ManDate...

The urban dictionary defines a man-date as two men engaging in "normal" male-female dating rituals. The standard dinner and movie scenario. The picture to my left is an oft attached image of man-dating, two ostensibly heterosexual men holding hands and walking through a garden. Interestingly enough both men in their own way are the representatives of two hyper-masculine societies, which makes this little scene all the more jarring. There is a strange set of rituals involved in man-dating, and though a majority of heterosexual men have performed this ritual at least one time in their life, there are some unwritten procedures to the whole sordid process. Lest you think that this particular introspective arc is a bit strange, please consider the New York Times article, which takes up the same issue. What makes a man date, a "man date," depends on such factors as: venue, dress, purpose, seating arrangement and items consumed (for example, going to watch a romantic comedy versus 300, which if you haven't seen yet is the opposite of a romantic comedy). So, if two men are at a bar watching the game-not a man date. This is so for the following reasons:

1) When one is on a romantic date, each person on the date is responsible in large part for the other's amusement
Therefore in situations where the source of amusement is derived from somewhere outside the locus of the two individuals, then it is no longer a "date." This is the sort of adult male equivalent of playing-in-the-sandbox. Yeah, you're both there, and sometimes you share the dump-truck with your pal, but you guys aren't "playing" with each other, but just playing "together." In man-world we are just watching the game, rooting for the local sports team in general proximity to one another.

2) Usually at a bar, you are eating bar food and drinking beer/liquor--man food! Wings, burgers, fries, nachos, etc. If two men are at a sit down restaurant drinking wine, eating salads and other non-steak dishes, "man-date" is in effect.

The essential qualities of a man date require that if one of the individuals were replaced by a woman that the scene would be indistinguishable from a "regular date." Allow me to apologize at this point for the inherently heterosexist speaking position from which I am engaging in this discourse. Our language is fairly cumbersome in attempting to gracefully articulate "non-traditional" relationships, and in order to expedite the analysis I am forced into these horribly exclusive locutions. If indeed the placement of a woman in such a situation makes it indistinguishable from a normal date, then it is possible that any distinction made is a false one, i.e. they're gay. Though women have gone out together in this way for many years with minimal potential misidentification as lesbian, men engaged in such activities where the purpose is not obvious, i.e. sports, business, or getting wasted, then this ambiguity tends to raise suspicions regarding the men's sexual orientation. I believe this is because, men are supposed to be paragons of efficiency and practicality. Men just don't do things for the sake of doing them, e.g. men don't just call to say "hi" (I don't do this, and I don't see why calling to say "hi" to anyone is ever done, some enlightened male or situationally aware female will have to explain this strange and seemingly gratuitously unnecessary phenomenon). If a man is on a date with a woman, or so the stereotype goes, then either he is a)trying to sleep with her, b) already sleeping with her and trying to get her to do more interesting things sexually, c) they are married, and it is their anniversary, or d) he screwed up and is trying desperately to resolve the situation. Therefore, if two men are not clearly on a business, sports, or an alcohol focused engagement then the default switch is set to "trying to get laid."

Male intimacy is a difficult topic for most individuals to articulate fully. For men, the interactions are most robustly experienced when there is some mediating "exchange" that interpolates between the two agents. Whether it is football, or shop-talk, the activity of bonding occurs as an epiphenomenon to the task at hand. "Hanging out," just to hang out, is as the kids say "freaking gay." As the humorously yet disturbingly strange "bro-rape" videos on YouTube illustrate, such a situation tends to raise suspicions. In an article I read for a class on the Philosophy of Love and Sex, the notion that men develop their "fifth set of essential friends," when they, for example, move to a different city, or start a new job, is a common behavioral trope which is destructive to male intimacy. Men use friends as boys use toys in the sandbox, important and fun while they are playing together, but when they come home, they take a shower and clean off all the sand. While women, the article suggests, are more likely to develop fewer yet longer lasting relationships with friends across the various periods in their life. A woman is much more likely to meet an old friend from high school for dinner, even though she has already been to college, and has worked two different jobs. While the article implies that a man will more likely hang out with all of his current work buddies from Tuesday to Saturday nights at the local sports bar with little regard for the sets of relationship he has compiled in the past. One of the many consequences of homosexuality is that it further makes ambiguous the supposedly clear lines of demarcation of male and female behavior, this consequence is one that plagues various spheres of political and cultural landscape-though it should be noted that such lines have, for the most part, always been blurred, i.e. the man date. At the recent Republican Presidential debate, when Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates if any of them thought it would be acceptable for openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces...crickets.

This last issue is definitely for another time, but just remember if you are on a man-date, keep this simple rule in mind:

Do not, I repeat, do not share the dessert. You are just asking for trouble, or at least questions-which is trouble enough.