I read the sentence in Brooks article with "feminism" in it the same way you did, the first time around. Steam came outta my ears.

When I re-read it, I wasn't so sure.

Yep, he's a conservative, but he may only have been arguing that when feminism changed things, there were some unintended consequences, some of which we haven't adequately settled out. I might be able to go that far, without arguing for a return to the 1950s or handing my cell phone over to a Luddite.

Isn't Brooks' point more interesting than your snarky take- down of his point? I'm watching my handsome, perceptive, empathic (and post-adolescent) 14-year-old son wade into the world of girls. He likes them, sees them, talks to them, but mostly texts and Facebooks with them. These days one girl in particular has snared his attention. He's a good guy, everyone says so, but he doesn't have a clue as to how to negotiate these shoals, so he goes with his base texting/Facebook instincts,and his father and I wring our hands, since in this universe we are useless as far as he's concerned (and he's right). I know Brooks is a neo dork, but this utter incomprehension of the New Normal is not a retro Brooksian trope. It's real.

Feminism didn't change everything. It started with the Playboy mentality of the 1950's. Why be a sap and get married and support a family when you can live the high life?

Speaking as a single, 30-something NYCer, I am kind of depressed that I'm missing out on this.

And reading his piece, I actually believe his is an honest take on an issue that is rarely approached in an objective fashion on these pages. Some feminist victories have brought about unfortunate and unintended consequences. In the case of courtship, the relaxing/elimination of traditional gender roles has contributed to confusion. In some cases, technological advances exacerbates it, whether it's interpersonal or inter generational.

Hook up culture isn't evil, but it's hard to make the case that it encourages people to cultivate intimacy with a specific partner.

I am so tired of TCF's snark and her refusal to consider the possibility that the modern pornified, hook-up, technology culture has had some negative consequences on interpersonal relationships, on the self-esteem and self-image of young women and young men, etc.

She is a broken record and one that is not playing a very thoughtful or insightful tune.

It's true that cellphones and texting makes hooking up quite easy these days. However, this idea that the 'romance' and courtship has been taken out of relationships because of the cellphone is really over stated here. I must not be the only person who has saved text messages, yes saved them, from people I have dated, when that relationship became especially meaningful to me. People did the same thing with voicemails (still do) and e-mails (still do). Perhaps even Twitter.

There is this really great site, where a woman put up a photographic series of embroidered text messages, which she did herself, all documenting a year-long relationship. It was poignant and heartfelt and I could totally relate to this impulse to save text messages in the most emotional way possible. If it you care about that person a text like "good night" could still be special, even in a small way.

Here is the blurb about that project, by Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish: "Running through the photographs gives one a sense of the relationship's rise and fall in a abstract but deeply intimate way. The act of stitching the conversations changes easily discarded text messages into poetic keepsakes."

Below is that site with those embroidered text messages.

http://gingeranyhow.com/textmessages.html

Not that I completely disagree with some of the comments above.

I do agree that modern relationships or "cell phone" relationships lack some of the nostalgic romance we culturally expect and perhaps should have more of.

But blaming technology for the death of romance is foolish.

It has simply changed it.

My boyfriend and I started falling in love before we ever saw each other face to face. We lived in different parts of the same state and would not have met but for posting our profiles on Plentyoffish.com. We started exchanging messages, moved on to texts and then to phone calls.

We had our first date when I moved back to his same area a month later. We've been together very happily ever since.

To this day, we still rely on our cell phones to send our equivalents to love letters to each other most every day.

We fell in love via text messages the same way lovers fell in love through troubador poetry or Victorian love letters.

It's just the medium that has changed.

Not the love.

. . I read the articles on this page and they seem to be about people worried about getting herpes from their lovers and not trusting them enough not to lie about it, or another poor woman making love to a guy who learned how to make love watching porn movies, and not knowing the guy well enough to talk about it.

I think this is what happens if you drag people home without knowing them very well. It happened when I was 18 and it still happens now.

You seem to have this great romantic dream - you're going to get dressed go out, meet the man your dreams, and then have great sex. It don't work like that.

I can't tell you how long you have to wait. If you can't look them in the eye, in person, sober, and ask them to spend the night, its probably too early.

If David Brooks cured cancer it would be a problem.

I wrote my senior thesis on dating/courtship practices among college students and its history in the United States. Here's what I learned - people have been saying everything that David Brooks said in that article about "dating" since it took its modern form at the turn of the century. Dating specifically refers to a couple going out somewhere together, unchaperoned, as opposed to earlier forms of courtship which took place under parental or other supervision.

The practice of dating itself, as opposed to some form of arranged marriage, is part and parcel of consumerism and capitalist ideas about the free market, but this was especially true in earlier forms when men paid for everything and women were encouraged to choose partners based on things like what kind of car they drove.

The whole point is pretty much moot, however, since traditional marriage/courtship was seen as an economic (or possibly political) arrangement. The difference between that and modern courtship practice is that not only are gender roles less defined, but the objective of courtship is also less defined. When marriage was more influenced by societal expectations and was seen more as a duty, then there was a much greater gap between a love affair and a marital arrangement. In more modern relationships, there is less pressure to marry, premarital sex is more accepted, live-in arrangements are common, etc. Thus, young daters are mostly confused as to what they want and what is expected of them.

Various technologies have facilitated this: cars allowed for more mobility for young couples, phones allowed more frequent and different kinds of communication, the internet allows a broader selection of dates. Whether new technologies have encouraged or discouraged the commodification and superficial nature of dating is debatable, but somewhat beside the point when traditional marriages were also very economic in nature.

Furthermore, feminism does not encourage commodification, it discourages the genderization of commodification, so that both sexes have the opportunity to try out many different partners in the pursuit of relationships and/or sex. It also encourages marriages based on equality, love and partnership, although it is quite likely that dating in any form is geared toward commodification rather than true courtship.