The Risk in No-Risk

Not that I agree with everything in it, but it's not all wrong either.

"Traditional courtship — picking up the telephone and asking someone on a date — required courage, strategic planning and a considerable investment of ego (by telephone, rejection stings). Not so with texting, e-mail, Twitter or other forms of “asynchronous communication,” as techies call it. In the context of dating, it removes much of the need for charm; it’s more like dropping a line in the water and hoping for a nibble."

It's not that I object to hookups or casual dating. I don't. They have their place and purpose. And, if they make those involved in them happy, by all means continue as you are.

I just think that effort and risk—and therefore any real sense of reward and value—has too often been taken for granted or even eliminated altogether. We too often trade intimacy for ease, real relationships for ready-made conveniences. 

We fill up on emotionally empty-calorie filler and yet rarely feel full. Then we wonder why so many of us feel lonely and unsatisfied regardless of our relationship status.

Perhaps this may be one reason why BDSM and kink are rising in popularity. There is inherent risk and effort involved in the lifestyle. There are rules and roles and skills and steps that must be employed to do it well. 

There is sexiness in that kind of effort. Appeal in that type of commitment and competency. It's difficult to invest the trust and effort and time required for these types of relationships and not create worthwhile intimacy.