« i got nothing. | Main | Measure in, tears? »

October 21, 2005

The Philosophy of Dating

I recently had a talk with a friend of mine about the perceptions of dating. Tell me, what would you answer him? Were he and "Bob" out on a date?

him: for instance, if I went out with Bob here, and bob thought it was a date and I did not

him: would YOU consider that a date

me: it's a pefect example.

me: i would say bob was on a date, but you were not.

him: but then bob was on a date with me.

me: yes, but you werent on a date with him.

me: two people can be in the same place and process it as a different experience.

me: bob experienced a date, you experienced an outing.

him: right, but from the perspective of waiter...are we on a
date?

me: the waiter doesn't have enough information to determine what it was, lest he knew your intentions.

him: right, he is completely independent.

me: right, he doesn't have enough information to assess what
the event was.

him: so if someone asked him at gunpoint "are those 2 on a date". the honest answer woudl be?

me: he could assume, but he could never know.

me: or, he may have a different definition of date

him: hrm...interesting

me: maybe two people sharing a meal is a date, regardless of their intentions.

him: that is true...I find the definition swings wildly

me: it does.

Posted by lysa at October 21, 2005 12:55 PM

Comments

This is an arguement with which I am all too familiar. It is not a date unless the intentions of both participants (or more, depending on your personal tastes) are for it to be a date. If the intentions are unclear, one would hope it is definitely not a date as that level of communication is no way to conduct any kind of relationship.

Posted by: Karen at October 21, 2005 1:24 PM

I've so been on dates with guys who weren't on dates with me. Then again, to most men, dinner is just long and expensive foreplay.

Posted by: Scottie at October 21, 2005 9:00 PM

So by that last statement, i've been having dates with MY MOTHER??!?!?!?!

agghhh

Heres another opinion, I think a lot of people kid themselves that they're not on a date because it holds negative connotations and subversive hidden elements and other big words. So they'll convince themselves that what they're doing is not on a date, meanwhile they're playing tongue wrestling at the dinner table. And thats a date in any book (my favorite book). So when is it obviously a date?

Posted by: I at October 22, 2005 12:23 AM

It's a date if any parts of you are entering any orifices of theirs, or vice versa. Even if you are kidding yourself during the act.

Posted by: K at October 24, 2005 6:51 PM

It's a date.

Unless it has been determined that neither party wants anything to do with the other party. Both sides must agree on this or it's a date.
I don't care if you pay for your own dinner, if one party is interested in the other for more than friendship or company during a meal, then it's a date.
Yes, K. I am referring right to ya, babe.
I'm not angry, but you went on dates. while I was living with you. Period.
Fucking crybaby (him)

Wahhhh...I'm stupid as all hell! Wahhh...I want you back so please go to dinner with me as "friends"

mm hmm. Tell me that wasn't a date everyone?

Posted by: B at October 27, 2005 11:04 AM

B: What is that old saying about a dead horse?

Posted by: Scottie at October 27, 2005 12:36 PM

Again then, it going back to the original answer that it depends on the parties's perspective.
Her mind: Certainly not with his.

In his mind, total date.

From the waiter's perspective (and probably the best), it wasn't so much a date as a desperate houseman.

How you can tell its an obvious date:
1. Consentual embracing orifices at any time
2. Intentions to exchange bodily fluid are in both people's minds in the either immediate or distant future.
3. Flowers/gift exchange
4. Spontaneous discussion of how nice it would be to go somewhere with the other person ALONE.
5. Repeated requests to hang ceiling lights (hi bb!) on person's bed
6. Stubborn refusal to go dutch on the bill. There implies a need to impress, which i think also indicates a person wants it to be a date.
7. Repeated demonstrations by either party to point at their watch, simulating fellatio across the dinner table, pointing at the other party, and then finally smiling broadly while nodding.

Gnight everybody! Back to work.

Posted by: S at October 27, 2005 1:38 PM

let's get something straight, bb. The country kitchen was not a date. I didn't date, so therefor, it could not have been a date. Of course I had intentions of tackling you sometime shortly, but I still thought you were gay. Not a date.

Posted by: bb at October 28, 2005 6:30 PM

Trust the English teacher for this one...

The definition of "date":

an appointment to meet at a specified time; especially
a social engagement between two persons that often has a romantic character

We cannot ignore the wording of this definition. Especially the word "often". Note that the definition of "date" does not REQUIRE it to be romantic.

Thus, "bob" and the mysterious socialite are clearly, by definition, on a date.

The definition of "outing" (omitting the obviously irrelevant):

a brief usually outdoor pleasure trip
an athletic competition or race; also : an appearance therein
a usually public presentation or appearance (as in a particular role)

Now we get interesting. Could this [social event as yet to be defined] be an outing? According to the third definition...maybe. You see, the caveat in the definition really kind of adds a wrinkle. The "as in a particular role", e.g. "as Bob's date". Or, I suppose, "as Bob's escort (i.e. whore). Or, as Bob's "dining companion".

Let's not even get into the waiter. Who really gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what he thinks?

Need I go on? What's the real question here? If Bob thinks you're on a date, he'll act accordingly. If you don't think you are; you'll act accordingly. The waiter? He don't care; he just wants a big tip.

Since Lysa loves this word so much, I'll use it here (since she SPECIFICALLY made me comment):

Solipsism, from the Latin "solus" meaning "alone" and "ipse" meaning "self":

a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

Well, I guess we're all gonna think that we're right and that "our perception equals our reality".

Sigh. Why do teachers get out of bed in the morning?

Posted by: Reid at October 28, 2005 7:31 PM

Thank you Reid. This is what I'm fuckin' sayin!

Posted by: b at November 4, 2005 8:26 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?


MTIfAllowCommentHTML