Talk:Dating/Archive 2

Double dates
Double date redirects here, but the article doesn't mention them. Someone should explain what the purpose of them is. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Jim Michael, thank you for volunteering to add this section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking
"Dating" as a term began as a uniquely American term or expression for a uniquely American custom, or set of customs. It originally applied to a practice of adolescents i.e. teenagers in America probably beginning in the early-mid twentieth century, so far as I have been able to discern. Since, in that era, birth control pills were not in use, and penicillin hadn't been discovered girls saved themselves for marriage, which came early (for hygienic reasons) after a short courtship. What followed was grown up life, work, children, home, bills to pay etc. The term and the practice were both a bit fatuous (a date being the numerical designation of a day on a calendar, or a fruit growing on palms in the desert)and very significant and important matter for adolescents, i.e. foolish kids. q.v. "The American People A Study in National Character" — Geoffrey Gorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.37.70 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this is very important and needs to be pointed out in the article. In other english speaking countries the word dating was up until very recently seen as a kind of courtship known through Hollywood movies but not necessarily equal to local practice. This article comes across as using an American term to encapsulate all kinds of behaviour all over the world. It doesn't work because this implies that there is a universal type of behaviour here best described with this US centric term.62.30.148.131 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dating among children impossible?
The "Age Groups" section starts with "Dating can happen for people in most age groups with the possible exception of children.", a phrase I have issue with on a factual level. I'm assuming the use of the word children refers solely to prepubescent children though could be made clearer since it can also refer to pubescent preteens and teens under the age of 18 too. Even taking the word children to mean prepubescent child in this case, It's not really true that such children cannot ever "date", depending on how you define "dating" and how old the child is. Obviously, babies and toddlers cannot understand the concept of dating in any sense of the word and thus cannot date, even in a loose preteen "dating" sort of way. But take for example two 7 year old's (boy and a girl) who have a precocious romantic interest in each other. One day they go to the movies together with the girls mother chaperoning. They call it a date, at least between each other. Their parent's might view it as simply two friends going to the movies together but does that mean it's not a date in some loose sense? Even adults, according at least one study, are confused on what counts as a "date". Of course, most parent would object to the idea of their prepubescent child "dating", that is not the same a it being impossible, given that the definition of dating is not some well defined concept that by definition exclude the possible of prepubescent children would engaging in. I would suggest changing it to "with the possible exception of very young children" since that clarifies at least a bit what we are talking about. While were on the subject and darting and children or preteens, the article could use some info on what the current psychological advice for parents on the subject is. Currently, the generally advice is not to allow prepubescent children to go on formal dates though two childhood friends of the opposite sex going somewhere together with parental supervision (i.e. movies, playground, amusement park, sporting event, etc.) would not be considered harmful so long as it's treated as just two friends hanging out together (assuming the children are heterosexual). As for preteens, the rule seems to be that group dating is OK but not one-on-one dating. This of course leave open the question of two preteens going out with a parent together somewhere (where the parents views it as "not a date" but preteens view "as a date", is that harmful? What elements must be included (i.e. hand holding, kissing, romantic talk, etc. for it to be considered a "romantic date" and thus inadvisable/potentially harmful as far as many child psychiatrist argue? Basically, we need info in the article on what child psychiatrists believe about appropriate dating ages for different types of dating. I suggest creating a subsection in the Age Group section on "Dating and Preteens" to discuss current views on the subject. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:3859:41E4:101:5699 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're free to add content, but please reference them with reliable sources, and please be careful not to synthesize new material or create original research. I think the common sense of dating refers to humans who can become romantically and/or sexually involved, and trying to extend the concept to children, who are physically unable to copulate, seems problematic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Umm, well… unless you have a credible source, the common sense of dating is a great demonstration of blithely imposing O.R. as though fact. As well, this may demonstrate the much-feared synthesis. Further, you are being (at best) disingenous by avoiding mention of what YOU mean by the term "child" here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Look if you'd like to add a section on children dating, you're free to do so, just use references and context, but all I'm saying, and I think most everybody would agree, is that most people think of dating as between two physically-mature adults.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, your opinion does not matter. Neither do "common" opinions, so making the "any reasonable person will agree with me" argument is doubly specious.
 * Anyone beginning from any such basis commits the WP sin of synthesis. Go look into it. Worse, you avoid defining "adult" as you previously avoided defining "child", and possibly do not even grasp that there are articles such as Adult and Child that might aid you in clarifying your meaning.
 * (It's another mess anyway. Child says "Biologically, a child is generally anyone between birth and puberty" which Puberty says "begins between 10 and 13 years of age" so by your underlying reasoning clearly means you support sexual relations between 14-year-olds. These are the blind corners into which one walks when leaning heavily upon "obvious truths.")
 * Do not be so blinded by fantasies of wee bairns doing icky things that you cannot make a cogent argument. The concept "dating" is so vague as to include just about every human courtship and quasicourtship behavior, so despite your fears the fact is that two three-year-olds who prefer to hang out together and maybe sometimes toddle around holding hands (perhaps in imitation of what they see adults doing around them and in the media) could likely be said without sarcasm to "be dating." You are an editor; you are empowered to help clarify this mess. Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about adding a section on children dating? Remember to use reliable sources and use verifiable references. Give examples. The Wikipedia community awaits your addition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that what Tomwsulcer means is that, besides dating among adults, teen dating is covered in many reliable sources. This is especially true with regard to teen dating violence. But child dating? As in dating among preteens and prepubescents? No. But if you can provide reliable sources on "child dating," we'll obviously listen. And before you again claim that I am stalking you, I am not. This is just one of the many articles on my huge watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

still A++ UnGood
Really, the article is up for grabs on so many facets of ineptitude, and ANYONE who is willing to contribute ANY progressive editing ought be given great latitude.

For example, All that's just at a quick browse, and barely scratches the (sticky) surface.
 * the term blind date is used at least four times before any attempt is made to define the WTF term (and none of those instances links to Blind date).
 * given the existence of Blind date, the Hannah Pool fable is really superfluous here and removable.
 * furthermore, I say it's actually an NPOV problem: a very stereotypical "meet cute" inserted to propagandize the magical wonderfulness of "dating." Actually, it's just a demo of the propinquity effect, and illustrates people talking themselves into finding "good reasons" to become attached because that fantasy-building (and any buyer's remorse) is more comfortable than the cognitive dissonance of proving their matchmaker to be a pointless meddler.
 * and since Matchmaking exists, then almost all of Dating can go.
 * at 159K (and more lard by the day), the article is vastly bloated and, per Article size), ought to have AT LEAST 99K removed. Here's a start: separate the clutter into piles, like "social activities people engage in while on dates" as distinct from "stereotype courtship patterns leading toward stereotype marriage."
 * as noted above in Talk:Dating/Archive 2, "dating" was until rather recently pretty much a "Western" (U.S.) phenomenon, nothing at all like the complex (and often socially binding) premarital courtship processes of most other cultures, so in that sense "dating" ought be separate from "courtship." But instead we've got overeager editors gleefully stuffing "Courtship Traditions Around The World" into an article about a VERY limited subset.

In sum, seeing as there are Billyuns And Billyuns of books and articles about the wonders of dating, then it is entirely unnecessary for this page to be the central repository of all the nonsense that's scattered so freely about. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)