Filed under: A TV show review (of sorts), I watch too much TV, Way too much thought went into this
From an early age, we are told by our mothers, grandmothers, teachers and countless others that “it’s what’s inside that counts” and ”don’t judge a book by its cover.” Well, one new dating reality show on ABC is pushing those idealistic concepts one step further by proving that looks truly do matter regardless of what people may want to believe.
“Dating in the Dark” premiered two weeks ago on Monday nights and, if you’ve yet to see it, I suggest tuning in for at least one episode* if you have an hour of your life to spare for non-thought-provoking television.
So what’s the general gist** here? Three male and three female contestants move into opposite wings of a house for several days, never having a single opportunity to see each other until the very last moments of the dating scenario. Rather, they meet in “the dark room” on one group date then single dates to decide if chemistry exists sans appearance.
Through the use of infrared/night-vision cameras, viewers are able to watch each awkward moment the contestants experience in the darkness. Yep, we see everything from the sad attempts to eat food in the pitch black room to the ass grabbing and haphazard kissing they engage in. Personally, I find this both amusing and somewhat intrusive, all which keep my eyes glued to the television.
Outwardly, one might think the reality show proves that you can fall for someone without having a clue what he or she looks like. Whether the contestants discover that through fun activities – eating an assortment of fruits or dancing, for example – conversation or simply making out, they are able to judge each other based on personality alone.
This is what we see, thanks to the infrared cameras. They, however, see complete blackness. Creeeeeeeepy.
… That is, until the big moment where each individual’s appearance is revealed to their “match” and both persons have to decide whether or not to continuing dating now that physical attraction is a factor.
The final ten minutes of each episode I’ve watched – three total, in case you were curious – have been more superficial than anything I’ve yet to see in my life***.
The majority of these men and women seriously grapple with the decision to “stay with the person they fell for in the dark, or leave them behind,” as the ABC Web site states. The viewer actually witnesses people experiencing a strange yet real struggle to decide how important the other individual’s appearance is. Some daters choose to depart while others stick around because the connection formed in the blackness prevailed. But did it?
I haven’t exactly watched enough episodes to completely judge, but, thus far, it seems as though the men and women who claim not to be entirely attracted to their date (yet choose to “meet them on the balcony” and continue dating) have this self-righteous attitude that they, unlike others, were able to put personality above appearance. As if they are doing their dates this huge favor by sticking around, and that part certainly disgusts me a bit****.
Either way, I find it all quite intriguing because the show, to some extent, does ask the “is love blind?” question, forcing us all to somewhat think about how important appearance is to a relationship. If in their shoes, would we be able to continue seeing someone we aren’t exactly lusting for just because of an emotional connection? Or would we, too, depart the house, never to see that person again? It’s something viewers likely cannot help but consider while watching.
If you’ve seen “Dating in the Dark,” I’d love to hear your thoughts about it, good or bad. And if you haven’t watched yet, do you think it’s something worth checking out? Lastly, what do you guys think about a reality show trying to answer relatively deep questions about the role of physical attraction?
* Unless you hate reality TV and/or dating shows. Then go watch CSI.
** Until this very moment, I thought “gist” was spelled with a J. Oops.
*** That’s likely a bit hyperbolic, but it fit well into my sentence.
**** Although, perhaps I’m simply reading into this television program a bit more than necessary, which is always a possibility.
Filed under: Way too much thought went into this
I’m often behind the curve, unfortunately, but I was shocked yesterday* when I realized how truly far away I was when it came to the context of this particular Britney Spears song. Truth be told, I didn’t understand the song’s meaning so I didn’t entirely care for it, until I was informed last night what “if you seek Amy” actually means.
“If you seek Amy” = F-U-C-K me. Say it once or twice and you’ll catch on, too.
Love me, hate me
Say what you want about me
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If you seek Amy.
Love me, hate me
But can’t you see what I see?
All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If you seek Amy.
Needless to say, the pop tune’s connotations were obvious once that brief tidbit was discovered. And as I further thought about this earlier today** I realized how knowing just a bit more about a song, a book, an author, etc. can vastly change not only one’s perspective on the piece, but its framework, subtext and even general meaning.
When I was in high school, an English teacher of mine frequently asked us students to disregard the author and his/her life as we read a book. He wanted each of us to look at the words as they were on the page without any prior knowledge of how the author’s life might have played in a role in the text’s creation. An excellent example of this from my senior year AP English course is James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. You can either take the text at face value, or you can delve into Joyce’s life and an entirely new novel is seemingly born. Honestly, I think knowing about Joyce’s relationship with his homeland is crucial to understanding that particular book whatsoever.
And that seems to be the case with Britney Spears’ tune. “If you seek Amy” was one of the songs I’d easily change the radio station to avoid or I’d skip over on my iPod. Now, however, knowing the subtle message she’s actually attempting to convey, I strangely have a greater appreciation for the song and I can better understand it as a whole.
So what are some other songs or books that require some “outside” knowledge to comprehend? I can’t seem to think of any at this moment, but if you can, feel free to share.
* “Yesterday” is actually Sunday. I started this post on Monday and simply haven’t had the time to finish it ’til days later.
* Why it was still on my mind, I have no idea…
NOTE: If you’re extremely bored – and I’m talking boredom bordering suicide – you can explore this topic much more in depth. English professors often refer to it as “authority,” such as “who truly has authority over the text?” I studied this briefly as a junior at Penn State*** and it’s honestly a quite interesting discussion (unless you don’t really care, and then it’s just a bunch of useless college crap being tossed your direction). The crux of “authority” asks if the reader has the right to interpret the text in front of them however he or she chooses, or if the author’s initial meaning is the only true interpretation of the words.
Okay, okay, I’m a huge nerd and I find this a valid and thought-provoking argument, and in reality, it’s that “authority” that changes the meaning of Britney’s words. Plus, for once in my lifetime, I actually applied a somewhat trivial concept that I learned in college to something a bit more mainstream and “real life,” if you will. It may never happen again, so I’m taking this moment to make a note of it.****
*** Truth be told, it’s the ONLY thing from my horrible rhetoric class I remember.
**** It may have literally taken me five days to finish this post, but WOOHOO, I did! And just as I was about to give up on it…
