Talk to Me (or Text Me)

To close the summer, Museum of Modern Art is hosting an exhibit called Talk to Me, chronicling  how people communicate with objects. From showcasing an interesting hand written code that was shared between homeless people to mark safe shelters in the 1900s to paying homage to the "human experience" of smart phones, the exhibit got me thinking about why it is so much easier to relate honestly to objects of technology instead of the objects of our affection.

Talk to Me highlights how overtime, people make objects more and more human to enhance our experiences with them. Think about it, the slightest human touch on ATMs, GPS and alarm clocks can make them feel more civilized and interactive.  But, ironically, when it comes to romance, we use objects to make our experiences less human, so we can open up more.

Online dating profiles are a great example. It has become almost normal to pour the intimate details of who we are and what we are hoping for onto a computer screen, but could you imagine actually articulating this information on a first or date? "Hi I'm Jewels, I work hard and play hard and am looking for a non-smoker who drinks occasionally, makes six figures and has a soft spot for REM. Additionally, I'm looking for a love that makes me want to jump out of the bed some mornings and never leave it other mornings. Did I mention he has to LOVE children and support my career?"

The offline dating game can be filled with pretense, obscurity and the infamous battle of HTG (hard to get). A funny game considering the purpose of dating is actually to be "gotten" in the end. Just think about the close of a date when you stumble through an awkward good-bye only two get a schmoopie text 5 minutes later saying "had so much fun, do it again?" Why is it so much easier to talk to your Iphone then to look in someone's eyes and speak honestly? 

Talk to me about what you think...via comments of course.  Talk to Me: through November 7th at MOMA, 11 West 53rd Street NY, NY.

Let's Take This Conversation Offline...Seriously

Is anyone else getting bored with people that are all tech, no action -- because I am. Maybe "Fitty" said it best: "AYO I'm Tired of All This Technology, Why Don't You Sit On Top Of Me..." Though not a thug myself -- and not necessarily ready to make straddling my romatic call-to-action -- I am starting to embrace his no BS approach.

After my first date with "the object of my a(tech)tion" all signs pointed toward beaux (shame on me). Good convo peppered with forward-looking references "I love Mizu too, we'll have to go sometime," an offer of hitting up a second bar, a lady-like decline (by me) and of course the text, "Had fun, do it again?" moments after I got into the cab. This was a first date no brainer. NEVER did it cross my mind that I wouldn't see this dude again.

Maybe I should have seen it coming when he cut and pasted his grad-school graduation itinerary in an email to me days later (no joke) which culminated in a long weekend in Las Vegas. Still feeling optimistic about our hang-out, I endured 4 days of texting about the electric lemonade at Rehab and crafting e-mails with fun subject lines like "What happens in Vegas..." to which I got responses like "If I win big tonight I'm flying you out here." But when he retured home and was still all winks ;) and XOs, it was official: I was textually frustrated. So after some coaxing by a guy friend, who was sick of hearing me bitch, I woMANed-up with an e-mail that asked the logical question: "Are we going to hang out and see where this two-ring circus is going?" He responded with a prompt yes, suggested a day and then 2 days later, asked "Thursday won't work but I can do Friday and play into next week." At this point I respectfully declined a rain date...even though I liked the way he worded it.

I know, I know this tale is a bit of a bust, but I just didn't have it in me to keep communicating with a guy whose face I could only picture as a Facebook headshot. I mean I thought he was cute, but that picture could also be from undergrad. Guess I'll never know.

Invisible Relationships

Have you noticed lately that the term "seeing someone" is going out of style? I have. I feel like when I ask friends about budding relationships" So are you seeing each other?" The word "seeing" feels like an anachronism. My own answer when the script is flipped on me is "uh....what do you mean by seeing?" My friend Z used a good term recently when I asked her if she was dating a guy she met in "the Broken" aka Hoboken. She said "well, we're talking." Code for trading flirtatious emails and texts for up to a week in the pursuit of eventually meeting up to "see" if there are enough sparks to warrant an upgrade to unlimited texts for the month. Then realizing there are and trading texts/emails for another two weeks untill you decide to meet again.

To me these are invisble relationships. Defined as any relationship where more than 80% of the time you spend together is through texting, emails, Facebook and IM and the person lives within a 2 mile radius ( live calls don't count, they can be almost as panic inducing as a sober first date). That breaks down, in real world terms, to clocking about an hour of electro-comm per day but then only seeing the person once every two weeks for a block of about 2 1/2 hours-3 hours. Sound familiar? Please note: invisible relationships are not to be confused with booty calls. They are clearly more significant as your invisble suitor spends their daytime hours enjoying your company....over Instant Messenger and will even text you to "talk" about the lesbian drama on Iron Chef. It's almost like they are beside you on your couch, except you don't have to plea for them to hush until commercial breaks.

Some say its a more efficient mode of communication. Check out an excerpt from an IM conversation I had with my buddy Jay after he was ripping on me for enjoying songs like "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls"...

Jay: you're all about "relationship music"
Jewels: i love 90s ballads...anything from the boomerang soundtrack is amazing, are we still friends?
Jay: not in public
Jewels: this is perfect for the blog topic I am working on, invisible relationships. ones that only exists via technology
Jay: ha, i've had relationships like that before. it's not so bad for awhile, especially if the other person is annoying
Jewels: valid then?
Jay: girls used to get mad at me since i only text (no phone), but more and more these days are fine with that
Jewels: is that a firm rule?
Jay: i've been text-only for probably 5 years now. i find the telephone an unsatisfactory medium, not as efficient as texting, not as robust as in-person
Jewels: do you date less traditional girls who would accept that?
Jay: nah, it just filters out girls who want to yap on the phone all the time and it allows me to compartmenatlize my quality time with them

So what is the net (besides the fact that Jay's declaration of being text-only sounds like a rehab program)? Seems like invisble relationships are more convenient physically and emotionally, allowing us to keep our mates at an arms length away. But I think it's also interesting to consider how invisible relationships can satisfy a need for longer term attachment. Afterall, "seeing" each other in the traditional sense also leads to no longer "seeing" each other. Maybe invisble relationships are ironically a way for us to keep people in our lives in a more prolonged or permanent way. I mean there is never a "need" to break-up; unless of course someone is passive aggresively "away from their computer" all day on AIM.

AIM , e-mail flirting , booty call

How Technology Showed Me He Was Wrong For Me

When it comes to technological comunication with your SI (SI=significant other) it is all about TLC and sometimes even TMI. To know you care how my "Mean Girls" presentation went or that I worked till six on my sick day is maybe the only thing that will make it better. To know you wish I was in your bed when I'm not or that you are taking a trip down "memory lane" delivers an intimacy that can trancend the medium that delivers it. Insert sarcasm/humor and IM (I am...ha) yours.

I recently dated a guy that did none of these things which made me realize it would never work. At first I rationalized that generic texts like "good morning," were a sign of his maturity and stability. Afterall he sent them every morning at 9:00 am. But when he started spitting back a dull response -- that usually went something like "busy day, I'll call you later" -- to my rather pithy emails I started to feel like I was dating an out of office message. And guess what, that's no fun. Keep in mind the same guy would take me to wonderful dinners, cook for me, send flowers, the works. But when we weren't together he just couldn't mind the romantic gap.

My boiled down advice to texting and typing suitors:

1. How you communicate when you aren't together is more important than how you communicate when you are together, because when you aren't you don't have the physical glue that makes its easy to feel close.
2. Technology is by nature a cool medium. HEAT it up.
3. No matter how busy you are at the very least stick an XO at the end of your correspondence

break ups , TMI , courting , generic text messaging