<p>I'd like to share this article, I though it was very interesting</p>
<p>and kind of sad at the end</p>
<p>Jesus, that broad is a validation-seeking mess. Girls have the selective power to reject guys for dates. USE IT.</p>
<p>I thought it was very interesting too. :)</p>
<p>I read all the essays and liked them, but you definitely picked out the best one. =]
I was actually about to write about this topic, so double thanks! Hehe.</p>
<p>...and she wonders why none of the guys actually want to be her boyfriend in the practical as opposed to "theoretical sense of the word"</p>
<p>Awww BronxBombers... I'm sure it's not her fault, it must be the male race to blame!!</p>
<p>She seems to have gotten around! I'm not sure why she willingly portrays herself as such a loose woman, only being a junior in college.</p>
<p>she must've broken a mirror or walked under a ladder when she was younger. that explains it.</p>
<p>damn i'm impressed. how many guys is that? playa playa.</p>
<p>That was actually really well written. Damn I should hang around NYC.</p>
<p>I think the anonymity of NYC is what makes dating there so cool. You can start fresh with each new date and nobody knows anyone else's history/ex's etc. If only the rest of the world was like that! But I don't care cause all the coolest guys are in NYC ;)</p>
<p>I used to live in NYC so I used to be cool</p>
<p>Is there a way to read the rest of the essays without subscribing to nytimes online? That was really interesting.</p>
<p>I was able to read them by just clicking. Try on another day or something.</p>
<p>I wonder how many STDs she has</p>
<p>She's probably like throwing a pickle down a greased hallway.</p>
<p>The runner-up article about the Marxist-zen-anarchist-homeless boy made me want to vomit. "Oooh, he has eyeliner! And wears a safety pin through his eyebrow! And sleeps in the WOODS! How alternative! How brave to fight the system!" Christ almighty. It's this kind of pseudo-subversiveness, this dumb hipness, that makes our generation so impotent at actually producing change. </p>
<p>The NYC article and the one written by that kid from USC were chosen because they play into the stereotypes that curmudgeonly NY Times editors already have about young people. It's just not sexy to read about the people who date or who are in exclusive relationships, however short or misguided. The very title "Modern Love" indicates that they are actively looking for something to distinguish love today from love of, oh, 1985. They want oversexed, overwrought twenty-somethings wandering with dark-circled eyes from one meaningless exchange of bodily fluids to another.</p>
<p>There certainly IS a hook-up culture, which must seem universal in some circles. But I'd venture to say that a lot more college students have more varied experiences-- some hook-ups, some dates, some awkward friend-with -benefits situations, and some relationships. </p>
<p>Where is the diversity in this series? The only article to show a committed relationship was the military one (which was quite excellent). Of course, you need some perpetually unattached, one-night-stand sorts to round out the bunch, but where are the open relationships? The young marriages? The friends-with-benefits-but-maybe-we're-together's? The kid who never gets past the first date? The queer relationships of all stripes and shapes (this ommission particularly irked me)? The person who has no relationships at all? </p>
<p>I'm so tired of this weary "No one believes in monogamy" tripe being reported as though it were somehow chic, new, and unexpected. Many people don't believe in monogamy, true. That needs to be represented. But just as many people profess some kind of belief in or desire for exclusivity, even if they don't end up living up to it. And there are alternatives to monogamy even within committment.</p>