I gave dating the finger
Aug. 2nd, 2002 08:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
intjonathanSo I was going to write this huge essay called "I gave dating the finger" about how I saw gender relations and how I figured on finding a mate etc etc. Totally seperate from specific incident, of course, but something I felt compelled to write simply so I could be sure I was approaching things clearly. That and it seemed like a good way to stir up argument, which is always fun.
Anyway if I was going to bastardize Josh Harris' title, I might as well know my way around his book. Having never read it, I glanced at the summary, swiped his introductions, and began defining my terms of philosophical deductive argument. Everything was going peachy until I glanced at his conclusions. Hmmmmm. Now believe me when I say that I arrived at my ideas totally independent of Mr. Harris' work. Not that I ever thought of what I was going to write as revolutionary, but I figured at least it would be different from a large and published work. His focus looks a lot more "relationship with God" than mine ever was. Mine was founded on two principles: All exclusive relationships end in one of two ways: breakup or marriage, and breakup = bad. Consequently, do not enter an exclusive relationship unless you want it to end in marriage. Granted that's a gross simplification but it's a very different process than Mr. Harris used. I knew that much, so I thought maybe our conclusions were different? Not at all. I had mate relations split into four parts: friends -> close friends -> courting -> marriage. Mr. Harris used exactly the same things! D'oh!
I'm not sure what all this means, I guess I'll have to read the book now, but most likely I'll just be nodding along, going "duh, Josh." This is all so weird I'm still trying to process it while I write. I had all this planned out, you know, all my tricky turns of evidence and phrase. For naught, I suppose. That's not to say it doesn't have value for it's audience, and I might still write it because it's fun, but it's going to owe a heavy debt to one book and lose a lot of it's initial value because of it. What a shame.
To stir up the controversy my essay couldn't, I want to talk about this in light of my failed attempt to come up with something different - I'd love to hear from you. If you think Josh Harris is a crazy sumbitch and dating rul3z, I'd still love to hear from you. I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have now that many of us and our friends are approaching marriage age and watching friends do crazy adult things like raise kids. How differently do you see dating now that you're older? Are there principles you once believed that you now reject and vice versa? How carefully do you consider the outcome of a relationship before you enter one? Has that changed as you've grown up? What the hell is my problem anyway and why can't I find a nice girl and get to smooching? Does any of this matter if you're in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vbhrepresent or are Josh "Cavemen had it Right" Adams?
Leave a comment or else.
Anyway if I was going to bastardize Josh Harris' title, I might as well know my way around his book. Having never read it, I glanced at the summary, swiped his introductions, and began defining my terms of philosophical deductive argument. Everything was going peachy until I glanced at his conclusions. Hmmmmm. Now believe me when I say that I arrived at my ideas totally independent of Mr. Harris' work. Not that I ever thought of what I was going to write as revolutionary, but I figured at least it would be different from a large and published work. His focus looks a lot more "relationship with God" than mine ever was. Mine was founded on two principles: All exclusive relationships end in one of two ways: breakup or marriage, and breakup = bad. Consequently, do not enter an exclusive relationship unless you want it to end in marriage. Granted that's a gross simplification but it's a very different process than Mr. Harris used. I knew that much, so I thought maybe our conclusions were different? Not at all. I had mate relations split into four parts: friends -> close friends -> courting -> marriage. Mr. Harris used exactly the same things! D'oh!
I'm not sure what all this means, I guess I'll have to read the book now, but most likely I'll just be nodding along, going "duh, Josh." This is all so weird I'm still trying to process it while I write. I had all this planned out, you know, all my tricky turns of evidence and phrase. For naught, I suppose. That's not to say it doesn't have value for it's audience, and I might still write it because it's fun, but it's going to owe a heavy debt to one book and lose a lot of it's initial value because of it. What a shame.
To stir up the controversy my essay couldn't, I want to talk about this in light of my failed attempt to come up with something different - I'd love to hear from you. If you think Josh Harris is a crazy sumbitch and dating rul3z, I'd still love to hear from you. I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have now that many of us and our friends are approaching marriage age and watching friends do crazy adult things like raise kids. How differently do you see dating now that you're older? Are there principles you once believed that you now reject and vice versa? How carefully do you consider the outcome of a relationship before you enter one? Has that changed as you've grown up? What the hell is my problem anyway and why can't I find a nice girl and get to smooching? Does any of this matter if you're in
vbhrepresent or are Josh "Cavemen had it Right" Adams? Leave a comment or else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: my ten cents, two cents are free
Date: 2002-08-09 03:40 pm (UTC)I call the rock I hide under the "lutheran bretheren church". We are firm believers in heartache and scars, apparantly. I'm the outsider at my church for not having a girlfriend. And all that stuff went under my homeschool radar, or maybe it was before my time.
You say everybody gets burned from dating. What if everybody didn't? I'm not out to call dating Beast and cry for its abolition, but I will make it exceedingly clear that I feel there's a better way. I mean, given the choice - and I was - wouldn't you try and select the best way to find a mate? One that minimized suckiness/heartbreak/pregnancy? I think open selection is a very important step if you want to decide how to approach an important decision such as this.
Now, it's a bit odd to discuss this with someone for who discusses dating in past-perfect tense (pot to kettle: you are black) so I'm not going to try and change your mind. But I do want to correct a misunderstanding.
That is correct only in the letter of the theory, and misses the point. There is a stage necessary before courtship. Harris' idea is to remove the exclusive nature of dating and call that stage "purposeful intimacy". I just called it "close friendship", but it's basically the same thing. The stage is there because Harris thinks, as I do, that you don't need to be in an exclusive relationship to decide whether you want to start courting someone. While you are right in saying that courting is not to be taken lightly, the system does make amends for the decision to be an informed one.
Also, courtship is NOT engagement. Every system of mating needs to have a period of exclusive relations outside marriage, courting is Harris'. It's dating as you know it, but it takes place later and with a different outcome in mind.
I am glad that dating worked for you and that you do not regret your decisions. That is wonderful and you are very lucky. I also think that if you want to come across as convincing, a lot of "fuck that"s will not aid your case. But I digress. You seem to like your opinions and you may keep them. Though frankly it seems you hardly need them anymore.