🚀 go-pugleaf

In group soc.women, article <4mg2c5$e6q@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
ruskinr@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) wrote:
>You were doing fine till the second to last paragraph which I thought was 
>full of it.
>
>Personality overcome the other 5 elements??? I've never seen it, at least 
>where the term "date" is used. Your last paragraph seems to run contrary 
>to all you said in your other statements.

Not really.  It is a special case, and special cases always exist, in any
field.  As a special case, it is certainly not typical.  However, you will
find people for whom, for example, a sense of humor *really is* a primary
requirement that is more important than one of the Big Five.  Same holds
for being Kind, Gentle, Affectionate, etc.  Lots of people pay lip service
to these personality traits, but few actually take the trouble to
investigate them, except in the cases noted, where they get to investigate
them through no primary effort of their own.  Of course, where these other
traits are more important, this generally changes the dating ritual
considerably.  One individual will develop common acquaintances that
provide an excuse to hang around with the target and evaluate the traits
that cannot be evaluated in a short time, prior to establishing a bona-fide
relationship.  Sound strange?  It is - it's uncommon.

>I think what needs to be done is to define the word "date". I think for 
>too many people -- especially under 32 -- the word carries some type of 
>romantic meaning; whereas for others it means something that refers to a 
>scheduled event mutually agreed upon by two people that may or may not 
>have a romantic interest.

In the traditional sense that most people over thirty are accustomed to, a
date is precisely that - an arrangement by which two people spend an
evening together - nothing more.  However, among the younger set, that has
been redefined to suit their circumnstances.  There is nothing wrong with
that, as long as, in the borderline cases, an agreement is struck about
just what a date really is - a casual encounter, or a blood tribute.

Among the younger set these days, what is referred to as a 'date' is what
used to be referred to as 'going steady'.  The implication being that you
can only date one person at a time.  In the fifties, you could date as many
people as you could get away with, but when you, for example 'pinned' or
'got pinned', you were going steady, and that was the equivalent of an
engagement - a commitment to one person that persisted until the couple
broke up or got married.

I suspect that the shift that has occurred in the meantime was rooted in
two separate events.  The sexual revolution occurred, and in that time it
became OK to have sex while dating, which, at that time, had no real effect
on the process of dating at all.  Of course, this did occur before that,
but it was never openly acknowledged - no woman would admit to anybody that
she had sex on the first date, for example, at the risk of being branded a
'slut' by her female friends, and 'easy' by all the males.  However, this
did shift the concept of 'going steady' from a significant turning point in
a relationship to a mere formality.

After the sexual revolution, the advent of permanent VD occurred (Herpes
and AIDS), and *that* increased significance of the act of sex caused the
second change - the adoption of the doctrine of only dating one person at a
time, thus effectively making the old concepts of 'dating' and 'going
steady' synonymous.  However, there was never a term put in place to
describe the events that occur prior to what is now known as 'dating'.
Around here, that stage is now referred to as 'just going out'. However,
when parents are describing 'dating' to their kids, what the parents are
saying and what the children are hearing no longer refer to the same thing,
thus the confusion.

>I have been informed that I have NEVER gone out an a "date" with my friends 
>(though we have gone to some really nice events); but rather that "We 
>went out as friends". If you ask me we went out on a non-romantic date; 
>if you ask her we did not go out on a "date", but rather just "went out  
>as friends". It is as if saying the two of us went out on a date, the sky 
>would cave in.

That's because the term 'date' has come to imply a sexual commitment,
rather than merely a platonic association.  If a woman now admits to
'dating' you, she is effectively committing herself sexually in theory if
not in fact - others will assume that the two of you are either having sex,
or intend to.  In the past, that was not the case.  It is simpler to simply
accommodate the shift in terminology, and agree that anything prior to a
sexual commitment is 'just going out as friends', and anything after that
as 'dating'.  If a woman agrees that she is 'dating' you, you can take that
as a tacit admission that she has serious feelings towards you, even if you
have not actually had sex yet.  The collary, of course, is that if she
admits that you and her are 'dating', you are now expected to forego
dalliances with any other female.

The age of the person you are seeing is also a factor, which must be taken
into account.  If the other person is in their thirties, they may still use
the old definitions, and in the twenties, they are almost certainly using
the new definitions.  In the borderline areas, you have to kind of feel
your way around to decide which definitions apply.  However, if you go out
a few times and expect to go out again, and the other person is still not
referring to it as a date, you can assume you are using the new
definitions.

>If a man and a woman are not friends first how can any relationship work? 
>If a "date" is something "romantic", why not call it what it is -- desire 
>to have sex, but don't say that it is "the start of a relationship" -- it 
>is the start of SEXUAL relations, period. In that lies the trap that "Oh 
>Gee, s/he loves me, maybe s/he might make a good wife/husband", the 
>relationship was not there to start with, and maybe this might explain 
>why we have such a high divorce rate.
>
>I think it might be worth while therefore to DEFINE what is meant by the 
>word "date". 

If you insist on a definition, by today's standard, a date can be reliably
defined as a 'committment to a monogamous romantic relationship, with an
implicit promise of future intimate relations'.  Everything before that is
'going out as friends', and 'dating', with the subsequent 'living
together', 'engaged', and married' all end when the relationship ends.

-- 
        David C. Wright - wrightd@magic.mb.ca  PGP public key at:
                 http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

                Angular momentum makes the world go round.