Modern datering definition

A caution for those who swipe right on every profile on Tinder...

2020.11.29 04:59 theshadowysoothsayer A caution for those who swipe right on every profile on Tinder...

I've... never been much of a dater. Honestly, I suck at it. I'm pretty much average in every way you can think of. Average height, average face, average to the point you could call me the Mean. Women never really showed any interest in me, and it's not like I pursued them either. I never felt special, so why bother. I heard so many horror stories from my older siblings about how much rejection hurt that I just didn't try. I didn't let it bother me as much when I was younger. The way I figured it, I'd get into college, be myself, and hopefully find the future Ms. Average.
Well, that was years ago, and my college career came and went, and my dating life was non-existent. Yeah, there were a few dates here and there, but nothing concrete. I guess I didn't have the charisma or the eloquence to be a great romantic. But I have a heart too, you know, and it hurts after a while not being wanted. I've spent the last year trying to fix this, and mainly through online dating apps. I live in a pretty sleepy town and there's not a huge population of girls here to choose from if I'm honest. Those in my league passed on me long ago, so I thought I'd cast the net wide and see if anyone wanted to talk to regular ole me. I signed up for nearly all of them, safe for those weird ones reserved for the super religious or those folks that dress up like animals. That's not really my bag. Bumble, Hinge, OKC, you name, I signed up for it and I got nowhere. I mean zilch, nada, no interest, nobody caring, no bites nothing. Turns out I'm about as magnetic as a potato and about as tasty to women as a magnet is.
That fucking sucks, of course, and I drowned my sorrows in the last place a desperate heart should go:
Tinder
I know, I know. I can hear you laughing at me from behind your computer screens. Why go to the most savage, most cutthroat, "only the aesthetically pleasing may apply" place on the internet? Desperation simply, my laughing friend.
At first, I tried curating my selections. I read profiles, measured up compatibility, and took a good look at how I was swiping on, and in the end, it got me nowhere. I leveled up my photos, and even got a friend to do some filters and smoothing out, and still nothing. I decided then to be extra needy and just start swiping right on every single profile I could find. Quantity, not quality! That was my mantra and I'd be there, happily zipping through profiles so fast I couldn't tell who was under my thumb. I could have swiped right on a donkey wearing yoga pants and I still would have taken the match. Til that annoying pop up would ruin my day. "You've used up your swipes, come back in 12 hours". That wrecked my momentum, so regrettably, I paid for Tinder Gold, and have unlimited swipes.
This had to work. I had no limitations now, surely some woman wants to date me.
So, I started swiping into overdrive. I worked out a pretty great system actually. I'd watch Netflix and just swipe, not even looking at the profiles anymore. I'd set a timer for 30 minutes and then I’d check to see if anyone bit.
You'd get some matches that way, and being honest, most of them were mis-swipes from girls, or bots, or people with no sense of conversation. Have you ever matched with someone, opened the dialogue and they just don't respond? No decency to unmatch, they just stare at you like some sort of vaguely pretty blank statue, unresponsive and bland.
A week in and I still hadn't gotten a meaningful conversation and I got sick of it. I opened up the app to go and cancel it all when a weird surge flickered through the screen. It went black for a second and was unresponsive and before I could hold down the power button to restart it, a message popped up.
"You've swiped over a thousand times and no conversations. Why not try Tinder Black and enjoy a totally curated experience? No need to swipe, we’ll find the perfect partner for you”
I expected a huge price tag and being matched with more undatable beasts like myself
“and for our Gold members, enjoy a complimentary Tinder Black match on us.”
Then a little box popped up imploring me to “SIGN UP”, no X for canceling it though.
I thought about it for a moment. I hadn’t heard of this new service, and it looked sketchy, but then again, it knew enough about me to be plausible. They’d definitely have my swiping habits, and it was probably a thousand swipes, at least, the way I was doing it.
“Fuck it” I thought, “It’s not like things could get worse” and I tapped the sign-up button.
The app reloaded into a new black and white theme; the little flame replaced with a little black heart on fire. The flames of new love, I guess.
“Get ready, we’re putting the finishing touches on our pick”, the screen promised, “We know you’re gonna love….”
Confetti graphics flashed and a name popped up on the screen.
“Emma B!”
The screen faded again, and a gorgeous face replaced the words. She looked incredible. Pale skin with the right number of freckles, stunning scarlet red hair, a smile that could make Stevie Wonder see, and the most amazing eyes.
I never saw anything like them before. I swear they were purple, the irises anyway. Definitely, contacts, or some fucked up kind of hazel, but I’m not an optometrist, so what do I know? What I did know though, was that this woman was incredible looking and so far out of my league we weren’t even playing the same game. This was an Olympian competing against an amateur Tiddlywinks player who isn’t even that good at tiddly winking but does it for the human interaction.
I swiped through the other photos. Not only was her face incredible, but she had the body of a goddess. Tall and lean, there were at least 3 bikini photos and a few of her in elegant dresses, all the while her eyes drew you in like a hug. I was in love a little already.
The details were sparse. She was 25, and self-employed, but didn’t specify. It didn’t matter though, because before I could finish looking through her profile, I got a message alert.
She opened the dialogue herself!
I tapped the icon and there was the first message;
“Hey there pally, I’m Emma. I’m so glad Tinder Black worked out for the both of us, and you look really cute. Would you like to chat?”
I think I tapped back a reply so fast, I nearly cracked the phone screen.
--
Our relationship grew from there. Turns out we were really similar. Same music tastes, same movies, and she actually gave a damn about me, you know? She sent me messages at work throughout the day and she had an excellent gif game. Like scary good, it was love man.
We even started doing these little online watch parties every night, using a site that lets you screen share. We’d go back and forth picking stuff, me with my comic book heroes, she loved old action and I think we watched every Charles Bronson movie ever made.
She had this amazing voice too. The right kind of tone, the right pitch. It would get high during her excited bursts of conversation and huskier when our chats would inevitably move to a more romantic arena. She was perfection.
The only problem was this damn Covid lockdown. We wanted to meet for months and we couldn’t, til one night, I couldn’t take it anymore. I raised the idea of me breaking the quarantine to go see her and braced myself for the rejection.
Instead, she replied “OMG, really? I’d love that baby, seriously. These last few months have been torture talking to you without even getting a kiss. Come see me, baby, it’ll be a night you’ll never forget”
When she sent me a pic of her in new purple lacy lingerie, I ran to my car and drove into the dark night so fast, the spiders in the corner of my room saw a dust apparition of me collapse into nothingness.
--
She lived about an hour away in a city near the border. She sent me the address and my phone’s GPS led me to an apartment building down by the docks. New and modern, it looked expensive and I made a mental note to ask Emma about her job. She must have had serious dough.
I parked and walked up to the main entrance. I tapped on her house number, 17a, and waited “Baby?” the voice came back, and it was definitely Emma “It’s the loving express, Emma” I called back, and her giggles were momentarily blocked out by the buzz of the door opening.
I took the elevator up and didn’t even have to knock on the door. There she was, in a dressing gown and a huge smile. Shorter than I thought, but stunning was too weak a word to describe this kind of beauty. She radiated it.
“Baby!”, she exclaimed and wrapped her arms around me, hugging me tight and way stronger than I thought. Thoughts faded though as she kissed me fast and my mind began to swim.
I felt like lightning hit me, that kiss was so good. That kiss felt like the feeling you get peeling the plastic off of new electronics times a million. It was every slice of cake you ever ate coming back to you at once and dancing the rumba on your tongue. It was getting a clap on the back from Superman and the Dalai Lama while Elvis played in the background. It was the heaven of heavens, the holiest of holy feelings. It was beyond description.
She led me to her sitting room and I barely noticed the décor of the apartment. It looked minimalist, but girls these days love that Marie Kondo stuff, so who I am to question that. She pushed me down into a seated position and sat on my lap, kissing me more and more.
If you could get drunk off affection, I was punch drunk by the second kiss and I didn’t even need anything more. The sight of this beauty in my arms kissing me of her own free will was like an eraser, rubbing out 30 years of mistakes on the whiteboard of my life. Her kiss was so good, even though she was full-on with her tongue.
She slid off my lap onto the floor and put her palm over my eyes. “No peeking ok?”
I nodded, enjoying the game.
“Before we go any further baby, I have to know. Are you going to be faithful to me? Forever and ever and ever?”
I gasped “I will, I will Emma, you know I will”
Her voice was huskier
“Will you devote yourself to me, like a good boy?”
I playfully pushed against her palm “I renounce all other gods before you Emma, you’re all I need”
She laughed a little “You’re the sweetest” then she squeezed my knee and a sharp pang of pain rose up through my leg. I cried out a little, feeling the torn fabric, and pulled free of her palm blindfold.
What knelt before me was something out of nightmare and fantasy rolled into one. She retained her immaculate body, the curves, the perfection, the proportion. But her mask had slipped and morphed and become primal, monstrous, almost demonic. Those big eyes turned a full deep violet and they stared up at me with a knowing taunt, as a tongue, long and serpent-like flicked flecks of her venom across a mouth and lips that split wider than anything a human could manage. Her hands were claws, harpy sharp, and a thin trickle of blood ran over the one still clasped around my knee.
She looked at me with a smirk and her long-forked tongue darted out and licked the blood off her claw tip.
“Delicious”, her voice still infectious and sweet and sexy*. “but you shouldn’t have peaked. Boys like you usually devote yourselves to me in the dark and rarely see me for who I really am”*
I struggled against her grip as she whispered in my ear “Now that you’ve seen me for what I am, I’ll ask you again. I’m fair, after all. I may be a monster, but consent is still important”
I pushed back as she blew in my ear “Do you devote yourself to me, baby? I can promise you a life of pleasures you’ll never forget. You’ll serve me, yes, but with a smile and I’ll never give you a reason to go. All you need to do is devote and let e taste your soul. I promise I won’t drink it all. We'll be together forever and ever and ever and you can leave your boring life behind ”
She giggled again, and I didn’t know what to do. Her kiss had disorientated me but without constant contact, I could feel myself returning to my senses. Seeing the nightmare hunched at my feet, I screamed
“No, I can’t, I can’t, Jesus”, I pushed and pushed, and she let me go, with a laugh, albeit a sad one.
“I guess even monsters can’t catch a break” as I took off, running out of her apartment.
The last thing I remember was her sweet voice calling out to me as I ran down the fire stairs.
“Feel free to match me again on the app, I don’t take it personally!”
I got into my car and rolled down the window, tossing the phone into the sea and speeding off into the night.
--
That was a month ago now and I’m not quite sure how to process what happened to me. I deleted all the dating apps and tried in-person stuff for a while. Speed dating is actually pretty fun, and I tried a few more things too. Sadly, though my old troubles returned, and I just couldn’t get anyone invested in me.
I found myself missing her; her laugh and her humour, and the hours of conversation we shared. Maybe it was genuine, I don’t know. But it has me thinking of whether what she was offering was all that bad. My life is nothing really and if I died tomorrow, the only people who would notice would be those who complained of the smell in the hallway after a week.
My new phone came in the post today and the previous apps are all reinstalled except for the last one. I’m putting the finishing touches on this note, just in case. I think I have a fun time ahead of me, but this will be here just to dispel anyone thinking I went and decided to disappear off into the night out of unhappiness. I did it for something more than a life of merely existing.
As I finish, the phone beeps, letting me know Tinder Black has reinstalled. I log in and I see a familiar face with a new message:
“Miss me?”
For the lonely guys out there, there are options, you know. You may get matched with someone completely out of your dreams or your nightmares, but if you get on well with them, isn’t that what matters?
There are worse things that can happen than getting the soul sucked out of you.
submitted by theshadowysoothsayer to nosleep [link] [comments]


2020.11.14 23:39 Adadum My Rant on Terrible Dating Advice & Other Aspects of Modern Dating (28M's Perspective)

There's alot of terrible dating advice and dating rules that gets thrown out there and read countless posts here on how modern dating sucks and I believe one of the reasons why modern dating sucks is because of some of the currently established rules and dating advice given.
Notice: This is entirely my opinion, I don't claim any of it as total truth, and this is just a summary analysis from my personal experience and from the experience of others that I have read from this subreddit.
  1. "Women are human/people" = First of all, this isn't advice, it's a statement... Women are people and are human? No shit Sherlock but saying this to a guy, who is having trouble getting dates or relationships, isn't going to make him magically understand women and become Casanova. Alot of guys who have trouble with women are because they're not good with women or people in general or might have poor self image and confidence issues. Telling them something as generic as "women are people" doesn't actually fix the underlying causes that are hurting their dating prospects. On the other side, I've NEVER heard of women giving advice like "men are people" to women that are having trouble with getting men so just wtf?
  2. "You should only date someone you're attracted to" = The big problem with this shit advice is that sometimes attraction, especially HEALTHY attraction, is usually built over time. How many times do you remember where you INSTANTLY became attracted to a person literally the nanosecond you saw them? Idk, maybe I'm weird or some shit but I remember having crushes on girls that I had already knew/met. In fact it was the same the other way around when girls who knew me more and more started developing crushes on me. Point is that you're not always going to be attracted to someone right off the bat; sometimes that attraction has to ferment to be strong.
  3. "Don't date potential" = I will partially agree with this piece of advice, only partially and the reason why is because if you're dating a guy who only says he's going to accomplish XYZ and he turns out to be bullshit in the end, then yea that's your fault but if that same guy is actually making/showing some effort towards their goals then why not date them? One piece of advice my mother gave me is that I should never let my daughter(s) get married to men who aren't working or at least in school which makes sense since being in school is an example of showing effort. Another example is let's say you're dating a guy who wants to be a musician, dude actually has a recording studio set up and everything and has actually produced music but he hasn't made it big yet. Should you date this guy? Sure if he still has a stable income that's allowing him to support himself then I don't see why you shouldn't date this guy.
  4. Early sex has ruined dating & flooded the dating market with fling/short-term daters = The expectation of sex before even defining a relationship or allowing a relationship to grow has ruined dating. Part of the reason is because this has allowed the dating market to be flooded with people who just want flings which means you have to go to the extra effort of filtering out people who don't want anything long-term and having to deal with people lying that they want a long-term relationship (LTR) when they actually just want a fling... That shit's annoying and we all know it. Related to that reason is early sex because the people lying that they want a LTR will just ghost after getting sex. I'm well aware that sex is usually introduced early in order to see if the couple are sexual compatible but (in reality, most sexual incompatibility can be resolved through opening up and communicating with your partner about yours needs, etc.) this has caused more problems than it actually solves and this is a big issue because communication issues should be resolved before sexual compatibility... If you're a person just looking to have fun, then cool have your fun and do you but for us people looking for a girlfriend/boyfriend, get the fuck out of the way cuz you're making shit harder than it has to be and we don't care how hot you think we are and how you just want to get with us to relieve your sexual tension, if you're not gonna stay with us longer than 4-6 months, then gtfo.
  5. Being too Judgemental on the dating/sexual experience of another person = We are all different, which means we're all gonna be different in terms of dating experience. Some people are mature about dating while others are not. Being an experienced dater does NOT mean you're a mature person. Given that we have a larger amount of people who are suffering low self esteem and depression than previous generations, that means there's a large pool of people with little-to-no sexual experience as well as little-to-no dating experience either. Realistically, there are a million and one reasons why someone would be over 25 and still be a virgin, regardless if they're a man or woman. Just because they are a virgin doesn't mean they won't be a great relationship or sexual partner and just because they're not a virgin and never had a relationship doesn't mean they can deliver mind-blowing sex or be a good relationship partner. Obviously I understand why people believe that but such a judgemental bias only adds to the hindrance that people with too little or too much experience have to deal with. Do I even need to mention that there are people who have been driving for years but they're still shitty drivers and driving a car is alot simpler than sex so let that sink in...
  6. Variations of "just be confident" = Do I really need to explain why this is dumb in any level? Yes, Confidence can be built but confidence also comes from having results. You think a girl who has never been asked out by any guy for years is going to be confident in dating? No. Confidence is how much you believe in your ability to do something. Given this definition, you can't just "be confident". That's like telling a person who's struggling with math to just "know math". You're essentially telling the person to transmute from not believing they can do something to just believe they can do it. Do you now see why that sounds stupid? If you're trying to tell the other person to fake it, then just tell them to fake it, don't say vague, dumb shit.
  7. Just tell her how you feel = No you fucking idiot, don't tell that girl-friend, that you've been besties with for a long time, how you feel. Why? Because you're gonna scare her away. You want to leave the friendzone and make her your girlfriend? Then you gotta work it patiently and slowly escalate romantically, flirt more and see how she reacts. Positive reaction? Do more. Negative reaction? Pull back. Keep slowly but surely escalating. Vomiting your feelings onto her when she doesn't even feel that way is why so many guys whine about the friendzone. At least take advantage of the friendzone by going at your own pace how to flirt and learn about women you dingus. Now that you know this, going the friend route takes longer and is a bigger long-term investment than straight up asking the girl out but at least it does have its own benefits because you don't have to deal with the initial getting-to-know-each-other, being-on-your-best-behavior stage.
  8. "I don't want a project/I don't want to have to teach a person" = This mentality makes zero sense to me. You've been a project your whole life... You're both a project & teaching lesson to your parents, especially if you're their first born. You were a project & teaching lesson to your peers as well, that's how people learn socializing... Guess what: you'll never stop being a project and you'll never stop being a learning lesson to others, regardless whether they intend you as a learning lesson or not. You're always learning and adapting. Everybody learns at their own pace. Don't shit on someone just because they haven't gotten to your level and, if you're not going to help push them to get to your level, the least you can do is be supportive and motivating instead of negative. If you're not gonna do that either, then go find someone at a similar pace where you're at but don't expect someone to be exactly at the same level since we all experience life differently.
  9. Getting more attention/interest, than you are used to, is not "needy" = Does this really need to be explained? Realize that you're just not that into them on the level they were into you and that's totally fine but it's an asshole move to brush them off as "needy" when they're just excited from crushing on you and you have an avoidant attachment style. Is it so hard to tell the person to calm the fuck down and control how they feel if you're that overwhelmed by it? It's called COMMUNICATION. It's ok to have an avoidant attach style, especially if you're aware of it and trying to deal with it, but don't fucking call people needy when we all know how being called "needy" is pretty much a romantic death sentence for people trying to get into a relationship.
  10. "Be yourself" = Nah booboo, be your best self. Moving on...
  11. "I didn't feel a spark on the first date" = Well first of all, "the spark" is bullshit. It's just an oversimplified moniker for whether you find the person sexually attractive or not. Basically another way of saying "chemistry" aka being physically or personality-wise attracted to the person. It's bullshit because attraction can be built over time and we all know this. Kind of a tie-in with #2 if you think about it. If it's the personality part then I'm willing to be more forgiving on that end but is it that hard to say you're not a match, personality wise?
  12. Last One - Don't Take ALL advice from Reddit Too Serious = Remember that Reddit is just random people who don't have 100% of the details of your situation and experience, so they'll just parrot from their own experience and the typical (bad) dating advice that I've been ripping on. It doesn't mean that what they advise is just plain wrong but you gotta remember that they only know the face value details that you give. They don't know you, the other person you need advice about, etc.
submitted by Adadum to dating_advice [link] [comments]


2019.12.23 23:15 WorkingHapa WMAF Revisited

Hello, whoever. Regulars, lurkers, critics, weird white nationalist guy. Welcome.

This is a post about a topic now discussed to death... by here, by the internet in general, 4chan, /pol, stormfront, to name a few interesting forums invested in the topic.
And specifically, I wanted to address some of the orthodoxy that's developed about how we frame WMAF, what's been the conclusions, what should be done, etc. So without getting into an exhaustive list, here's what I would call a very generic consensus on the subject: WMAF is a social pairing that symbolizes the most acceptable co-habitation/social bonding between the white and Asian* demographics. And no one disagrees with this, as it is pretty much accepted all around, here, Cali, stormfront, where ever, WMAF is just the more common social interaction. Now normally, as is custom, we'd take that route down the path of WHY that is, get to an ugly answer, everyone debates how bad/influential everything is, start the question all over again.
Lost somewhere in the gaps between that paradigm and the inevitable self-introspection paradigms of how Hapa Eurasians in particular should feel, live, act on all of this, I think is something in between worth re-examining.
Namely, WMAF couplings, what they mean, what they represent, AND what they're doing (Required NAWMAFALT).
And the best answers I've found on that so far is by an old, dead, white guy named Kingsley Davis. Kingsley Davis, an American Sociologist, once upon a time wrote a piece called "Intermarriage in Caste Societies" (which I have occasionally linked before) In it, he makes a lot of historical comparisons, from India, to Philippines, to Hawaii, to a pre-Columbus societies in S. America, all about the various ways in which humans have segregated themselves, made underclasses, made rules of engagement between classes, whathaveyou, and he came up with a few highlights which... although seemingly common sense, for a long time did not fit particularly well with me and the experiences and growing orthodoxy of WMAF on Hapas and the Asian Internet in general; a lot of which frames WMAF as colonialist roleplay, or sexual racism/division of genders within minority groups, or assimilative and self-hating practices on the part of the woman, and even going so far to say that WMAF, in its entirety, carries more racist people than the general population.
The LAST point being particularly speculative, but again, its been an answer that comes to mind, maybe justifiably so IN RESPONSE TO the blatant and widespread racism that WMAF couples have proliferated... I mean, that's what half of these posts are all about, right? Examples of people, Parents especially, harboring racist sentiments that their own kids, real or hypo, would also potentially be ridiculed with. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the ESSENCE of WHY Reddit, or anyone not Hapa, has the fascination with this place that they do. It's why there's a post at least once a week by a white guy or Asian girl either asking for more evidence because they're half way concerned, or just outright denying the examples and claiming that archiving/collecting said pictures of Hapa family dysfunction is a form of reverse racism to WMAF.
Curiously, I could never quite Articulate HOW Davis Kingsley could have these seemingly common sense claims on the one hand, and the daily faux pas of these WMAF couples, be it on tinder, or tik tok, or whatever. Specifically, Kingsley's claims, in a nutshell, is that Interracial Pairings should see the DECREASE OF RACISM (Or so I thought).
Here's some excerpts:
> The empirical evidence for it is that stratification (read: Racism) and endogamy (read: same race relations) develop concomitantly, and that the more rigid the stratification (the racism) the more stringent the endogamy (lack of interracial pairings). The logical evidence consists in the structural-functional connections, abstractly considered, between marriage on the one hand and stratification on the other. The interconnections may be discussed in terms of two propositions: (1) that equality is required by the nature of the marriage bond; [and] (2) that it is required by the nature, or dynamics, of descent, inheritance, and socialization in a stratified order.
> (1) We know, empirically, that marriage usually implies equality of caste or class status between the parties, as shown by the symbolic identification of the mates (common name, common living quarters, common offspring) ; by the element of reciprocal exchange (cross-cousin marriage, sister exchange, gift exchange); by the anxiety of families to marry their children into families having at least as high a status as their own; by the use of marriage, like friendship, as an alliance mechanism and as a means of vertical mobility (the party marrying up would gain nothing if marriage did not imply equality); and by the role of marriage as both a criterion and an agency of assimilation (e.g., assimilation of the Dutch burghers and French Huguenots in South Africa).~
> When we ask why this implication of equality is present, part of our answer lies in the kind of relation marriage is-above all, its intimate character. It is incompatible with the mechanisms of social distance ordinarily insulating members of different castes from one another. If some persons are “untouchable,” they must also be unmarriageable, and if food which they cook is “uneatable,” they must also be “unusable” in the kitchen.~ Not only does a primary or Cemeinschaft relation always tend to be equalitarian, but it is precisely the more intimate relations that a caste system publicly bans between strata. Conversely, when intimate relations do arise, they tend to mitigate the caste inequality, as seen for example in the better treatment of house slaves as against field slaves (2) Since marriage is an institutional mechanism for procreating and rearing children, the requirements of status ascription in a caste order practically require the marriage of equals. A wife reared in a social stratum widely different from her husband’s is apt to inculcate ideas and behavior incompatible with the position the children will inherit from their father, thus creating a hiatus between their status and their role.
A lot of funny, old words - , again, in a nutshell, marriage is unique because it breaks down the segregation of races and creates intimacy between peoples that wouldn't normally be there. Breakdown of segregation means that partners SHOULD, in theory, be more empathetic to each other, see them as equals, and see their family/offpsring with a more humanized, less racist perspective than the person who doesn't have a mixed family.
That's what Davis says, AND, that's kinda logical... parents, WMAF parents included, are the ones who have Hapa kids, have Asian family members, and significantly, Have Skin In The Game of what the perception is of being Asian in America/the West, even if they do not directly see anything themselves.
And actually, if you listen to the common complaints of WMAF couples, a BIG one, one that again I think gets overlooked is how frequently the white male of the pairing will be completely blind-sided and at issue with insinuations about his partner's sexuality, the white partner's own fetishes, whether their pairing is some kind of arrangement for immigration, all themselves racist insinuations about WMAF, showing that EVEN WMAF COUPLES GET ORIENTALIST RACISM DIRECTED AT THEM!!! All the more reason to be on the side of anti-racism, for their kids, their partners, and themselves.
Despite all that, WMAF and racism can be found in new examples, all the time, even DAILY if you're willing to sift through dating apps and nazi-lite forums every day...
Like I said, until recently, I couldn't reconcile these two points - how can it be that interracial marriage/dating supposedly INCREASES empathy between the races/castes, all the while ALL THESE COUNTER-EXAMPLES continue to pour in.

Answer?
WMAF IS fighting for Eurasians. All the time. Possibly every day if you're willing to go looking for it. Just not in any way you’d want... WMAF has not been arguing for the end of racism... no, for 76 years now, the go-to arguments have been “why isn’t my kid white too?” THAT is the solidarity. THAT is how WMAF have been “fighting” for their kids. Not to end the racism, but to exclude their kids from it for being White-enough*
How are they doing this?
By insisting Eurasians are geniuses. By assuring everyone, everywhere, that Eurasians are the most beautiful, exotic, worthwhile people to be around, and if you don't know now you know! By shutting down Hapas. By shutting down/shitting on ANY Hapa or Eurasian narrative that SUGGESTS ANYTHING LESS THAN PERFECT ASSIMILATION.

HOW?
See.... it all hit me just recently with this guy, George Winkel, aka Mr. Asiaphile!!
A self-appointed Guru and Expert of all things WMAF, including their beautiful, inevitable babies, Mr. Asiaphile ran a blog site, called Asiaphiles and Sell Outs, where he wrote many posts musing on the nature of WMAF, Asian men, Hapa kids, and so on. (http://scipoet.tripod.com/index.html)
In said website, Mr. Asiaphile, a proud prolific dater of Asian women exclusively, rails against what he calls Minority wedge-tactics, specifically, the ONE DROP RULE, and the nefarious nature of Hapa kids identifying as Asian American. (http://scipoet.tripod.com/hapa). Specifically, Mr. Asiaphile finds issue with his Eurasian offspring becoming "little Asian Maxine Waters', Jesse Jacksons', and Al Sharpton's" - Mr. Asiaphile frames it as HEINOUS to tell Eurasian kids that their politics and the politics of full Asian Americans have similarity, and that to do so is to commit the most disgusting racism of All!!! Letting little Eurasian boys and girls think that they're not good enough ~~To be~~ *TO be equal to* whites.
Mr. Asiaphile surmises that Eurasian kids have the right to believe they are equal to whites, and that they should not get into racial politics about racism and Asian Americans as that would be UNFAIR to their white side.
It goes without saying too, but to a father like Mr. Asiaphile, a circumstance like this? would be disowning. No, for someone like Mr. Asiaphile, there would simply never be an excuse to be racist towards yOuRsElF. Therefore, a Eurasian who gets called a chink should not take that as a time to jump into nasty, Asian racism politics, NO! A true Eurasian, guided by his perfect blend of Eastern/Western culture/genes, would know to not even acknowledge the insult. Because acknowledging the insult would be a drag down into the nefarious One Drop Rule conspiracy, and place an otherwise Good little Eurasian into the BAD, Reverse-Racist One-Dropped-Asian extremist category. A good Eurasian should instead avoid the politics of "Asianness" in general and stick to what they know!! Being beautiful, genius hybrids!!

Have you guessed what Mr. Asiaphile is up to yet? Have you sussed out his plan? What about that now infamous and entertaining list of neo-nazis with Asian wives... what's that all about?

Well, just as with Mr. Asiaphile demanding no Eurasian ever stick up for Asian politics, so to are John Derbyshire, Charles Murray and Richard Spencer doing their part arguing about muh Asian culture and muh high IQ's. For Derbyshire and Murray (godfathers of the alt right and modern race realist movements), this isn't just hypothetical either. And althought John Derbyshire has even gone so far to call his mixed "Danny Mud and Ellie Mud", he STILL DEFENDS EURASIAN GENIUS AND EURASIAN GENETIC SUPERIORITY.
Again, what is all this? What are these WMAF couples doing?
Simply put... They're Petitioning.
A petition for what?

A petition to EXPAND the definition of White. And specifically, a Petition to include the WMAF pairing, and now their offpsring, as an alternative "White" partnership. And this isn't the first time...
Recall now 75 years ago, the War Bride Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Brides_Act
An act that allowed US Servicemen to marry and bring home Japanese/Korean/SE Asian wives, Twenty Years before Anti-miscegenation laws would be found unconstitutional in America.
A demand that in essence was nothing OTHER THAN a Petition by US soldiers, for LITERAL AND LEGAL DECLARATION that Asian women, their war brides, under the laws of Segregated America, be counted as white.
A petition that would be the one of the sole exceptions to segregation.
Fast forward to Mr. Asiaphile, whose lamenting on Eurasians getting too much into Asian politics, CALLING ON EURASIANS TO REJECT BEING ASIAN, now 55 Years AFTER US Soldiers already asked the government to make their Asian wives count as white people. What happened? Why are Eurasians not white yet?
Well... Mr. Asiaphile wondered the same thing... why are Eurasians getting into Asian politics? His response?
"Uh uh uh Black people are corrupting muh kids!!" - a confused, if not facetious answer...
Going down, what the fuck are Derbyshire and Murray, TWO PROMINENT WHITE SUPREMACISTS/RACE REALISTS doing with all this Eurasian shit?

What are they doing when they tell all the other neo nazis about muh Eurasian master race? That it is worth it, fellow neo-nazis, to LET MY KIDS BE WHITE TOO, because they're smart, and cute, from a non-threatening culture... because my Asian wife is hot, because my family loves her, because she's got pale skin anyway, because Asians have IQ's, because the good races have to "team up", and on and on, endless drivel, again, what's it all for?
Expanding whiteness to include WMAF and their children...
Something that has not been achieved in 75 years, nor the other day when an acquaintance confided to me he thought I was ethnically 100% Chinese when we first met. In fact, something I believe, if not KNOW, will NEVER be achieved, and that WMAF will fail regardless, and that means regardless of whether Hapas were to talk about WMAF's far right and racist tendencies every day OR NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT IT AGAIN.

Why am I so confident this expansion will not happen?
Because so long as there is a nation crafted like America is, with the drive, funding, and ideology of a Settler-white supremacist state on steroids, and so long as that concoction of demons believes that its SURVIVAL rests on not losing world domination and supremacy to a lil' ole place called China, there will NEVER BE, no matter how many cringe-ass, muh high IQ books the open or closed Asiaphile geneticists write, a path to assimilation from Asian-to-white.
Japanese people will never be the Greeks or Italians of yesterday, the Chinese wife of a neo-nazi will still be Chinese (Don't believe me? Ask crushed nazi heart Kathy Zhu!! https://www.reddit.com/hapas/comments/eb24ls/oh_no_leopards_ate_my_face/)

So long as there is a basis to enemy image/dehumanize Asians (again, called China), there will never be a formal expansion of "white". Not happening, write as many blogs as you want, but if it didn't happen back anytime in the last 75 years, its not happening now.

See, I get the feeling that some of y'all think WMAF is IN on the white supremacy. No. They are the kiss-asses of it. The wannabe's, and try, try, try as they might, you CANNOT STOP AMERICAN IMPERIALISM w/ a hot Asia wife!! https://www.reddit.com/trumpconflicts/comments/bwmx8p/a_bridge_to_china_and_elaine_chao_secy_of/

So don't get it confused Hapas. WMAF ain't in on shit. They’re in the same boat us as paddling backwards to make us white. That’s HOW WMAF shows their familial "love" for Eurasians, and That’s also WHY they hate Hapas!! Because in their minds, we’re fucking up their plans just as much as they are ours!! "How muh kid supposed to be white when you keep talking about anti-Asian racism Hapas!?!?!?" Which is all great and lovely, but will actually never work...
And when the other shoe ever does drop, and when we're all up to our eyeballs in Sinophobia, rest assured, those WMAF couples that swore up and down their kid was "just another American" will be begging us for answers....

Unfortunately for them, when that day comes, I don't know if Hapas will have them....
Either way,
Happy Holidays Hapas!
- Love WH
submitted by WorkingHapa to hapas [link] [comments]


2019.09.12 19:19 finnagains The 5 Years That Changed Dating - by Ashley Fetters (The Atlantic) September 2019

On the 20th anniversary of The New York Times’ popular Vows column, a weekly feature on notable weddings and engagements launched in 1992, its longtime editor wrote that Vows was meant to be more than just a news notice about society events. It aimed to give readers the backstory on marrying couples and, in the meantime, to explore how romance was changing with the times. “Twenty years ago, as now, most couples told us they’d met through their friends or family, or in college,” wrote the editor, Bob Woletz, in 2012. “For a period that ran into the late 1990s, a number said, often sheepishly, that they had met through personal advertisements.”
But in 2018, seven of the 53 couples profiled in the Vows column met on dating apps. And in the Times’ more populous Wedding Announcements section, 93 out of some 1,000 couples profiled this year met on dating apps—Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Coffee Meets Bagel, Happn, and other specialized dating apps designed for smaller communities, like JSwipe for Jewish singles and MuzMatch for Muslims. The year before, 71 couples whose weddings were announced by the Times met on dating apps.
Matt Lundquist, a couples therapist based in Manhattan, says he’s started taking on a less excited or expectant tone when he asks young couples and recently formed couples how they met. “Because a few of them will say to me, ‘Uhhh, we met on Tinder’—like, ‘Where else do you think we would have met?’” Plus, he adds, it’s never a good start to therapy when a patient thinks the therapist is behind the times or uncool.
Dating apps originated in the gay community; Grindr and Scruff, which helped single men link up by searching for other active users within a specific geographic radius, launched in 2009 and 2010, respectively. With the launch of Tinder in 2012, iPhone-owning people of all sexualities could start looking for love, or sex, or casual dating, and it quickly became the most popular dating app on the market. But the gigantic shift in dating culture really started to take hold the following year, when Tinder expanded to Android phones, then to more than 70 percent of smartphones worldwide. Shortly thereafter, many more dating apps came online.
There’s been plenty of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over how Tinder could reinvent dating: Maybe it would transform the dating scene into an endless virtual marketplace where singles could shop for each other (like an Amazon for human companionship), or perhaps it would turn dating into a minimal-effort, transactional pursuit of on-demand hookups (like an Uber for sex). But the reality of dating in the age of apps is a little more nuanced than that. The relationship economy has certainly changed in terms of how humans find and court their potential partners, but what people are looking for is largely the same as it ever was: companionship and/or sexual satisfaction. Meanwhile, the underlying challenges—the loneliness, the boredom, the roller coaster of hope and disappointment—of being “single and looking,” or single and looking for something, haven’t gone away. They’ve simply changed shape.
Sean Rad and Justin Mateen, two of Tinder’s founders, have said in interviews that the inspiration for Tinder came from their own general dissatisfaction with the lack of dating opportunities that arose naturally—or, as Rad once put it jokingly, “Justin needed help meeting people because he had, what’s that disorder you have where you don’t leave the house?”
Tinder has indeed helped people meet other people—it has expanded the reach of singles’ social networks, facilitating interactions between people who might never have crossed paths otherwise. The 30-year-old Jess Flores of Virginia Beach got married to her first and only Tinder date this past October, and she says they likely would have never met if it weren’t for the app.
For starters, Flores says, the guys she usually went for back in 2014 were what she describes as “sleeve-tattoo” types. Her now-husband Mike, though, was “clean cut, no tattoos. Completely opposite of what I would usually go for.” She decided to take a chance on him after she’d laughed at a funny line in his Tinder bio. (Today, she can no longer remember what it was.)
Plus, Mike lived in the next town over. He wasn’t that far away, “but I didn’t go where he lived to hang out, so I didn’t really mix and mingle with people in other cities,” she says. But after a few weeks of chatting on the app and one failed attempt at meeting up, they ended up on a first date at a local minor-league baseball game, drinking beer and eating hot dogs in the stands.
For Flores and her husband, having access to a bigger pool of fellow single people was a great development. In her first few years out of college, before she met Mike, “I was in the same work routine, around the same people, all the time,” Flores says, and she wasn’t exactly eager to start up a romance with any of them. But then there was Tinder, and then there was Mike.
An expanded radius of potential mates can be a great thing if you’re looking to date or hook up with a broad variety of people who are different from you, says Madeleine Fugère, a professor of psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University who specializes in attraction and romantic relationships. “Normally, if you met someone at school or at work, you would probably already have a lot in common with that person,” Fugere says. “Whereas if you’re meeting someone purely based on geographic location, there’s definitely a greater chance that they would be different from you in some way.”
But there’s also a downside to dating beyond one’s natural social environment. “People who are not very similar to their romantic partners end up at a greater risk for breaking up or for divorce,” she says. Indeed, some daters bemoan the fact that meeting on the apps means dating in a sort of context vacuum. Friends, co-workers, classmates, and/or relatives don’t show up to flesh out the complete picture of who a person is until further on in the timeline of a relationship—it’s unlikely that someone would introduce a blind date to friends right away. In the “old model” of dating, by contrast, the circumstances under which two people met organically could provide at least some measure of common ground between them.
Some also believe that the relative anonymity of dating apps—that is, the social disconnect between most people who match on them—has also made the dating landscape a ruder, flakier, crueler place. For example, says Lundquist, the couples therapist, if you go on a date with your cousin’s roommate, the roommate has some incentive to not be a jerk to you. But with apps, “You’re meeting somebody you probably don’t know and probably don’t have any connections with at a bar on 39th Street. That’s kind of weird, and there’s a greater opportunity for people to be ridiculous, to be not nice.”
Many of the stories of bad behavior Lundquist hears from his patients take place in real life, at bars and restaurants. “I think it’s become more ordinary to stand each other up,” he says, and he’s had many patients (“men and women, though more women among straight folks”) recount to him stories that end with something along the lines of, “Oh my God, I got to the bar and he sat down and said, ‘Oh. You don’t look like what I thought you looked like,’ and walked away.”
But other users complain of rudeness even in early text interactions on the app. Some of that nastiness could be chalked up to dating apps’ dependence on remote, digital communication; the classic “unsolicited dick pic sent to an unsuspecting match” scenario, for example. Or the equally familiar tirade of insults from a match who’s been rebuffed, as Anna Xiques, a 33-year-old advertising copywriter based in Miami, experienced. In an essay on Medium in 2016 (cleverly titled “To the One That Got Away on Bumble”), she chronicled the time she frankly told a Bumble match she’d been chatting with that she wasn’t feeling it, only to be promptly called a cunt and told she “wasn’t even pretty.” (Bumble, launched in 2014 with the former Tinder executive Whitney Wolfe Herd at its helm, markets itself as a more women-friendly dating app because of its unique feature designed to curb unwanted messages: In heterosexual matches, the woman has to initiate chatting.)
Sometimes this is just how things go on dating apps, Xiques says. She’s been using them off and on for the past few years for dates and hookups, even though she estimates that the messages she receives have about a 50-50 ratio of mean or gross to not mean or gross. She’s only experienced this kind of creepy or hurtful behavior when she’s dating through apps, not when dating people she’s met in real-life social settings. “Because, obviously, they’re hiding behind the technology, right? You don’t have to actually face the person,” she says.
Perhaps the quotidian cruelty of app dating exists because it’s relatively impersonal compared with setting up dates in real life. “More and more people relate to this as a volume operation,” says Lundquist, the couples therapist. Time and resources are limited, while matches, at least in theory, are not. Lundquist mentions what he calls the “classic” scenario in which someone is on a Tinder date, then goes to the bathroom and talks to three other people on Tinder. “So there’s a willingness to move on more quickly,” he says, “but not necessarily a commensurate increase in skill at kindness.”
Holly Wood, who wrote her Harvard sociology dissertation last year on singles’ behaviors on dating sites and dating apps, heard a lot of these ugly stories too. And after speaking to more than 100 straight-identifying, college-educated men and women in San Francisco about their experiences on dating apps, she firmly believes that if dating apps didn’t exist, these casual acts of unkindness in dating would be far less common. But Wood’s theory is that people are meaner because they feel like they’re interacting with a stranger, and she partly blames the short and sweet bios encouraged on the apps.
“OkCupid,” she remembers, “invited walls of text. And that, for me, was really important. I’m one of those people who wants to feel like I have a sense of who you are before we go on a first date. Then Tinder”—which has a 500-character limit for bios—“happened, and the shallowness in the profile was encouraged.”
Wood also found that for some respondents (especially male respondents), apps had effectively replaced dating; in other words, the time other generations of singles might have spent going on dates, these singles spent swiping. Many of the men she talked to, Wood says, “were saying, ‘I’m putting so much work into dating and I’m not getting any results.’” When she asked what exactly they were doing, they said, “I’m on Tinder for hours every day.”
“We pretend that’s dating because it looks like dating and says it’s dating,” Wood says.
Wood’s academic work on dating apps is, it’s worth mentioning, something of a rarity in the broader research landscape. One big challenge of knowing how dating apps have affected dating behaviors, and in writing a story like this one, is that most of these apps have only been around for half a decade—hardly long enough for well-designed, relevant longitudinal studies to even be funded, let alone conducted.
Of course, even the absence of hard data hasn’t stopped dating experts—both people who study it and people who do a lot of it—from theorizing. There’s a popular suspicion, for example, that Tinder and other dating apps might make people pickier or more reluctant to settle on a single monogamous partner, a theory that the comedian Aziz Ansari spends a lot of time on in his 2015 book, Modern Romance, written with the sociologist Eric Klinenberg.
Eli Finkel, however, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the author of The All-or-Nothing Marriage, rejects that notion. “Very smart people have expressed concern that having such easy access makes us commitment-phobic,” he says, “but I’m not actually that worried about it.” Research has shown that people who find a partner they’re really into quickly become less interested in alternatives, and Finkel is fond of a sentiment expressed in a 1997 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper on the subject: “Even if the grass is greener elsewhere, happy gardeners may not notice.”
Like the anthropologist Helen Fisher, Finkel believes that dating apps haven’t changed happy relationships much—but he does think they’ve lowered the threshold of when to leave an unhappy one. In the past, there was a step in which you’d have to go to the trouble of “getting dolled up and going to a bar,” Finkel says, and you’d have to look at yourself and say, “What am I doing right now? I’m going out to meet a guy. I’m going out to meet a girl,” even though you were in a relationship already. Now, he says, “you can just tinker around, just for a sort of a goof; swipe a little just ’cause it’s fun and playful. And then it’s like, oh—[suddenly] you’re on a date.”
The other subtle ways in which people believe dating is different now that Tinder is a thing are, quite frankly, innumerable. Some believe that dating apps’ visual-heavy format encourages people to choose their partners more superficially (and with racial or sexual stereotypes in mind); others argue that humans choose their partners with physical attraction in mind even without the help of Tinder. There are equally compelling arguments that dating apps have made dating both more awkward and less awkward by allowing matches to get to know each other remotely before they ever meet face-to-face—which can in some cases create a weird, sometimes tense first few minutes of a first date.
And for some singles in the LGBTQ community, dating apps like Tinder and Bumble have been a small miracle. They can help users locate other LGBTQ singles in an area where it might otherwise be hard to know—and their explicit spelling-out of what gender or genders a user is interested in can mean fewer awkward initial interactions. Other LGBTQ users, however, say they’ve had better luck finding dates or hookups on dating apps other than Tinder, or even on social media. “Twitter in the gay community is kind of like a dating app now. Tinder doesn’t do too well,” says Riley Rivera Moore, a 21-year-old based in Austin. Riley’s wife Niki, 23, says that when she was on Tinder, a good portion of her potential matches who were women were “a couple, and the woman had created the Tinder profile because they were looking for a ‘unicorn,’ or a third person.” That said, the recently married Rivera Moores met on Tinder.
But perhaps the most consequential change to dating has been in where and how dates get initiated—and where and how they don’t.
When Ingram Hodges, a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin, goes to a party, he goes there expecting only to hang out with friends. It’d be a pleasant surprise, he says, if he happened to talk to a cute girl there and ask her to hang out. “It wouldn’t be an abnormal thing to do,” he says, “but it’s just not as common. When it does happen, people are surprised, taken aback.”
I pointed out to Hodges that when I was a freshman in college—all of 10 years ago—meeting cute people to go on a date with or to hook up with was the point of going to parties. But being 18, Hodges is relatively new to both Tinder and dating in general; the only dating he’s known has been in a post-Tinder world. When Hodges is in the mood to flirt or go on a date, he turns to Tinder (or Bumble, which he jokingly calls “classy Tinder”), where sometimes he finds that other UT students’ profiles include instructions like “If I know you from school, don’t swipe right on me.”
Hodges knows that there was a time, way back in the day, when people mostly met through school, or work, or friends, or family. But for people his age, Hodges says, “dating has become isolated from the rest of social life.”
Hailey, a financial-services professional in Boston (who asked to only be identified by her first name because her last name is a unique one and she’d prefer to not be recognizable in work contexts), is considerably older than Hodges, but even at 34, she sees the same phenomenon in action. She and her boyfriend met on Tinder in 2014, and they soon discovered that they lived in the same neighborhood. Before long, they realized that they’d probably even seen each other around before they met.
Still, she says, “we would have never interacted had it not been for Tinder. He’s not going out all the time. I’m not going out all the time. The reality is, if he is out at a bar, he’s hanging with his friends.
“And he’s not gonna be like, ‘Hey, how’s it going?’ as we’re both getting milk or something at the grocery store,” she adds. “I don’t see that happening at all anymore.”
The Atlantic’s Kate Julian found something similar in her recent story on why today’s young people are having less sex than prior generations:
Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore … But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
There’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg effect when it comes to Tinder and the disentanglement of dating from the rest of social life. It’s possible, certainly, that dating apps have erected walls between the search for potential partners and the normal routines of work and community. But it’s also possible that dating apps thrive in this particular moment in history because people have stopped looking for potential partners while they go about their work and community routines.
Finkel, for one, believes that the new boundaries between romance and other forms of social interaction have their benefits—especially in a time when what constitutes sexual harassment, especially in the workplace, is being renegotiated. “People used to meet people at work, but my God, it doesn’t seem like the best idea to do that right now,” Finkel says. “For better or worse, people are setting up firmer boundaries between the personal and the professional. And we’re figuring all that stuff out, but it’s kind of a tumultuous time.” Meanwhile, he says, dating apps offer separate environments where finding dates or sex is the point.
But, naturally, with the compartmentalization of dating comes the notion that if you want to be dating, you have to be active on the apps. And that can make the whole process of finding a partner, which essentially boils down to semi-blind date after semi-blind date, feel like a chore or a dystopian game show. As my colleague Julie Beck wrote in 2016,
Now that the shine of novelty has worn off these apps, they aren’t fun or exciting anymore. They’ve become a normalized part of dating. There’s a sense that if you’re single, and you don’t want to be, you need to do something to change that. If you just sit on your butt and wait to see if life delivers you love, then you have no right to complain. 
Hailey has heard her friends complain that dating now feels like a second, after-hours job; Twitter is rife with sentiments similar in tone. It’s not uncommon nowadays to hear singles say wistfully that they’d just like to meet someone in real life.
Of course, it’s quite possible that this is a new problem created by the solving of an old one.
A decade ago, the complaint that Lundquist, the couples therapist, heard most often was, “Boy, I just don’t meet any interesting people.” Now, he says, “it’s more like, ‘Oh, God, I meet all these not-interesting people.’”
“It’s cliche to say, but it’s a numbers game,” Lundquist adds. “So the assumption is, the odds are pretty good that [any given date] will suck, but, you know. Whatever. You’ve gotta do it.”
Finkel, for his part, puts it a little more bluntly. To him, there’s one thing that all these wistful romantics, longing for the days of yore when people met in real life, are missing: that Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge—like eHarmony, OkCupid, and Match.com before them—exist because meeting in real life is really hard.
“I’m not saying that it’s not a hassle to go on bad dates. It is a nuisance. You could be hanging out with your friends, you could be sleeping, you could be reading a book,” he says. But, Finkel adds, singletons of generations past would “break out the world’s smallest violin” for young people who complain about Tinder dates becoming a chore.
“It’s like, Ugh so many dates, and they’re just not that interesting,” Finkel adds with a laugh. “It used to be hard to find someone to date!” https://outline.com/pcJyA6
submitted by finnagains to Submissive_ [link] [comments]


2019.03.20 15:37 Simmering_Fox Review of The Lobster (2015)

The Lobster

The film makes observations about dating/coupling/being-alone and presents these observations as hyper-real examples. Every observation is blown out of proportion to a ridiculous degree. I've heard the film called surrealism, hyper-realism; I don't really care. I don't necessarily think it's a great film, or enjoyable, but in an effort to deconstruct it on its own grounds, here are some observations:

The hotel represents the Dating Space. It's very weird, and it's weird because the act of dating is weird. It's not just the modern world; even arranged marriages are weird. It is weird to meet strangers and screen them as potential partners. This is weird for many reasons, but especially because we often don't know what exactly an ideal partner is. The characters seek out others that may share their single defining characteristic. This is an extreme reduction of what many people really do when dating. Many potential daters set out a list of hobbies or personality traits and search for someone who shares those. The Lobster takes this concept and reduces it to absurdity, to a single, defining characteristic. It's the same as making a dating profile that says 'I like football,' and filtering out anyone who also doesn't like football. The film presents a reductionist exaggeration of something that tends to occur (maybe rarely).

The concept of 'dating' is actually quite new and artificial. Before 'dating' existed, people lived in smaller communities, and would marry someone local, of whom their family approved. That's not so different from the kind of parental-arranged marriages that still occur in India and other parts of the world today. Dating is odd. And the film goes to great lengths to demonstrate how odd and awkward and clumsy it can be. No one knows what to say. Every character seems to become shy around someone who might be ideal for them. The social pressure of dating and the time limit imposed leads a couple characters to advance a relationship that shouldn't have occurred otherwise. The social constraints, the ticking clock, the pressure to settle down, the pressure to make kids/gran-kids -- all of this comes up in the hotel. No one seems to meet the right person in this weird environment, even if that person is right in front of them.

So why the punishment of being turned into an animal? I thought this was one of the biggest leaps the film made. I believe the general metaphor is that a single person who is dreading being single at X age must imagine their-self as a freak to their friends. Or they may conceive their potential fate of being single past age X as a sort of death sentence, after which they will continue to live, but somehow be doomed at the same time. Kind of like being turned into a goat? Shunned by everyone, and not welcome amongst human company, but still very much living. The being-turned-into-an-animal metaphor kind of works in this sense, but considering it is the entire foundation of the film, I felt it didn't quite hit the mark.

It's like 'okay, so you know how you feel when you're alone at 30, and people are telling you that you can find someone, and piling on all this pressure, and they're kind of saying that you definitely shouldn't be alone at 40, because then something terrible will happen. And you don't know exactly what that terrible thing is, but you know it will be really, really bad.' The Lobster takes this thought-sequence and creates the Hotel and the Doom of being turned into an animal (ostracized from human-kind) as a metaphor for it. Eh, it works for the most part.

Okay, so what the hell is going on in the woods?

I think the being-turned-into-an-animal metaphor is better than the loners-in-the-woods thing. The loners are all rejects who couldn't find a partner. They're in the woods probably because they're just insular by nature. See, that would work, but every single character in this film is insular and autistic. The people in the woods are just like the ones in the hotel or the city. Why are they outcasts then? Everyone is autistic.

I think the idea is to show that different social groups have different social norms, but all groups enfoces them just as ferociously (I don't actually agree with this). In the hotel and the city, monogamous-coupling is the enforced norm. Yet the norm in the woods is enforced abstinence. I don't quite understand what the film is saying here. Obviously niche communities will enforce their own, unique norms that are congruent with their values. So the loners enforce rules and behaviors that make sure everyone is alone. I kinda feel there's a bit of commentary here on social groups that set their own norms and then pressure everyone to conform to them or be ostracized. I mean that's really the basic gist of social groups amongst humans. I guess the enforcement of social norms is the gist of the entire film, but still....

Why do the people in the forest place such value on individual responsibility, when they also have such strict rules and punishments, especially against romance? A guy steps in a bear trap, they tell him he has to pry it open himself, that he should have been more careful. They all have graves dug for themselves in the event they are mortally wounded. All this personally responsibility, and yet they have group-enforced culture and rules regarding dancing, kissing, etc. It's confusing, and I honestly don't get it. My best thought is that the society in the woods is an exaggeration of a group of outcasts (loners), but also a group that, through its bitterness, wants to make itself the status quo. If being a loner was the status quo, then these people would be the upper-class in the society that exist in the city. Is that their goal? It reminds me of the incel phenomenon of recent, though I imagine this film precedes that. Perhaps it's just another negative example of enforced norms?

My favorite films are the ones that work both on the surface and subtext level. Take a film like Gattaca. On the surface it's a taut sci-fi thriller about the main character's goal to get to space/make a successful career. Under the surface, however, there are themes about genes, fate/destiny, talent, luck, opportunity, perseverance, sibling rivalry, God/religion/creation, etc, etc.

Surreal films tend to operate under the surface level. There is a bunch of imagery and symbolism and meaning to discover when you look beneath the surface. However the surface itself, when taken on its own, is an incoherent mess. Imagine watching Barton Fink, and only paying attention to what actually happens on the screen. It's about a New York playwright who goes to Hollywood and a bunch of crazy unreal stuff happens to him, like the wallpaper melting off the walls and his neighbor emerging from an elevator of flames. It's totally non-sensical. Anything and everything of value in that film is below the surface; it's subtext. To me, that's what a surrealist film is. To me, that's what The Lobster is.

These kinds of films are sometimes difficult to watch, but often enjoyable to pick apart like a Sudoku puzzle.

Also, since I've seen Dogtooth, want to point out some tropes that seem to exist in Lanthimos films;

How to summarize this? I personally am not a huge fan of surrealism. This film was successful in isolating observations about dating/love/pairing and the social norms surrounding them, and taking them to an extreme and surreal place and forming those elements into the narrative. It works as an art piece that can make you think and reflect on these things. Eh, so could a 10-minute YouTube video.

Is it a great film? I'd rather watch Gattaca.
submitted by Simmering_Fox to movies [link] [comments]


2018.12.21 02:41 budderyfish [Roblox] Group of users reveal money laundering scheme and nearly causes a lawsuit between 2 billion-dollar companies.

This happened around June of 2015, TLDR at bottom.
Incase you don't know what roblox is, it's a platform where people can create games to play, basically like GMOD for little kids.
Back then, I was (and still am) apart of the Off Topic foruming community, although now we've migrated to Discord after Roblox deleted the forums (The roblox forums were split into different subforums, and Off Topic was one of them). The users in this community were older than Roblox's target audience, usually around the 13-17 range. Another thing about 'OTers' is that they really didn't like change, most of them were nostalgic for "Old Roblox" and thought that the decisions Roblox was making and the games it was allowing was killing the site. These obviously don't accurately describe everyone in OT, we pretty much had every type of person on there, they're just rough guidelines for what an average OTer was/thought.
This hatred for modern roblox culminated in raids against roleplaying groups and games, where Online Daters (ODers, which is what OTers would call you if your avatar looked like a 'hype beast' or trendy or something) often hung-out. One of the most popular RP groups was a cafe group called 'Starbucks'.
Roblox Starbucks was OT's most frequent raiding target, due to its popularity and easiness to get a reaction out of the people there. They would block the doors, spam the chat, order items that weren't on the menu, normal raid stuff. One user, who's name has been forgotten to the sands of time, or purposefully hide his identity, was not satisfied with this.
The story goes that, after doing some digging, this user was able to find information that linked the owner of the group, a user named 'Cryogenix', to a mysterious blank account, which was later discovered to be a secret alt that Cryogenix had been funneling robux (Roblox's digital currency) into, and was using that alt to make Dev-Exchange money.
Dev-Exchange, or 'DevEx', is a system Roblox uses so that developers can make real money in exchange for Robux they make off their games. People have made up to $50k a year off of this, so you can make some serious money.
Bottom line was that the dude was basically laundering money, a real life Starbucks representative had stated in an apparent skype-call that the group was okay so long as they weren't making any real money. With this being proven wrong, Off Topic mass reported the group and its owner, and the real Starbucks followed shortly after.
Starbucks told Roblox that they wanted the group deleted. However, considering that the group was one of the most popular groups on the entire site (roughly 100k members at the time), Roblox was hesitant to comply. Fortunately, they settled out of court and decided upon a compromise, the group could continue to exist, but it had to change it's name (which couldn't be done without admin magic)
It wasn't the ultimate final victory that Off Topic wanted, but we celebrated anyway because we could tell the members of the group were pretty salty.
I know a lot of information about this is pretty hazy, a lot of the original threads on the roblox forums were deleted and nobody was really sure who exactly revealed Cryogenix's scheme, there were definitely rumors that he was secretly making DevEx money for some time. As for the possibility that Cryogenix wasn't doing anything illegal at all, well, I don't see any other reason that Starbucks would ask Roblox to take the group down. I'll leave some stuff at the bottom so it doesn't sound like I'm talking out of my ass.
As for the fate of everyone involved, Cryogenix appears to have quit Roblox, not sure if it's related to this whole incident, but he atleast (to my knowledge) hasn't committed any crimes since, so don't give him any shit. Frappe is still doing fairly well with over 250k members.
I have plenty of other stories about my time with the Off Topic community, I'll make another thread if you all seem to enjoy this.
Sources:
TLDR: Owner of a popular roblox group is caught making unlawful money off of copyrighted starbucks images, is subsequently exposed and forced to change his group's name.
Edit : Formatting
Edit 2: Clarified some things
submitted by budderyfish to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]


2018.12.18 03:46 reallycarin An Introduction to Beowulf, Part 1: the nature of the poem, the manuscript, date, subject matter, verse form

An Introduction to Beowulf, Part 1: the nature of the poem, the manuscript, date, subject matter, verse form
What follows is an introduction to what Beowulf is and how it survives in the form we have it. In a followup post later this week, I’ll have suggestions about what texts and translations to use, including recordings to listen to, and some pointers to Tolkien’s work on Beowulf.
(Note: The following assumes a general acquaintance with who and what the Anglo-Saxons were and what Old English is, but do please let me know in comments or by private message if you would like me to expand on any matters of historical and linguistic context. There are no dumb questions! I have been inside this material far too long and may presume too much. The Wikipedia article on the Anglo-Saxons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons is pretty good as a primer.)

What is Beowulf?
Beowulf is a poem of 3182 lines of Old English alliterative verse, which treats the life of the hero Beowulf from his time as a young man as a visitor at the court of Hrothgar, a Danish king, to his old age as king of the Geats, another southern Scandinavian people. The poem is not a continuous narrative of Beowulf’s life, but rather a selection of three episodes and many allusive fragments: Beowulf travels to the court of Hrothgar to help out with a monster problem (Grendel and Grendel’s mother), and then in his old age, he dies in the process of killing a dragon that threatens his own kingdom.
What it is generically (i.e., in terms of genre) is something we can discuss as we read it, and as we read Tolkien’s “The Monsters and the Critics.” I don’t want to prejudge the matter.

Where and when is it set?
Beowulf’s world is the southern Scandinavian homeland of the Germanic tribes who became the Anglo-Saxons when they migrated to Britain. The modern area of these tribes is more or less Jutland, the part of Denmark that is a peninsula sticking up from the European mainland, and adjacent parts of what is now northern Germany (Saxony) and Frisia in Holland. (Frisian is the closest modern language to Old English.)
https://preview.redd.it/tu702t307y421.jpg?width=797&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fa7123b89279864d46a0053752d46b736b6e8f1
Many names mentioned in the poem can be identified with characters from Germanic legend who also show up in some other Anglo-Saxon poems and in Norse mythology. One character, Beowulf’s king Hygelac, appears to have been a historical king of the early 6th century.
For me, and I think for us as readers of Tolkien, a central interest of the poem is the way it layers time and a whole world of stories known to the characters in the poem but not fully known to us. The Anglo-Saxon author looks back on the heroic age of his ancestors, the age of migrations (ca. 5th-6th century AD in historical time), and that world is in turn full of ancient tales, feuds, ruins, and monsters which are not fully explained to us and which those heroic-age characters sometimes only half understand. And to that, the poem’s author adds a Christian sense of time from the creation of the world which he shares with his audience but which is opaque to his characters.

How does the poem survive into the modern age?
Beowulf survives in a single manuscript written in England within a few years either side of the year 1000. The manuscript was written by two scribes, whom we can tell apart by handwriting and spelling habits. Is fairly clear that the scribes are copying a pre-existing text, not making the poem up as they write. One scribe takes over mid-letter (!!!) from the other, so we might hypothesize this sort of scenario:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlIz0q8aWpA
After seeming complete obscurity in the Middle Ages, the poem emerged into the modern scholarly world in the 16th century, when it was owned by the Tudor antiquary Laurence Nowell. It was subsequently owned in the 17th century by Sir Robert Cotton, who owned a great many of the most important surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. In 1731, after Cotton’s death, there was a catastrophic fire in the unfortunately-named Ashburnham House, where his collection was housed. The manuscript was singed but not lost, though it suffered further damage from 19th-century attempts to make charred bits more legible using chemicals. The Cotton collection subsequently became part of the founding collection of the British Museum, now the British Library.
Read a brief overview of the manuscript from the British Library here and see the fully digitized manuscript here.

When was it written?
Ah, now that is the question over which a thousand scholarly feuds have flourished. The date of its composition in the form we have it, the date it was written down in the form we have it, and the date of the traditional material underlying the poem as we have it are different questions.
The poem as it survives is a literary work—by a literate person, almost beyond question a person literate in both Latin and Old English, and a Christian—which uses formulaic diction that derives from an oral tradition much older than the poem we have. It is, in other words, analogous to classical epics like Homer’s, in which we have a fixed literary form, transmitted from antiquity in writing, of a body of material that was to greater or lesser degree fluid and composed or varied ad hoc by oral bards in earlier centuries before it was first written down. When we try to “date” Beowulf, we are generally talking about when the poem assumed more or less the form transmitted to us in its sole surviving manuscript.
The parameters are as follows:
  • It must be earlier than the date of the surviving manuscript—around the year 1000 or a smidge later.
  • It is almost certainly several generations of copying earlier than that; that is, the poem as we have it in the manuscript looks like it is a copy of a copy, at least, and probably descends from manuscripts written by scribes who used different dialects. But several iterations of manuscript transmission could happen in a fairly short time. (One prominent scholar has argued that the scribes of the manuscript we have were basically composing the poem as they wrote, so that the date of the poem would be identical with the date of the manuscript. But he is an extreme outlier among “late daters.”)
  • On the early end, it must date from after the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, because of both its author’s literacy and his Christian perspective. That means the 7th century at the earliest, but the surviving bits of Old English we have from the 7th century are distinctly different in form from the language of this poem, even accounting for its mixed dialect (see below) and complicated transmission. So the early 8th century, when the conversion was complete and Old English has assumed a form that is recognizably the same language the poem is written in, is pretty much the earliest possible date.
Many of the arguments about date are very technical and linguistic, but the historical/cultural arguments are more accessible. The poem describes a world of tribal kings, treasure-givers, and their retainers, and some would like to see the poem as having been composed at or close to a time when Anglo-Saxon society was still organized on those lines—the world of the 7th-century king buried at Sutton Hoo, for example, and the feuding kingdoms described in Bede’s early-8th-century history. Others who favor an early date believe that a poem that elevates Danish heroes could never have been written by the English after the Danish (Viking) attacks on England started at the end of the 8th century.
On the late-dating side, others argue that the Anglo-Danish cultural context formed after Vikings began to settle in England in the 10th century, or even under the rule of a Danish king like Cnut in the early 11th century, would be a natural context for an English poem celebrating Danish forebears.
A middle position in the dating wars sees the Danish content as no bar to appreciation by an English audience, given that there’s so much else going on in the poem, and favors on various grounds a date in the reign of Alfred the Great (later 9th century).
The short answer is we don’t know and can’t know for sure. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

Where was it written?
It was certainly written in England. The language of the poem is an elevated, archaizing form of Old English, usually referred to as a “poetic dialect.” (Whereas much Old English is pretty readily intelligible once you learn the spelling system and a few rules, Beowulf is difficult even for advanced students.) It uses vocabulary and figurative language specific to its own poetic tradition, and that makes it hard to place.
Most Old English prose and some early verse can be assigned on the basis of spelling and sound changes to a region corresponding to one of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: West Saxon, Northumbrian, Mercian, Kentish, etc. Beowulf is in a mix of these, partly because poetic diction transcended region, and partly because in the transmission of the poem it was copied and recopied by scribes writing different dialects.
Many manuscripts from the later Anglo-Saxon period can be localized to a particular monastery on the basis of script, standardized spelling, and other features, but the Beowulf manuscript cannot. For many manuscripts of the period, we know from medieval library catalogues that they survived in the monastery where they were written, or in another known location, until the Reformation, and then we can trace how they ended up in the hands of antiquaries of the Tudor period. For Beowulf, we cannot. That probably means that the manuscript comes from a monastery isolated from royally- or episcopally-sponsored contemporary developments in book culture, or a place from which, for whatever reason, nothing else survives. We have no solid evidence that anybody read it between around the time it was written down and the modern age. In other words, its importance in the modern canon is entirely unlike its status in its own day, or in the later Middle Ages.
In sum, we know that it is an English poem about the Scandinavian ancestral homeland of the English, as opposed to a Scandinavian poem—we’ll discuss the evidence for that as we read—but beyond that we can’t be more specific.

The poem’s verse form
Beowulf is in the standard verse form of the vast majority of Old English poetry, which is organized around two half-lines linked by alliteration, with major stress and alliteration falling on the most important words. Normally, though not always, two words in the first half-line of a line alliterate with one word in the second half-line. Modern editors usually print the OE verse with some extra space between half-lines so you can tell where the break falls.
The verse is not metrical or accentual in the sense of classical Greek or Latin or later English verse. That is, it does not have a consistent number or pattern of long and short syllables or a regular alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. It has four major stresses per line, three of which (sometimes two of which) alliterate, with a variable number of unstressed syllables between.
The Anglo-Saxons did not describe their own verse system (though they did write extensively about Latin meter, were well aware of how it worked, and wrote extensively in it). They wrote their poems out as prose, not in verse lines (though they always wrote Latin meter in verse lines). The “rules” of Old English verse are derived by modern scholars from a study of the suriving corpus. The scholarly reasoning about what constitutes “good” or “correct” OE verse tends to be somewhat circular: the “rules” are derived primarily from studying Beowulf; other (later? earlier?) poems that do not follow those rules are deemed to have fallen off from or not yet achieved that standard, and lines in Beowulf that do not follow those rules are deemed corrupt. Yet no Anglo-Saxon ever, as far as we know, said what the standard was or that Beowulf embodied it.
For more than you want to know, or if you’re very keen on meter, see http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/Tutorials/old-english-metre-a-brief-guide .
We will talk more about how the language works as poetry when we start discussing our reading together.

How does it fit into the corpus of other surviving Anglo-Saxon verse?
About 30,000 lines of verse in Old English survives, so Beowulf is about 10% of the total. (There is much, much more verse written by the Anglo-Saxons in Latin.)
There is no other explicit reference in the OE corpus to the contents of the Beowulf poem we know, but it has been demonstrated fairly convincingly that the author of the OE poem Andreas, a heroic treatment of the life of St. Andrew, alludes to Beowulf and must have known the poem. (If the Andreas poet knew Beowulf, that would support a comparatively early date for Beowulf, but it’s not definitive, since Andreas is itself undated.)
Almost all of the surviving OE verse is in four manuscripts of the 10th century, “the four poetic codices.” The Beowulf manuscript is one of these. The fact that most of the surviving manuscripts are from the 10th or very early 11th century has to do with the fact that that was a period of unusual stability following the Viking attacks of the 9th century, a time when there were enough generations of relative peace for literary and scribal culture to rebuild. In the later 10th century, there was substantial royal and ecclesiastical patronage of the writing and copying of books, including lots of work in the vernacular.

Coming later this week: links and recommendations for texts, translations, recordings, background reading, and Tolkien’s Beowulf scholarship.
Questions on the foregoing are welcome. Fire away in comments.

submitted by reallycarin to StoriesWeLove [link] [comments]


2018.10.13 11:53 SecretOfTheOdds Ruthless globalized socioeconomic competition under dwindling resources has sabotaged relationships and human interaction

Long-distance relationships are so challenging.
But one thing though.
..A couple living each a few hours away from their partner, is not LDR.
No customs/border crossings, no visas, no language barriers.
Simply a bit of driving. Easy.
People do that DAILY - for work, because say they feel they need both their country home & urban workplace, if at least for a time, and won't compromise.
Less extreme is those who'll do the trek each week. Maybe 3 whole weekends a month with the SO? Np, definitely satisfying, at least for some time till one moves closer.
So then what's the real problem? Why won't they move to live closer to one another..?
..It's the parents. The costs, paperwork, responsibilities of moving away from their misguided meddling grasp.
Meaning most young people stay 'at home' with their parents for eternizing lengths of time almost purely due to economic obstacles.
Why do we accept a society in which the access & affordability to simple housing is under the entire arbitrary control of capricious, abusive landlords?
..Then there's the need for both attending school + 1-3 jobs.
Wtf is that?
Why do we accept and normalize that this absurd unhealthy restless lifestyle is what pre-career adults in industrialized society must go through, sometimes for life..?!
In conclusion it appears evident by and large that the biggest factor ruining love in our society is socioeconomics.
Overworked, stressed, abused, impatient, out of time & energy - this becomes the default condition of modern lovers and daters, causing most to live through awful relationships in which they act poorly, and then be very quick to reject subsequent candidates afterwards in panic reaction to prevent the same trauma re-occuring.
submitted by SecretOfTheOdds to LateStageCapitalism [link] [comments]


2016.12.31 23:31 concreteroads Reflecting on Every (Mainstream) Makeup Product Purchased in 2016

Idea borrowed from u/mackythreetoes! I decided to leave out indie purchases, as we'd be in for a ten-part series if I reviewed every indie makeup product and perfume I tried this year. I also excluded some beauty items also purchased at Sephora, such as makeup bags and bunettes. All in all, I spent $1108 at Sephora this year, which I'm not proud of.
June: (Yeah, it was definitely the last half/quarter of the year that really got me.)
August:
September:
October:
welcome to a train wreck NovembeDecember:
Final Thoughts : So. This was a bad year, obviously, full of varying degrees of bad choices and impulse control issues. What's more horrifying is as you can see, this only started happening in June! (And really, more like August-September.) So I managed to rack up all of these wild purchases in the span of just a few months, and now I have a crapton of stuff I have barely touched (cough SO MANY FUCKING PALETTES WHY PAST-ME WHY?). I did escalate my makeup usage this term, but not nearly enough to compensate for the craziness. Admittedly, a pretty significant chunk of my purchases this year was skincare, which I got super obsessed with in 2016 and which I get the mentality, because I've had some major skin issues back in August and then again in the past 1-2 months, which has really sucked. Reducing spending is going to be a major part of my 2017 MUR goals, and I'm also going to do Reverse Rouge, which will hopefully pressure me into using a lot of this stuff up.
submitted by concreteroads to MakeupRehab [link] [comments]


2016.10.09 22:57 ellengau 5 Annoying Dating Behaviors That People Need To Stop

For all the single people out there, I know it’s hard to find someone you’re interested in and you’re all tired of people asking why you’re single and that there-must-be-something-wrong-with-you look. BUT. Frankly, part of what’s hard about dating is because of you. Yes, you. You, single people, make it unnecessarily harder for each other. How?
Here’s the list of 5 annoying things daters need to stop doing:
1. The Waiting Game
When you first get someone’s phone number, the first text is always nerve-wrecking because you don’t know how the person will respond to you. So, you sit back and try to chill even though you’re obviously not chill, then you decide to shoot a friendly, cute text. Twenty minutes later, finally, a text comes through. You’re so happy. But wait! It takes them 20 minutes to text back and you definitely don’t want to seem too eager or desperate or the worst of all, thirsty! So you wait for 25 minutes before you hit the send button. And again they take 25 minutes. You want to top them so you wait half an hour. And so…
Oh. My. Gosh. STAPH!
What are you doing?? If you are interested in someone, let them know! Life is too short for any mind game and love is not a game. Chances are that by the time you’re done with your waiting and trying to be cool, they have already met someone hotter who actually pays attention and shows interest in them and lived happily ever after with three kids and four cats. Okay. That’s an exaggeration, but you get the point. Next time if you are not sure what you should do, just ask yourself this: If you are interested in someone, would you mind if they reply promptly to you and give you a call after a good date? Or you’re more than glad? Vice versa, if someone is actually turned off by these straight-forward, firm expressions of interest, they are not that into you and they are probably not worth your time anyway. So, save the insecurities and hassles and go get what you want, tigers!
2. Flakiness
There are many types of flakiness but they all have one thing in common: they get on my nerves! Maybe you need to send your sick brother to the hospital or your team at work suddenly calls you in for an urgent meeting, it shouldn’t happen every time you are supposed to meet up with someone, right? If it’s just that you’re not interested and you change your mind, then be honest to the other person about it. I’m sure anyone would thank you for that because no one likes to be cancelled again and again, especially at last minute when they have already turned down someone else’s invitation for you. If you’re interested but inherently flaky, you need to make more effort because flakiness shows inconsideration and disrespect of other people’s time and feelings. It is a huge turn-off. Also, flaky people are unreliable. Unreliable people are undatable.
3. Last-minute planning
“Hey, what are you doing tonight? Fancy going to see a movie or something? X”
I got this text from a guy I was sort of seeing after he ignored my last text for two days and I did not want to reply because I generally do not respond well to last minute plans and also, I was legitimately busy at the time. About 40 minutes later, he had the gut to give me a call. It was a missed call before I even had time to react. I was like, what the hell is up with this guy? He could be inconsiderate of my time but got impatient when I did not reply right away to him? Well, in this case, it was apparent that he wasn’t that into me so he behaved that way. However, the point stays true. Last minute planning is inconsiderate and totally kills the exciting anticipation before the date. Where’s gone the days when a guy actually calls a girl to ask her out on a date that’s set up carefully because he wants to have a good time with her? Or at least, yeah, modern day version for both genders, call or text to make a firm plan to see each other and stick to it. That’s good enough.
4. Saying empty words
We must meet up soon. Let’s hang out next week. OMG, we should go to that together. Aaaaaaaand, right, it never happens. I know, I know, people might mean it when they say it but later they simply change their mind for whatever reason but I also know there are people who carelessly say it for the sake of saying it. They will suggest hanging out but never actually make the plan or they accept the invitation to hang out but cancel when the date is close. If it happens between friends, it’s bad enough but it’s even more annoying when it comes to dating as romantic feelings are involved and investments of time and effort are made. Everyone wants to know what’s going on! Seriously, it’s really not that hard to be a decent person: Say what you mean and mean what you say. This way, the deals are clear on the table and no one can be blamed for leading people on, causing disappointments or ultimately breaking hearts.
5. Missing in action (or the disappearing act)
This is not uncommon. This usually happens after a few dates or even months of dating. There are several understandable reasons why people do this, for example they don’t know how to break the news that they are no longer interested and M.I.A is easy. Who doesn’t like easy especially when confrontation is potentially full of drama? Surely, no one owes anyone anything, even a closure, because heck, this is 2016, we are all doing casual, sort-of seeing, kind-of talking. There is no relationship so there is no break-up talk. In fact, any talk would be weird. It’s true but still, again, people deserve to know what’s going on so that they could make decisions for themselves and move on. It might come as a surprise to you but people take it better when you have the decency to meet up with them and openly talk about whatever there is between you two than when you disappear abruptly. The main point is that, you’re being decent. Your decency might save someone two months of therapy (and yes, please think of the poor friends and family and kind internet people who have to listen to their endless whining, questioning, over-dramatizing as to why you just stop calling, are you dead??)
It’s sad how these days, decency, respect, common courtesy are no longer the basic requirements but more of the surprising factors, the extra points, the desirable qualities. Are we too used to being treated badly that we are starting to think it is the new normal? Or the pool is getting smaller and smaller and we are becoming really desperate that we grab whatever is given to us? Or that we simply suck at setting our own boundaries and sticking to them? I don’t know about you but I know that I would like to be treated with care and respect and I will try my best to treat people that way. Hopefully, by this, the dating world will get better for all the single people out there.
For more visit
submitted by ellengau to dating_advice [link] [comments]


2013.02.20 02:51 HealthyandHappy Hey everyone, few questions for a potential new resident.

Hey, everyone. 6ish months ago I posted a short summary of my current life situation and asked for information about the city. Everyone on this subreddit was obscenely helpful, and really steered me in the direction of Lincoln. Now that it has finally come time for me to move, however, I've still got a bit of anxiety over it. I'm sure a lot is due in part to the fact that I've lived in Jersey/Philadelphia my entire life.
Okay, so I'll try to summarize my situation and my questions as simply as possible.
So, finances- Coming in with 50K. Probably more like 40k after moving. I also get another 40k in 2 and a half years. 1400 a month from my trust fund (My mom passed away). No debt
Okay, so, questions. -As much as I like Lincoln, I was also looking into Omaha. Originally, I wanted to move to FoCo, but I decided it was just not financially viable. I'm very into nature and convenience, which tend to butt heads a lot. I like to spend my time outside, and riding my bicycle is one of my greatest joys. I would very much like to not have to use my vehicle at all, but it seems Lincoln is not going to be hospitable towards that lifestyle.
-It seems that a lot of the apartment complexes/rentals are much older in Lincoln than they are in Omaha. I'm finding all of these cool lofts and modern apartments in Omaha for the cost of what look to be older residences in Lincoln. Do I just suck at searching or is this the case? I have a 15 pound dog, by the way.
I suppose my largest concerns are convenience and socializing related. When I move, I am looking to attend the local community college until I'm considered a resident (I'm going to pay out of pocket that first year of CC), and will then transfer to UNL, or another school in the locale of where I'm going to be living. I went to Rutgers in Jersey and received federal aid for 3.5 years, so I'm not sure how many more years I'd qualify for?
Because my trust fund is not taxed, I got a full ride. I'd expect the same in Lincoln, but I'm not sure how many years fafsa grants you. I believe it's 6? If so, that means that I'd be able to do a college education for the cost of 3 semesters at the county college, which I would pay out of pocket.
For the most part, I'm looking to not deplete the money I have prior to finishing school.
Is this all doable? With my current finances, is Lincoln a place where I can attend school, date pretty ladies, and ride my bike/walk around most places all while finding a somewhat decent pet friendly apartment? I'm not opposed to working to provide supplemental income and slow the rate in which I tap into my savings, but I'd want a low responsibility job that I could work on the weekends. Are these easy to find?
I sincerely apologize for this not being a well formed message. Also, thanks so much, from the experiences I've had I've not seen a nicer group of people than I have on this subreddit.
Best, Tom
submitted by HealthyandHappy to lincoln [link] [comments]