From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Second paragraph makes no sense. Danielle Crittenden agrees with herself?


The Notes section is garbled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


The tone of this article makes it very hard for me to take seriously.

"In The Guardian, British writer Hannah Pool was cynical about being set up on a blind date; she was told "basically he's you but in a male form" by the mutual friend. She googled her blind date's name along with the words "wife" and "girlfriend" and "partner" and "boyfriend" to see whether her prospective date was in any kind of relationship or gay; he wasn't any of these things. She met him for coffee in London and she now lives with him, sharing a home and business. When friends introduce two people who do not know each other, it is often called a blind date."

Just one example. This is not an acceptable style of writing for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain further what is meant by your sense of "appropriate". The example above, regarding Hannah Pool, was about a blind date, which is clearly relevant to the article's subject, which is dating, and how she went about trying to remove some of the 'blindness' (ie googling her date's name ahead of time). I think the tone is appropriate to the subject, and appropriate to Wikipedia, and the article is well-referenced and covers the subject well, but of course could always use further improvement. Would you prefer the entire article to have an academic-sounding tone (eg, "Studies show conclusively, based on double-blind comparative analysis, that first dates tend to last 2.3 hours, on average") ? A research-y tone (eg, "X% of women on a first date received a followup contact Y days later, with Z% probability of it turning into a second date") The tone of the current Wikipedia article, in many respects, picks up the same tone as used by newspapers and magazines, which treats the subject as a human-interest type story, a study of social customs and behaviors, which it is, often with anecdotes and mini-stories, which works in this context. My sense is trying to make this article too clinical, by examining dating with some kind of scientific microscope, is headed in the wrong direction. In many respects, dating is a light topic, needing a light touch, mirroring how dating in real life should happen, that is, a person on a date, taking the date too seriously, won't do it properly. Dating, as well as studying dating, or writing about dating here in Wikipedia, should not be done too seriously, if you catch my drift -- seriousness and dating are antithetical, mutually exclusive almost, in the sense that trying to be too serious about dating gets it wrong, while treating the light topic of dating in a light way, gets it right, if that makes any sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dating" as euphemism for "sleeping with"[edit]

The article accurately describes the phenomenon known as "dating". But as I am sure most readers are aware, at some point in history, at least in coverage of celebrities, the term "dating" morphed into a synonym for "sleeping with": a story about a celebrity previously thought to be heterosexual but who now reveals that he or she is actually bisexual will be worded : "X admitted that (s)he has dated several [members of the same sex as the celebrity] in the past". Or an article about a celebrity's recent love life will say "After being in a relationship with so-and-so for ten years, Y has now been dating Z for the last six months".

Can anyone expand on this change in the sense of the term? Partnerfrance (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering "sleeping with" as used here is moreover a euphemism for "having sex with," any clarification should be more precise, and not merely imprecise but in a different way.2600:1:D338:BB5E:AB07:4362:C8C1:A013 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Dating. Am I right?

In many cultures around the world, dating is a serious family matter, which is based on its culture and social values; where parents believe in arranged married or at least to make sure that their children get marry at certain age.  In contrast in the United States, individualism theory plays an important role in how singles value and date others.  In America, whom to date is mainly a personal decision rather than parents’ influences. Parents expect their children to get married though, but is their son or daughter’s whom choice when and who they want to marry.  Middle class tend to priorities other goals before consider dating someone for a serious relationship, such as: to get a college degree, get a job, and then date their future spouse and settle down.  Before the internet era, some American would meet their prospective husband or wife in college, through friends, at work, etc.  But now is very popular that singles are trying to meet people on websites and from cell phone applications.  Dating people online can create other social issues.  For example, some individuals might get in the illusion that there are so many singles out there looking for a mate, therefore they can get in to a bad habit of constantly meeting new people, because they have so many choices, might think that would meet the perfect someone when is real life there is no perfect person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piramide100? (talkcontribs) 02:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Double dates[edit]

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)

External links[edit]

I know we try to discourage external links, but I came upon a YouTube video which is highly instructive about online dating. Check out this video. It's not selling anything that I can see, just it's a smart approach to "hacking" online dating, using smarts and math and figuring out what one wants. I think it belongs in an external links section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymologically speaking[edit]

"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 (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. (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Dating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dating among children impossible?[edit]

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)