Offline dating gives us a buzz Tinder can never match

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/15/offline-dating-buzz-tinder-dating-apps

Version 0 of 1.

Please excuse the morose opening, but this week I have found myself wondering, as I do frequently these days, how it is that anyone in this emotionally reticent, socially incompetent country falls in love any more. By “love”, of course, I don’t mean the kind you reach after eight or nine tequila shots of a Friday evening before staggering towards a long-fancied colleague, doing “the lunge”, then retreating, rebuffed, into your shell like a heartbroken snail, as used to be the British way. I’m talking about that glowing, buzzing, reciprocated, heart-expanding love. That crazy little thing etc.

Now, of course, there’s Tinder, which enables you to have sex with total strangers in the mid-afternoon, in the convenient location of your own home, having said little more to them than “nice hair”. (“Thanks, I grew it myself,” they reply, “you out tonight?”) And if that’s your bag, fair enough. But I grew up in a fantasy world nourished by repeat viewings of Casablanca. An unsolicited dick pic just isn’t going to cut it.

What about an unsolicited approach, though? Filmmaker Samuel Abrahams sent his friend Tom – a good-looking trendy with more than a little of the charming and self-effacing posho (TM Richard Curtis) about him – bravely adventuring through east London, approaching strangers in the hope of finding a date. Abrahams’ short film, entitled Offline Dating has amassed thousands of views, but somewhat unsurprisingly considering the tyranny of dating apps, Tom does not have a good success rate. He approaches a large number of women, most of whom look at best bemused, at worst a tad frightened. Very few of them take up his offer of a drink.

Perhaps it’s the twee, mawkish music, but I can’t help feeling sorry for Tom. He seems like a genuine man and comes across as kind and respectful, if a little gauche, rather than the creep some women seem to suspect him to be. I don’t begrudge them this assumption, by the way – the sheer volume of street harassment women encounter in urban areas has made many of us understandably wary of “strange men” (as my mother always called them). Viral videos such as “10 Hours Walking in NYC” have shone a spotlight on the letchy, aggressive and abusive approaches that so many women face, and we are arguably more aware of the problem of street harassment than we ever have been before. Why should a woman, by virtue of her gender, owe any man, by virtue of his, even a second of her time? I speak from experience when I say that the world is full of entitled, privileged jerks with this mindset.

And yet, and yet. I’ve never been of the school of thought that any man who approaches any woman in public is an unadulterated creep, a classic “douchebag” of the truly modern variety, who will take offence or even become abusive when you say you’re not interested (calling you a slut because you don’t want to sleep with him is a classic). The internet certainly seems to be of this school of thought, with online writers reacting angrily to the video. But surely most women don’t need telling how to differentiate between a catcall from a slimy street perv and a good-natured chat-up line?

I’ll put my cards on the table here: I’m a fan of the random pickup, the thrilling frisson of the attractive stranger. I’ve had flings, even relationships, with men I’ve met in the oddest of places, who have picked me up (or me, them) on the street, the metro, sitting on steps and kerbs and parks, in broad daylight or in the early hours when the city is a place of possibility. Perhaps it is having lived in France and Italy, where this is less unusual – I thought it significant that the two women who seemed most open to Tom’s advances were Spanish and Italian. I can’t help thinking that, if we lose the ability to approach strangers face-to-face, we’re losing something meaningful and important. Spontaneity and serendipity. Lust and fun.

It may be hard to hear, but human beings will always react more amenably to a stranger they fancy than one they don’t

There is, undoubtedly, a gender issue when it comes to the unsolicited approach. Men are expected to make the move, while the woman’s role is to accept or reject. Neither role is ideal – in a truly equal society I would hope that men and women could approach one another – respectfully, and in the spirit of friendship as much as romance – all the time. Of course, as ever with these things, context is all. As someone who was attacked on the street and is therefore the very definition of hypervigilant, a guy coming up to me in a dark alley late at night would be terrifying. Meanwhile, if I’m brandishing a book and wearing a “don’t even try, mate” facial expression, I’m clearly not in the mood. It’s all about being able to interpret the social cues – subtle and blatant – and take them on board. And of course, it does make a difference if the man is friendly and good-looking. It may be hard to hear, but human beings will always react more amenably to a stranger that they fancy than one they don’t.

So, while all the women in Offline Dating were fully within their rights to react to an unsolicited approach in whichever way was natural to them, I was still glad to see that there were some who were willing to take a chance on Tom. In 1967, the French situationist Guy Debord uncannily predicted a society in which the relationships between people were “mediated by images”. He may not have had Tinder in mind, but it’s cheering to know that there are still some people who are willing to stop and look around for love, rather than trying to locate it in the glare of their screens.