The Philosophy of Dating

28 August 2010, Bedlam Theatre's Fat Cat Cafe. As suggested by Richard Davies - Edinburgh University student originally from Paarl, South Africa.

Performance Notes
This was the last of the limit run of Fringe performances before I start looking for a venue in London. There are leads already, thank goodness so hopefully it won't slip away into nothingness.

Many thanks to the big supporters of Phil Mann's Full Mind in Edinburgh - Christopher Bailey and Chris Eastwood who worked on publicity, flak-taking talking around the venue to allow me to do it. Their selfless support of such a minor project is gratefully received.

Lecture Notes

Love

What is love? Is love conceptually irrational? Is love an ejaculation of emotion that defies rational explaination?

The English word "LOVE" comes from the Germanic form of the Sankrit "LUBH" meaning "desire." But there are also roots in our cultural understanding of the term "love" in the three types of Greek love "eros," "philia," and "agape."

• Eros / erotica (or to the Greeks, erasthai and eratikos) is what we commonly refer to as sexual desire. But to Plato (who else?) it also referred to the idea of transcendental beauty - that romance is above the physical expression of love - that there is a perfect love jsut out of reach.
• This of course referes to the platonic cave - an allegory whereby all we experience of life is the shadows cast on the wall in front of us by a fire behind the real physical objects.
• Philia is a fondness or appreciation. Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics Book VIII, this could be motivated for the sake of something else but then such love is "a sort of excess of feeling."
• Agape - a brotherly of avuncular love (I tried to look for a female equivilent but I cannot come up with a feminine avuncular. I'm looking for this and the feminine equivilent of "phallic." If you have either please let me know.) This is similar to what Kant and Kierkegaarde assert: you should love another person because they are a person. 

Behaviourists (who reject Cartesian dualism) would contest that love is a series of actions and preferences that manifests as behaviour observable to others and would suggest that you can't tell the different between a lover and a good actor. Some (not least Cher) would contest you can see it other ways - in the eyes, or perhaps in his kiss.

I contest that love is axiomatic - it is a self-evident, self-explanatory state of affairs. To put it a Platonic (no pun intended) way - that only those who have love can truely understand it. To coin a phrase, there is no calculus for love.

The Difference Between Courtship and Wooing

COURTSHIP:

1. Meal
2. Movie
3. Dancing
4. Picnic
5. Shopping
6. General Companionship with Activity

WOOING:

1. Internet dating
2. Virtual dating
3. Instant messaging
4. Text messages
5. Telephone calls
6. Letters
7. Gifts
8. Flowers
9. The writing of songs

Courtship (measured here as the distance between dating and engagement) on average lasts 2 years 11 months, but research suggests that women like it to be two years and seven months.

An engagement, on average, lasts two years and three months.

Samurai Dating
The Japanese miai (trans. looking at each other) or Chinese xiangqin  (trans. mutual familiarity) was divised as a dating scheme for the wealthy and powerful upper classes, especially the samurai. A person looking to get samurmairried needs to meet several iegara or criteria under the following headings:

1. Education
2. Income
3. Occupation
4. Physical Attractiveness
5. Religion
6. Social Standing
7. and Hobbies

A matchmaker will usuall set you up and you get three dates to decide whether you want to marry this person, so you'd better make them worthwhile.

There are many modern forms of this, natch. In fact in Singapore the government Social Development Unit even has facilities in place to set you up on dates as they run their own government-sponsored dating service.

In the modern day we have internet dating, put what's next? Well, there's always GenePartner - a scheme that matches you up based on your DNA.

Sex

Ovid's Ars Amatoria written in 1BC lays down some rules for dating. He says that

• If you're at the Circus Maximus (horse racing) with a woman. Brush some dust off her dress. She'll like that. He is at pains to stress that you should do this even if there is no dust on her dress.
• Even a beggar can be rich in promises, so make sure you promise your date the moon on a stick.
• If you're a small woman, try to meet your date lying down, preferably covering your feet with your dress. This way your true size will not be disclosed.

Ovid even has something to say on men that are selfish in bed:
"Odi concubitius qui non utrumque resolvunt. Hoc est cur pueri tangar amore minus." 
(I abhor intercourse which does not relieve both. This is why I find less pleasure in the love of boys).

Some final tips from Ovid for men:

• Don't forget her birthday
• Let her miss you (but not for long)
• Don't ask her age

And for women:

• Make up - but in private
• Beware false loveers
• Try young and old lovers

There have been many sex guides over the years. Here's a run down of some of the better ones:

Mallanga Vatsyayanas's Kama Sutra
Covers desire, all types of embraces, marking with nails, biting and marking with teeth, slapping by hand the the correct type of corresponding moaning, advice on conduct for the chief wife and the other two wives.

Kalyana Malla's Ananga Ranga
Covers the various seats of passion in women and the general qualities, characteristics and temperments of women. Also discusses the treating of internal and external enjoyments.

Muhammad ibn Muhammod al-Natzawi's The Perfumed Garden
Contains the usual sex advice you'd find in any 15th century Arabic sex manual, but with two interesting addintions. A list of names for the penis and the vagina, and the sex life of animals.

Ladder Theory

I was asked to cover ladder theory and I'll try and get it out of the way now as I find it quite repulsive. The main idea is that men have one ladder whereby they rank women on the following criteria

• Looks (60%)
• Estimated chance she'll put out quickly (30%)
• Other (10%)

This ladder progresses from the top (actively interested), through to only interested when drunk, down to shameful drunken fumblings and into the abyss (the very bottom of the ladder)

And women have two, one "real" ladder on which they rank their prospective partners on these factors:

• Money / Power (50%)
• Attraction (40%)
• Physical looks (50%)
• Competition (20%)
• Novelty (20%)
• Other (10%)
• Things They Say They Care About But Don't (intelligence, humour, honesty, sensitivity, etc.) (10%)

But instead of progressing downt he ladder into where it becomes shameful, women offload onto a second ladder called the friends ladder, this is men that women only consider as friends and as a result can never jump onto the "real" ladder.

When two people are interested in each other, their two ladders compare the magnitude of disparity (how highly they rate each other) and see if they can't get it on a bit.

As I mentioned, this doesn't reflect my opinion, I've only been asked to report what's out there. Although if you do have any doubts, I did find an FAQ which contains some important information and justifies the entire ladder theory premise:

LADDER THEORY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q: That's not true
A: Yes it is.



Any mistakes? Corrections will be credited.

Stay tuned to find out when and where the next episode of Phil Mann's Full Mind will be.