• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The word "relationship"

RobertU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
630
Location
Vacaville, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
While watching an episode of MASH, I noted Hawkeye using the word “relationship” to describe his social life. Given that the show was set during the Korea War, the word seemed misplaced.

As I recall, the word “relationship” only became common during the early 1970s as part of what I would call “aspirational dating.” Before then, you had boyfriends, girlfriends, you were “serious” or were engaged. Often, you married your high school sweetheart or the first person you had sex with, or you got married if your girlfriend got pregnant.

The sexual revolution brought the attitude of “I can do better than this” and “There’s a whole world of people out there. I shouldn’t settle for someone less than I deserve.” The increase in college attendance also increased the waiting time for commitment, as you could now choose a potential mate from a larger, more cosmopolitan group of people.

The word “relationship” was a tool of moral relativity. There was nothing wrong with dating a long string of people. They were just “relationships,” none demanding exclusivity or commitment.
 
While watching an episode of MASH, I noted Hawkeye using the word “relationship” to describe his social life. Given that the show was set during the Korea War, the word seemed misplaced.

As I recall, the word “relationship” only became common during the early 1970s as part of what I would call “aspirational dating.” Before then, you had boyfriends, girlfriends, you were “serious” or were engaged. Often, you married your high school sweetheart or the first person you had sex with, or you got married if your girlfriend got pregnant.

The sexual revolution brought the attitude of “I can do better than this” and “There’s a whole world of people out there. I shouldn’t settle for someone less than I deserve.” The increase in college attendance also increased the waiting time for commitment, as you could now choose a potential mate from a larger, more cosmopolitan group of people.

The word “relationship” was a tool of moral relativity. There was nothing wrong with dating a long string of people. They were just “relationships,” none demanding exclusivity or commitment.

And then we finally came to, "Friends with Benefits".

Yes, you are accurate in that the big change came in the early seventies. It may have germinated in the sixties, but it propagated through greater society in the early seventies. Them, we got Disco! Argh!
 
“There’s a whole world of people out there. I shouldn’t settle for someone less than I deserve.” The increase in college attendance also increased the waiting time for commitment, as you could now choose a potential mate from a larger, more cosmopolitan group of people.

The word “relationship” was a tool of moral relativity. There was nothing wrong with dating a long string of people. They were just “relationships,” none demanding exclusivity or commitment.

(y) All good as a choice. Why shouldnt people explore as they like? Why shouldnt they find out enough to know the right person when they meet them (who they "deserve") ? That's different for everyone but why demand it be limited?

And some relationships do 'demand' exclusivity and commitment, why do you pretend they dont? Good lord, the drama!

The only thing really necessary...and not always the case...is that both people should have the same expectations going it...it should be communicated IMO.
 
(y) All good as a choice. Why shouldnt people explore as they like? Why shouldnt they find out enough to know the right person when they meet them (who they "deserve") ? That's different for everyone but why demand it be limited?

And some relationships do 'demand' exclusivity and commitment, why do you pretend they dont? Good lord, the drama!

The only thing really necessary...and not always the case...is that both people should have the same expectations going it...it should be communicated IMO.

These threads always leave me scratching my head and wondering why its a bad thing that we try to find the best person for us instead of just grabbing the first person we date.
 
Back
Top Bottom