Sign up to learn about upcoming events near you.
Rhymes with Mating?
- By nuanceforum
- | May 27, 2020
What are the societal implications of the modern concept of dating?
A casual internet search suggests the word dating found its way into common American parlance during the Roaring 20’s, so approximately a hundred years ago. In the deeper past, quaint words like courtship or wooing would have described a ritual, highly supervised, often orchestrated by chaperones, family members, elders, etc. and significantly constrained by social norms and expectations.
Customs have varied widely across history and cultures, but in general civilizations have heavily regulated the process of romantic pairing. And for good reason, the topic was fraught and complicated, and the stakes were high. Nothing less than the future and stability of the village was at stake. What those customs would have in common is their emphasis on some kind of binding accountability between the two parties, communicated through rituals and cultural signifiers, a precursor to mating, a pair bond or committed relationship including marriage.
Contrast that with a contemporary understanding of dating, that except within more traditional or religious communities, would have very little to do with commitment or marriage. Only the most tenuous link exists between dating someone and the expectation that you will someday marry them. Dating is its own thing, an indistinct category of relationship that occupies the no-man’s-land between completely unattached and formally (engaged) or legally (married) committed.
Some might describe it as being informally committed to another person (exclusive), but others might say it’s a period of experimentation with no exclusivity implied. In fact, for many exclusivity is an additional step that has to be discussed and negotiated, and by no means the default assumption in sexual intimacy.
As the above paragraphs demonstrate, you quickly run into trouble trying to define the word dating. There’s not much consensus about its meaning, other than how little it actually means. It’s almost as if the terms of every consensual romantic or sexual relationship between two (or more?) people must be negotiated individually, each relationship having its own set of expectations and commitments. All under the heading of dating.
For many dating is just a “stage” that allows time to pass with the benefits of companionship, sexual intimacy, etc. but with none of the consequences of commitment, until one or both of the partners are “ready to settle down.” And often what that really means is “until I’m ready to settle down with someone who isn’t you.”
Perhaps it’s worth considering the implications of this ambiguity. Without clear cultural norms and expectations around sexual and romantic intimacy, how does someone safely and successfully navigate the murkiness of dating?
Without formal strictures, nothing prevents someone from at minimum being vague about their intentions, or even outright dishonest. And few if any consequences befall someone acting in bad faith, other than the resentful feelings of the wronged party and a few of their friends. The old phrase “all is fair in love and war” rings hollow in the free-for-all environment of Tinder, Grinder, Hinge, etc. It’s as if every individual must fend for themselves when navigating this thicket, with nothing more at stake than their heart, personal agency, and future hopes and dreams.
Or maybe more troubling, for many dating is just a “stage” that allows time to pass with the benefits of companionship, sexual intimacy, etc. but with none of the consequences of commitment, until one or both of the partners are “ready to settle down.” And often what that really means is “until I’m ready to settle down with someone who isn’t you.”
In other words, the ambiguity of dating can create the climate for some people to use other people. And in so doing, create an environment of winners and losers, a grand sorting with a few people optimizing their way to their perceived best life, leaving many others with broken hearts and derailed dreams.
What are the true societal costs of this widespread dynamic? The field of economics often grapples with the concept of “externalities,” or the “tragedy of the commons.” The realization that many transactions, even between fully informed and freely engaged parties, often come with hidden costs borne by others. Fossil fuel consumption and its concomitant environmental effects being a classic example.
Does a similar concept apply to dating? Have our cultural norms around romantic and sexual intimacy created another kind of “marketplace?” And does this marketplace create inherent inequalities and externalities that are worth investigating further?
