The Dating Market: Anarchy in Action

Don · Aug 8, 2014

An interesting take on dating.

This dating market is almost pure anarchy. No government bureaucrat tells you who to date. Straight white women aren’t legally obligated to only date straight white men. While sexual conduct with minors is forbidden, anyone over age eighteen can date anyone else over age eighteen.

And once you begin dating someone, no government agent steps in to tell you how the relationship must progress. There are no laws around what restaurants are “appropriate” for a first date; no burdensome rules around how many hours a date can last or how many drinks one party can imbibe.

And in the absence of government rules, unofficial codes of behavior spring up. Social norms emerge, crowd-sourced and shaped by society as a whole. It’s appropriate for a guy to buy the girl dinner. Getting drunk on a first date is frowned upon. Dating someone else on the side — cheating — is immoral and is generally cause for break-up.

No government official made these rules. No Department of Safe and Responsible Dating set these codes down in law. Instead, they form organically. Culture, from television shows like Friends to love songs, shape our social mores. How our friends behave when they date impacts how we behave. If your friends say that it’s wrong to cheat on a boy you’re seeing, you’ll probably absorb that as a rule of romance.

The result is anarchy: not an absence of rules, but an absence of rulers dictating how we behave and throwing those in jail who do not comply.

Do we need a Department of Safe and Responsible Dating?

Xelebes · Aug 8, 2014

The institution of dating is dead.

You flip through tindr, find a guy a girl you like and they agree, have coffee and then bump the uglies. Wake up in the morning and decide if you would like to have breakfast together. None of this "I want you to take you to the movie?" stuff that became exalted in the 1980s.

Williebee · Aug 8, 2014

This might win this year's award for stupid attempts at analogy. It displays an ignorance of human nature, an ignorance of state and federal laws and stretches conflation well past the breaking point of logic.

And yet, it's out there on the internet. But then, so is Cee Lo Green backed by the Rock-a-fire Explosion.

shakeysix · Aug 8, 2014

LGNAF: Let's get naked and f***. If you were around in the sixties this seemed like a reasonable and fun goal. Now it just seems a little sad but practical--s6

regdog · Aug 8, 2014

Oh sure, just what we need another thing for the government to regulate, tax and fuck up.

Monkey · Aug 8, 2014

Dating is a relationship between two people, and it's not anarchy, because once two people begin dating they pretty much immediately and almost always set up rules, decide who is responsible for what, and whatnot. And it's not always that each person is responsible for themselves; one partner may start off paying for meals for the two, and it may well stay that way years into the future, unless renegotiated. One partner may become solely responsible for the care of a pet that is jointly owned. One partner may become the one who enforces rules on cleanliness, perhaps even over property (the car, the bathroom) owned by the other.

Still, you will probably argue that it counts because no one person is in charge of everything, or because both people have agreed. But when these two people have children, those children will not necessarily agree. Doesn't matter. Humans are social animals, and as part of the social unit, these children will be expected to abide by the rules and expectations of that unit. If the relationship becomes poly, and other adults are brought in, there is a chance they will have more say - largely because they may be expected to take on heavier shares of the responsibilities than children - but there are also plenty of situations where the additional adults are expected to fit in and abide by the rules already in place, and the one in charge of making sure stuff stays clean (for instance) will now be making sure these NEW people's stuff is acceptably clean, too.

And all of this goes with or without marriage.

Humans are social animals that divvy up responsibilities and control. Humans set up expectations, and have taboos, with penalties when these are violated. Put two humans alone, and a power structure will emerge. Add more, and that structure gets more complex. Make it thousands, and you get governments.

The basic relationship between two people shows the same tendencies in humans as do governments. The latter can even be seen as an extension of the former.

Plot Device · Aug 8, 2014

regdog said:
Oh sure, just what we need another thing for the government to regulate, tax and fuck up.

Psst! That's the outraged conclusion that the author wants you to come to!

Vince524 · Aug 8, 2014

Don said:
An interesting take on dating.

Do we need a Department of Safe and Responsible Dating?

Dude, don't give them any ideas.

Vince524 · Aug 8, 2014

Monkey said:
Dating is a relationship between two people, and it's not anarchy, because once two people begin dating they pretty much immediately and almost always set up rules, decide who is responsible for what, and whatnot.

My wife is in charge of everything. I'm mostly just a trophy husband. She handles the what. I get the whatnot.

Xelebes · Aug 8, 2014

From the bureaucrat who loathes his job:

So, you turned twelve today and would like to apply for a dating license? Sorry kiddo, you're going to have to get your learners. Here is a booklet to help you pass the learners test. I will remind you that once you get your learners, you will have to practice for two years before you can get your license. And another four years after that, you will be free from probation.

Plot Device · Aug 8, 2014

Vince524 said:
My wife is in charge of everything. I'm mostly just a trophy husband. She handles the what. I get the whatnot.

Sig-worthy! :roll:

regdog · Aug 8, 2014

Plot Device said:
Psst! That's the outraged conclusion that the author wants you to come to!

I'm just a slave to the cause.

Captcha · Aug 8, 2014

I think it's an interesting article.

I think it's important to note that there are at least two definitions of "anarchy", and I think posters are using two different ones in this discussion.

One definition is a state of chaos and disorder. The other definition is an absence of central government control. The OP is clearly using the second definition, and I think some of the posts in reply are using the first definition.

So, saying that there is a set of rules and social structures that govern dating is a contradiction to the OP's thesis only if the OP is using the definition of anarchy that means chaos. And the OP wasn't, in my understanding, using that definition.

So, my reading? Dating is an example of an area that has developed rules and conventions and structure and organization, even though there has been no central government control or influence. So it's a contradiction to the idea that absent central government control, there will be chaos.

Now, I'm not sure how far I want to take the idea. How many of the structures of dating spring from rules that WERE imposed by central governments. For centuries, inheritance laws in many areas made it difficult or impossible for women to control their own wealth. This seems pretty tightly connected to the 'who pays for dinner' aspect of dating norms.

Similarly, the government enforces monogamy through marriage laws, so it's not too surprising that some of that spills over into the social rules of dating.

And, of course, in an economic system where children inherit the father's wealth, knowledge of paternity is important, which seems directly connected to social norms like labelling women as 'sluts' if they sleep with multiple men.

I think it all loops around and reinforces itself. The social norms may have led to the creation of the laws enforced by the central authority, but then the laws reinforce the social norms.

Nothing is ever SIMPLE, damn it!

Hapax Legomenon · Aug 8, 2014

It's rather stunning to me that nobody has brought in the important influence of religious institutions in what we consider dating norms. But I guess they're okay, they're not government, after all...

Don · Aug 8, 2014

Hapax Legomenon said:
It's rather stunning to me that nobody has brought in the important influence of religious institutions in what we consider dating norms. But I guess they're okay, they're not government, after all...

There's quite a bit about religion's influence on dating in the article linked in the OP. I didn't want to quote the whole thing.

Celia Cyanide · Aug 8, 2014

Plot Device said:
Psst! That's the outraged conclusion that the author wants you to come to!

I thought the conclusion the author wanted me to come to was that everything should be like dating, in which case I completely disagree.

Don · Aug 8, 2014

Captcha said:
I think it's an interesting article.

I think it's important to note that there are at least two definitions of "anarchy", and I think posters are using two different ones in this discussion.

One definition is a state of chaos and disorder. The other definition is an absence of central government control. The OP is clearly using the second definition, and I think some of the posts in reply are using the first definition.

So, saying that there is a set of rules and social structures that govern dating is a contradiction to the OP's thesis only if the OP is using the definition of anarchy that means chaos. And the OP wasn't, in my understanding, using that definition.

So, my reading? Dating is an example of an area that has developed rules and conventions and structure and organization, even though there has been no central government control or influence. So it's a contradiction to the idea that absent central government control, there will be chaos.

Now, I'm not sure how far I want to take the idea. How many of the structures of dating spring from rules that WERE imposed by central governments. For centuries, inheritance laws in many areas made it difficult or impossible for women to control their own wealth. This seems pretty tightly connected to the 'who pays for dinner' aspect of dating norms.

Similarly, the government enforces monogamy through marriage laws, so it's not too surprising that some of that spills over into the social rules of dating.

And, of course, in an economic system where children inherit the father's wealth, knowledge of paternity is important, which seems directly connected to social norms like labelling women as 'sluts' if they sleep with multiple men.

I think it all loops around and reinforces itself. The social norms may have led to the creation of the laws enforced by the central authority, but then the laws reinforce the social norms.

Nothing is ever SIMPLE, damn it!

Yeah, I'm using the same definition as the author of the article, as quoted in the OP.

The result is anarchy: not an absence of rules, but an absence of rulers dictating how we behave and throwing those in jail who do not comply.

By that definition, the dating scene is anarchy. The whole point of the author is that accepted rules in a society can flow from the bottom up, as accepted practices, as easily as from the top down, as dictates from authorities.

To wit:

...on the whole, the dating market contains a variety of complex mechanisms through which social pressure is applied to discriminate against those who break the rules of dating while favoring those who function within the established rules.

The paragraph on how government does get involved in the process, through the implementation of marriage laws, is a real eye-opener as well. The restrictions on same-sex marriage and the high costs of divorce which keep many couples together against their desires are the result some people using government intervention in the dating game to pursue what they decided were "worthy" reasons, not issues that developed organically from the roots up. The past history of our government denying racially-mixed couples the option of marriage also gets a shout-out.

Monkey · Aug 10, 2014

I meant anarchy in either sense.

No, dating is not chaos.

But dating is also not without "central authority." In almost any government, there are different people in charge of different things. The head of the military is often not the same person in charge of managing the currency. The person in charge of education may not be the same person who is in charge of taxes. Governments - even North Korea - are not truly a single entity running the entire show, but many different departments/czars/heads/representatives/directors/ect all with different purviews.

It is the same in dating. The person in charge of doing the dishes may not be the same person who is in charge of managing the lawn; each partner will take on certain responsibilities as being primarily their "domain," and will be the authority on those responsibilities. Both agree on this, and duties are split, but as you add more people, the basic structure remains... add kids, and whoever is in charge of dishes will start taking responsibility for but also setting rules for the kids' dishes. Add other adults, and the same thing will probably happen, but because the situation is more complex, the division of rules and responsibilities may become so also. Or, in some households, one person may dole out ALL the rules and responsibilities, setting them for everyone else, acting as the traditional "head of household."

Different relationships, just like different governments, will divvy up their departments differently... but the basic human tendencies are still the same in either case.

BenPanced · Aug 10, 2014

A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L? A/S/L?

Monkey · Aug 10, 2014

Fursona?

*tilts head and licks paw while waiting for response.

Don · Aug 10, 2014

Monkey said:
I meant anarchy in either sense.

No, dating is not chaos.

But dating is also not without "central authority." In almost any government, there are different people in charge of different things. The head of the military is often not the same person in charge of managing the currency. The person in charge of education may not be the same person who is in charge of taxes. Governments - even North Korea - are not truly a single entity running the entire show, but many different departments/czars/heads/representatives/directors/ect all with different purviews.

It is the same in dating. The person in charge of doing the dishes may not be the same person who is in charge of managing the lawn; each partner will take on certain responsibilities as being primarily their "domain," and will be the authority on those responsibilities. Both agree on this, and duties are split, but as you add more people, the basic structure remains... add kids, and whoever is in charge of dishes will start taking responsibility for but also setting rules for the kids' dishes. Add other adults, and the same thing will probably happen, but because the situation is more complex, the division of rules and responsibilities may become so also. Or, in some households, one person may dole out ALL the rules and responsibilities, setting them for everyone else, acting as the traditional "head of household."

Different relationships, just like different governments, will divvy up their departments differently... but the basic human tendencies are still the same in either case.

The whole point of the article is that people are capable of defining their own relationships without some central authority dictating the terms of that relationship, not that there are no rules in any given relationship.

There are no laws that the man should be the breadwinner and the woman should stay home and raise the kids... and aren't we lucky they didn't pass such a law in the 1950s? We'd still be trying to get that one rescinded, I imagine. Look at the battles that have had to be fought just to allow people of different races or the same sex to marry. Imagine if there had been a "Department of Responsible Dating" that had the same control over dating. Would we be allowed to date outside our race or within our sex today? Imagine having to fight the same battles we've fought for marriage in the dating arena.

That's what the article is pointing out. There are no such administratively-defined rules, yet people seem to do a fine job of defining their own rules for their relationships without such supreme guidance.

Monkey · Aug 10, 2014

And my point is that a relationship is no more an anarchy than a government is, and that the same human instinct guides both.

Captcha · Aug 11, 2014

Monkey said:
And my point is that a relationship is no more an anarchy than a government is, and that the same human instinct guides both.

Okay, I don't really believe that there's no government influence on modern dating, but if we accept that there isn't, then, yeah, modern dating is anarchy according to the "lack of centralized authority" definition.

You point out that the couple form their own structure and organization, and I agree. That's kind of the point of the article. It's saying that the absence of government control does NOT lead to chaos, because "the same human instinct" that organizes the larger structure will organize the smaller one, too.

So, yeah, a couple will organize chores or whatever for themselves. Humans are capable of doing this. We don't need the government to tell us how.

Given that it's Don posting this article, I assume we should now expand this discovery to most other aspects of human endeavour. Humans can organize themselves. We don't need the government to tell us how to raise our kids or educate people or make sure that everyone in society has food and medical care and shelter, and we don't need governments to regulate our trade, etc.

I don't believe that the dating world IS independent from governmental control or that it SHOULD be. But if we accept the premise that it is, that people all decide for themselves how they're going to interact in a dating relationship, then, yeah, that's anarchy. But it's not chaos.

Fingers · Aug 11, 2014

After 33 years of being married the last effing thing I need is someone else trying to tell me what to do. Im pretty sure The Boss has that job well under control.

Monkey · Aug 11, 2014

Captcha said:
Okay, I don't really believe that there's no government influence on modern dating, but if we accept that there isn't, then, yeah, modern dating is anarchy according to the "lack of centralized authority" definition.

I disagree.

The point I'm making is that the same dynamic exists in the basic dating or family unit as does in the larger societal unit. "Centralized" authority either exists in both or does not exist in either, depending on how you define "centralized," but in either case, the dynamic is the same and only the numbers of people involved is different.

You point out that the couple form their own structure and organization, and I agree.

I'm also taking that one step further, and saying that that structure and organization, when done on the level of thousands or millions of people instead of just two or so, is what a government *is*.

That's kind of the point of the article. It's saying that the absence of government control does NOT lead to chaos, because "the same human instinct" that organizes the larger structure will organize the smaller one, too.

Except that a group of two to four people, who have chosen each other to associate with - usually out of love for one another and/or shared goals and interests - can find ways to agree on who does what, what is the best path forward, what the rules should be, ect.

When you have thousands or millions of people, and only tiny subunits of a few people, like our group of two to four, are working together this way, with many of those subunits choosing entirely different sets of standards, rules, and ideas of what should be permissible, you do, indeed, end up with chaos.

Given that it's Don posting this article, I assume we should now expand this discovery to most other aspects of human endeavour. Humans can organize themselves. We don't need the government to tell us how to raise our kids or educate people or make sure that everyone in society has food and medical care and shelter, and we don't need governments to regulate our trade, etc.

I don't think governments are a separate entity from the people they govern. These guys aren't flown in on spaceships. But when people are beating their children to death, we, as a society, want SOMEONE to step in... and not just any old neighbor that happens to have a gun and an authority complex. We want there to be a fair hearing. We want there to be order and fairness. We want there to be some way to manage this peacefully, and when you start getting to things like laws, courts, justice systems, and enforcers of the peace, you start getting more and more toward centralized authority. Humans gravitate toward that.

The Dating Market: Anarchy in Action

All Living is Local

Delerium ex Ennui

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

blue eyed floozy

The Scavengers

Is me.

A woman said to write like a man.

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Delerium ex Ennui

A woman said to write like a man.

The Scavengers

All Living is Local

Joker Groupie

All Living is Local

Is me.

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Is me.

All Living is Local

Is me.

My cat Toby

Is me.