Ego wrote:The point of my post above was rather simple. Dating apps foster a transactional mindset. They encourage users to evaluate partners as products to be selected, sorted, and replaced if something better appears.
I don't entirely disagree, but there is really only one group of humans for whom this is maybe mostly true, and that would be the top 10% of most attractive males. It might also somewhat apply to the extremely small minority group (less than .001% of population) which might be described as nerdy, sexually motivated females who find humor in dismal economic perspective. And dating apps can't really be blamed for the outlook of the second group since I can report with high degree of accuracy that one of these eccentric-souls was heard as early as 1980, as she and her teeny-bopper female friends slipped on their shorts over their bikinis and got on their bikes, saying something along the lines of "Let's go hang out at Long Lake Beach instead of Little Bass Beach, it has a better GGR (guy to girl ratio.)" (I know I might be taking you a bit back down memory lane, but do you remember the movie "Little Darlings" starring Tatum O'Neal and Kristie McNichol?)
Anyways, the reason why it doesn't encourage a transactional mindset for the bottom 90% of males is that they don't find that much success using dating apps. If anything, it might be more like it encourages a Lotto ticket type mindset for them, something that is easy and relatively quite inexpensive to utilize (nowhere but here does the $29.99/month membership fee seem like the issue) and, hey, who knows, maybe might get lucky someday.
OTOH, the reason why dating apps don't really encourage a transactional mindset* for most women (and I base this on having read statistics and accounts of other women's experiences using dating apps, not just my own experience) is that women rarely hang out on dating apps for long periods of time the way men do. In fact, I would suggest that the women who do hang out on dating apps continuously for long periods of time, just like the women who constantly hung out on barstools in the olden days, are frequently engaging in some form of prostitution or catfishing. Most women, including me, on average only keep an internet dating app open for 3 weeks before closing it down again. Some, like my beautiful professional dancer niece, will shut it down almost immediately because inbox flooded with 500 inquiries overnight, or because the sort of guys who ruin environments for other guys everywhere send them blatant and/or disturbing messages. My constant experience, which seems to correlate with the statistics and experiences of other women, is that the problem with using dating apps vs. meeting/mating men in the wild (which has its own problems), is that almost all the men you meet are primed to find a girlfriend/relationship, so most women are sort of rushed into picking a boyfriend within a few weeks. And apparently, for many people these quickly formed relationships do work out.
It has been my experience that within a few weeks of opening up a dating app, I will have met on average 4 different men for coffee, had a second date with 2 of them, and had at least one of them say something like "Hey, how about you and me try being a couple?" and/or sometimes I might choose to have sex with somebody on a third date. So, when I was strictly abiding by serial monogamy, I would then shut my dating app down and politely dismiss other men I might have already met in person. So, it might surprise you to learn, that one of the reasons I decided to take up the practice of polyamory was that I was too frequently finding myself rushed into semi-committed monogamy. In the 5 years in between my first marriage of 20 years and my second "marriage" of 4 years, I had 4 different boyfriends with whom I had relationships that lasted around 6 months to 18 months, and because these were all older men with homes and maybe kids and dogs, etc. my relationships with them became quite domestic quite quickly. So, because I am also kind of absent-minded, it actually got to the point that I would maybe be down the aisle in a grocery store looking for the pasta, and I would have a memory lapse about the identity of the middle-aged man with whom I was cooking dinner with that evening. OTOH, since I took up polyamory after leaving my second "husband", my average relationship has persisted for much longer. IOW, because I don't practice serial monogamy, I never have to break up with one partner and "replace" him with another partner, and this is true even though my practice of polyamory has fairly often defaulted into either de facto monogamy or de facto celibacy. Anyways, I think it would be pretty terrible if the reason I chose to stay in relationship with a man was that I perceived a scarcity of other options, but MMV.
Ego wrote:They undermine the best kind of relationships, those that are interdependent. Interdependent relationships help the couple share growth, endure challenges, build adaptability and nurture personal development for both partners.
I'm fairly certain that what you mean by "interdependent" is not entirely in alignment with the usage of "Interdependent" to describe relationships at Level Green/Post-Modern in the Integral Relationship chart I excerpted above. As noted in the chart, the typical problem with "interdependent" relationships at Level Green/Post-Modern is a tendency towards male/female role reversal due to both partners enduring challenge and personal development in the realms of feminism and masculinism. IOW, they are both getting more in touch and/or feeling more free to express aspects of the gender role in alignment with their own internal identity that they were not assigned at birth within their culture. The most typical way this might play out, since feminism generally precedes masculinism, would be the wife is too bossy (in her adult masculine energy) and the husband is too sensitive (in his juvenile feminine energy) and they become no longer sexually attracted to each other. OTOH, as Jacob implied with his note that in his strongly Level Green culture, it may be the case that women choose to inhabit their juvenile-masculine fun-loving energy, like early-adopter Cyndi Lauper in 1983. I think whether a woman chooses to first explore her adult masculine energy or her juvenile masculine energy usually varies with personality type. For example, women with primary Ne would likely be more in their juvenile masculine energy at Level Green, whereas women with primary Te would more likely be in their adult masculine energy at Level Green. Similarly, men with primary Fi would vibe more juvenile feminine/sensitive at Level Green and men with primary Fe would vibe more adult feminine/maternal at Level Green.
Anyways, at Level Yellow/Systems/Meta-Modern, the couple or individuals entering into relationship will have moved beyond the phase of integrating both their feminine and masculine aspects of personality, and will be self-aware choosing to bring their core preferred energy to sexual/romantic relationships in order to promote strong sexual polarity. Although, it is also the case that this can happen in relationships centered at other levels if the not-yet-self-aware individuals engaged in a relationship just happen to get lucky in terms of expression of polarity, and their are circumstance under which this is more likely to happen. For example, it is more likely in situations in which both partners are objectively quite attractive and/or gender is reinforced by factors such as relative size of the male and female. A tiny woman acting bossy might more easily be perceived as "feisty cute" and a hulk of a man exuding vulnerability might more easily be seen as "lion with thorn in paw" or similar attractive analogy. Generally, the expression of otherwise likely to be depolarizing opposing gender traits is more likely to just add an edge of panache if/when the core gender identity is already somehow being quite strongly or attractively expressed otherwise.
As the chart indicates, relationships at Level Yellow/Systems/Metamodern are referred to as "Interbeing" relationships, and Martin Ucik describes them as involving partners who see themselves as Equal but Opposite, and engaged in Learning, Healing, Growing, and Awakening, so maybe this is more towards what you meant by "Interdependent?" I agree that it would likely prove beneficial to become engaged in a Level Yellow "Interbeing" relationship, but my problem currently is either:
A) There are no Level Yellow men available in my dating pool.
B) I am stuck at just wanting to have fun at Level Green myself.
Unfortunately, I haven't found very much workable advice on filtering for men who are ready for Level Yellow relationship based on my reading beyond maybe seeking out those who are working towards mastery of Tantric Sex practices, and I will assume that your note toward taking up responsibilities would not be towards condemning even one such as I to the fate of becoming the Forever Girlfriend of Guy Who Works in Finance at Ford?
*Okay, I will admit to finding myself humming, "How much is that doggie in the window?" on one occasion while browsing on a dating app, but, once again, I am towards eccentric weirdo minority group member.
) were to make me an offer I might be tempted (even though I think my second "husband" who he somewhat resembles is actually better looking.) I also remain somewhat tempted by the Primitive Technology guy I met at the flea market last summer, but I'm starting to feel like it is mean of me to get involved with new guys that I might dump or friend-zone or part-time-zone when I get bored. It might be better for me to do fun things with female friends. 
