Article: The Dating Game

[Rowsbette]

Many a time have I found myself sneering at vapid chick-lit, or self-help books such as The Rules in bookstores: sorely tempted to purchase them in order to enable me to find out more about the Bridget-Jones-esque dating culture I so irrationally despise. Thoughts of such a book invading my bookshelves like a bad smell (possibly even rendering my wee collection of feminist literature null and void) always convinced me to refrain from wasting my money. However, when I saw a copy of Jo Hemmings’ The Dating Game (a £9.99 book) going for a mere ten pence in Bookworld on Sauchiehall Street today, I just couldn’t resist.

On a positive note, Jo Hemmings isn’t the “how to meet Mr Right and bully him up the aisle” lady I anticipated: her attitude is more “let’s have a laugh for the moment.” It’s still, in essence, a book for women wanting men to like them. As I said in another article, the problem with the flood of relationship self-help books floating about...

Click here to read the entire review

[nevali]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

Aye, stop dicking about playing games...if you fancy someone, just tell them and get on with the humping....

But the REJECTION. Ooooh. The rejection.

Actually, I'm really shy, I'll rarely come out and do the "ach, I fancy you" thing; just seems to backfire horribly. Probably because the people I have said it to have tended to do the "well, I'm flattered, but...". Perhaps I unintentionally use it as a last resort when the person seems completely oblivious to me just blatantly being (and acting) keen on them.

Doesn't stop happening though, if it's going to. Have a bit of chat, turns into flirtatious banter, then you get the prickles on your neck, exchange a look, and you realise you're actually feeling quite flushed and for once it's not the vodka...

Y'know, that actually is one of the best feelings in the world.

[¡Punk!]

Who actually goes on "dates" anyway? All the girls I've ended up going out with I've sorta met through friends and spent a while talking away to them at the pub as part of a group or whatever for a while anyway so I only really go to the pictures, restaurant, etc. with them after we've been seeing each other for a while.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by nevali

But the REJECTION. Ooooh. The rejection.

Ach...fuck the rejection, it's gonna happen sooner or later

Better to find out straight away that she thinks your a minger than waste weeks trying to subtly find out from various friends and private detectives if she's actually clinically insane or not.

You have to take the risk....If you dont stick your head over the top of the trench and let them shoot at you, you'll never know if they're snipers or just some large breasted honey with a gun.

Did that last bit make ANY sense to anyone apart from me?

Al

[Foxglove]

You see, this is where things get all blurred. "Being in a relationship", "shagging exclusively", "dating", "seeing", "getting it on", "going out with" and the numerous other terms we all use amount to the same thing. The article is entitled "The Dating Game" but is not about just the term "dating" but any other connotation as far as I see it. However we dress it up, whatever term is used, it all amounts to the same thing doesn't it and it is this "thing" Rowsbette has written her article about.

The so called rules that these self help books on relationships set down to "help" people who read them is what is being discussed inthe article, not if "dating" exists (which I can't see anyone can really suggest doesn't). There have been threads on AN on the same kind of topic that amaze me with some people's self righteous attitudes and judgmental statements.

What I got from this article is Rowsbette's view that life, relationships, dating, however you term these things would be so much better and successful if we just accept that we are all different and that there is no right or wrong way to handle things but that whilst books like The Rules exist the "game" remains within our society and that is not a healthy or positive thing. If I am correct in how I read the article I totally agree with the view. If we are all different and are looking at different criteria with such things, then there cannot be rules and to place any or suggst their should be some to be "successful" just confines us to a meaningless and unnecessary box. What works for me may not work for you but it does not make anyone wrong.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by Foxglove

You see, this is where things get all blurred. "Being in a relationship", "shagging exclusively", "dating", "seeing", "getting it on", "going out with" and the numerous other terms we all use amount to the same thing. The article is entitled "The Dating Game" but is not about just the term "dating" but any other connotation as far as I see it. However we dress it up, whatever term is used, it all amounts to the same thing doesn't it and it is this "thing" Rowsbette has written her article about.

The so called rules that these self help books on relationships set down to "help" people who read them is what is being discussed inthe article, not if "dating" exists (which I can't see anyone can really suggest doesn't). There have been threads on AN on the same kind of topic that amaze me with some people's self righteous attitudes and judgmental statements.

What I got from this article is Rowsbette's view that life, relationships, dating, however you term these things would be so much better and successful if we just accept that we are all different and that there is no right or wrong way to handle things but that whilst books like The Rules exist the "game" remains within our society and that is not a healthy or positive thing. If I am correct in how I read the article I totally agree with the view.

See...trust a woman to come along and spoil our male bonding/therapy session.....cant bloody trust them!!!

[nevali]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

Ach...fuck the rejection, it's gonna happen sooner or later

Better to find out straight away that she thinks your a minger than waste weeks trying to subtly find out from various friends and private detectives if she's actually clinically insane or not.

See, I don't actually think that's necessarily true; see, in physical attractiveness that might be the case, but I often find I'll find somebody (more) attractive once I get to know them, and although I'd possibly not consider anything at first sight, I maybe would after a bit of chat. So, aye, I'm wary of jumping in feet first. That said, if it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen. You'll find out sooner or later... but if I'm getting on well with somebody anyway I'd rather leave things as they are than cause an awkward shuffle and a swift termination of a conversation.

You have to take the risk....If you dont stick your head over the top of the trench and let them shoot at you, you'll never know if they're snipers or just some large breasted honey with a gun.

Did that last bit make ANY sense to anyone apart from me?

Worringly, yes.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by Punk

Who actually goes on "dates" anyway?

Weird, fucked up people who think it's weird and fucked up not to go on dates. Quite often they end up marrying people they don't like, just like their parents did.

[¡Punk!]

What's with the German?

[Rowsbette]

Thanks, kids. Didn't think this'd get such a massive response.

Originally Posted by Foxglove

What I got from this article is Rowsbette's view that life, relationships, dating, however you term these things would be so much better and successful if we just accept that we are all different and that there is no right or wrong way to handle things.

Bingo.
I know there's been a whole lotta "who ACTUALLY goes on dates anyway?" responses, but, as Foxglove says, it's not just about dating as such. I'm sure everyone's uttered that horrible, horrible line "Should I call him/her?" and (although it may be something of a chicken/egg situation) I reckon these self-help books have a lot to answer for on that count. Even if you've never been subjected to one, you probably know the gist.

Glad to hear that you lot seem to share my view on this, but the fact remains that there's plenty of these books about, and they seem to sell damn well. I doubt everyone who buys one is just looking for a cheap laugh, as I was.

[Woolies]

Originally Posted by Punk

What's with the German?

equal opportunites innit



this post worked so much better without the need for the quote, as being ambiguous whether I was jokingly replying to Punk or vaguely commenting on the article topic, I was just too slow

[Mauler]

Good article .

My relationship at the moment started off as a one night stand three months ago, completely in love and all that shite. But i think it all come down to morals and taste in that sort of thing.

[Foxglove]

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

Weird, fucked up people who think it's weird and fucked up not to go on dates. Quite often they end up marrying people they don't like, just like their parents did.

That is a little harsh!

As I said above, I think most people do "date" even if they use another term for it, and most people (not all and that is the point of the article, it is a personal choice) want the whole marriage and babies thing. I think the way you have written this may well offend many people on here and certainly there are a lot of people who want the conventional type relationship that these books are trying to teach people how to achieve. It doesn't matter if you want it, it is all about what people as individual's want is it not, whether it is the way you want to live your life or it goes against what you want from life?

[Largest of Als]

Self help/dating advice books always seem to be full of what can only be described as 'common sense'.

Anyone stupid enough not to realise thats all they should be using deserves to pay £30 for them and waste days reading them....


Sorry, my opinion...


Al

[nevali]

Originally Posted by Foxglove

That is a little harsh!

As I said above, I think most people do "date" even if they use another term for it, and most people (not all and that is the point of the article, it is a personal choice) want the whole marriage and babies thing. I think the way you have written this may well offend many people on here and certainly there are a lot of people who want the conventional type relationship that these books are trying to teach people how to achieve. It doesn't matter if you want it, it is all about what people as individual's want is it not, whether it is the way you want to live your life or it goes against what you want from life?

Ach, but the books focus on how to achieve that, and the comments reflect that. It's not about the end-game so much. I don't think anybody's out to call somebody odd for wanting a relationship, just for the ways of going about it.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by Woolies

equal opportunites innit



this post worked so much better without the need for the quote, as being ambiguous whether I was jokingly replying to Punk or vaguely commenting on the article topic, I was just too slow

You're big mod man! Can't you sorta.. do the ol' switcharoo?