26 September 2011
Digital or Man-Dating?
In this essay, I will examine two articles, one of them is Digital Dating: Desperation or Necessity?, written by Christine Hassler, a former Hollywood Agent, and the author of the book called Twenty-Something, Twenty-Everything. This article talks about social networks, their impact on both of our social and love life. It tries to convince us to try to experience all the benefits that online dating provides us. The second article, called “The Man Date”, written by Jennifer 8. Lee, a reporter for the NYT, tries to encourage the male population to try man-dating, a term that describes a new ...view middle of the document...
It is also a claim of value, it answers the question whether man-dating is good or bad, and what criteria we have to use to determine if it is good or bad.
In order to convince the reader to react or change his perspective of certain issue, it is crucial to point out valid arguments. At the beginning of her article, Hassler quotes an unknown person who is afraid to openly admit that he/she is trying to find a love partner online. Then, she uses an argument from deduction by implying that online-dating is acceptable, because it is in human nature to socialize with other human beings. Then, she uses another argument from deduction, by implying that everyone else uses it, so should you. Next, she uses a logical proof, by providing an argument from cause, saying: “Think about it this way: what do you gain by trying online dating, and what do you lose by not trying it? “ (Hassler 486). Then, Hassler tries to convince readers using motivational proofs, telling the reader to try to open him/herself to new opportunities and benefits that it might give you. Hassler writes about Adam Sachs, co-founder of dating site called ignighter.com, who also contributed a great deal to online dating networks. Then, she tries to appeal the readers’ pathos, using a value proof, saying: “ Another upside to online dating is often you get to know a person better than when meeting them face-to-face when judgments about superficial things may get in the way” (Hassler 487). Her proofs are valid, however, not sufficient. On the other hand, Lee uses quotes plenty of adult men, starting from those who personally have experienced men-dating, or college professors of sociology, which makes them authorities about this particular topic. Mr. Speiser, Mr. Putman, Jim O’Donnell, and Peter Nardi share their attitudes and personal experience with men-dating, thereby trying to convince the readers why they should try it. Lee provides us a claim of definition what exactly man-dating is: “Simply defined a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports. It is two guys meeting for the kind of outing a straight man might reasonably arrange with a woman” (Lee 493). Then she includes several clear examples: “Taking a walk in the park together is a man date; going for a jog is not. Attending the movie Friday Night Lights is a man date, but going to see the Jets play is definitely not” (Lee 494). When trying to demonstrate how serious men-dating is viewed today, Lee includes a statistic “Although “man date” is a coinage invented for this article, appearing nowhere in the literature of male bonding (or of homosexual panic), the 30 to 40 straight men interviewed, from their 20’s to their 50’s, living in cities across the country, instantly recognized the peculiar ritual even if they had not consciously examined its dos and don’ts” (Lee 494). Lee proceeds to make a historical analogy about a public homosexual awareness that caused men to act more...