Category: Dating and Relationships
Technology has become a force in our lives.
We are able to do many things from our smartphones, or computers.
For a while inventors have been working on ways to add it to our love and sex lives .
A company now had created devices that can be used with porn, or between partners.
The devices are made to simulate male or female sex organs, so are available for either sex.
Here, and other places porn and the internet has been blamed for the lack of actual person to person contact.
It has been blamed for the quality of relationships and giving men unrealistic expectations.
These devices are able to respond to what is being done on screen and other things.
Virtual reality could even be added, so you could talk to your desired partner type in the setting you choose all from the comfort of your chair, or whatever.
For the blind, the virtual reality doesn’t work, but sounds and a person’s voice would make up for this, like in cybersex situations many enjoy.
Do you think technology will ruin person to person relationships?
Will more people relate via there smartphones/computers/tablets and skip the actual personal contact?
Here’s the article if you want to read it.
http://www.cnet.com/news/how-online-porn-and-tech-are-taking-over-your-orgasm/
One word: Yes. I can't be bothered to go into this whole scientific, what an article says explanation, but most definitely yes.
I think the answer is complex. I remember in the 80s adults complaining that with everyone spread around, family relationships were being ruined, and shut-ins were being left behind. Kids weren't getting the attention they'd had before. And so on.
Now, of course, instead of people just being separated by job circumstances and being all over the world, they can still connect via Skype and other apps. At rates we never dreamed of. My daughter if she's out of state can call for free, something you never dreamed of when we were younger. You made your long-distance phone calls and watched your time and paid for them.
People have screamed the word addiction about every single new development since my childhood in the 70s. I guess I'm a bit jaded by now to their constant pulling the fire alarm. Sure, there will be people who will misuse it, or more likely, blame it for their already-existing shortcomings. And now, instead of pretending to listen to conversation and grunting, or saying "Yes," "No," and "Nothing," in response to parents' questions like when some of us were growing up,, they text. A different way to do the same things. Television was supposed to render everyone incapable of reading. The Internet in the 90s was supposed to be an addiction worse than crack cocaine. Sorry, not buying it. As to the porn situation? We demonize male sexuality. Hence, nobody makes the same claim about porn's desensitizing women, and they buy at least 40% of it. That porn stunt has been played since Ted Bundy came out and told everyone how porn made him do it, and you'd better watch out or you'll end up with a whole bunch of men becoming serial killers, sexual abusers, and serial rapists.
So: We have an entire group of people taking their cue from a serial murderer and serial rapist. Someone for whom we probably don't have an accurate body count of his victims. Someone who instead of taking responsibility for his own choices, blamed pornography and you fools ate it all up. One doesn't even need to get to the sex part to completely discredit that entire industrial complex of an ideology. All based on serial killers? Wow, that's interesting.
Color me skeptical, but we heard about televisionitis in the 70s, video games and dungeons and dragons causing delinquence in the 80s, backmasked devil messages causing suicides and violence in the 70s and 80s, pornography causing crime, made oh so believable by such a credible source as a serial killer in 1987, so-called Internet addictionts in the 90s.
What actually has happened? As soon as upper-class white women and other groups who have moral authority over the rest of us get into a particular activity, it moves from addiction / taboo / antisocial to okay. Now look, everyone wants to get good at games. Except, I still seem not to be very good lol though there are some I do very much enjoy.
What we should do is get upper-class white women into whatever activities the rest of us want to be in on, so they're no longer jealous and no longer interested in lording it over outher groups of women and minorities and the rest of us. Best marketing tactic ever, unless part of what you're banking on is the constant feud between the would-be soft aristocracy and the rest of us. Get every shrink using the new stuff, then they'll write their articles with the bias of actually getting to use it, instead of the constant overt jealous sour grapes drivel we always get.
If I was born yesterday and didn't grow up around the constant harping against this and harping against that, I might find a shred of these claims believable. Not now, and for me, probably never at this point. Unless you present actual causal evidence. Look up the difference between correlation and causation. The problem with all these soft sciences studies is they start with their own bias.
upper class white women?
I don't understand where you're getting that from..however, I did not read the article.
I do think tech is ruining social interactions.
For example, my family and I went out to dinner to celebrate my sister's birthday. My niece and nephew, ages 7 and 5 respectably were sitting at the table playing mindcraft on their Ipods.
On the surface, that's not a bad thing. However, we (my mom and I) were trying to talk to them;trying to engage them in conversation and they totally ignored us. They freak out when they have to put the Ipods away and they get annoyed when you try to chat to them.
Simply put: boundaries on tech isn't a bad idea.
Also, I agree with what lio said above. You shouldn't believe some psycho who most likely was never straight forward with anyone. He told them what they wanted to hear. People like that can't take full blame for anything they do.
I don't believe it for an instant. In order for person-to-person contact to even take place I have to get in touch with the person I'm interested in, which is kind of difficult without the Internet.
Well, the whole social thing at get togethers and stuff is what I was getting at. It's good in the sense that it keep us together by sending texts and things if we're not in the same house for example, but to have people sitting at a dinner table on youtube, when you're suppose to bond is a problem.
While Leo took it on a bit of a tangent that I didn't follow, and not sure I'd agree with all of if I had, I do agree with his broader point. Like anything else, technology has pros and cons, can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. So yes, if you let it, it can mess up in-person interactions. Or, if you use it rightly for whatever your situation is, it may actually enhance them and lead to more of them. Wayne, the technology you're talking about in your first post, the kind that aids in sexual things, can be what helps a couple who is either in an LdR, or temporarily separated physically by one being on a trip or something, stay connected to one another. In the situation like Unique One was talking about, sounds more like the parents need to implement stricter boundaries on gtechnology if they don't like their kids playing with tech at dinner time. In the case of times where tech messes up in-person interactions for kids, I lay that one on the parents.
I have to agree that this issue is extremely complex. On the one hand, tech can be isolating. I see more and more people being distracted by their personal devices, which they take with them everywhere and,whether intentionally or unintentionally, use them to shut people out. I saw an article on the national news a few weeks back about how some people not only text while driving, but use their phones to surf the net of all things, while driving. To me that’s horrifying because more and more lately, I’ve begun to fear someone going through a red light before I have a chance to react. On the other hand, technology has given some of us more access to information than we’ve ever had before. I can go online and discover, for instance, what causes sirrhosis of the liver. When I was a teenager, before the era of computers and the internet, I would’ve had to go to the library and ask someone to assist me in getting books about sirrhosis of the liver, or news articles, have them printed out, maybe have someone at home read them to me or read them on the Optacon, or maybe be lucky enough to find braille or taped books with information about sirrhosis. All that has changed. And my potential boyfriend and I sometime back used skype to get better acquainted, and I found he liked what he saw. So, in that regard, tech has in some ways drawn us closer together as a society. I can do more things with this laptop on which I’m writing this post now than we ever could with all the devices we had in the 70s and 80s.
But still, I miss the old days. And it’s in some of the smaller things. When I was growing up, the height of technology in terms of telephones was the answering machine. At one point you only had 30 seconds or a minute to leave a message; then it expanded to two minutes, and then seemingly an infinite amount of time. If we weren’t at home, we simply didn’t get the call because we didn’t have cellphones with us everywhere. Now we have these cellphones, these smartphones, and you’re almost never alone. In my view they’re not always a necessity, but we’ve made them into necessities the more texting we do and the more reasons we develop for having to text. It’s like we can’t escape each other at times. I admit I don’t always like it. Being at times more of a natural introvert, I simply wanna be left alone. I don’t always want someone calling me at all hours of the day.
Also, BARD is a wonderful thing. We know this, and we all love it. But I remember the days when I used to get all my books in braille, on tape or on record. Sometimes several many books would come at once, and I mmust admit that there was some degree of excitement in wondering what books I got this time. Now, with our ability to download anything and everything we want, for all intents and purposes, some of that mystery and excitement has faded. And there are times when I do want to sit with a braille book on my lap. Maybe the thing to do is to get a braille display. But then, that’s more tech. Ugh.
i am not sure that the technology is ruining person to person contact, there
are tons of things they can't do yet, like play with hair, lay warm arms around
you, manipulate you, i could keep on the list is long, is all of this overtaking
my orgasm?
I think it is a strange article, because all that i read had one thing in mind, the
orgasm. It is the goal with each device, the orgasm, so is it taking it over, if
yes, i am wondering how exactly would it do that and hold me from the
climax?
Personally i think toys have its time and place, you can use them on a
partner, you can use them alone, if that is what you want, we are all different,
we are all turned on by different things. and that is maybe something to
remember.
Skype have come to stay, I'm sure we can all agree on that , and why not? if
you are out of state or as i am in a totally different country from the rest of
most from the zone it is nice to be able to hear a human voice sometimes in
contrast too the chatting that goes on over the boards, or other social
networks.
I have on other, networks seen persons being in different states having a
online relationship going on for years, it worked for them cause that was all
they had. And they knew it.
I have said more than the same time that starting an relationship online is
okay, but it have to move to rl at some point.
Whining and whimpering into a microphone is very cold to me , even if i know
that in the other end is a person who might be totally crazy for my noises.
It may be just me who is strange like that , but so be it …
What??????
lol Ok...
Johndy, I get what you mean in post 8. The thing is, while most people do have SmartPhones, we are only as tied to them as we let ourselves be. Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to be tied to it, carry it on our person, respond to it when it goes off, and so on. I know the iPhone has a do not disturb feature, and I'm guessing Android has the same type of thing. So if you don't want to be bothered by your phone, put it on DND, and ignore it. Or of course, turn it off. there's no reason your phone should stop you, or anyone, from being the introvert they are.
This article doesn't suggest anything except the way technology can aid.
I found all answers interesting. Thanks for all the post so far.
Go back to 1975 and UniqueOne would have been saying how the kids just
wouldn't sit still and talk nicely to the adults but just had to play with their toys
or run around and roughhouse.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
As to the demographic either using the situation or being used by the situation
to lord it over the rest of us? Go back and look, man; the 1920s Prohibition.
Who was mainly behind that? The 1950s scandals against the Tales of the Crypt
and other comics. Who was behind that? How about back masking? Dungeons
and Dragons? Prepped by psychologists, and yes maybe Mick Jagger was right,
Mother's Little Helper, soccer moms everywhere are what usually lead to these
types of moral panics. It was true of televisionitis in the 70s too.
Oh and in the late 1800s, people were writing about the danger of the
proliferation of magazines. Now people were sitting at the table reading the
paper or reading magazines instead of talking to one another.
But hey, moral panics are fun, right? Don't let me rain on anyone's parade. For
the record, I'm not sure it's the demographic I spoke of who's responsible, or
who is conveniently usable by the army of psychologists selling their books.
They're merely the secular equivalent of "Repent! The end is near!" And the
aforementioned demographic, whether it was prohibition, Tales of the Crypt,
Televisionitis, video games, music, internet addictions, and now cell phones, is
just the secular equivalent of the true believers.
As to exercising a bit of common sense? I'm all in on that one. But did those
pocket football games in the 1980s turn my generation into a whole lot of
unproductive, slacking, useless indigents? That's what they were told we would
be. If they're right, where did your new technology come from?
I'm not suggesting everyone swallow the dog and accept every latest thing, only
dare yourself to look at the history of these moral panics and see for yourself.
See who it is that stirs up whom, and see if any of their predictions come true.
Those horrible magazines, right? That horrible telephone, which causes people
not to "call" on each other and visit face to face anymore? And what about that
historic letter sent by an upper class housewife to Western Union. Telling us all
about the breakneck unnatural speed of 15 miles per hour and how these trains
were going to be the undoing of civilization.
It seems to me, the more things change, the more some things stay the same.
Mainly that people panic, and others profit from their panic by writing books
about it.
But of course, as a poster previously said, I'm unintelligible, and probably so is
all that history of moral panics too. It's easier that way, just repeat what we've
done before, make silly predictions that won't come true about everything
coming undone.
I agree with Leo's points. Yes, people watch Youtube at the dinner table, but when I was growing up, my family watched the evening news or some sitcom or other. To me, the way technology is being utilized today really isn't changing all of human behavior, the technology has just worked itself in to our society and replaced things that used to serve as distractions. Can porn ruin a relationship? Yep. Could it have 25 years ago? Certainly. While the internet has made it more widely available, I think the behavior is the same. Essentially, the person who is destructive with romantic relationships will find whatever outlet works for them. Whether that's pornhub in 2016 or a porn flick on VHS in 1986, the end result is the same. What would people do before porn you ask? Phone sex lines, even audio porn was a thing for awhile, and, of course, cheating. In some respects, perhaps porn has helped, since in the minds of many, you aren't cheating unless you do something with another person. However, that, just like everything else in the world, is subject to each person's feelings and whatever standards they set for themselves and their partner/s.
Scott, you remind me how, when I was a teenager, you couldn't talk to my parents for crap at the supper table in the evenings. Why? Because they were glued to the TV, watching the sitcom Friends. And it wasn't us kids who asked for it to be turned on. They were the ones glued to it, not us. And yet, it's the kids who get the rap for not talking to parents at the dinner table. LOL. In the 90's it was the TV, today it's YouTube, but the idea is the same.
Oh, believe me, most of the time I have the phone on mute and don’t much play with it at all. Especially when I’m at work. I’m not on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, but I will admit it does come in handy when I have to check texts or make a call for emergencies. I’m just amazed at the people who find they have to be on the damn thing 24/7. Having said that, I’m always on the computer when I’m at home because I’m either reading, writing, watching Youtube, playing games or responding to emails. And paying bills. The next thing I’ll be doing with it is hopefully monitoring stocks when I get one or two more big debts out of the way.
so,, what we can see from all of the different posts is that, technology might
have changed, become a huger part of our lives, but behavior as such have not
changed at all.
I admit i am online almost all the time, not that i am constantly having my
attention online. But the computer is.
It has been said: Moderation in all things, including moderation itself.
How about the issue, or problem in Japan?
The young aren't dating due to money issues.
The men are turning to a thing they download on there phones as a date.
I can't remember exactly what it is called.
She has emotions and such, and you can take her out.
You get points by what you do with her, and there are group dates or parties you can go to with your smartphone date.
Great points...
For fun I did a search for virtual girlfriends.
I found several, but this one is most interesting.
http://karigirl.com/
And so you ladies aren't left out.
We have several virtual boyfriends, but I've not read an article stating women are turning to them as much as men.
Women are simply bing along, or as in my last post, turning to women.
http://www.getboyfriends.com/
It's complicated, because for someone like me, it actually bgave me more person to person contact. I developed socialphobia in 2012, so the internet became a lifeline of sorts. I have more friends than I used to, and I have been to visit them.
for some people, introverts, mostly, it provides the means for us to get out of our shell without compremising our safety of personal space.
It used to be imaginary friends and significant others, now it's some stupid sim game. I'm willing to bet that there is something to be said for the fact that the men resorting to this type of dating probably can't find a real date, so turn to technology to help them with that. In fact, it could be occupying the creepers and helping people make some kind of connection they may otherwise never make. Some may use this sort of thing as a replacement as well, but I think that number is probably pretty low. Therefor, again, it's too complex to draw any sort of conclusions.
Perestroika is on to something, and fortunately for the rest of us, has the
capacity to describe her situation en total so we can understand it.
I also for a time was rather isolated, and I have been so before technology. I
would rather be isolated with technology than without it.
As to Hentai in Japan, look up Herbivore Men. The technological developments
are a response to, not the cause of, the current male crisis in Japan.
It's fun and easy to demonize these young men, especially the western media
who has never spent time over there. But these young men saw their fathers
work 60 plus hours a week, plus be expected to go out and entertain colleagues
and others till late in the night.
Plus, since the McArthur plan in the 50s, divorce laws have taken on the same
characteristics as we see in the U.S. In many Scandinavian countries, divorce is
sought to be 50 / 50. In the U.S. and Japan, however, a man has a good day in
divorce court if he gets 20% time with his kids, and more than a quarter of his
income, especially in states with alimony.
In the U.S. it's called a marriage strike. As far back as the 70s, we celebrated
strong independent women who forewent marriage and lived by themselves.
Not so with the men, and Japan is very possibly going to be in some real trouble
over this. Vilifying and shaming these herbivore men isn't going to work, since
they already understand better than the rest of us that they're operating outside
of their cultural norm. And "herbivore" indicates their subsistence living. Work
just enough to subsist and not enough to participate in the system more than
they absolutely have to. Don't earn enough to pay for expensive social welfare
services and so forth.
There have been small enclaves in the U.S. for various reasons who subsistence
live; as a way to avoid supporting America's international military policies and
other things they have realized are not a net positive for the individual.
Japan's other problem is they don't import labor, not in any significant numbers.
If young men dropped out of the labor force in the U.S., we'd just open up our
immigration policies even more than we already do, if that's possible. And we'd
import labor.
Also, and I know this will offend some young people's fee fees, but statistically,
most of the time, women seek out men who earn at least as much as they do.
Preferably more. Now this is getting harder and harder to do where women
around the developed world under age 30 earn at least 8% more than men of
the same age range do. I can't magically mythically make women feel attracted
to short average me, over tall, dark, handsome Wayne. Too much hard-wired
biology involved in this. And a young man with less earning potential than his
female peers cannot make them magically mythically attracted to him. Of
course, there are exceptions, and to a large extent I are one. But the exceptions
are the outliers who prove the rule. Especially those whose fee fees demand
that they jump up and down and scream that they are the exception.
No point in vilifying anyone for this; it's just an unforeseen consequence of what
we're doing. Perhaps the peppers and end-of-days collapse people will get their
wish economically. Perhaps not. But in the meantime, technological solutions
like what they have in Japan, or virtual simulations here in the U.S will fill a
niche.
Speaking of simulations: I can't be the only one who has played through a
simulation, pretending to be a brave knight, or a builder of cities and worlds.
Surely not. But in reality I am an average person who will live and die and at
most be remembered by family and friends, and those community organizations
I volunteer with, if all that. People used to tell one another stories round the fire
to make themselves look and feel better. So why not simulate something that is
not only missing, but statistically not likely to be yours for the taking?
I'm no knight. Nor am I an architect. Nor will I ever be able to build a society. I,
like most of the world, check in at work, be dependable, get the job done, love
and care for my family, help in the community, and that's it. That's all. Which is
fine. But the simulations let us do more in our own minds.
In a world where 80% of men are seen as ineligible mates by 100% of the
women, many men are likely to adopt similar simulations I expect. Nobody
demonizes me because I built a city, had it destroyed by a neighboring tribe,
and rebuilt it, all in an online virtual world. But people demonize men who are in
another kind of deficit and solutions came on the free market that address this
deficit in some form.
Anyway, the Japan situation is interesting if only that it is an exaggerated
description of what is happening around the world. And in economies where
males are statistically the disposable provider and protector objects, where per
capita males pay more in taxes, this is seen as a real economic deficit to
governments who aren't capable of earning their own money but must take
yours and mine to finance their wishes.
hi.
Leo, interesting post, long, but interesting.
I am not going to say much about japan, simply because i don't know enough
about the situation, i will however comment on one thing, it is not all girls who
is taking it for granted that the male have to make more than she does a
month.
Hell if that was the case in Scandinavia at least we would have many single
girls living alone, only having one night stands, which come to think about it
we could have, i am not sure.
What i am however sure about is, when you look at dating sites for denmark
and also other scandinavian countries, you have some pretty interesting
profiles where the man have to drive a Bmw or an audi to even get a sniffin.
Of course you have the other category of girls who simply choose to live
alone, simply because they like it or is not ready for an relationship, my self
having been in that category had a super good relationship to my different
sex toys.
Not because i was not okay with a Bf at the moment but because i could not
find the time for a Bf at that period of time. So to me i had toys and one night
stands. Which i should add worked adoringly.
Why, i could have sex and not have to care for him afterwards.
I will be honest, pleasing me as a Bf might never be an easy task, which is
why i kinda have stopped looking, i have a saying, fuck my brain and the rest
will follow, since it is all starting and ending in the brain anyways.
Does this make me a female with unrealistic fantasies? maybe, but i know
what i want and until i find it i will stick to sex with the same gender.
Now for the different simulations out there. I did in fact youtube kari, and i
will put it like this , if you can be turned on by a voice that is whimpering and
moaning in the way a computerized voice does, then fine, you have maybe
found your virtual partner, but i still wonder, how about all of the different
touches we make with other humans?
I mean, we meet someone we lay a hand on their shoulder, we give them a
hug, we massage them softly, etc, until the sims can interact with us in other
ways than sex it is still pretty much orgasm orientated.
And honestly that is pretty uninteresting, i mean, you see a movie you get
massaged, you cum, you whimper, yada, yada, yada.
All of this can be had with a dildo that don't costs the same amount of money.
So what, you are like i am about my computers and cars? you want the best,
fine , go have it, but know that human interaction is and will always be
different until we have more humanized droids.
And we dont have that before our processor units are way faster than what
they are today. The artificial intelligence may be there but there are so many
other things lacking.
I mean come on can y'all imagine kari whimpering? it would be like having
Siri doing it , and as cute as it may sound, the tone and accent, pronunciation
is just not the same as a human beings might be.
All interesting post.
Thank you again.
Sandi, when we speak of averages, we're talking about groups in general.
For instance, we can say that people who were born and raised in Western Oregon are more accustomed to drizzle and rain for most of the year than people born and raised in the high desert.
So occasionally, a man will bite a dog, yes? But most of the time, when there is a bite, it's the dog doing the biting. I guess it's possible that a dog may beat up a man, though I don't know how. But if we hear about a beating where a dog and a man are involved, we are right to assert that most likely the dog is the beaten, and the man the one who did the beating.
Now, what's interesting is that the Scandinavian countries do have a dedication to 50 / 50 in family court proceedings. What that means in practical terms is that family court judges do a lot more work in those courts. They have to make rational and equitable decisions. In the U.S., however, the laws are set to take from the male and give to the female. I mean no ill towards LGBT couples, but if or when they ever divorce in any numbers, the courts are going to have to start behaving like real courts instead of a de facto donor and de facto recipient.
Now, if you have a situation like that, it makes sense that the one group who has the most to gain from a situation like that would place their bets on the highest dollar. That doesn't mean a person who stands to gain is marrying someone to take their money on purpose. But somewhere back there, we all have an opt-out strategy of some kind, whether we know it or not. In Scandinavian countries. I've known several American women who in point of fact didn't take the husband to the cleaners. But the State did. The couple started out trying to be amicable but the U.S. system is set up such that you have a de facto donor and a de facto recipient. It's actually a benefit to lawyers and judges who have no real motivation to be competitive and do a better job of properly adjudicating the situation. Japan has this very same problem since their courts got a lot of their cues from the U.S.
Scandinavia? Not so much. An American family court lawyer or judge would probably never make the grade in a Scandinavian country where due process and adjudication of the case take precedence.
Now as to Tindr and other dating sites? I disagree with some online who say it's modern women being narcissistic or entitled. We all simply acknowledge that modern infantilized people, many of whom could be women, look for a partner who will take care of and provide for them. it's not a two way street for the infantilized. I am not in a relationship with an infantilized person. And She is not in a relationship with an infantilized person. The adult children will say things like, "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best!"
The adult will say, "She doesn't deserve me at my worst. And when I've behaved at my worst, I'll apologize and make amends."
But with your dating sites, you can see in many ways the same behavior that sexually dysmorphic species such as chimpanzees express. There are modern thinkers who are applying these principles of evolutionary psychology to see where it fits. It is an interesting observation. Again, I don't think it's the dating sites or the toys, it is merely an outlet for natural behavior. And some groups are trained for restraint while other groups are trained against it and for expression. The dating sites merely operate outside the socially prescribed norms and are more in line with our animal nature.
There's a popular insert now for men's shoes which is supposed to give a short man some better advantage in the first impressions department. Women have had these types of first-impressions products for years, but I imagine we'll see males doing more and more of this. Sure, there's always been the status symbols of a new and pressed suit, a fancy car, take her to a nice place. But where males are no longer the majority of high income earners, we're going to see a shift. If some of us expendables drop dead in the process, well, that's ultimately natural selection.
Really, we can't know how certain socially engineered changes will impact society any more than people who clear cut trees in Oregon in 1900 could possibly know about the effects on the forests and the environment. I am grateful that I do not have a son in the modern world. But I am curious how this one is going to end up. Curious, because I'm human.
A tremendous amount of people lost out when the nuclear model we think is normal now was foisted upon Western society, and parents did not have the same access to the wisdom of grandparents and elders when raising their kids. Lots of people didn't make it through that one for any numbers of reasons.
But I have no doubt that someday, Tindr et al will be the norm where the nuclear model is the norm today, once enough business and industry has found it beneficial.
Sim games are cool, though I'll admit I can't imagine playing a dating sim game. I've never even heard of dating sim games until just now. So, I guess I've learned something new. It's not something I'd do, but I think Scott made some good points in his last post.
The best sim games IMHO make up for whatever deficit you experience in real life. So creative sim games, which seem to be extremely popular, are a good choice for many. People run restaurants, build cities, grow gardens, run theme parks, all kinds of things.
None of us bat an eyelash.
Only if they do dating sims are people concerned.
Perhaps we ought to reflect upon why that might be? Why it is that many of us, myself included, have the industry-standard "ick" reaction when we first learn of these?
Meanwhile, loads of my fellow urbanites loved Farmville and similar farming / country estate type sims.
Leo, I am one of the dating site success stories.
Everyone knows that tinder and so on are not for serious seekers of a serious relationship. they are for people who want a quick hookup.
Maybe because there is more equality in the workplace and workforce, there is less equality in love. I don't know. but the exceptions are out there. When I met my husband he was pretty much in the same situation as me. he only got a job after we decided that we wanted to live together. He wasn't rich, he had nothing of worth except his own personality, which makes me the richest and luckiest woman in the world.
I know a lot of people in my situation. Love refugees, they call us, the sorts of people who were prepared to move countries to be with someone truely special.
If you are a success story, that is completely on you, doing what humans do the best at: exploit their environment. Is not the new dating sites a new environment?
For those that are after the quick hookup, I suspect they also would be success stories, meaning they successfully got what they came for.
I don't quite know if I'd have the courage to attempt such things online. Too much feedback available when interacting with someone face to face. I'm not down on it, though. With over 7 billion people on this planet, how could I possibly assert, with any reasonableness, that my way is the way all should be?
But adaptation is what we do best. Humans for years complained of lower back injuries due to sitting at the desk, being virtually chained to it. I now have set up my own standing desk and walk in place while at it. Merely an adaptation to the new environment we have called the workplace. Telecommuting is one other such adaptation. There are many, and today's technology does for us what the flint tools of another era did for our ancestors.
I have no idea, I do know however, or at least I am certain, that, without the internet, I would be still on my own.
my husband probably would be too. he tried internet dating as a change from the usual way he met women. 3 years later and we are still happy as anything.
Oh, without technology, there's no way Mark and I would have gotten together. So again I say, it's all in how you use it.
We talk on about the innovators who create technology.
But here's something nobody talks about: the innovative ways people find to use it. Loui and Alicia just hit on this.
The innovators are not just us programmers, is all I'm saying. The innovators are you, every time you find a new way to use a piece of technology in a new and different way. That, of course, increases exponentially where innovation breeds innovation.
In this case or specific type of technology, I believe they set down and thought it out well as to how it might be used.
I even think they thought about the social and negative feedback it might bring.
I don't think they thought about the internet being the second most likely place people would find their partners. it is at least this way in Sweden.
I've seen articles saying this is how people date now.
Didn't read the article but of course, they had to use emotionally loaded words like ruining. Maybe, if you are one that puts a high value on doing things in old-fashioned ways, you could call it ruin. Others might say redefining. Like others have said, it's complex. But the new things the kids like have always been a target for accusations of the ever-lurking destruction of civilization which is just around the corner, isn't it? Windows computers, video games, personal stereos, rock music, jazz music, pinball machines, jukeboxes, the TV, the radio, the movies, all of these things I'm sure when they were new were accused of bringing on the destruction of civilization as we know it because they would change one or more aspects of things, either that or it was the cool thing the kids liked and parents just never like the cool things kids like. LOL!
To some extent, yes I absolutely think technology is discouraging actual face-to-face contact with people. However, technology is also helping us in ways that even 10 years ago, we probably couldn't even imagine (such as being able to communicate with people quickly when need be, or being able to shop online because it's sometimes easier and more efficient to do than going to a store). I also think that technology has given us the tools to figure out how to use it in various ways, which were not available to us before. An example of this is that, with social media, I was able to be creative, in asking if anyone would be able or willing to help fund my leg braces. Whereas, before Facebook, Twitter and the like, things would've been much more difficult. Not impossible, but I certainly would've had to find more ways to accomplish what I set out to accomplish.
Chelsea's on to something.
Perhaps the better question might be: How can we best use technology to improve face-to-face communication?
I think about online shopping, for instance. As a dad, I loved it. It meant that my daughter got to spend more time at the park and less being carted around from store to store when we needed to get things.
I think any discussion of improvement is a good thing, including improvement in how we use the technology. But I'd not want to return to the 80s when people were still spread out and mobile, but unable to contact each other as easily without a lot of expense.