The Evolution of Courtship

A recent New York Times article with the salacious title “The End of Courtship?” was plastered all over my Facebook newsfeed last week. If the NYT’s latest attempt to turn a profit blocks you from reading the article, let me summarize it for you: Dating in 2013 is completely different from dating even as recently as, say, 2001. Technology has introduced a whole bunch of variables that both complicate and trivialize various long-held touchstones of how a single date turns into a relationship turns into wedding bells.

As someone who both loves technology and is ultimately seeking those as-yet-elusive wedding bells, this article was right in my wheelhouse, but left me feeling disappointed, sad and a little bit complicit in the death of traditional dating…or at least the norms of traditional dating. Allow me to explain by examining a few passages from the piece. Please don’t sue me for pasting these excerpts, NYT.

“Dating culture has evolved to a cycle of text messages, each one requiring the code-breaking skills of a cold war spy to interpret.”

True that. These are the new variables that no potential young lovers in 2001 really had to deal with. For every advance in the speed and ease of human communication, there is an equal and opposite opportunity to use these new technologies for awkwardness, embarrassment and blowing your chance. Rather than making a call on Tuesday to arrange Saturday’s date and having radio silence until you meet for dinner, there are now several days for potential interim missives on a variety of platforms that allow for instant communication. When an instantaneous response is not reciprocated, it can set off a whole bunch of alarms.

Texts: I sent her that text six hours ago. There’s no way she didn’t read it by now. Was I too sarcastic? Does she think I’m mean? She must not be into this.

G-Chat: Why did it say she was typing and then she stopped? What was she going to say? And why hasn’t she typed again in the last two minutes? She must not be into this.

Facebook: Great, now I’m going to have to pretend that I didn’t just spend half an hour stalking her profile and act like I don’t already know that she’s obsessed with [movie/TV show/food/animal].”

Facebook (Part II): Wow, apparently we actually have nothing in common. This could be a long dinner. I’m really not into this.

Facebook Messages: Facebook says she read the message yesterday morning. Why won’t she just respond already? She must not be into this. And why does Facebook even have this feature?!

Once responses finally arrive, the Cold War spy springs into action and the questions can get even more numerous and a lot more specific. Have you ever tried to analyze the intentions behind an emoticon or scrutinized comma placement in a text to better understand the message’s meaning? Yeah, me neither.

Of course, this is admittedly a negative way of looking at it, and these sorts of online interactions can definitely fan a romantic flame, but I’m just saying that every time you go over a patch of ice, you can either glide gracefully or fall on your face. For those with poor balance or lack of ice skating experience, it’s not always advisable to seek out extra ice patches. But today they’re nearly unavoidable.

“Traditional courtship — picking up the telephone and asking someone on a date — required courage, strategic planning and a considerable investment of ego (by telephone, rejection stings). Not so with texting, e-mail, Twitter or other forms of ‘asynchronous communication,’ as techies call it. In the context of dating, it removes much of the need for charm; it’s more like dropping a line in the water and hoping for a nibble.”

Guilty as charged. As much as asynchronous communication can get on your nerves when you don’t get a quick response, it sure is a comfortable way to ask someone out. I used to pride myself on being a rather expert composer of witty and intriguing Facebook messages. By the end of the message, potential dates would think I’m the Most Interesting Man in the World. And so funny, too!

But Facebook charm is more easily manufactured and use of a non-verbal platform can result in confusion. Without making a phone call or asking in person to make your intentions crystal clear, the likelihood of mixed signals increases. “How did he phrase it in the message? Is this a date or are we just hanging out?” Suddenly the vocabulary that helped make you so charming is now stabbing you in the back.

My pre-21st century comrades didn’t have the luxury of hiding behind their witty pen for either an invitation or a rejection. I highly doubt snail mail was an effective form of getting a date for a Friday night (this side of Jane Austen, at least), so they put it all on the line — asking a woman out in person or over the phone. Nevertheless, I console myself with the fact that my methods are still more effective and acceptable than some of the oafs described in the article. A text asking “Is anything fun going on tonight?” will never constitute asking for a date in my playbook. Who are these people?

“Online dating services, which have gained mainstream acceptance, reinforce the hyper-casual approach by greatly expanding the number of potential dates. Faced with a never-ending stream of singles to choose from, many feel a sense of “FOMO” (fear of missing out), so they opt for a speed-dating approach — cycle through lots of suitors quickly.”

I have nothing against online dating. I know plenty of people who met online. I even have a free profile on a site that I occasionally log into to scroll through the various fish that the fishermen in that particular sea think I’ll like. It’s like speed dating without any actual dates, and I guess that’s why it feels a little weird to me. I think the article is right on when it says that — for some people — the mentality reinforced by online dating can lead to the ultimate cheapening of the traditional institution of dating. If the computer analysis of your hobbies, interests and values are enough to bring you a list of potential suitors, why should you work hard to get a date with the people you meet in real life? You’ve always got the online date factory to fall back on, right?

Not to me. If I ever made a solid connection with someone on an online dating site, I would give it my all in the same way that I would if I had met the person in real life. I would also quickly arrange to meet them in real life. (Take a note, Manti Te’o.) The lack of effort described in this article is truly unfathomable to me. If guys put forth this type of effort in a less digital age, there would be a lot fewer marriages.

—

New ways of communicating make an already emotional process that much more difficult, awkward and maddening, while also making some aspects simpler, more exciting and fun. In some ways, I guess dating will never change, even when it’s changing. If you’re doing it right, the thrill of a good date is still as magical now as it was in the heyday of traditional courtship, no matter how many ambiguous texts you might have sent or received. So for those of you who are married, congrats on not having to deal with this anymore. For us single people, forge ahead and try to use technology as an asset instead of a crutch.

I don’t know how to end this post. Play me out, Bublé.