I've watched Friends last year for the first time in my life and it was shocking to me, among other 90s things, how everyone is dating left and right, one after another as if they were in a race or something. I don't know your social circle but in mine, currently it's quite the opposite. I observe that less and less people go out/date/interact with each other socially, which is sad.
My take on Friends gets more reactionary the older I get. I now see it as very much a part of the Sexual Revolution: the drive to normalise dating and casual sex. On the one hand the friends treat sex as no big deal, plenty of humour, no judgement, etc. Just occasionally rationalising it as part of a necessary quest to find a husband or wife. On the other hand you notice from a distance that their whole lives revolve around sex. So it is a big deal, de facto, and of course in real life loneliness can be a very real penalty for messing it up.
To be fair, that's a sitcom. I think modern shows like BoJack Horseman are really good interpretations on how poorly those types of stories represented reality.
While I agree wholeheartedly, I cant help but think how funny it is that an absurdist cartoon with talking animals more accurately represents relationship stories.
It's counterintuitive but a pretty well-known phenomenon. The finest cartoons provide a unique window into some aspect of human culture. The Simpsons, Futurama, King of the Hill—they all were entertaining, but the best episodes talked about something serious under the guise of humor. Science fiction is the same way. Star Trek isn't about aliens; it's about us.
Go back half a step to Seinfeld and consider the dating life of "the perpetual loser" of the show, George Costanza. You could go full Rodgers thinking, "Well this guy is dating chicks left and right whereas I can't even get the time of day".
But you just remember the MST3K advice: "Just repeat to yourself, it's just a show. I should really just relax."
It's a hyper-idealized version of reality intended to highlight ridiculous situations, not an accurate representation of life.
Active sex lives are better to write about and a small element of wish fulfillment like their oversized apartment for their job.
I was too young to notice but I heard the 90s described as prudish as an impact of AIDS. So not having to worry about the spectre of AIDS even if it was less "expel kids with AIDS from school and deny straight people can get it" hysteria.
I agree. I was fortunate to be in an area and group where that sort of dating was still alive; I didn't end up marrying any of those people in that area, but I learned _a_lot_ about people; how they think, what kinds of people there are, a lot about interacting with members of the opposite sex, gained a lot of confidence in just being around people and making social requests. I think it is invaluable experience for understanding people.
Is it different in NYC? Friends was based there right? Different demographics and just the shear number of people means you are more likely to interact with someone.
Thanks to dating applications in major cities (NYC, Paris, London, Bangkok, Shanghai) it's possible for a reasonably attractive man to go on multiple dates a night for weeks on end.
There's also literally endless functions, meetups and places to hang out... if you can afford it.
Outside of the cities, particularly in the US, it's shocking how mechanical and isolated people become. The combination of religion withering away and increasing technological automation means "small-town living" -- with mutually interdependent neighbors gathering each week at Church -- is dead and gone. In its place you find isolated exurb drug-addled dystopias. It's a bit horrifying.
> In its place you find isolated exurb drug-addled dystopias. It's a bit horrifying.
I think you may have spent more time reading Atlantic articles and listening to documentary podcasts about small town America than you’ve actually spent in it.
It is still alive and well, in pretty much the way you describe, in many/most small towns.
