I want to believe it's satire, but then there's Poe's Law...
It is an interview for a position that doesn't actually exist.
Speaking as someone married fifty years.
Modern America, by and large, does not have the shared spaces and sense of community where these interactions could occur. As Robert Putnam said it, we're literally 'Bowling Alone'. "Dates" are a band-aid, their only positive is they avoid the alternative of universal inceldom.
The closest thing we have to that in America that I've personally experienced, is the American shopping mall. Where we all gather for the purposes of....materialism and consumption??? Not knocking on consumerism, but it's definitely not the same as lively public town square.
At any rate, the heyday for shopping malls has passed. Maybe it's just because I'm an introvert and don't get out much, but other than actual festivals, I can't think of any places here in America that foster the same sense of community as those public spaces I encountered in South America.
In D.C. or N.Y. it's completely normal to meet people dancing to a drum circle in the park, or join people in acro-yoga, slack-lining, bocce ball or whatever. There's a visceral feeling of inclusivity and positive vibes.
In my home town of Dallas, Texas, you're looked at with suspicion if you approach strangers at a park. And unlike the picture I depicted above, small friend groups cluster together with ample space between them and the next group of friends/family. Also, people aren't doing much of anything, aside from eating or talking amongst people they know. If we look at the bar scene, the assumption is that you have no friends if you show up solo. If you want to meet new people you practically have to join something recurring and structured like a Meetup (which is nice in that it at least selects for people open to meeting new people) or join a amateur sports team (kickball, volleyball, etc).
>In my home town of Dallas, Texas, you're looked at with suspicion if you approach strangers at a park.
I'll admit to no particular experience in any of these cities but that does not exactly comport with their reputations.
>If you want to meet new people you practically have to join something recurring and structured like a Meetup (which is nice in that it at least selects for people open to meeting new people) or join a amateur sports team (kickball, volleyball, etc).
I'm pretty sure that's how it's always been. Either way, when the most exciting thing you could do at home alone was read a book people just did these things because they didn't want to be bored out of their minds. Friendships naturally followed from those shared activities. IMHO, that's part of the problem today. At home entertainment is pretty compelling and it's easy to get sucked into things like WoW but those don't tend to help you build a life like going out and doing stuff does.
Most of the complaints re N.Y. I have seen are from people who visit and then appalled when strangers respond with negativity in response to the visitor's lack of courtesy. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone be appalled at a gruff response in line at the bagel shop; however, when there's a line wrapping around the block, and staff are running around at full speed to keep up with demand, that's just not the time to ask "so, what all have you got planned today? doing anything, uh, interesting?"
I don't know how common negative sentiment is towards D.C., but my experience is that people are friendly and outgoing. You pretty much have to be outgoing by necessity -- the demographic is incredibly transient, so people are constantly being exposed to strangers, and as someone moving to D.C you need to be outgoing if you don't want to be alone.
And as for Dallas, it's an incredibly common sentiment (within the numerous Meetup groups I'm a member of) that most people in Dallas (and the greater DFW area) are pretty standoffish and cliquish. Part of the love for Meetup is that it self selects for people that aren't content with being born in Dallas, making some life long friends here in elementary school, and then forever pushing away anyone else that isn't already a friend or a friend of a friend.
> I'm pretty sure that's how it's always been. Either way, when the most exciting thing you could do at home alone was read a book people just did these things because they didn't want to be bored out of their minds. Friendships naturally followed from those shared activities. IMHO, that's part of the problem today. At home entertainment is pretty compelling and it's easy to get sucked into things like WoW but those don't tend to help you build a life like going out and doing stuff does.
But this isn't a dichotomy where the two options are planned, structured events or staying cooped up in your domicile, and I'm definitely not promoting the latter.
My point is that different cities are more (or less) open to spontaneous interaction with people you don't already know without necessarily requiring some sense of explicit attendance or membership.
My experience outside of Dallas, Texas:
- Go out to grab a drink, expecting to hit it off with one or more people at the bar. On the way, crack a joke with a passerby, chat for a bit, propose we all go to the dance club a couple blocks down the street. Have an awesome night talking, dancing and ending the night with some pizza around the corner.
- Pass some guys walking down the street, they seem like a fun group of friends so we shoot the shit; they invite me to bar hop with them. We're all on the same wave length, and the bromance is 100%. We're in Durham as the Duke students are coming back, so it's a super lively night. Live music just starts at the first bar, and the group of us are the first to start dancing, prompting the rest of the students to join in. Super fun night.
- Go to the park and see a bunch of people slack-lining. Ask if I can join in. Ditto with the people doing acro yoga. The majority of people didn't previously know each other, so I'm not perceived as some weirdo interrupting some friends.
And I could go on. My point here is that there exist other ways to meet people than showing up to some contrived event that was constructed specifically to connect people together. You could, instead, meet people organically going about your life: on the street, at the grocery store, at the pub, at the coffee shop, in the park, etc. The culture of the city/state you live in will then determine whether this is an option for you, or if people will blow you off.
Yet another unfortunate output of the US's completely broken focus on cars. Cars require intentionality -- there's no room for spontaneous interactions when you have to choose your destination and then spend 10min driving there.
I sold my car when I moved to D.C -- no one needs one, unless you commute outside of D.C. My social life grew exponentially when I moved. The city has dependable cross walks and (especially compared to Dallas standards) absolutely gargantuan side walks. As a bonus, those sidewalks don't abruptly and inextricably end for random stretches of the street. Public transportation is great. As a result, people are out and about where they can have random encounters with each other, on the way to parks filled with people hanging out and mingling.
I'm not saying this is the epitome, but it's leagues better than places like Dallas where random sections of the city feel really sketchy, walking on the sidewalk (anywhere other than in the suburbs) feels like gambling with your life (given that sidewalks are about 2 feet wide and next to high speed traffic), electronic cross walks often don't work, there's huge stretches of nothing from place to place (so even if you could walk, you'd have little reason to, given that you'll be walking alone without a soul in sight -- unless you count the people in their cars passing by -- and with nothing worth seeing along the way), etc.
I'm from Australia, and meeting women at these venues in America is much easier than in my home country - large Australians cities have such a huge influx of young Indian male migrants, that the gender ratios at many of these venues are inequitable.
Wow I don't think I've ever seen this in my life. Most meetups I've seen look something like "meetup for professional women in their 40s", "MLM recruiting event meetup" "Wannabe thought leaders talk vaguely about business meetup", "seniors biking meetup (60+)", etc. Anything I've seen on meetup, either seems to target some hyper specific demographic, or be a some sort of scam, or old people doing hobbies. Singles groups tend to trend 30s and 40s or even enforce that.
Also bars are pretty good for meeting people IMO, but only in the sense of "some rando my father's age said something to me and now ere rambling nonsense to each other thanks to the alcohol. I've been to venues with younger people, but those always seemed so cliqued up and no one talks to you.
Maybe the southern US trends older in general though.
There are a ton in Dallas, Texas. In fact, I don't know how I would meet people here otherwise, given how otherwise insular the culture is.
But you went to America.
Which is ironic on multiple levels but atleast you met your wife :)
(btw, didn't you see Indians in America?)
For example, I come from Poland and one on one dating has been hugely popular throughout Poland even while it was part of Soviet bloc, even though American culture was all but banned here.
And in many countries you get only local culture and "American import" in the form of movies and music.
Of course people would do things with people they were romantically interested in, but you'd ask if they wanted to go and watch a film, not whether they wanted to go on a date.
There really is no "dating" part in America. You either go on dates or you are in a relationship. If anything, if you are "dating" someone it means you are seeing other people on other dates as well.
We really use the word "dates" to differentiate from interactions of platonic friendships. Still though this tends to be unspoken. It is not uncommon for one person to think they are on a "date" and one person to think they are just meeting as platonic friends.
This article I would imagine is saying 40% have had no romantic interaction with another person.
Movies and TV focus on the formal stuff because its a better source of comedy/drama.
> Relationships start off as acquaintances and develop organically as we spend time together.
I would say that I have dated a lot in the past 10 years, and have been in some great long term (1 year or longer) relationships, but I've never dated someone I've met through my social circles, nor have I ever started off as an acquaintance and then transitioned over time into being romantically involved. I've always seen someone I was physically attracted to (at the airport, coffee shop, etc), strike up a conversation, and if their personality is as attractive as their appearance then I pursue that person romantically.
I don't even know how going from acquaintance to romantic partner would work. If someone isn't attractive to me at the start, they're not going to become attractive later (unless they can, what, become someone who they were not?). If they are attractive to me, then I don't see why I would want to artificially delay pursuit of something that could be great for both of us.
If that's not dating, I don't know what it's called.
That's more common than it used to be, but still a very large minority of American couples meet through social circles. (Probably also stronger than it used to be though, is the divergence between different regional, class, ethnic, and other subcultural divides on how this works out; the idea that there is one specific pattern of “American” dating is as false as the idea that American romance movies paint an accurate picture of it.)
Similarly there is no such thing as a man and a woman casually going out for tea (coffee is very fancy lol) as "friends". If you did that, people would simply assume you are a couple. Platonic relationships would only manifest itself in groups and never in a one-on-one setting. Solo activities are rare over there anyway..
Regarding marriage, _both_ families have to meet and approve (once the couple decided they want to get married) and there is custom that the man, along with his family, visit the bride's and ask for "permission". This could only happen if she had initially said yes privately; You can't just show up and have the family force her into a marriage for example.
As you can see, it is very different culturally.. though many western elements are trickling down to younger generation so these days there is kind of weird blend..
Incidentally, when I met my fiance (she is from Spain) in Canada, I did it the Iranian way.. went to her house with my parents and asked her family if they would permit me to marry her. Even though she had assured me it doesn't matter, I insisted that it was important for me to ask for her father's blessings, which of course he very much appreciated! He also loved the fact that I had converted to Catholicism so we arranged a traditional marriage in a Church along with a nice mix of Persian/Spanish celebration thereafter.
I’ve been to a plenty of dates in France, it’s not unusual for two people to go out to dinner and get to know each other.
You basically have to build a very strong rapport and infatuation to the point that you are both sure you have something you both want to pursue.
Whereas the american/european dating scene is much more casual about the 'seriousness' of a date.
Dating is a ritual interaction, it's not just term for any interaction. A tell that it is new is that the name is meaningless; it's just a term for an appointment that got wrapped up in a bunch of connotations that became denotations. Also see "go out" or "go with."
Ask me to some in person interaction and it becomes ambiguous.
Alternatively, replying to me often and making flattering comments.
I've seen big changes in a generation or two in Spain and the UK, while we don't "date" anymore, we just "hang out" with another person we are interested on. Dates over here seem outdated and too serious, something our parents did. However in Japan, they can mean a more casual out of two people of opposite sex, to the point that a couple can also go on a date after being married (which doesn't make sense if you see dating strictly as the precursor of finding a significant other).
While I'm not totally immersed in Japanese culture, I do watch a lot of random movies from all over and some Japanese films like My Tomorrow, Your Yesterday do center around (ostensibly) 20 year olds going on dates as I, someone from another culture, understand them...
Plus, from the article, we only know that people were asked and self-reported if they've ever been on a date. Date could mean different things to different respondents, no?
The problem I see is the poor odds of finding someone within your extended friend group attractive, in terms of personality, character, physical qualities, etc. I suspect others must feel similarly, because I think we wouldn't have people dating strangers if they were satisfied with the options within their social circle.
If I'm romantically uninterested in 499 out of 500 women in my age group, I'd have to get extremely lucky to have my social circle grow to include someone I would consider dating. So instead, I pursue any opportunities as they arise; from experience (all long term romantic relationships): the coffee shop, in line to the ticketing kiosk at the airport, online dating, etc. I imagine I'm not alone.
This doesn't always mean less dating though, people could date a lot but be less willing to commit.
If I go back 10 years in my home country any woman would shut down your conversation if you asked her on a _one-on-one_ 'date', the implication alone would question her 'virtue'/intentions.
One-on-one interaction would naturally occur as the casual hanging out with shared groups of friends or parties. I honestly don't really see it as backwards if anything I think it really takes the pressure off from the two people to somehow keep interesting conversation for long periods of time.