[georgex7]

(Hey - I wrote this.)

> It is far more likely to be learned behavior from culture, media, and just regular social dynamics.

Agreed that I should do more research here. I can't prove for certain this is the case. Thanks for the feedback. Though I do not think it is cultural: the fear exists in every country I've ever visited.

> Real relationships are rarely being formed through Tinder.

Stanford puts it at 39% for couples meeting online: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w...

> This person really read a poem to his fling? That reads so bizarre. The fact that the person thought he "would be taller" when they first met up was already a red flag.

It's funny (to many other people) because of how ridiculous it is. Go on a Tinder date, go back, hook up, and then go through the Wasteland and she couldn't be less interested. It's also a clear example of where we are at as a culture: sex, alienation, not a care in the world for substance.

> Doing something as strange as that in 2023 on top of it...

What happened in 2023? No one reads poems anymore?

[demetrius]

> No one reads poems anymore?

People don't force (potential) romantic partners to do things they don't want to do anymore.

This includes listening to poetry.

If one sees that other person is not interested in an action they're suggesting (and this includes looking at the manicure and at the wall), one just doesn't force them.

Consent is important not just in sex, consent is important in anything people do together. This includes communal poetry reading.

And in 2023, much more people talk about consent

[georgex7]

Thank you for answering in good faith.

> People don't force (potential) romantic partners to do things they don't want to do anymore.

Offering up poetry--that can be accepted or denied (and denied in the case of Anna)--is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. She was uninterested, fine, but that is part of the problem. Why does no one care about literature, poetry, and music that brings us more in touch with ourselves? She had her way--by going back to the bedroom--is that the world we want to live in? Or do we want to go deeper?

> Consent is important not just in sex

There are certain times that someone may not want to do something. For example, I have a friend who did not want to go to therapy, but he eventually went because his girlfriend cared about it. Offering literature, poetry, therapy, etc to another person is not violating their rights, it is trying to show them a world they maybe unfamiliar with and that may benefit them. We cannot end up in a society where if a person immediately does not have a taste for a certain "activity" we concede immediately under the guise of "consent."

[demetrius]

> but he eventually went because his girlfriend cared about it

What the girlfriend did was convince him to go, not bring therapist to the same room and start the session without him knowing in advance.

It's not a good idea to just dump your interests on someone. You need to get them interested first, convince something is interesting. For this, you learn more about the person first and then try to show how that poem is relevant to them.

Also, different people are different, have different experiences, and different works of art resonate with them. If The Waste Land helped you to "go deeper", it doesn't necessarily mean it would have the same effect on other people. And that is OK.

[georgex7]

Just completely disagree. If there is a song you like, it is a normal thing to start sharing it with someone. If they hate it, turn it off. Exactly what I did.

[asdadsdad]

I don't think there was a tone of forcing anyone to do anything.

[demetrius]

How else can you interpret the situation "I notice the signs that the person is not interested (looks at her nails, at the walls) but I continue, anyway"?

[georgex7]

I started reading poetry, she was uninterested, asked me to stop, I stopped. Where was there forcing?

[asdadsdad]

could she leave the house, perhaps?

[AnimalMuppet]

> > Real relationships are rarely being formed through Tinder.

> Stanford puts it at 39% for couples meeting online

"Meeting online" != "meeting on Tinder", though. Match, eHarmony, and the like are more tuned to "real" (i.e., long-term) relationships, and Tinder... isn't.

[georgex7]

> "Meeting online" != "meeting on Tinder", though

Agree

> Match, eHarmony, and the like are more tuned to "real" (i.e., long-term) relationships, and Tinder... isn't.

Two points here: [1] There are 75 million people using Tinder each month (https://earthweb.com/tinder-statistics/#:~:text=6.44%20milli...), which is a significant amount of the population and it has an impact on culture. [2] These applications can encourage romance as it can exist outside of the first meeting, though: I would lose out on an opportunity to develop bravery (again, this is my experience) and these apps do not encourage beautiful first-time encounters with another person; I believe Match has the same swiping mechanism based on dimensions. None of them, to my understanding, try to replicate all of the emotions--fear, vulnerability, sensitivity--that in-person interactions demand. Those felt experiences are part of what create romance.