@tb1570:
First, semantics. You are probably right that I have a very restricted view of dating. To me, dating has an element of chance—in that the person you want to date may decide to turn you down. I.e., you are not yet in an established relationship. I don’t think that going to the movies with your established “girlfriend” should be considered a date. I mean, it’s more of a “what are going to do, tonight, dear” kind of thing. If you consider that a date, that could explain our different understanding of the term.
As to my wife. I gave her rides home after the dance workshop. It wasn’t planned; it was just that we were going in the same direction. Each time we reached her destination, we spent an hour talking in the car before she got out. The third time, she invited me up. The rest, as they say, was history. Does unplanned talking in the car count as a date?
Commodification: Yes, I think women do it as much as men do it. At its crudest, where women are sex objects, men are success objects. Of course, it is a great deal subtler than that. I think it depends on your approach to your relationship to your potential partner. If you “date” them expressly with the idea of evaluating them, I would consider that “commodification.” If you date them in order to have fun together, doing something you both enjoy, and that is the goal, then I would not consider that commodification.
Now, I do think your point about not leading people on or giving false hopes, etc, is a very good point. It is proper courtesy. Also, I don’t necessarily think commodification is a bad thing. I think it’s a less fruitful approach, but certainly relationships started with dating can turn into relationships based on a love for the other person, not just a determination if they fit your profile of a marriage partner.
Of course, this does depend on a mutual understanding of the other person’s goals in the date. If you are both evaluating each other, and you explicitly understand this, then sure, cut it off as soon as you think they don’t fit your profile. That’s the way the game is played these days. You could argue that’s the way the game has always been played. I.e., the idea that marriages are always economic relationships.
If you use a broadened definition of economic, you can include things like taste in music, movies and drinking; desire for children or not; where you want to live; politics; sexual compatibility; whatever you want. You are testing them to see if they fit, and if not, on to the next person. I think that dehumanizes people, and that’s why I think it’s commodification.
My underlying idea in this, is that I don’t believe people really know fully what they want. There’s more to a relationship than we can consciously know. Also, I don’t believe in the soulmate idea. There’s not just one person, there are many people we could happily mate with, if we have the skills to work a relationship. There’s some kernel inside the heart of a relationship that is inexpressible in words. That kernel can be built. It doesn’t just have to be there from the first date, like magic. If you commodify a date, you’ll never get to find out if that kernel is possible to build.
Anyway, that’s just my way of seeing things. I do believe a lot of people are unhappy because of how they approach finding a partner. I think a lot of divorces occur because people believe in magic, not in work. People expect the magic to magically continue, and when it doesn’t they think they made the wrong choice, and it’s time to bug out.
I’m sure we disagree on this. That’s cool. Probably I’m “wrong” in the sense that I don’t represent the feeling of very many people. But maybe I’m right, and maybe if people took my way of doing things, they might end up happier in more solid relationships. We won’t know unless we test this.