Words cannot express how sick I am over articles like this. Let’s highlight the best parts of how texting has led to promiscuity.
Once upon a time — in what we might think of as the “Happy Days” era — courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners generally met within the context of larger social institutions: neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts — dating, going steady, delaying sex — was to guide young people on the path from short-term desire to long-term commitment.
Why do Conservatives continue to promote this unrealistic view of history? Even more interesting is how they continue to base this view on fictional TV shows. It’s as if they think everyone from the “Happy Days” era resembled the Cunninghams – That everyone who lived during that time was good, and moral, and lived the perfect middle class lifestyle. Which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The “Happy Days” era wasn’t a bed of roses for a lot of Americans. And as the granddaughter of immigrants I know of what I speak. Which is probably why Brooks’ revisionist history annoys me.
Over the past few decades, these social scripts became obsolete. They didn’t fit the post-feminist era. So the search was on for more enlightened courtship rules. You would expect a dynamic society to come up with appropriate scripts. But technology has made this extremely difficult. Etiquette is all about obstacles and restraint. But technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous, frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and commitments.
They didn’t fit the post-feminist era? The Conservative man-child is boringly predictable. I swear if the telephone was invented today they’d label it the devil’s work. But I’m beginning to think the Conservative man-child would be quite content cutting off his woman from all outside influences. So… what I’ve taken away from this article thus far is this: Women + texting = free wheeling sex.
And, let’s face it, we already knew it would be about sex.
Brooks goes on to state that texting increases your options and therefore creates a “comparison shopper” mentality. Hmm… wouldn’t attending a dance at the local church/school lead to comparison shopping as well? And what’s so wrong with not settling on the first member of the opposite to cross your path? Thank god for comparison shopping, or else I’d be married to that screw up I dated Freshman year of college.
I also love the part about a guy who hooks up with a mid-western couple for interracial sex. Brooks makes sure to stress that the hook up occurs at a T.G.I.Fridays. I’m not really sure what offends his delicate sensibilities more – the sex or the fact they meet at (gasp) T.G.I.Fridays.
It also seems to encourage an atmosphere of general disenchantment. Across the centuries the moral systems from medieval chivalry to Bruce Springsteen love anthems have worked the same basic way. They take immediate selfish interests and enmesh them within transcendent, spiritual meanings. Love becomes a holy cause, an act of self-sacrifice and selfless commitment.
Mr. Brooks has obviously read too many romance novels. And I couldn’t have picked a better word to describe the Conservative movement than medieval. But I also wonder… is this article really worth space on the NYT opinion page? Have I missed a crisis?
But texting and the utilitarian mind-set are naturally corrosive toward poetry and imagination.
Um… remind me again which political party is in love, love, love with Twitter?