1. It has radicalized the gender war.

2. It's setting up a "global" set of dating norms. (example: men should pay for dates; women should wait for exlcusivity before having sex)

3. It discursively erases the diversity of sexual orientations (all of the books, for example, assume that the readers are heterosexual).

4. It's a cause of disatisfaction rather than satisfaction in dating. I think this is because we live in the era of Next-ism, launchables, red flags, dealbreakers, etc (in other words, we shop for partners).

5. It directly increases anxiety through the trackign of texts, web-pages, calls, etc (back in the early 90s, for example, I didn't have an answering machine or caller display so I could never really know for sure whether or not a guy had tried to get a hold of me. This meant, in effect, that I didn't spend much time worrying about the amount of time between contact and spent more time organizing real-life run-ins).

 

I also feel many people misattribute the frustrations that come alongside Dating Inc. For example, people blame "the lack of quality candidates at my age"; feminism; mysoginy; the collapse of society; etc etc. In reality, I believe much of the bitterness, anxiety and discomtempt is the effect of Dating Inc as a contemporary phenomenom. to paraphrase McLuhan, the medium is the culprit.

 

What about you: what do you think the impact of the commercialization of dating on how we relate to each other?

[EasyHeart]

I don't agree with 1-3. It gives a forum for the 'gender war' that's existed for a long time, but I think that's healthy. Better to talk and argue about it than let it simmer. And all you have to do is read this forum to see there is no global set of dating norms -- any given thread here usually ends up giving lots of different beliefs/ideas/suggestions. And I don't think there's ever been a wider knowledge and acknowledgment of sexual orientation.

 

But I think 4 and 5 are right on. And it's taken a lot of the fun out of dating.

 

I'll also suggest that online dating has created a permanent single class. Online dating sites have no interest in seeing that you are in a happy relationship or get married; their interest is in keeping you single so that you stay a customer. I suspect that's why they advocate treating people as commodities rather than individuals.

[pandagirl]

I'd have to say I think #4 and #5 resonate most with me.

 

Although, I think #4 is more a result of modern day media and technology as a whole. Everything is fast paced and based on immediate gratification. It's like, seriously, now we have devices to read books electronically?? Aren't books compact enough as they are!?!

 

But, yes, online dating is useful and has spawned many successful relationships and marriages, but as a whole, I think it's essentially a conveyor belt of people: next, next, next. I think that the fact people fall in love and stay together via this medium is just luck, just like it's luck if you meet someone in a grocery store or at bar. There just way more many options at your finger tip when you're online and that's the problem -- you put a kid in a candy store, they're going to want to eat everything, not just one thing. And once you do settle on one thing, when there's that Butterfinger or Snickers bar within reach, how can you resist that temptation for just a taste?

 

As for #5, what was the statistic? 1 out of 5 divorces cites Facebook as a determining factor? Yikes.

[northern_sky]

I'm just going to drop this link in to a book that I also rec'd to J, because I thnk it's very relevant to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less

[northern_sky]

Here are some good nuggets from the wiki article:

 

Choice and Happiness. Schwartz discusses the significance of common research methods that utilize a Happiness Scale. He sides with the opinion of psychologists David Myers and Robert Lane, who independently conclude that the current abundance of choice often leads to depression and feelings of loneliness. Schwartz draws particular attention to Lane's assertion that Americans are paying for increased affluence and freedom with a substantial decrease in the quality and quantity of community. What was once given by family, neighborhood and workplace now must be achieved and actively cultivated on an individual basis. The social fabric is no longer a birthright but has become a series of deliberated and demanding choices. Schwartz also discusses happiness with specific products. For example, he cites a study by Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark Lepper of Stanford University who found that when participants were faced with a smaller rather than larger array of chocolates, they were actually more satisfied with their tasting.

 

Missed Opportunities. Schwartz finds that when people are faced with having to choose one option out of many desirable choices, they will begin to consider hypothetical trade-offs. Their options are evaluated in terms of missed opportunities instead of the opportunity's potential. Schwartz maintains that one of the downsides of making trade-offs is it alters how we feel about the decisions we face; afterwards, it affects the level of satisfaction we experience from our decision. While psychologists have known for years about the harmful effects of negative emotion on decision making, Schwartz points to recent evidence showing how positive emotion has the opposite effect: in general, subjects are inclined to consider more possibilities when they are feeling happy.

[northern_sky]

well, a lot of my observations align with what I posted above.

 

1. people are less willing to commit because they're swimming in options.

2. for the same reason, because of this fast-paced mentality, they treat each other with less respect: disappear rather than formally breaking it off or communicating directly.

3. people view others more for their superficial traits and what they can add to their lives rather than as potentials for a deep connection.

 

 

i'll think of a bunch more I'm sure...

[Kamille]

I'm not sure I would say Dating inc is purposefully creating a permanent single class. As in, I have a hard time imagining a CEO sat down and said: okay, how can we make sure our members remain single but continue to purchase our products? (Dating planned obsolescence?) I do think dating inc saw a potential market and the unintended consequences of tapping that market is its very reproduction.

 

I feel like Dating Inc is constructing a set of dating norms because before encountering LS, I had never given any thought to who should pay for dates. In my social network at the time, it was pretty customary to go ducth. We had our own localized practice. Nowadays, dating someone who pays or doesn't pay for dates (or someone who accepts to chip in or expects to be paid for) is considered a "preference", one more thing to add to the list of potential deal-breakers.

 

As to gender, I feel we are assisting to a radicalization. With advice telling men and women to avoid the 'friend-zone', advice telling one gender or the other to ignore any input form the other gender, advice stipulating that men are from mars and women are from venus, we're witnessing a re-essentialization of gender categories. Why just today, I read a thread where someone assumed young women liked Britney Spears.

 

As to the erasure of sexual orientation, maybe what I mean is that it constructs separate networks for heterosexuals and the other sexual orientations. Else, what explains the scarcity of homosexual posters here on LS?

[northern_sky]

As to the erasure of sexual orientation, maybe what I mean is that it constructs separate networks for heterosexuals and the other sexual orientations. Else, what explains the scarcity of homosexual posters here on LS?

 

Yes, gay people have their own thriving networks and communities. For example I live in a city that has an active lesbian population. Our culture has become much more niche based.

[carhill]

The mechanics of dating, for myself, are essentially the same as they were 20 years ago. Whether women's perception of me, as a result of changing dating climates due to technology, has changed, I don't know. The medium is just a path to real life personal interaction IME. I don't assign significance to quantitative measures and technological changes, other than acknowledging better efficiencies, which leaves more time for discussions like this and real-time flesh pressing.

 

I remember a time when a picture of a lady from across the world took a couple minutes to download via 9.6 baud modem. Those were the (slow) days

 

I think it comes down to personal perspective. Is one in charge of their life or is their life in charge of them? How does that play out in the dating world? YMMV.

[pandagirl]

 

I think it comes down to personal perspective. Is one in charge of their life or is their life in charge of them? How does that play out in the dating world? YMMV.

 

I agree with you somewhat, Carhill, but I think your age has something to do with your perspective. If I am correct, you are in your 50s and interacting with women in your age range?

 

If this is correct, then your generation has not grown up with all of this technology. This notion of Dating Inc was not present in your younger years, so your perspective is a bit different.

 

Try dating people who DID grow up with all this technology. This way of life is a given to younger generations, so a lot of us are dating people who don't know any better.

[Kamille]

Yes, gay people have their own thriving networks and communities. For example I live in a city that has an active lesbian population. Our culture has become much more niche based.

 

Niched! Exactly! I worry about the effect this could have on how we construct discourse about gender and sexuality. I think that when it comes to the acceptance of sexual orientation, we've regressed since the 90s. I struggle to articulate this properly, but to me it's link to the recent waves of cyber-bullying suicides.

 

And thanks for linking the Wiki. Very interesting. Yes, it's easy to assume that choice will insure happiness, but it also places more responsibility on individuals to ensure they reach their "maximal" happiness. This likely creates more anxiety, more willingness to trade-off and less willingness to be accepting of the complexities of human nature.

[northern_sky]

Niched! Exactly! I worry about the effect this could have on how we construct discourse about gender and sexuality. I think that when it comes to the acceptance of sexual orientation, we've regressed since the 90s. I struggle to articulate this properly, but to me it's link to the recent waves of cyber-bullying suicides.

 

And thanks for linking the Wiki. Very interesting. Yes, it's easy to assume that choice will insure happiness, but it also places more responsibility on individuals to ensure they reach their "maximal" happiness. This likely creates more anxiety, more willingness to trade-off and less willingness to be accepting of the complexities of human nature.

 

and the rise of identity politics and self segregation. At the liberal arts college where I started, there were program houses for different ethnicities, where people voluntarily chose to live with others of their race. They were supposed to be "safe spaces" but I felt like they kept people apart and worked against diversity.

[Kamille]

Okay, here's an attempt to articulare why the niching of identities worries me: it actually makes dominant identities even more dominant. It also grant them their own "safe space" where their domination goes unquestioned and unchallenged.

 

and the rise of identity politics and self segregation. At the liberal arts college where I started, there were program houses for different ethnicities, where people voluntarily chose to live with others of their race. They were supposed to be "safe spaces" but I felt like they kept people apart and worked against diversity.

 

I personally feel safe space for minorities is important, but we need to ensure we produce spaces where these identities are in dialogue.

[carhill]

IME, the youngest woman I dated, prior to getting married, via the internet, was 29. The oldest, 47. I personals ad dated in the 80's and phone dated in the 90's, switching to internet dating in 1996. All of my sexual partners, including my exW, were met via online or phone dating and ranged in age from 33 to 47. I got married in 2000.

 

Perhaps it is generational but, as you can see, I was at the forefront of new 'ways' of dating throughout my life. Now I have a cat

[Kamille]

The mechanics of dating, for myself, are essentially the same as they were 20 years ago. Whether women's perception of me, as a result of changing dating climates due to technology, has changed, I don't know. The medium is just a path to real life personal interaction IME. I don't assign significance to quantitative measures and technological changes, other than acknowledging better efficiencies, which leaves more time for discussions like this and real-time flesh pressing.

 

I remember a time when a picture of a lady from across the world took a couple minutes to download via 9.6 baud modem. Those were the (slow) days

 

I think it comes down to personal perspective. Is one in charge of their life or is their life in charge of them? How does that play out in the dating world? YMMV.

 

I agree the dating industry should mainly be used as a tool to meet people, and that then interactions should take over.

 

I think Panda has a point though: social interaction has changed as a result of modern technologies. Our mediatized interactions remain... interactions? Does the distinction between IRL and digital interactions still make sense today? Don't they both participate in how we understand the world and relate to each other?

[pandagirl]

I agree the dating industry should mainly be used as a tool to meet people, and that then interactions should take over.

 

I think Panda has a point though: social interaction has changed as a result of modern technologies. Our mediatized interactions remain... interactions? Does the distinction between IRL and digital interactions still make sense today? Don't they both participate in how we understand the world and relate to each other?

 

It's just little things I've noticed. Like how no one calls people anymore -- we text. A little thing, but cumulative, something important.

 

Or remember before cell phones, texting and facebook? When a boy liked you, he'd have to call your home phone and say: "Hello Mr. Pandagirl, this is John, may I speak to Panda?" That was kind of a big deal!

 

I've also noticed in the workplace with kids out of college, some of them have a hard time interacting with superiors. I think out of a result of never having to learn proper communication skills because of technology, texting, facebooking, etc.

 

Of course, all of these things affect romantic relationships. If you can't communicate, then what have you got really?

[carhill]

Only one datapoint here but I find, and have found, since beginning to travel the world in the late 80's and really exploring the world after gaining access to the internet, digital interactions and their results have opened up a whole new and healthier perspective on the world, its citizens and its cultures. As Reagan once said, tear down those walls. For myself, the internet and adjunct communication technologies have been a key tool to do just that, and in ways I never thought could be so positive. IME, dating has been a benefactor of that change. So, yeah, I agree with the 'how' and I don't see any real downsides at all, so perhaps that defines the difference.

[hydorclops]

I agree that the battle of the sexes is getting a good airing out on the internet. For every vitriolic exchange, there is a large quiet audience, sometimes agreeing with the hate, but also maybe learning tolerance and sympathy.

 

Maybe it's good.

[carhill]

ETA, IMO, it's parents responsibility to educate and mold their children in the nuances of social interaction and how to prioritize their place in society in a healthy way. Technology does not prevent that process, rather assists it. It is all in how technology is used. It is a tool.

[Girlygirl1977]

I'm just going to drop this link in to a book that I also rec'd to J, because I thnk it's very relevant to this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less

 

Amazing - I was just going to post the same thing. . .the idea of maximizer vs satisficer is most relevant.

 

When people aim to be maximizers, they are likely to be very unhappy. Funny, this came up on a date I was on this week. . .

 

Schwartz relates the ideas of psychologist [COLOR=#0645ad]Herbert Simon[/COLOR] from the 1950s to the psychological stress which faces most consumers today. He notes some important distinctions between, what Simon termed, maximizers and [COLOR=#0645ad]satisficers[/COLOR]. A maximizer is like a [COLOR=#0645ad]perfectionist[/COLOR], someone who needs to be assured that their every purchase or decision was the best that could be made. The way a maximizer knows for certain is to consider all the alternatives they can imagine. This creates a psychologically daunting task, which can become even more daunting as the number of options increases. The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer. A satisficer has criteria and standards, but a satisficer is not worried about the possibility that there might be something better. Ultimately, Schwartz agrees with Simon's conclusion, that satisficing is, in fact, the maximizing strategy.

[EasyHeart]

I'm not sure I would say Dating inc is purposefully creating a permanent single class. As in, I have a hard time imagining a CEO sat down and said: okay, how can we make sure our members remain single but continue to purchase our products? (Dating planned obsolescence?) I do think dating inc saw a potential market and the unintended consequences of tapping that market is its very reproduction.

I'm not alleging any dark conspiracy to keep the world single. But I think it's the effective result. Certainly there's no accountablilty, or sites saying "You don't pay unless we find you a spouse!"

 

I feel like Dating Inc is constructing a set of dating norms because before encountering LS, I had never given any thought to who should pay for dates. In my social network at the time, it was pretty customary to go ducth. We had our own localized practice. Nowadays, dating someone who pays or doesn't pay for dates (or someone who accepts to chip in or expects to be paid for) is considered a "preference", one more thing to add to the list of potential deal-breakers.

I remember talking about "Who pays?" in high school and college. It's certainly something men have always thought about! More generally, I think people have done this same thing for centuries. The difference is that instead of just asking your family and friends and getting 2 or 3 points of advice, you can post here and get hundreds. That gives you a better ability to discern which opinions are the best ones.

 

As to gender, I feel we are assisting to a radicalization. With advice telling men and women to avoid the 'friend-zone', advice telling one gender or the other to ignore any input form the other gender, advice stipulating that men are from mars and women are from venus, we're witnessing a re-essentialization of gender categories. Why just today, I read a thread where someone assumed young women liked Britney Spears.

Well, I suppose that's good or bad depending upon where your ideological loyalties lie. Gender separation goes through normal historical cycles like everything else, and personally I've always believed that men and women are different, and this notion that gender is purely a social construct is not only silly, but dangerous. One of the things I like about the internet is that I can easily ask women for advice about women, and I think that's a good thing. I think more broadly, the internet subjects memes to much harder and more vigorous scrutiny, which I think is a good thing. It's kind of like tossing memes out into the jungle and seeing which ones survive, instead of having a farmer decide which memes deserve to propagate and which ones should die out. That leads to more diversity and more competition, which isn't always fun, but I think you end up with a better result.

 

As to the erasure of sexual orientation, maybe what I mean is that it constructs separate networks for heterosexuals and the other sexual orientations. Else, what explains the scarcity of homosexual posters here on LS?

But is that bad? As to dating and relationships, I think it's perfectly normal for sexual preference to segregate us. I frankly don't have any interest in what homosexual men look for in a partner, but I care a lot about what heterosexual women think. One of the great benefits of the internet is that it's made it a lot easier for men and women to talk about these things, with no issue of attraction or dating because we can't see each other and usually live thousands of miles apart. I think that's great!!!

 

And on other (non-dating) sites, I interact with far more people of different races, genders, nationalities, sexual preferences, age, etc. than I have access to in my physical life. Again I think that's awesome!!

[Kamille]

I remember talking about "Who pays?" in high school and college. It's certainly something men have always thought about! More generally, I think people have done this same thing for centuries. The difference is that instead of just asking your family and friends and getting 2 or 3 points of advice, you can post here and get hundreds. That gives you a better ability to discern which opinions are the best ones.

 

I think you're universalizing your own practice and generalizing it to men broadly defined.

 

 

That's my point: in your locality and network you discussed "who paid" and men thought about it. In mine, we didn't - but now we do. It used to be that we would split the bill as a matter of course. Now, men in my network consider they have to pay for dates in order to be gentlemen and to maximize their chance of landing the girl. Before, the discussion of who pays wasn't universal, now it is.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Kamille

[carhill]

I still haven't discussed 'who pays' with anyone in real life, either prior to, during or after my M. It's just not an issue, ever. I do what I do, without comment. I talk about it here, for informational and discussion purposes, but the discussion has no impact on how I perceive real life interaction. It's simply sharing a perspective. Don't know if that fits in with 'Dating, Inc' but there ya go.

[EasyHeart]

I think you're universalizing your own practice and generalizing it to men broadly defined.

Aren't you doing the same thing?

[Kamille]

Aren't you doing the same thing?

 

In the example about who pays, or in my analysis of the effects of Dating Inc on romantic relationships? In either cases, I disagree but would love to hear your input on how I am universalizing.