# Dating in the 21st century-- Why does Monogamy feel dead?



## verajessa (Apr 26, 2016)

Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years. I was in one committed relationship for four years but that happened in my teenage years. When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating. I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only? And most of these dating app conversations end up being so surface or barely personal based on what I've heard from friends. I've heard friends describe it as this way to filter out what they actually want to say or that some people use it to say things that they would never say in person, just because they're behind a screen. And the second thing is, I know hook up culture is on the rise. And I totally think it's great that more people are expressing their sexual liberties as they please (autonomy is important), but like are there no more people who want committed monogamy anymore? Because I feel so left out of this dating culture all of a sudden. I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance. I'm not conservative or traditional or anything, I just want the whole "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc." thing. Is that becoming not a thing anymore? I feel like I can't find any guy who wants this at all. And if there is a guy I know who wants this, they're usually traditionally conservative guys that I know. My question is... how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ? How do I find people who want to have intimate conversations and really have meaningful relationships rather than just sex or "hanging out", as a non-conservative person? Am I missing something?


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

The way I see it is... the internet is a tool. Apps are a tool. No point in using a tool that can't give you what you're looking for. Also no point in worrying about its existence.

Be real with yourself. You're not some strange alien with super crazy unusual preferences. Most of your feelings are naturally shared by a lot of people. I know I relate, I don't care for dating apps at all. Too superficial. I'm much more interested in the people around me. And when I feel a true, deep connection to someone, I've honestly never felt like technology was getting in the way.

It's out there. Just takes more time, and that's the whole point.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Monogamy feels dead because it might really be dead soon.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

You can meet people who're interested in having a committed relationship with you. Online or offline.

I met my current bf online and we're in a committed relationship for half a year now. 

Hook ups are indeed on the rise, it's a phase in my opinion. People were oppressed for centuries into thinking they must only have sex with one person. If you made a mistake too bad. Nowadays, it's gone to the other extreme but I believe that the majority of people ultimately want the connection that can only be found in a committed relationship. Exceptions definitely exist, but in my experience at least I find the above to be true.


----------



## jusplathemus (Jan 13, 2015)

verajessa said:


> I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance.


I feel the same. I find it that the majority values quantity over quality in this matter, and as far as I'm concerned, more is definitely not better here. I always preferred to have more meaningful relationships instead of having just lots of them.



verajessa said:


> how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ?


There are plenty of opportunities. Just choose a hobby and connect with other people that have similar interest to yours. Maybe even join a club or a team. The important thing is to look in places where you have more of a chance to find like-minded individuals.

I wish you the best of luck! :encouragement:


----------



## Perso Uno (Sep 9, 2016)

With a sky high divorce and cheating rate, monogamy basically is dead/dying. 


As for the online vs offline meeting thing: different strokes for different folks. I like to meet people both ways but I can understand why people gravitate more towards online every year. It's because online you don't really feel as rejected (which there will be a lot of no matter what you do, dating is a numbers game and all that). So the rejection kind of doesn't count in some people's minds. 

I personally like online better. Not because of the rejection thing, but because I can play the numbers game in higher volumes than I could otherwise (since I don't like going to bars/clubs/etc.). And find people to have sex/relationships with a lot faster than I could if I were to just meet people organically. And when I do meet people out and about it's usually because I'm looking to meet people, at which point is it really natural anymore? I don't think so but that's debatable. 

Plus, I just got my first DSLR camera, so my success is about to skyrocket after getting some pictures done:wink:


I also think most people prefer meaningful relationships over casual (I do). But the problem is, is that they're few and far between (unless you're the crazy type that falls in love every 4 seconds). And people have needs, I know I do.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Well I hope I do not invite the pc people to argue me on being an ageist

But I think alot of this is your age group. College is not exactly the prime age in society to settle down. Generally speaking that is. 

At my age (30s), yes I do internet date, but also have had real dates transpire from mutual friends, as well as out at various places. 

I just sincerely think overall your age group is not the age group where settling down is in the mind as a majority. And restricting ones self to one relationship at that age I think is possibly seen as restricting of objectives like pursuing degree or career or sowing wild oats.

Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

I'm going to give you a more detailed perspective on human sexuality based upon factual evidence and evolutionary theory. Along with some human sexuality theory that might help to clear things up. We'll follow up with the cultural phenomenon of feminism and the rejection Abrahamic religions, and then I'll answer all of the other questions you've asked individually.

First of all, we have numerous studies that suggest infidelity isn't rare, if anything, it is to be expected. Approximately 33% of all people, at a minimum mind you, this could be as high as 60%, cheat on their mates/spouses. This leads us to believe that we as a species are not very monogamous, and if we are anything close, we are serially monogamous. These studies are confirmed by other evolutionary studies relating testicle -> weigh ratios of varied species and the promiscuity of the females in that species. For humans, our testicular size is much larger than it is for other species who ARE monogamous, suggesting that our females are prone to sexually promiscuous behavior. 

This is further complicated by the short-term and long-term mating behaviors of human beings. We all have standards for our mating preferences. Our long-term mating standards are usually pretty high, but our short-term mating standards? Well, let's just say they aren't as high. A study on long-term and short-term mating habits discovered that while we do have inclinations for long-term reproductive prospects, we ALSO have inclinations for short-term reproductive prospects. It was also noted, that if we are invested in a long-term prospect, our standards were much, much higher because we need to feel reasonably sure that our mate isn't going to fuck up. Conversely, with short-term mating, we care much less. Long-term mating strategies do not necessarily result in permanent monogamous relationships, but could be ended once the desired result (living children) is obtained. That would result in serial monogamy.

Furthermore, with the advent of feminism, women are more empowered sexually to make the choices they want to make with their sex lives. This is doubly affected by their ability to earn an effective income equally, as leaving a partner becomes more of a possibility when you aren't worried for your financial safety. Also, with the collapse of western religion which typically encourages female subservience to males, in addition to binding long-term mating contracts (marriage), it is not unexpected to see that monogamy (which we are not predisposed to in the first place) is disintegrating before our very eyes.

In the United States specifically, there is a growing movement that you've probably heard of (MGTOW) about men not getting married or getting involved with women, etc. Men are avoiding marriage in droves because it is financially risky for them to engage in "traditional" relationships given the current biases against men in courts of law regarding marriage. It's a difficult topic that I am not thoroughly familiar with, but I think it makes sense on its face.



> I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only?


Online conversations are merely substitutes to weed out the weirdos. 



> And most of these dating app conversations end up being so surface or barely personal based on what I've heard from friends. I've heard friends describe it as this way to filter out what they actually want to say or that some people use it to say things that they would never say in person, just because they're behind a screen. And the second thing is, I know hook up culture is on the rise. And I totally think it's great that more people are expressing their sexual liberties as they please (autonomy is important), but like are there no more people who want committed monogamy anymore?


They are only superficial because they let them be superficial. They don't have to be superficial. That's on them. There are people that want committed monogamy, (read above the short-term and long-term mating strategies,) just don't be surprised by the fact that as a species, we are generally promiscuous and prone to non-monogamous relationships.



> Because I feel so left out of this dating culture all of a sudden. I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance. I'm not conservative or traditional or anything, I just want the whole "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc." thing.


You can find that thing. And yes, it is an older method of thinking. But that's a choice you have to make. You can feel sorry for yourself or adapt.



> Is that becoming not a thing anymore? I feel like I can't find any guy who wants this at all. And if there is a guy I know who wants this, they're usually traditionally conservative guys that I know.


Are you young? If so then finding a man who is interested in it is going to be rare. As you yourself have noticed, the ones who are are typically "conservative" males who are probably believers in an Abrahamic religion. 



> My question is... how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ? How do I find people who want to have intimate conversations and really have meaningful relationships rather than just sex or "hanging out", as a non-conservative person? Am I missing something?


Do hobby stuff. Go to the gym, go paint pottery, go to the library, go fly a drone out in the park, go hiking, etc etc. Eventually you will cross paths with someone who has what you have in mind.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Online dating can be hit or miss - _just_ like meeting people offline can be. I've had incredibly deep and meaningful conversations on dating sites and upon meeting them in person, you just have to find a way to filter through all the crap and learn how to find people who take dating seriously the way you do, and who enjoy substance and depth. There are people out there who date online and look for the same exact things you and I do. The whole premise of online dating can be a bit off-putting initially, and some people are so turned off by the idea of it that they don't even venture into it. But once you can get past it, it really is no different from dating offline. Online dating is just more deliberately selective, because you're consciously evaluating every profile/person in a romantic light, which you really don't do in person. (This can reinforce the feeling that you have to _really_ look to find someone you click with.)

In a few seconds, you can tell whether a profile is geared towards hooking up and one-night stands, or actually looking for something serious. It's not necessarily what they say, although that plays a part in it, but the amount of effort they put into their profile and how they want to be seen. That said, having done both, I would say I enjoy both types of dating for different reasons. Offline dating is a shot in the dark, you don't know what they want, what they're looking for, and you're starting from scratch. It's exciting, and much more risky, which I actually enjoy. Online dating is safer, less time-consuming, and can filter things more effectively for you. Both have perks and downsides.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Actually the opposite maybe true for 18-24 year olds and how many partners they hook up with.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Witch of Dreams said:


> Actually the opposite maybe true for 18-24 year olds and how many partners they hook up with.


^ Have you looked at that butterface? Maybe the reason they are having less sex is because they're all fugly. (j/k LoL)


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Desthro said:


> ^ Have you looked at that butterface? Maybe the reason they are having less sex is because they're all fugly. (j/k LoL)


Joke aside. That could be a valid point. Look at all the perfect bodies and faces exposed everywhere.


----------



## TheJ (Aug 3, 2015)

verajessa said:


> Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years. I was in one committed relationship for four years but that happened in my teenage years. When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating. I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only? And most of these dating app conversations end up being so surface or barely personal based on what I've heard from friends. I've heard friends describe it as this way to filter out what they actually want to say or that some people use it to say things that they would never say in person, just because they're behind a screen. And the second thing is, I know hook up culture is on the rise. And I totally think it's great that more people are expressing their sexual liberties as they please (autonomy is important), but like are there no more people who want committed monogamy anymore? Because I feel so left out of this dating culture all of a sudden. I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance. I'm not conservative or traditional or anything, I just want the whole "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc." thing. Is that becoming not a thing anymore? I feel like I can't find any guy who wants this at all. And if there is a guy I know who wants this, they're usually traditionally conservative guys that I know. My question is... how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ? How do I find people who want to have intimate conversations and really have meaningful relationships rather than just sex or "hanging out", as a non-conservative person? Am I missing something?


You haven't dated for 2 years, so you might be aware that just "striking a conversation" with an attractive stranger for the purpose of dating isn't all that easy. The internet makes it easier. 

I personally think that's all the real difference there is in everything you pointed out- The rest is just dating preferences of the people in question which obviously vary. You're not alone in wanting a monogamous relationship, most women I've seen online, at least on OKC, seem to be into that too.

I think the main difference between men and women in dating is that guys are more willing to sleep around until they meet the person they settle for, for a monogamous relationship, while women want some more assurance prior to sex that this person is the right person. 
This is a generalization of course, but I think it's true for the most part. My experience is possibly skewed though because I live in a more conservative country.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

verajessa said:


> Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years. I was in one committed relationship for four years but that happened in my teenage years. When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating. I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only?


It is not techology itself; it is type of techology. For ex; I dislike Apple™ because that shit locksdown like a nun in a brothel -- (&) whereas in Andriod™ I can simply bypass it through BiOS.

Look at Skype™ -- it removes all the fun from cheating. I can simplistically hack into all my mates CPU's / techological-system(s) (&) that is no fun. What happened to sneaking around in the bushes. In my spare time; instead of just punching my cheating meatsac in the face -- I developed a Trojan (&) sent it to him through a Job Offer email that crashed his new 1,000$ laptop/OS. The world is submitting to technological advancement (!) And it makes me rather _horny_ for the future! 

It is truly sorrowful horny -- but observe; the virtual-meatbot replacements assembling before our eyes as we speak. 

For example, I am rather excited about Cyborg(s)™ :: image one programmed to perform skilled coitus without recipriocal expectations and also measures excitement through advanced-_thermal_ technology. _Mmm' mm_. Have you ever made ''love,'' to a hologram .. (?!) That is fascinating. 

I tend to adhere to your view; look at photographs. All still shots -- all false, and we still fetishize them. This faux-still / frozen in-time picture. Instagram is an absolute trap. I do not believe selfies; I do not believe anyone(s) photographs -- they could be staged; look at Tinder. Must've matched with about 700 Brad Pitts by now. 

We are so engrossed in these ''images,'' -- we are utilizing it to scam individuals with 'actualized-bots' (e.g., fake profiles). Or virtual-virtualized porn, (e.g., 3D animations). 

Of course; there will still be humanoid(s) indulging in traditional conversation stimulus -- just talk to them yourself. Why don't you, *Vera*?

I dislike the simculara-fetishism as well -- but it is rather interesting, indeed, you must admit, -- but only talking to developed-AI. Not simulations of humanoid meat-sacs up the street; those are boring. Where is that Ava - The Ex Machina-bot. Can't say I wouldn't of tried to shine those gears if I do say so myself.

-Slaps the back of your head- :: Go talk to your fellow meatbots about this malfunction + concern -- not us avatars, you have work to do, darling (!)


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

verajessa said:


> "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc."


I am afraid we're going to have to send you to rom-com rehab. Don't worry, they start slow, but you'll be limited to running through airport security once a week for the first 3 months.

Seriously though.. As long as people get addicted to other people, feel jealous if other people try to take their other people, and at least some of these other people respect that by avoiding situations that would trigger said jealousy (a.k.a. not cheating), monogamy isn't going to die. The medium in which it starts, the rituals surrounding it and the terms of agreement it will usually entail, will die and be reborn again, as they always do. For some it died when children were allowed to make their own choice and it was no longer an honorable sacred arrangement between families, then it died when it changed from one relationship for a life time into one relationship at a time, then it died when more people decided they'd don't feel the need to institutionalize it and get married, and now some people are calling it dead because too many people are allowed to get married. People are always calling it dead whenever it changes, and monogamy always survives in one form or another because it changes. Personally I wouldn't put much weight on the fantasy of how you meet your future SO, that's just an encounter, it's who they are that lasts (Well... Lasts for awhile).


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

What a coincidence, as I've also felt lately that I'm overall having this disdain attitude towards how social interactions are dynamically changing, leaning towards this online-scene that doesn't quite work for me. It could be that I'm simply going about this stuff wrong, but it seems as though online dating tends to work more against me than help. 

What I seek is more of a slow-burn kind of connection, where I learn things about my person of interest little by little over many years; _that's ideal_. Something to keep the spark going for a longer duration, you know? However, online interactions tends to destroy this for me, yet I know I'm the main root of the issue. Basically, while these screens of separation makes it incredibly EASY to get to know someone, I take advantage of that fact to literally try to learn as much as possible about the other person in a quicker time-frame. The mystery and tease of this interaction becomes essentially spoiled; I lose interest and fade off. After awhile, it feels like I'm using online dating less for dating and more so about just getting to know people on an intimate level and move onto the next. 

Of course, I recognize I should learn to let off the gas pedal, but it's so interestingly scary how easy it is these walls we put up are so easy to break down via online dating. I feel I'm more able to take things slowly if the initial interaction didn't involve meeting online first. That's the thing, everything just feels like most everyone is wanting to go 0-100mph, wanting to jump from ship to ship. It's addicting. It's breadth over depth which with so much possible ground covered in significantly less time. 

I personally don't think monogamy is dying off, but instead, it's simply easier to invest time in multiple people with minimal energy. Most people still yearn for a special someone that gives them the attention they desire, it just so happens there's seemingly an infinite amount of options available and therefore it's like taking someone to a candy store, and telling them _try_ to pick just ONE candybar. They're gonna want to taste nearly every single one before settling down and making a final call. Or worse, we're checking out multiple candy stores LOL


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Korror said:


> What I seek is more of a slow-burn kind of connection, where I learn things about my person of interest little by little over many years; _that's ideal_. Something to keep the spark going for a longer duration, you know? However, online interactions tends to destroy this for me, yet I know I'm the main root of the issue. Basically, while these screens of separation makes it incredibly EASY to get to know someone, I take advantage of that fact to literally try to learn as much as possible about the other person in a quicker time-frame. The mystery and tease of this interaction becomes essentially spoiled; I lose interest and fade off. After awhile, it feels like I'm using online dating less for dating and more so about just getting to know people on an intimate level and move onto the next.
> 
> Of course, I recognize I should learn to let off the gas pedal, but it's so interestingly scary how easy it is these walls we put up are so easy to break down via online dating. I feel I'm more able to take things slowly if the initial interaction didn't involve meeting online first. That's the thing, everything just feels like most everyone is wanting to go 0-100mph, wanting to jump from ship to ship. It's addicting. It's breadth over depth which with so much possible ground covered in significantly less time.


I actually really relate to this, specifically when looking at how friendships/relationships have formed off of PerC (as an example) versus offline. Going off of personal experience, it seems like things are way more accelerated, heightened and intense online. The setting itself makes it so that you're way more likely to pour your heart out, dive deep, and it's definitely an addiction. You want more and more, you can't get enough, and if you click, then you *click*. The anonymity of it all is ideal for that kind of intense merging. But then, as you said, it tends to fade faster too, unless you've established some kind of attachment. I'm also an Ne-dom, so I lose interest quickly unless I'm attached. 

That said, I *do* think meeting on an online forum is very different from online dating. When you're using a dating site/app, you're expected to meet in person within the following week, and you're usually in each other's vicinity, so there can be more of a slower build up in terms of intensity and what's shared because you're (hopefully) spending significant time together in person. The mystery _can_ still exist. What do you think?


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

fleur du mal said:


> That said, I *do* think meeting on an online forum is very different from online dating. When you're using a dating site/app, you're expected to meet in person within the following week, and you're usually in each other's vicinity, so there can be more of a slower build up in terms of intensity and what's shared because you're (hopefully) spending significant time together in person. The mystery _can_ still exist. What do you think?


That's an important distinction no doubt! Though, I personally would think certain elements from the crazy "accelerated, heightened and intense" aspects of using online tools via dating sites/apps overlaps into reality still. What I mean is, while true that people expect to meet each other in person, there's still a sense of urgency of, "I better hook this person's interest as fast as possible," which sets up high expectations. These expectations are often not met, so thus there's this continued cycle of going through a series of people. This isn't necessarily bad per se, as at least you're exposing yourself to many characteristics that you can discern which are deemed worthy or trash. 

It would seem to me that, if we're really after long-term committed relationships, the online dating sphere may not be for us. Doesn't mean it's impossible, just probably not the _better_ alternative. Perhaps it's best to fall back on the old saying, "love finds you when you're not looking/least expect it." Because then, certain relationships can spring from not so high expectations. Maybe you meet that _certain _person through a hobby of interest or whatever. Attachment is something that will mold and take form over a longer period of time versus the hyper-activity of the online dating scene where you either hit or miss_ really hard_; little space for anything in-between. Constant mind racing thoughts that fall into, "Yeah this person seems alright... but what about that other match I was eyeing too??" 

So messy! :laughing:


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Desthro said:


> I'm going to give you a more detailed perspective on human sexuality based upon factual evidence and evolutionary theory. Along with some human sexuality theory that might help to clear things up. We'll follow up with the cultural phenomenon of feminism and the rejection Abrahamic religions, and then I'll answer all of the other questions you've asked individually.
> 
> First of all, we have numerous studies that suggest infidelity isn't rare, if anything, it is to be expected. Approximately 33% of all people, at a minimum mind you, this could be as high as 60%, cheat on their mates/spouses. This leads us to believe that we as a species are not very monogamous, and if we are anything close, we are serially monogamous. These studies are confirmed by other evolutionary studies relating testicle -> weigh ratios of varied species and the promiscuity of the females in that species. For humans, our testicular size is much larger than it is for other species who ARE monogamous, suggesting that our females are prone to sexually promiscuous behavior.
> 
> ...


Wow.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

verajessa said:


> Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years. I was in one committed relationship for four years but that happened in my teenage years. When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating. I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only? And most of these dating app conversations end up being so surface or barely personal based on what I've heard from friends. I've heard friends describe it as this way to filter out what they actually want to say or that some people use it to say things that they would never say in person, just because they're behind a screen. And the second thing is, I know hook up culture is on the rise. And I totally think it's great that more people are expressing their sexual liberties as they please (autonomy is important), but like are there no more people who want committed monogamy anymore? Because I feel so left out of this dating culture all of a sudden. I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance. I'm not conservative or traditional or anything, I just want the whole "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc." thing. Is that becoming not a thing anymore? I feel like I can't find any guy who wants this at all. And if there is a guy I know who wants this, they're usually traditionally conservative guys that I know. My question is... how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ? How do I find people who want to have intimate conversations and really have meaningful relationships rather than just sex or "hanging out", as a non-conservative person? Am I missing something?


Dating is tough nowadays, because people don't seem to understand the value of 'people' anymore. They treat one another as though they _are_ easily discardable like a quick swipe on Tinder.

Technology has its pro's and cons, but definitely in the realm of dating, social media doesn't help with the idea of monogamy.

Yet, so many people desire that connection, and what they experience more often than not is what you describe.. shallow, superficial conversations that lead to nowhere. But, don't lose hope.

I always had a theory that once you are in a happy place in your life, or you're doing what you love doing best, you will attract similar energy. And, if you meet the right person, then great. If you go on doing what you enjoy doing, and you still don't meet that person, so be it. Besides, I'm glad you treat your body like a temple. Sad to see how many people throw away precious things about themselves because they want to fit in, or because they want to numb the pain they feel inside, or maybe they simply do enjoy the hook-up-culture (which is totally fine if they can handle it).

You can only do what you do best. Ultimately, in the end, that's all that matters. Because we all eventually end up in separation after death anyway, and perhaps reunification, a melding of some sort (if there is more to life than just the physical manifestation of spirit). But, there isn't really a concept of being divided. Love can extend to platonic kinship love, and that doesn't really entail an intimate monogamous relationship but the most sacred of bonds do. Getting to that point in the Age of the Internet can be tricky. Only old souls can understand and see behind the B.S. facade of social media dating.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Well another way to look at it is, there would be no romantic ideals of love, monogamy or marriage if it was so convenient and easily attainable. I think it's always been an ambitious goal, in any society where it was valued. So having to filter through crap on the internet is really just another iteration of that. A generation or two ago it was probably more about political/religious disconnect, rather than technological.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

fleur du mal said:


> I actually really relate to this, specifically when looking at how friendships/relationships have formed off of PerC (as an example) versus offline. Going off of personal experience, it seems like things are way more accelerated, heightened and intense online. The setting itself makes it so that you're way more likely to pour your heart out, dive deep, and it's definitely an addiction. You want more and more, you can't get enough, and if you click, then you *click*. The anonymity of it all is ideal for that kind of intense merging. But then, as you said, it tends to fade faster too, unless you've established some kind of attachment. I'm also an Ne-dom, so I lose interest quickly unless I'm attached.
> 
> That said, I *do* think meeting on an online forum is very different from online dating. When you're using a dating site/app, you're expected to meet in person within the following week, and you're usually in each other's vicinity, so there can be more of a slower build up in terms of intensity and what's shared because you're (hopefully) spending significant time together in person. The mystery _can_ still exist. What do you think?


You don't think this is just PerC though? That this site would be specifically encouraging intimacy and pouring your heart out? (I think it is.)


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> You don't think this is just PerC though? That this site would be specifically encouraging intimacy and pouring your heart out? (I think it is.)


I've seen it happen in Literature forums, skeptic forums, gaming forums, musician fan club forums and an urban design forum. Somewhere right now there's probably a thread dedicated to people who are planning to bang if the Cubs win the boringball championship. Communities like this kind of make sure you're starting with some interests in common, intimacy gets built on that.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tonight Someone Dies said:


> I've seen it happen in Literature forums, skeptic forums, gaming forums, musician fan club forums and an urban design forum. Somewhere right now there's probably a thread dedicated to people who are planning to bang if the Cubs win the boringball championship. Communities like this kind of make sure you're starting with some interests in common, intimacy gets built on that.


Yes, but other forums don't revolve around personality. What many do first thing when they come here is read articles describing very personal, private and sensitive issues, and then they use that vocabulary and that method to spill their heart out in a Type me -thread. Just deciding on a type is essentially broadcasting the community "this is what I think of myself after some introspection, here are my weaknesses, here are my deepest fears, here is my love" (and continuing with "what do you think"). (Not all do this ofc *cough*) 

Sure that can happen in other communities, but in most the vocabulary and the methods are not given, to this extent at least, and it's up to the users to bring it with them and it's up to the users to start digging into their hearts. Here the goo is spread so thick you can't avoid getting some on you. And even though the labels also provide a mask and you could argue that the intimacy is more organic when it has formed on it's own, since this site is about personality theories, there's the added interest of having the theories understood and keeping interpretations in line, so there can also be questioning and digging further.

Kaleidoscope was talking about being able to intensely merge anonymously, with one person after another (she's such an ENFP Sx/so*, lol), and I don't think that'd be possible without this* kind of framework, where you can very quickly get very deep. I'd say intimacy is inbuilt, it's the merging then that's optional after that. 

Yes and of course, in something like an art community, or possibly a religious community or other psychological community, of course they're running on intimacy too. But I do still think that PerC covers wider slap of those areas than any interest forum normally, all the while without loosing the intimacy like a big general interest forum easily would, and it is because this is about personalities directly, not about expressing your personality via your art or something like that. All the time, even if the conversation is about other things, there's the personality element very strongly present, any conversation at any time can turn to sort of meta-talk about how the conversation and the topic relates to the conversationalists' personalities and what people are seeing in each other.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Yes, but other forums don't revolve around personality. What many do first thing when they come here is read articles describing very personal, private and sensitive issues, and then they use that vocabulary and that method to spill their heart out in a Type me -thread. Just deciding on a type is essentially broadcasting the community "this is what I think of myself after some introspection, here are my weaknesses, here are my deepest fears, here is my love". (Not all do this ofc *cough*) Sure that can happen in other communities, but in most the vocabulary and the methods are not given, to this extent at least, and it's up to the users to bring it with them and it's up to the users to start digging into their hearts. Here the goo is spread so thick you can't avoid getting some on you. And even though the labels also provide a mask and you could argue that the intimacy is more organic when it has formed on it's own, since this site is about personality theories, there's the added interest of having the theories understood and keeping interpretations in line, so there can also be questioning and digging further.


There's some truth in that, this community encourages introspection, it's the main thing I like about this place. Although I wouldn't dismiss the level of comradery that might happen for people who are fans of the same author/game/musician/sports-team/whatever, which I haven't quite seen here within types... But then again I did notice type-fetishes, a lot of people who strongly believe certain types go together, which might make this a little bit off. It's also worth noting that many other communities tend to be inclined towards one gender or another, which makes couples less frequent. But some of them are also more inclined to happen in close proximity if they are more relevant to certain locations or languages, which might mean more relationships but less online time... Their are probably other factors to consider I haven't thought about.

P.S. 
You should do something about that cough. Here, have some cough syrup and LSD:

* *


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Sorry didn't see you there while editing. *cough*

*

And actually, I should have edited the original quote by @kaleidoscope (gah!) by @Fleur de mal (what the hell does she go by) by @fleur du mal (...) to make my point more clear, but it was difficult to do on my mobile so I didn't. I should have only quoted this part:



> Going off of personal experience, it seems like things are way more accelerated, heightened and intense online. The setting itself makes it so that you're way more likely to pour your heart out, dive deep, and it's definitely an addiction. You want more and more, you can't get enough, and if you click, then you click. The anonymity of it all is ideal for that kind of intense merging.


This part, more than frequency of actual relationships forming, was what I had in mind. That PerC is an exceptional setting among other online platforms, in my opinion.

**

It's true that focusing on the theories can become counterproductive and even obscure the relationship. 

***

And @Tonight Someone Dies I was kidding ofc, from what I've seen, in the short time you've been here you've bled your heart out like a stuck... I was going to refer to *cough* an animal but I don't know how insulting it'd be. :dread:

****

I really do have a cough. Sorry @kale and @Fleur for false mention notifications, I'm putting the blame on Halloween and whatshername . (For users who only visited PerC once and didn't post anything, they've been mentioned very frequently )


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> This part more, than frequency of actual relationships forming, was what I had in mind. That PerC is an exceptional setting among other online platforms, in my opinion.


Keeps me coming back so far.




Jamaia said:


> And @Tonight Someone Dies I was kidding ofc, from what I've seen, in the short time you've been here you've bled your heart out like a stuck... I was going to refer to *cough* an animal but I don't know how insulting it'd be. :dread:


Nice try, but no, my name isn't Richard.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Many dating sites do have very personal questions and such that they ask or have you fill out. People go in there with the expectation of finding a partner. Why do they not manage to create the same default sense of intimacy and easy merging? (Spiraling back to the OP issue.) 

***

Is it just the fact that people go to dating sites specifically to find a partner, and that makes them vulnerable to portraying an idealized image and being more critical of others. And the experience of having too many options does make on more prone to just moving on because it's easier than having to decide.

****

Maybe, since the point of PerC is to dig into your true, "correct" personality, it does help by discouraging the portraying of an idealized image, to an extent at least. 

But I do still think the intense merging is easy online (including PerC) because what we post online is filtered. You can't just upload yourself. We the online people are brightly shining individually crafted distorted versions of our real-life mundane selves, so it's easy to fall. Not to say it's necessarily a bad thing, or less correct version. 

*****

"Not to say it's necessarily a bad thing, or less correct version." Or am I saying that? Is the intense merging sx-thing an illusion? (Spiraling to existential darkness with cough syrup.)






(Richard reference went way over my head, btw. @Tonight Someone Dies)


----------



## Doll (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm kind of confused about what dating websites/apps have to do with monogamy.

For me, using dating apps was a must, because it's very difficult to meet someone if you're a lesbian in a moderately-populated Southern town. I'm also lazy af, and trolling people's profiles on my break took less effort than going out and walking around a bar - or a club - or wherever you'd go to meet someone in the so-called superior "in person" way. I don't like wasting time or money on things I don't take any pleasure from.

But even as I say this, I didn't technically meet my wife online. I say "technically" because it was through a website, meetup.com, but the first time I interacted with her was during a meetup event. Meetup is a website where you meet in person. As far as monogamy + babies + home, I don't understand why that would be difficult to find. All the men I dated prior to figuring out I didn't like men wanted these things. Doesn't seem to be a dying trend at all.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia;31831474[SIZE=1 said:


> (Richard reference went way over my head, btw. @Tonight Someone Dies)


Oh, I thought a stuck with a bleeding heart was a dick joke.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

It is easy to get laid. Always has been. The question is where are you at in life? Young, I wanted to experiment and try out things, and dated different people. Along the way I grew a bunch and I'm sure glad I didn't marry the first person I had sex with.

After a bit, I found THE RIGHT WOMAN and settled down, monogamy, kids, etc. 

15 years of that, and we'd had enough of each other, and back to dating for me, and back to marriage with someone else she doesn't like for her. 

Not much changes. The tools a bit. The locations a bit. The methods a bit. But the fundamentals are the same.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@Jamaia 

So sorry my Halloween username change wasn't practical for you :wink: 

But no, I agree with you completely. PerC is somehow more intimate, and more conducive to romance and intense connections. Can people meet and fall in love on a music or literature forum? Sure. But this is geared towards personality theory and self-exploration, and the very nature of those discussions already goes way deeper than discussing simple likes and dislikes. You're discussing (sometimes very) personal experiences, analyzing yourself and others around you, wearing your heart on your sleeve whether you like it or not. I also think the language we share on here - MBTI type, instincts, enneagram type - is much heavier, _real_ and visceral than talking about art or cars. Someone knowing my type combinations is already at least vaguely aware of my flaws, my strengths, my fixations, my triggers, etc. Just like you describing me as a typical ENFP Sx/So  That's hard to reproduce in daily life, or any other setting really. And then, you take that connection and you make it private. Ideal setting for a romance.

I met my ex on here, and not even on purpose. We just started discussing enneagram theory, it got very personal very quickly - next thing I know, we've been talking for seven hours straight, and I didn't get any sleep lol. We got into a LDR, visited each other constantly, and we were together for three years. Tons of people have met their SO on here, or had romantic flings. It's fascinating.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

> Dating in the 21st century-- Why does Monogamy feel dead?


Distortion. Remember when someone wanted bibles for everyone? what a mess followed after "everyone" got it. Remember when everyone said "we are all equal and all people deserve the same things and rights"? what a mess and still a mess (and just because I wrote that some people will try to create an absurd argument about rights, feminism, race, religion etc). *So: distortion*, now more than ever before, a lot of people they DESERVE whatever they want, see, hear, or that they should have it, entitled, possible, a reality. So, a lot of people regardless of gender expect a husband/wife, perfect, with money, smart, kind, noble, selfless, able to cook like a chef, pretty, with amazing body, etc. Sounds like too much? people say it's "ok" but to day most people take "their needs" in complex abundant combinations TO EXTREMES.

_*And thus... monogamy, relationships... become a difficult heavy burden, not fun for the one who commits. Because at the end: We all want to have fun without loosing one bit or second.*_



verajessa said:


> Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years.


That means you didn't date at age 19 and age 20. You were on a committed relationship BEFORE those two years, right? that's 15,16,17, 18, right? am I missing something or did I get this wrong? Anyway if I got something wrong here, being 21 I believe you have to take things more lightly. There is an age for exploration, and SOME in that age get married (not really knowing what they are doing) and some don't get married just fool around and learn. It's ok, the first attempts rarely are "final", not even NASA, where a lot of people take things too seriously ended up launching a rocket first try. *So, my word is have fun*.




verajessa said:


> When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating.


This is one of those moments where I would like to have better words and avoid saying something like: and a lot of people are also dating humans who not only natural selection would have eliminated, but also OTHERS who we consider healthy in the past would have avoided. I don't think online dating is a way to go, dating needs a lot of interaction, in person, feedback. Nothing will ever change that.

My grandmother used to say about some women in my family: walk, take a walk, smile, be kind, have a nice conversation, look in the eyes, explore the potential of meeting people, walk an extra block, get off the bus two blocks before your stop, etc.

I asked on another thread who has been asked out, directly, and just like my person to person questioning is "ALMOST NOBODY". The old times of a MAN (or whatever, man, woman, genderless-attraction) approached someone to talk are RARE these days. Nobody seems to got the guts and courage, talk, ask and you will see people try to cover their accidental meetings as something else that gives them some sort of "achievement". So, it's like most men are pu...sys, nowadays, they have their big egos but very few can actually cross the street and say "hi, can I whatever?, and what about a beer, coffee, etc, I like your eyes". And it's also rare the people who answer to this politely, most people act like jerks... and still want to be approached?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

From the existential darkness I thought of these things:

- I know I said PerC provides means to dig deep and convey the depths to others... And that in the best case scenario would be a good thing. 

- But adopting the language and method can also easily result in your online persona ending up looking like this:










(Most of yourself hidden behind simplistic labels.)

And communicating becomes like this:










(lol, had to pick innuendo)

And because of these filters it ends up becoming: 










(So incredibly connected.) 

Sorry, this is not at all about what OP was saying, regarding dating. 

Or maybe, if you consider that all online communities where you create a profile and interact with others might create a mutual language and code of interaction, including dating sites...? Since it's not possible to upload yourself... 

OP was saying does the "traditional" way of meeting and getting to know people in real life not happen anymore (questionable how traditional it is, I think, but at least if we consider traditional just meeting someone live vs meeting their profile online)... The answer was online dating is just a tool, it makes it easier to meet people. That's obviously true. 

But what if the experience of browsing through 2-dimensional profiles and connecting with people online (thinking of dating sites and such now more than PerC) makes real life gritty relationships less satisfying? It is suddenly the whole person and not an edited image. Online it'd be possible to connect with so many awesome people with so little effort... Is it possible that with more and more investment in life online, meeting and interacting with a person in real life becomes less satisfying or out right disappointing compared to the virtual experience? Or do you think the pheromones and eye-contact and touch and hormones and all that will always the beat virtual experience?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> From the existential darkness I thought of these things:
> 
> - I know I said PerC provides means to dig deep and convey the depths to others... And that in the best case scenario would be a good thing.
> 
> ...



I would say Pheremones and Eye-Contact, touch and hormones always beat the virtual experience.

For example, I have just had a 10 minute interaction with a girl at a shop. I will probably never see her again (was visiting faily and dropped off in shop on way home), nothing is going to happen. I probed a bit deeper, and she has a partner of so many years, he has one kid, she has 2, she has never left that town, blah blah blah. I'm not even particularly "attracted" to her (on some level I am as I was talking to her), but, those 10 minutes to me, were better than any online dating I have done, where I chat to somebody for a week or so online. Personally I prefer to meet people and interact. Sure in the future we may just sit at machines, have Siri designed to look how we want and have a mechanical dick or mechanical vagina if we are sexually aroused. But for me personally, I hope I am dead before that becomes reality. I prefer (personally) actually meeting people and experiencing their vibe and presence.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Communicating online is still a virtual reality. Unless people see each other in person and communicate live, the interactions dedicated primarily online is still a fabrication of one's own self-projections (imaginations), and/or the persona the other person coming through written text which is highly ambiguous.

Not to say that the potential isn't impossible, but meeting people IRL from online offline provides clearer indications through subtle nuances of people's true compatibilities as opposed to screen names and text that don't convey the importance of non-verbals.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

strawberryLola said:


> Communicating online is still a virtual reality. Unless people see each other in person and communicate live, the interactions dedicated primarily online is still a fabrication of one's own self-projections and/or the persona the other person comes through written text which is highly ambiguous in itself.
> 
> Not to see that the potential isn't impossible, but meeting people IRL from online offline provides clearer indications through subtle nuances of people's true compatibilities as opposed to screen names and text that don't convey the non-verbals.


Also where I live at least, we have these things called telephones and mobile phones. Personally I have never been into deafs and mutes so I tend to phone somebody. Or if I use Wattsapp, I send them a voice message.

I get some people just use Online dating for validation though, so if they don't want to actually speak never mind meet up after talking for a while using text, that's cool, I want other things so I moved on so we were not wasting each others time.

But yeah I am very anti-online dating and dating apps now a days. In case you hadn't noticed.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Also, I think there's a fine line between how people perceive reality these days in which they compare real life with online fantasies such as social media that often portrays the ordinary (mundane) into the extra-ordinary and actual real life. Online offers a way for escapasism.

We live in the era of instant gratification. 

The Internet is the new crack of the century. Highly addictive. Highly obscures reality.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

strawberryLola said:


> Also, I think there's a fine line between how people perceive reality these days in which they compare real life with online fantasies such as social media that often portrays the ordinary (mundane) into the extra-ordinary and actual real life. Online offers a way for escapasism.
> 
> We live in the era of instant gratification. The Internet is the new crack of the century. Highly addictive. Highly obscures reality.


True, I notice it on the bus and in the city centre. People who have no awareness of reality and just look at their phones. Those are another category of people I flush out of my life. Gives them more time to look at their phones.

On that note, I have just looked ata my phone and noticed a watsapp message from some girl from 4 days ago. Funny thing was if she had bothered her fat ass to phone me, I would of communicated with her. 

I think it also comes down to laziness also. I really should make it clear I only look at watsapp once a week on average and text messages every couple of days.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> On that note, I have just looked ata my phone and noticed a watsapp message from some girl from 4 days ago. Funny thing was if she had bothered her fat ass to phone me, I would of communicated with her.


How old is she?

Most of my staff is in their mid 20s, and I've discovered that for people under 25 it is now actually considered rude to call someone without texting first because "They might be doing something".


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Tonight Someone Dies said:


> How old is she?
> 
> Most of my staff is in their mid 20s, and I've discovered that for people under 25 it is now actually considered rude to call someone without texting first because "They might be doing something".


21, she was actually asking about meeting at what would of been 1 hour ago. 

Never understood that mentality myself, really cannot relate. If I ring someone and they are busy, then it generally goes to voicemail. I have voicemail set up on my phone personally so that it shows on my screen if I have messages waiting.

I think its a filter mechanism for me, people who have the same values about communication, tend to be noticed by me and those that don't, just go into my watsapp and sms inbox for eternity.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@strawberryLola I think you picked up on what I was saying, but I'm not sure if you agreed with my "concern" (not really that concerned, but curious to see what the future brings). Isn't it possible that (some) people will begin/learn to prefer the online experience, precisely because it is lacking of ccertain dimensions. Like they'll meet someone onlline, feel like there's chemistry or what ever, a connection, they meet up and reality is... disappointing. Even if not immediately, it might with time be not what they expected based on their initial interactions online. They find someone else online, it is as exciting as the last time initially, they meet up and are disappointed again that in reality the interaction wasn't as smooth. Or maybe they make it for some time, but both continue to still feel like there are some more fascinating people out there, online. And of course, there are!

Now, a sane person might think like @Reality Check and realize that the impression their forming in virtual reality is too good to be true and lacking, and start turning more towards meeting people irl. But someone else might think they just need to be more selective before meeting up, interact longer before meeting, start putting more effort into going through profiles/people online, spending more time finetuning their profile etc. And it could very well turn into escapism, not even really looking for real life partner anymore but feeling like the online connection is more satisfying. Not necessarily a conscious decision, but there are many factors to online interaction that could make a person prefer this medium. Escapism, ego-tripping...


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> @strawberryLola I think you picked up on what I was saying, but I'm not sure if you agreed with my "concern" (not really that concerned, but curious to see what the future brings). Isn't it possible that (some) people will begin/learn to prefer the online experience, precisely because it is lacking of ccertain dimensions. Like they'll meet someone onlline, feel like there's chemistry or what ever, a connection, they meet up and reality is... disappointing. Even if not immediately, it might with time be not what they expected based on their initial interactions online. They find someone else online, it is as exciting as the last time initially, they meet up and are disappointed again that in reality the interaction wasn't as smooth. Or maybe they make it for some time, but both continue to still feel like there are some more fascinating people out there, online. And of course, there are!


While not yet indicative of a full full blown social phenomena, I actually know someone like that. The combination of straight and a complete mistrust in men, she has gone abstinent IRL for several years now and instead moves from one online fling to the next whenever the idea of taking it to RL comes up.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tonight Someone Dies said:


> While not yet indicative of a full full blown social phenomena, I actually know someone like that. The combination of straight and a complete mistrust in men, she has gone abstinent IRL for several years now and instead moves from one online fling to the next whenever the idea of taking it to RL comes up.


That sounds bad. 

But what if neither side wants to take it to RL, is it bad to have a fantasy relationship online? Why not live through your avatar, with the ever improving user experience and all.

edit: I may have just called some LTR relationships fantasy there... Meant to emphasize certain level of accepted illusion... ... But it's unclear if people are aware of the self-censorship and editing, with the social media everywhere, how would one measure how truthful the picture they send out is? I don't think there's any way to do it. Maybe someone feels like their online personality is more like their true self than their physical self... And does it matter if there's no intention of meeting?


----------



## daydr3am (Oct 20, 2010)

OP, I have similar feelings about dating. I'm not interested in dating right now but when I decide that I am open for dating/a romantic relationship, I'd rather not have to meet someone via internet. I'm a little more old-fashioned and would rather feel sparks fly from interacting with a potential SO in person. The past few relationships I had were from people I had met in person first. Six years ago I did have a 2 year relationship with someone I originally communicated with online. A coworker suggested his friend and I should chat online because he's "smart too." We met and hit it off (coworker's friend lived an hour away from me). It wasn't really an online relationship since we would often spend time together in person. I don't have success finding someone special/a romantic relationship when I meet them online first (minus one ex).

I fear that when I decide to date again, I will have to resort to using an online dating website or app in order to find someone I like. I've tried it in the past and I did meet a few people I liked, but it never went past a few dates. I was actually ghosted a few times (from dates I met in person). I think online dating makes it way too easy to be non-confrontational and indirect (could be a younger person thing?). I feel like online dating makes dating less genuine. I enjoy dating much more when I get to physically be around this other person and get to know them *in person*. Being an introvert probably makes me prefer dating in person because I need time to warm up to people, and it is probably difficult to warm up to text messages and emojis. That being said, don't call me. I hate phone calls haha.

I also feel like online dating makes it more difficult to be monogamous. To a person with dating options, why bother committing to one person when there are plenty of other attractive/interesting people that you could be messaging? If one person isn't giving you the attention you crave, you can just start messaging someone else. And if things don't click, you can just ignore them and move onto the next person. 

There was an article I read recently (forgot where, sorry) about dating in Manhattan. Most of the men they interviewed had zero intentions on finding someone to be in a relationship with. Because of Tinder and accessibility, men could easily get laid within hours of "swiping." Daily. The ease and lack of effort finding a woman to sleep with kind of made it a game for them. There was one man they interviewed where he did mention he would like a relationship, but the result was he swiped a lot of profiles and kept sleeping with different women anyway. From the womens' perspectives, they felt pressured into having sex with men on Tinder because they wouldn't get any contact from men unless they were "fun" and willing to have sex, though they were hoping to find someone special. They knew that not sleeping with their dates meant not being able to play the dating game.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@Jamaia

I don't think it's fair to say that people who turn to online experiences are "insane". I agree that it could turn into escapism, but to qualify people who prefer offline interactions as "sane" and therefore the opposite as "insane".. is a biiit extreme lol. 

I personally tend to find more satisfaction in online interactions overall so far, but there _are_ plenty of offline exceptions that are immensely more satisfying in their immediacy, and in seeing someone in front of you, interacting with you, being able to read their body language, etc. That's what keeps me looking offline, or seeking to switch quickly from online dating to in-person interactions.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> That sounds bad.
> 
> But what if neither side wants to take it to RL, is it bad to have a fantasy relationship online? Why not live through your avatar, with the ever improving user experience and all.


Interesting question... I can't remember it's name, but there was a documentary awhile back where they talked about couples who got married in Second Life, for the example they gave, both of them were physically crippled IRL to rather severe degrees, so in many ways this was their one chance of experiencing a romantic relationship, it would be difficult to not be happy for them... But the moment people would do the same out of choice, most of us would think it's insane... Is it? I suppose we then need to ask - if it's people who are doing so to avoid the deeper aspects of relationships - would they be able to have a better relationship without avoiding that? I know of elderly couples who have gone on in a relationship for over a decade now with no intentions of moving together, something that a lot of people (myself included) intuitively consider to be more real and a strong indicator of a deeper relationship... They are both old and experienced, they've each had lifetimes of living with others, and yet they chose not too. Can we assert that they are making an unreasonable choice?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

fleur du mal said:


> @Jamaia
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say that people who turn to online experiences are "insane". I agree that it could turn into escapism, but to qualify people who prefer offline interactions as "sane" and therefore the opposite as "insane".. is a biiit extreme lol.
> 
> I personally tend to find more satisfaction in online interactions overall so far, but there _are_ plenty of offline exceptions that are immensely more satisfying in their immediacy, and in seeing someone in front of you, interacting with you, being able to read their body language, etc. That's what keeps me looking offline, or seeking to switch quickly from online dating to in-person interactions.


I think I wrote someone sane like @Reality Check might and then someone else might...  They may or may not be sane.
(Anyways, seriously, sane and him in the same sentence...) 
(Just kidding @Reality Check! Your username is just too good for this use!)

Seriously I thought I wrote with some compassion about those who would not be able to resist the siren song... Not calling them insane, at least not until they're entirely lost contact with reality. And even then asking if it's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they are just adapting to changing environment and taking advantage of a new niche. Or maybe they really feel it's their more authentic self they're displaying. At the very least I'm acknowledging the pull, the things that make virtual reality so captivating and rewarding.

I'm surprised you'd say you've found online interactions more satisfying so far. That's a bit disheartening... I thought you'd feel online interaction is clearly a substitute. Do you see it/this as a potential trap, or as an opportunity that would be foolish to miss? Do you sometimes worry that maybe this is inflating expectations to unrealistic levels?


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Jamaia said:


> @*strawberryLola* I think you picked up on what I was saying, but I'm not sure if you agreed with my "concern" (not really that concerned, but curious to see what the future brings). Isn't it possible that (some) people will begin/learn to prefer the online experience, precisely because it is lacking of ccertain dimensions. Like they'll meet someone onlline, feel like there's chemistry or what ever, a connection, they meet up and reality is... disappointing. Even if not immediately, it might with time be not what they expected based on their initial interactions online. They find someone else online, it is as exciting as the last time initially, they meet up and are disappointed again that in reality the interaction wasn't as smooth. Or maybe they make it for some time, but both continue to still feel like there are some more fascinating people out there, online. And of course, there are!
> 
> Now, a sane person might think like @*Reality Check* and realize that the impression their forming in virtual reality is too good to be true and lacking, and start turning more towards meeting people irl. But someone else might think they just need to be more selective before meeting up, interact longer before meeting, start putting more effort into going through profiles/people online, spending more time finetuning their profile etc. And it could very well turn into escapism, not even really looking for real life partner anymore but feeling like the online connection is more satisfying. Not necessarily a conscious decision, but there are many factors to online interaction that could make a person prefer this medium. Escapism, ego-tripping...


I totally agree, because virtual reality doesn't equate to reality until people interact face to face in person, and the cyber world can cause fantasies to appear real while blurring the lines between what is real and what is fake. 

That is when people take for granted the people in their lives right in front of them when they escape behind their computer screens or cell phones and lose precious time spent with those who matter in their real lives. There is a balance, but I think most people lose that balance, which further creates the disconnect they feel inside, ironically. Like a drug, they need more of the instant gratification to reach that new high that depersonalizes their experience.. Yet the excitement that activates the brain's pleasure seeking rewards center further increases the ego tripping because one can delude oneself into false pretention of superstar status, creating unrealistic expectations from everyday ordinary life. (Side Note: There are also studies showing a direct corellation between increased social media use, selfies, and higher rates of narcissism.. grandiosity falls under the category of self-inflated ego, superficiality, and lack of empathy; Hence I agree with you with the definition of going overboard and losing ground with reality).


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I think the ideal version is that the devices will become invisible and virtual reality will just support our everyday interactions, like just bringing another layer to reality. But it seems to me like as long as you can still impact what you share, it will get exceedingly difficult with the ever immersing online experience to resist substituting mundane reality with fantastical reality.

About the single ladies vs single men of NY and Tinder... It seems a bit like similar problem as guys flooding the ladies' inboxes in dating sites. If you're one of the people flooding the market, who are you going to blame when no one wants to pay up? You need a stronger union and a strike, complaining while going along is not going to change the dynamic .


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> That sounds bad.
> 
> But what if neither side wants to take it to RL, is it bad to have a fantasy relationship online? Why not live through your avatar, with the ever improving user experience and all.
> 
> edit: I may have just called some LTR relationships fantasy there... Meant to emphasize certain level of accepted illusion... ... But it's unclear if people are aware of the self-censorship and editing, with the social media everywhere, how would one measure how truthful the picture they send out is? I don't think there's any way to do it. Maybe someone feels like their online personality is more like their true self than their physical self... And does it matter if there's no intention of meeting?


I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I will give my two cents anyway. If that is what both people want then I imagine that would work out.

But if one person just wants an online life and the other person doesn't, then that is where they may be issues. It takes two to tango.

In my case, personally, an online relationship, would not satisfy me in anyway at all.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Jamaia said:


> Seriously I thought I wrote with some compassion about those who would not be able to resist the siren song... Not calling them insane, at least not until they're entirely lost contact with reality. And even then asking if it's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they are just adapting to changing environment and taking advantage of a new niche. Or maybe they really feel it's their more authentic self they're displaying. At the very least I'm acknowledging the pull, the things that make virtual reality so captivating and rewarding.


I hear you. I think it's a combination of different factors. It could be a combination of social anxiety and introversion (and a reluctance to take risks) that makes people more likely to spend time online, and by doing so, find like-minded people that they connect with intimately because they're able to express themselves better through the internet. Maybe the illusion of authenticity is what's at play here. My own experience is different, I was still back home in the Middle East when I found PerC, and this site _was_ a disconnect from reality for me, a way to escape my current environment. I wasn't actively looking for anything romantic, it just sort of.. happened? 

Looking back, I jumped into it because *lack of exposure to dating* (I refused to date back in my home country) + *feeling like I didn't fit into my environment. *It was my very first time connecting so intensely with someone, I _had_ to explore that. There was this illusion of scarcity for me, that had a lot to do with feeling like I couldn't connect with anyone around me that way. So of course, when it finally happened, I was gonna pursue it no matter what. I would not get myself into an LDR like that now, because I know I can find a great connection to someone near me, who I can spend lots of time with in person. Does that make sense? 



> I'm surprised you'd say you've found online interactions more satisfying so far. That's a bit disheartening... I thought you'd feel online interaction is clearly a substitute. Do you see it/this as a potential trap, or as an opportunity that would be foolish to miss? Do you sometimes worry that maybe this is inflating expectations to unrealistic levels?


Yeah, the depth and the intensity is sometimes hard to reproduce offline, and you have to weed through so much superficial crap to find people who have substance, who I can carry a deep conversation with. On PerC for example, it's a very concentrated, unrepresentative sample of people craving that depth. I definitely agree that it's a substitute though, and I am quite aware of the heightened intensity and the bias that goes along with it. People construct an idea of what someone's like, they "fill in the blanks". Like I said, I still prefer offline. The intensity is quite different but still there, because you're interacting in person, everything is happening in the moment, not behind the safety of a computer screen. Things unfold right then and there. It's exciting, and I wouldn't trade that now for an online romance.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

This website is totally an escape for me. Mostly for my job of doom. The flirty ENFPs don't hurt either.

How did this turn from monogamy is dead to internet relationship escapism anyway?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Desthro said:


> This website is totally an escape for me. Mostly for my job of doom. The flirty ENFPs don't hurt either.
> 
> How did this turn from monogamy is dead to internet relationship escapism anyway?


I may have hijacked and derailed a perfectly nice thread for no reason. However, this can be spun back to dead monogamy, I'm just too sleepy to type it out now.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Reality Check said:


> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I will give my two cents anyway. If that is what both people want then I imagine that would work out.
> 
> But if one person just wants an online life and the other person doesn't, then that is where they may be issues. It takes two to tango.
> 
> In my case, personally, an online relationship, would not satisfy me in anyway at all.


You think the only issue would be if they don't agree with the online/offline thing?

I suppose this whole thing boils right back down to existential issues. What is the purpose of living, what is the purpose of human interaction? If you're not hurting anybody then fine, maybe you're doing it right. Who says things should be done the hard way, if there's a way to make life easier then why not.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> You think the only issue would be if they don't agree with the online/offline thing?
> 
> I suppose this whole thing boils right back down to existential issues. What is the purpose of living, what is the purpose of human interaction? If you're not hurting anybody then fine, maybe you're doing it right. Who says things should be done the hard way, if there's a way to make life easier then why not.


I personally don't find any personal growth in the easy thing. Ive said this before, but I find online dating depletes and destroys social skills rather than growing them. Put me in a setting where I am interacting with people for real, and my social muscles get flexed. But speaking from personal experience, if I sit behind a computer screen for a month doing the online dating thing, my social skills deplete and if a girl does meet up with me, instead of being upbeat I am reclusive. 

As for the purpose of living, Survival and Replication.

For example tonight I am on this site, I am currently house sitting for someone. Last night I hit the bars for a while in the evening, tomorrow night the same, to me that is my version of sitting in front of a computer browsing a catalogue of photo's. Sure I cant spam message everyone but I can get my vibe and personality across better than if someone read my profile.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

verajessa said:


> Okay so I've had this confusing sentiment about dating that's been bubbling up for the past few months. I'm 21, in university, and haven't dated for the past 2 years. I was in one committed relationship for four years but that happened in my teenage years. When I look around me, I see so many people on dating apps like Tinder. Most of the people I know say things like "if you're not on a dating app nowadays, you're not dating." I feel like so many people around me are moving more towards the online world for dating. I think it's great that this is an outlet that's available but like... at what point am I supposed to give up that dream of seeing someone in person for the first time and striking up a conversation, you know? Like is this not a thing anymore? Does this not happen...are we so afraid of direct rejection that we've resorted to online conversations only? And most of these dating app conversations end up being so surface or barely personal based on what I've heard from friends. I've heard friends describe it as this way to filter out what they actually want to say or that some people use it to say things that they would never say in person, just because they're behind a screen. And the second thing is, I know hook up culture is on the rise. And I totally think it's great that more people are expressing their sexual liberties as they please (autonomy is important), but like are there no more people who want committed monogamy anymore? Because I feel so left out of this dating culture all of a sudden. I feel like this loner who's just holding onto this old thing that everyone's given up on but I love romance. I'm not conservative or traditional or anything, I just want the whole "meet someone, get to know them, befriend them, date them, be hopelessly in love, marry them, have a baby or something etc." thing. Is that becoming not a thing anymore? I feel like I can't find any guy who wants this at all. And if there is a guy I know who wants this, they're usually traditionally conservative guys that I know. My question is... how do I start meeting people in person and dating without apps and websites ? How do I find people who want to have intimate conversations and really have meaningful relationships rather than just sex or "hanging out", as a non-conservative person? Am I missing something?


For myself personally - I agree with you , hence I'm married to the guy that I've met 11 years ago ( I lost my cell phone he found it ) he's also not conservative or old fashion- quite the opposite . 
I'm quite sure monogamy still exists and people still bump into one another and start a relationship , after all , the mass majority of my friends and family members are monogamous and in relationship with people that they didn't meet online ( with that said I know quite a few people who have met their better half online and they're extremely content ) 

My only advice for you is to let thing happen genuinely - it may be a friend of a friend that you meet during dinner or at a get together or a gentlemen who stand in line with you at the coffee shop , somebody you work with or go to school with or a childhood crush of yours that you reconnected with . Things usually happen when least expected  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Really depends on the two people and how they value monogamy?

I have a friend who was set up on a blind date. Both her she and her husband had someone else set up a fake eHarmony account pretending to be each other, and then hooked the two up on a date, and they well.. hit it off, and he is the most wonderful husband to her, vice versa.

Ya just never know. But, point being is, they met under conditions that they were both genuinely... just open to new experiences, being themselves, and things 'clicked.'

Her gay brother and her sister-in law were exchanging conversations on e-harmony pretending to be people they were setting up their lovers with.

Having a strong supportive family relationship can help.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Online dating is cool, but there is a lot of flakiness involved with it, honestly. 

As far as monogamy though, I have flirted with the idea of not being monogamous, but at the end of the day, a person can only do according to what their nature allows, and simply put, it is not in my nature. I, instinctively, look at sex in such a way, that I can not devalue the act, nor the person I have it with. As a result, I'm really committed, and much have a deep connection with them, a bonding that occurs, with the merger of ideas and philosophies, or better said the resonance of them. Otherwise I will not be interesting in pursuing any possibilities, if they are not near to what is in my heart. sure its selfish, but im just being sincere. if your thing is going shopping, watching reality tv, and worrying about something really shallow, im not going to be into you. I am ultra monogamous due to this bonding process and I am a slave to m convictions and aims, that when I find a person who aligns with them, I am so taken, that I can consider no one else. its really interesting, but i get hurt more when the relationship ends though. 

I wish I knew how to not be this way, life would be much easier, honestly. I wouldnt care, and could just move with the way others are, and just be with whoever I want, at any time, and not give a damn about it, and not feel the need to tie relationship with aspirations and life ambitions, which i do, not knowing if this is a good thing or bad thing honestly. havent figured that one out. i'M A SLAVE TO MY PATHOS and a slave to my ideology, and can do nothing outside of it, I am too crystallized and dont know how to be anything else. not that monogamy is bad, just I wonder what it is like to not be this way. i tried when I attempted to date a bunch of women at the sametime, but i realized quickly that I am not built for this, and I dont know how to be so. one is what one is.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

12 Reasons Why Old Souls Have Such A Hard Time Finding Love | Thought Catalog


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Veggie said:


> If a man offers a woman respect and maybe even thinks that she's had the better argument he's only doing it because in actuality he thinks that she's weak and needs protecting?
> 
> Ironically, if anyone's been white knighting imo it's @Jamaia. (I'll respond to your posts shortly).


May be true, but funnily I called him stupid and rude and other things while at it. Anyway, at first I just commented to say I've read the posts of you two ("read", you know) and I was hoping the conversation wouldn't stop even though it got tense, because I did think your point was reasonable too. I hoped the conversation would get back down to a level I'd understand. ("Maybe you do more damage than you realize or mean to?" is what I've tried to say.)

Thanks for the notification this time .


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Jamaia said:


> May be true, but funnily I called him stupid and rude and other things while at it.



Awwww I get it now. That's why it's whiteknighting, and that's why I felt so awkward about it. :dispirited:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Dhruva Bhatia said:


> Whatever dude... it's sad you know? that people would even take offence at someone whose on their side. whatever I don't care.


I'm not offended if this is aimed at me, and I think you think your heart is in a good place, so kudos, genuinely, and thank you, but it's hard to be on someone's side when you don't actually agree with them ;p I think you were assuming that we agreed or that we would more than we do, so I was just making this known.

I'm not trying to change anyone, I don't think this interaction is like only hurting me emotionally or something, or more so than not taking some kind of stand given what I was handed would, I don't personally see the wisdom in assuming that a book would be used if stolen or in what is so inconvenient about unlocking a cupboard if it means potential preservation of something that could otherwise be destroyed or lost completely (more inconvenient imo), I usually _do _feel that PerC arguments reach some sort of conclusion so long as the thread isn't closed first, and once the ball is _already _rolling on an argument, I don't think let's stop this immediately and just chillax is always the best solution. 

Series was implying that I was a feminist, also, because I pretty much said that I was a feminist and I was initially defending them as a start to this. So _that_ wasn't a seed that he planted either.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> What exactly is it that I've said that's been immoral in your mind? Your accusations to begin with were baseless - you assumed my thinking for me - and I pointed this out... that you'd essentially created an argument that I hadn't been participating in. Why is this so clearly not bullying, by your definition, if it happens on a forum?


Admittedly that was so far back in this thread I do not remember the specific instance. Hang on, I'll look it up.



Veggie said:


> Technically the definition of attack is:_NOUN
> an aggressive and *violent *action against a person or place: _​
> And the definition of aggressive is:
> 
> ...


I like it. You did sort-of Ti there. But not really.

vi·o·lent
_adjective_


using or involving physical force *intended to hurt, damage, or kill *someone or something.
I have covered this issue in other threads as well. The violence thing is not something many people semantically understand.



Veggie said:


> Maybe you do more damage than you realize or mean to? (Again, "evil" is a pretty heavy handed word; and you don't know what associations or triggers you're further inviting in with that).


Within my belief system intent is all. Consequentialism is nonsense. I did not intend harm. I intended in fact to spread awareness and wisdom.



Veggie said:


> @*Jamaia* was feeling your silver tongue and she admitted that she didn't even know what you were saying :laughing:


That is fine. I am happy to continue trying to explain what I meant for people who are genuinely interested in that subject.



Veggie said:


> There's power in words.


I agree. We should know what we are saying, especially if we take the time to look it up.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> Admittedly that was so far back in this thread I do not remember the specific instance. Hang on, I'll look it up.
> 
> I like it. You did sort-of Ti there. But not really.


When I hear "violent" I think... violent accident, force, etc. "Aggressive" seems more so behavioral to me of the two words, and therefore relevant when speaking of intention.

How did I fail at "Ti" -ing? Because you think I left something out? (Would looking up definitions be more so Te anyway?)

Then you failed by that logic too, as there are (many) other definitions for violent you failed to include.

_vi•o•lent (ˈvaɪ ə lənt) 

adj. 
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force. 
2. characterized by or caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death. 
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain. 
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent; furious: violent passions. ​_
_c. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death._​
_4. Tending to distort meaning or intent: a violent interpretation of a text.​_


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> When I hear "violent" I think... violent accident, force, etc. "Aggressive" seems more so behavioral to me of the two words, and therefore relevant when speaking of intention.
> 
> How did I fail at "Ti" -ing? Because you think I left something out? (Would looking up definitions be more so Te anyway?)


The activity of the lookup being include sort of Te. The need to follow each word's meaning until you are are sure you understand the principles, the semantics, is Ti.



Veggie said:


> Then you failed by that logic too, as there are (many) other definitions for violent you failed to include.
> 
> _vi•o•lent (ˈvaɪ ə lənt)
> 
> ...


Aggressive, as I have mentioned many times, is moral and fine in many cases. It is only intent that makes something evil or not. Consequentialism is nonsense. The moral truth of the type 8 is actually aggressive, challenging, heroic, earthy, etc. This is taken too far or evil when it is not balanced by other virtues AND has intent to cause harm. The intent must be to cause harm or aggressiveness is actually just fine.

Also, there is a conflation of the word force here.

force
_noun_


*1*.
strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
*2*.
coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not *by force*"

Notice that force involves physical actions or the threat of violence. Again, CLEARLY intent to do harm. Really, you simply have the wrong understanding of this issue. 

Frankly, I find anecdotally again, that many feminists have this issue. Aggressive feels intended to help, are not evil. They may result in poor reactions, but, the reaction is not the fault of the original aggressor. Further, if in diplomacy, someone suggests, 'Hey Ripley, ease off the trans-axle, you're grinding metal' that is feedback, and not JUST consequentialism. I can handle that. Give the reactor some time to arrange their feels. But the aggressive challenge was still moral.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> Frankly, I find anecdotally again, that many feminists have this issue. Aggressive feels intended to help, are not evil. They may result in poor reactions, but, the reaction is not the fault of the original aggressor.


That's debatable. We still attempt to determine fault after accidents. That doesn't mean that there was immoral behavior present within the accident. Often times it was simply an accident. But attempting to determine fault - and cause and effect - helps in ideally minimizing the risk of it happening again.

I have not called aggression "evil" either. Once again, you're constructing a baseless argument. Evil has been your word choice, and simply one I've been defending myself against. 

And actually, my point was that an aggressive attack doesn't necessarily even mean intent to harm, let alone an evil intent, so I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing with me about here. 

And btw, eights further grow when they can differentiate the fine distinctions between "helping" and _dominating_.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> That's debatable. We still attempt to determine fault after accidents. That doesn't mean that there was immoral behavior present within the accident. Often times it was simply an accident. But attempting to determine fault - and cause and effect - helps in ideally minimizing the risk of it happening again.
> 
> I have not called aggression "evil" either. Once again, you're constructing a baseless argument. Evil has been your word choice, and simply one I've been defending myself against.
> 
> ...


Aggressive DOES mean intent to harm to me and to the definitions we used, as shown.

Finding blame is useless and immoral. The focus should be discovery of what happened and systematic efforts to make sure it does not happen again. Not paying attention is actually a form of immoral. Perfection is the moral end. Failing is acceptable, but immoral in parts. We all stay on the path. Keep pushing. Observation is not the ONLY moral issue. Imbalanced anger, fear, and desire, present in all of us, can be the cause in a myriad of ways. 

The aim of law and blame is order. Order, out of balance with chaos(freedom) is not moral. Hence non moral law and blame are immoral. It would take a long time to explain all of this. You know, the cult of series0. 

Agreed on trying to avoid negative consequences but without needing immoral blame. 

Agreed on domination. That is 8 truth out of balance with other virtues. I am not trying to dominate, only explain, albeit perhaps aggressively. Since I endeavor not to blame in the final immoral sense, errors are permitted, failure is permitted, and domination is pointless in such a relatively free state. Immoral intent does have to be restrained though. That is where domination is allowed because you have to dominate in order to restrain unless the immoral actor self-restrains. Diplomacy and education should be tried first, but that does not always work.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

series0 said:


> Aggressive DOES mean intent to harm to me and to the definitions we used, as shown.



Bullshit.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Veggie said:


> That's debatable. We still attempt to determine fault after accidents. That doesn't mean that there was immoral behavior present within the accident. Often times it was simply an accident. But attempting to determine fault - and cause and effect - helps in ideally minimizing the risk of it happening again.
> 
> I have not called aggression "evil" either. Once again, you're constructing a baseless argument. Evil has been your word choice, and simply one I've been defending myself against.
> 
> ...


There is also "dominate" vs "domineer." I spent quite a bit of time figuring those two out. I'm happy to DOMINATE in the right situation. Recently I witnessed a 4 wheeler crash, and DOMINATED the situation to get the victim stabilized, safe, and eventually fetch him and his machine out of the back country. 

Domineering to me is to repeatedly control another human particularly in a derogatory manner.

I try very hard to not domineer. 

And, FWIW, your's was a cool post IMO.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> There is also "dominate" vs "domineer." I spent quite a bit of time figuring those two out. I'm happy to DOMINATE in the right situation. Recently I witnessed a 4 wheeler crash, and DOMINATED the situation to get the victim stabilized, safe, and eventually fetch him and his machine out of the back country.
> 
> Domineering to me is to repeatedly control another human particularly in a derogatory manner.
> 
> ...


Why do you have to be someone else? Be someone else, else.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Why do you have to be someone else? Be someone else, else.



???????


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> ???????


You are appealing to the masses; I want you to be pushing the envelopes. Understand?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> You are appealing to the masses; I want you to be pushing the envelopes. Understand?



No.Envelopes????


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

StMiller100 said:


> No.Envelopes????


Test the limits, draw them like an electron microscope draws particles. Then break it down.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

StMiller100 said:


> Bullshit.


Indeed not sir. You to are wrong, and aggressively so.

Definition[edit]Aggression, in general, is any behavior an individual carries out with the intent to harm another person or group of people. The aggressor must believe that their behavior is harmful to their target, and that the target is be motivated to avoid this behavior.[SUP][1][/SUP] A defining feature of aggression is the intent or motivation to harm. For a behavior to be considered an aggressive act, the individual committing the behavior must intend harm. In other words, if they inflict harm on another without that specific intent, it is not considered aggression.[SUP][1][/SUP]


----------



## North Star (Dec 1, 2016)

series0 said:


> Notice that force involves physical actions or the threat of violence. Again, CLEARLY intent to do harm. Really, you simply have the wrong understanding of this issue.
> 
> Frankly, I find anecdotally again, that many feminists have this issue. Aggressive feels intended to help, are not evil. They may result in poor reactions, but, the reaction is not the fault of the original aggressor. Further, if in diplomacy, someone suggests, 'Hey Ripley, ease off the trans-axle, you're grinding metal' that is feedback, and not JUST consequentialism. I can handle that. Give the reactor some time to arrange their feels. But the aggressive challenge was still moral.


 @Veggie so this^ is what you mean by gas-burning. Hmm my my, what a text-book example. Being an Isfp I despise conflict :E. But I'd do whatever I do anyways. Yeah but this one here is a real buzzkill. 

By that logic dear @series0 you think being aggressive to a stranger is moral? Simply because they are one a different belief system than you are. A belief system that hurts no-one. You improperly placed self-importance and claims of high self-moral are hilarious. According to you it is perfectly fine to abuse someone who doesn't fit your ideals. Bahh that's a lot like the old conquistadors init? reminds me a lot of the book "the last of the Mohinicans". Did someone ask you for an opinion? Nope. You were the one who wants to "change" people. You'd call people jerks for making you drink and drink yourself anyways xD hypocrisy is strong in this one. No sonny, a feminist have as many issues as anyone else in the world. You quote some anecdotal evidence which I suspect is your twisted perception of others who don't consider you in high regard. 

Also go ahead and quote as much as you want from a dictionary. Heh, haven't you heard the term 'force of law'? Also haven't you heard the term "forcing someone?" no physical threat is involved in either cases. eg: "My exams forced me to quit the tournament" <--- this makes 100% sense. I suppose your native language is english, I feel priviledged to teach it to you.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@North Star, look up gaslighting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting It's not even that relavant to this conversation, it's an assumption by Veggie and I suppose she is seeing evidence of it. Originally I think she meant series's relationships with the women, like he probably knowingly manipulated and confused them and pushed them to that point, and now she sees him manipulating this conversation too. In my opinion claiming gaslighting is more of gaslighting than anything else that can happen in a forum via written text. Saying something that was written was meant in a different way is not gaslighting.

FWIF, here's my take on this confusion:
@Veggie responds to @Reality Check with a reasonable post, @series0 is reminded of something and responds in length and with some force because obviously he has thought about the subject a lot, but it's bit of a tangent. I thanked him for the post because I thought it was a good one. Veggie thinks it's offensive (I don't know how) and takes the conversation to personal level attacking series's persona, but continues to respond to the points in his post. Maybe she felt like personal level was ok because of her interpretation of what series had written first or in previous threads. Series fails to immediately acknowledge the interpretation she's made of him, it might be that he's incapable or unwilling to, and then it goes on and on and now we're here. In the last few posts they're talking about intent and fault, and I think if Veggie had from the start taken a different interpretation of him and assumed a different intent, it wouldn't have gone this far. @drmiller100 @StMiller100 (really, from dr to st , I would've thought dr, sir and then st) or was it Veggie herself said before that Veggie was practicing boundaries, and maybe that's the explanation to this, maybe if she sees something that reminds her of manipulation, she is better off reacting to it and protecting herself even if it leads to this.


----------



## North Star (Dec 1, 2016)

I reckon him making others feel guilty for no apparant reason is gaslighting. Which he is. When he called the other chap a "white knight" and the vegetarian "feminist- that too with an intent of making her feel bad about it". Atleast according to am earlier post I read.  Given that I've hardly ever met anyone who does that (actually I'm not that aware of people with bad intentions). I read up and matched the characteristics. So there! it matched lol. 

Anywhale I'll read up that link, it's never too late to learn something new.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@North Star Calling someone feminist was not an insult. Making someone feel guilty for no reason might be emotional manipulation, but it's not gaslighting. I don't think there was any making others feel guilty either, though. Series0 is claiming he hasn't had bad intent. Of course, unfortunately, that's probably exactly what a manipulator might say, but still I don't understand what about the things he has said would be too dangerous to accept as sincere, not-manipulative. Like in the Gas Light movie, it is dangerous for the victim to accept the manipulators words and doubt their own experiences of reality. It's different when one's experience is just the way they feel about something that has been said, I don't think there's any risk what so ever in entertaining a different interpretation and getting a different feeling about a person (or an idea) in a context like this. That is the first thing I would do, checking my bias, even before going through the actual points they're making, and Veggie thinks it's stupid of me. But again I don't know what is the history behind this, maybe it is something that Veggie is better off without because of her personal history.


----------

