I wonder. Standards might have changed for the younger population, necessary flirting skills in person are no longer maintained as widely as they used to. Generally, things that are challenging tend to be taken over by technology.
It is not that different from how people forgot to orient themselves in a city without navigational apps. Or how they no longer know how to, say, make butter (unlike in 1900).
It's not just that, those flirting skills are not safe to use anymore. You can get an harassment charge for touching someone in the arm these days (happened to some lonely autistic kid). Having confirmation of mutual attraction first makes things both easier and safer.
This simply not true, or way blown out of proportion. I'm single, so I go out almost every weekend (West LA): plenty of people flirting, making out, touching, dancing, etc. Dating apps are a complete waste of time when compared to meeting people in real life.
Ah yes, West LA is a representation of the rest of the world, and to people with incredibly busy, corporate lives.
I've heard stories of lesbian women, especially, FLYING ACROSS THE COUNTRY to meet another person they have interest in because it's that hard to find matching personalities.
Search for Jamie Griffiths on google and stop being a knob. This shit is serious. At least for people on the spectrum. Lots of shy guys out there with no experience who can't get it either because stuff like this happens. The girl wasn't in the wrong either.
I think that say what you will about the social media and the ills of it, Tinder is definitely a net positive for society. This is because matching on Tinder removes the ambiguity of attraction from the whole confusing dance of social interaction. So in the long run, when Tinder and its clones take over, there should be much less stories about unwanted sexual attention: either you make it on Tinder or you do not make it at all.
First you'd need consent to actually ask the question, and prior to that, you'd need consent to speak with the person (you'd have to get that in writing).
Not sure where you're getting that from. I would like to assume positive intent and the best interpretation of your position, but it's really difficult to not read this as "If we have to get consent for touching someone, then we have to get consent for all interactions. Therefore touch-consent is non-viable." Please help me understand how you aren't saying that.
This is why the anti-trust movements against FAANG have such a hard time gaining mainstream traction. People start hijacking the word “monopoly” and it becomes incredibly diluted and undermines the credibility of the narrative.
