I could be wrong but when ppl try to find the online dating strategy, I imagine that’s what they see bc of the algorithm, which fuels the overanalysis…
I remember I saw “ex MIT/BCG/Stripe online dating coach” who “hacked her dating life” on LinkedIn, which gave me a second hand embarrassment ngl…
(I feel like LinkedIn has become a place overcrowded with attention seeker who don have “it” too lolol)
This stuff was all over reddit when I was in college, dudes who have absolutely no experience with serious relationships developing rube goldberg machines to solve the complex puzzle they imagined getting laid to be.
Yeah I mean just working on yourself and developing a sense of humor and perspective on the world is the hack. That’s how I got my wife and she was way out of my league.
Michelle Trachtenberg's cause and manner of death are actually both undetermined. Her family doesn’t want an autopsy and there’s not going to be one because her death wasn’t suspicious. She had a liver transplant last year, so I’m sure it’s not unrelated, but we don’t know that she “died of liver disease.”
As much as I hate all the attention that Luigi bastard keeps getting, the “Mario and Luigi” picture made me laugh. 😄
Oh wow, I'm surprised you never learned Chris Rufo's lore. It's too much for a simple comment, but basically he ran for city council as a moderate in Seattle. This went poorly, so he dropped out claiming death threats. Not-particularly-far-left reporter Katie Herzog followed up on this and found out the death threats consisted of someone on Facebook telling Rufo's wife to get bent (based on everything Chris sent her). After that, IIRC, Rufo became a Smart Conservative reporter/journalist for places like the Manhattan Institute. In the early Biden years, he found his new niche: trying to destroy DEI/Woke stuff by doing inflammatory journalism about it. His unique contribution to the field was being as hellbent on complaining about it as everyone else, but at least trying to find actual hard evidence rather than making stuff up and then writing a scathing report on it. His most famous expose during this time was the one that ended up getting Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, fired for, among other things, plagiarism.
He is deeply, deeply focused on dismantling anything he considers woke/DEI and is clearly in higher level talks with White house folks like Elon. A lot of the playbook for ending the Civil Rights Act (his explicitly stated goal) is what you are seeing with DOGE now.
As a fun aside, one of the jr reporters who helped him with the Harvard story is a much more inflammatory Canadian named Chris Brunette. Chris was actually in shitposting spheres before COVID, kind of went crazy and has been posting his way through firings ever since, including a huge blowout with Chris Rufo earlier this year over God knows what.
Slight correction, he claimed “violent sexual threats” and “get bent” was the only receipt he produced. His family was genuinely getting harassed though, including one dude that contacted police claiming Rufo’s wife had doxxed him (she posted on Facebook that they had kids in the same school as an olive branch in a thread where he was badmouthing Rufo).
Man Jay is a blast from the past. Here I was regretting going a bit overboard in reddit arguments back in the day, forgetting that TRP posters were a lot less emo and a lot more... whatever that is
Gotta admit, I'm still a bit fuzzy on why that Christopher Rufo guy thinks the Tranny Deep State hates Italians...? Kinda just threw that one out there, with no real explanation. I demand answers, hahaha!
Oooh I will be waiting with bated breath for your Ray Peat deep dive! I have a theory that the stress of getting picked up by RW grifters (he was a lifelong communist lol) killed him. @NoelleKovary on ig is the most extra of the Peat liars-she once claimed that the extra calories went right to her lips lmao.
No more dates guy has me wanting to fucking write a god damn novel. It’s so much more than just “man creepy” (in before whatever the fuck reaction; this man is far beyond creepy), the way in which we as men are socialized around body counts is so incredibly fucked up and we need to burn the whole mother fucking patriarchy to the grrround, Irving style. How absolutely and utterly miserable would it be to actively avoid ever getting to know any one? Like the literal loneliness of his life makes me want to puke. And for what? Sex? Anyone actually believe he does it for the sex? Nah fam. He is doing it to desperately trying to find self worth and acceptance among other men. Thats what makes it so sad. I doubt he’s ever even REALLY enjoyed sex, surrendered fully into his body in the moment. He’s out there knocking boots and doing math in his head the whole time, and not even just to last a little longer like a normal person, just wondering if this might be the one that pushes him over the line so he can look in the mirror and finally feel ok inside for just a brief moment. (editors note: I would give it a 1% chance this story is true, although I have met men in the real who have had 250+ sexual partners, I promise you it does happen).
It is almost certainly false. Even 10/10 attractive men still need to charm women and take them on a date first (if nothing else, just to prove they’re safe). The idea that 20%-30% of his matches agree to come over without meeting him is laughable.
On your broader point, I had a phase where I was reading a lot of articles by ex-pickup artists. They were getting laid a lot, like more than 99% of men, but almost all of them said it was bad for them and gave it up for serious relationships. To have that much casual sex, you have to make getting casual sex your primary obsession in life, which means little time for hobbies or friends. It also means spending a lot of time talking to women you don’t even like or have much in common with, which makes the sex ultimately hollow. It’s a miserable existence.
I could believe that an extremely attractive, extremely charming man can get some nontrivial proportion of his matches to come home with him after a brief meet-up in a public place.
But getting ~25% of them to come home with him without so much as meeting in person first? No. No way is that true.
Also is trying to sit next to your date in a restaurant some kind of PUA move? That’s fucking weird.
I have a friend who does this on the regular. He’s definitely a 0.01% outlier, and I agree this guy ain’t, but it’s a big world and nothing surprises me anymore. And I 100% agree! This particular friend is far from happy
I kind of doubt that, I suspect it’s the online dating experience. As a young man either you are one of the top 10% and you can be utterly horrible and still get matches or you are in the bottom 50% and you end up matchless and bitter.
I really think it's a pity and also a sign that good things on the internet are never rewarded with monetary success that OKCupid basically lost to Tinder and the other brainless dating apps. I really liked OKCupid in my online dating days in the early 2010s because it was so useful for figuring out whether it was even worth setting up a date at all. The match percentages genuinely were a good barometer if you'd answered enough questions.
My recollection of OKCupid in the Bay Area was that the quizzes took so long it felt like it took all the energy away from dating, and that everyone closely matching with me had lists of their 20 favorite movies I'd never watched.
Trump is definitely a symptom, not a cause. IRL dating has basically disappeared in the modern era due to a combination of youth being terminally online and lacking in-person social skills; a decline of the bar/club scenes and drinking in general; conscientious men being more worried about offending or upsetting women they approach IRL post #metoo; and the dating apps just frankly being much easier and faster.
So that leaves us with the apps, and the social dynamics at play on the apps was never going to be sustainable for either men or women. Most men are dying of thirst in a desert and most women are drowning in a swamp filled with players like the one from this article. Nobody from either gender is happy, except maybe the absolute top of men, and possibly young hot women with high sex drives for a couple years of their lives. But for almost everybody else the status quo is a nightmare.
Where we go from here I have no idea, but it feels like there'll be trouble ahead whatever happens.
The foodie call thread is so fascinating to me. I think one of the weirder parts of modern dating culture is how long the norm of men paying for the first date has persisted even though it makes no sense in modern life. Even 15 years ago when I was tearing through OKCupid, I felt pretty uncomfortable with it because of the exact problem he states: letting a guy pay for the date makes many of them feel entitled to me. If I didn't sleep with them, some of them would feel bitter about it. The ones who didn't were better, but in those cases I'd feel like I was ripping them off, because I'd feel like it was unfair that they were paying when we were essentially there for exactly the same purpose- why did the guy have to pay for that opportunity while I got it for free?
Because of this discomfort, I ended up pursuing a similar strategy to this guy, but it was different in some pretty key ways. I decided that all first dates with any person were coffee dates. If a guy was really attached to paying for the first date, this allowed him to be out less than $5 to show me that courtesy. There were other enormous benefits, but at least one of them was avoiding a lot of this entitlement question.
Similarly, if I was out at a bar or club, I'd make sure to buy a drink immediately upon entry. That way if someone came up and wanted to buy me a drink, I could easily decline with "No thank you, I already have one." That would be the end of it for people I didn't find attractive, but for those I did, I'd then say "But you can talk to me." If I was still having a good time with them by the time I finished my drink, I'd let them buy me the next one. But the most I'd ever do with someone at a bar or club was make out with the person and get their phone number. If I was still interested when I sobered up the next day, I'd call or text them (back then both forms of communication were normal). I learned very quickly not to give out my own number because of how clingy some dudes would get.
I mean I haven't dated since college but seems like trying out new restaurants you've wanted to go to would be a benefit of dating?? Like even if the date sucks, you'll still get a decent meal. But this person seems like a quasi-psychotic introvert.
Sure, but if you're middle class and above sans kids, honestly you can afford it. OTOH if you're taking a first date to a frikkin 5 star restaurant the only one to blame is yourself.
Oh I can afford it, just saying, if I got a date that was clearly only there for the free meal, I’d be a little annoyed. Definitely not “radicalized to first date Netflix and Chill only”, but annoyed. And “foodie call” is a clever phrase.
Sure, but why the heck is the man on the hook for the whole check this far into the 21st century? Because of course, I can make the exact same statement about women who are middle-class and above with no kids: they can also afford it! I'm all for killing off this patriarchal anachronism posthaste.
I can't argue with that on any logical grounds. I just grew up in a very traditional household so it just seems natural to me (I also haven't had to date in 20 years, so there's that too)
It was about 50/50 when I was dating 15 years ago between guys who wanted to split the check and guys who wanted to pay. I initially tried to pay my half but quickly found out even some of the good guys were disappointed if they couldn't pick up the check. I didn't understand it then and I don't get it now, but it's weird that there are guys who think it's so mandatory that they've sworn off real dates.
I guess at the very least I respect Veronica person for not going down the unoriginal path of “I do my own research and I love Hitler” lol
One thing I realized to dislike about those ppl among so many things is, while they try to maximize the attention, they try to come off as innocent - like you can’t have your cake and eat it
In addition to how pathetic Jay is, he's also really pathetic. 254 women over 10 years? And he's slept with them, what? Once each, twice each if we're generous? If we're really generous and claim he's had sex 500 times in 10 years.... I bet most married men hit that every 2-3 years. Especially newlyweds.
‘the faux pas of trying to sit next to a girl instead of opposite her’ ok I want to get into this. How bad is this? Why/since when? Is it ok if you ask first, according to whatever etiquette dictates this?
I like to sit next to people rather than opposite. I just prefer it and sometimes I’ll ask if it’s not awkward to do so (I don’t do it without asking). I’ve had a decent share of good dates where I was sat next to the other person 🤷🏼♂️
Human etiquette seems like such a weird thing sometimes if you’re a bit on the spectrum.
The reason the guy wants to do it in this scenario (he's trying to sleep with her and wants proximity to her flesh) is also the reason she is trying not to do it.
FWIW I agree with you that it's nice to sit next to someone. Helpful when it comes to eye contact getting a bit much lol. I think most people are against it, paradoxically, because it feels less intimate - you're 'supposed' to be facing each other if you want to connect.
Tbh, my ideal is each partner sitting on either side of like, a perpendicular angle... so we're like, half facing in, half facing out. It's win-win-win.
“Next to each other” at a 4 top (with a corner between you) is ideal. Also better if you’re sharing any food (although maybe that’s a second date thing). Across from each other at a 2 top makes it hard to share an app or dessert.
I think the main issue is that if you sit next to someone rather than across from them in a situation where there's a choice, that is usually closer physical proximity. If you have just met this person, they might want to keep a bit of distance between them and someone who's basically a stranger. If you're asking and getting a positive response the first time you meet the person, very likely they are already a bit comfortable with you and there's nothing wrong with taking them up on it.
I would be careful that when you ask, you take hesitation (long pause before an answer, "I guess so", ums or hmms) as a "no" and say something graceful to accept that no. "Heh, maybe a little early for that?" as you sit across from them and then a subject change would be a smooth way to handle it.
If you want to completely avoid the faux pas, you can always do dates where sitting across isn't an option: sitting at a bar or diner counter, getting to-go coffees to drink on a park bench, a movie, etc etc.
As someone who worked in a secret, classified environment for almost 25 years, I can assure you that what are apparently emails that Chris Rufo "unearthed" would have/ should have gotten both people fired or at least reprimanded.
I've just done some searching to see if policies have changed in the 20 years since my retirement. It may be that policies are more lenient now. But it is also very likely that policies are far more restrictive in classified settings.
Not that this should change your opinion about the NSFW content, but I’m not 100% sure the messages were on classified servers. I’ve heard them referenced to “Intelink”, which is an interagency intranet. My understanding is that Intelink has both classified and sensitive-but-unclassified instances. And they weren’t emails, but something equivalent to a Slack channel or Teams, that is, a group chat.
Dear god, I’m glad I’m not longer in the dating game. It seems like a lot of people over analyze it and then create psychotic lifestyle philosophies.
Yea…
I could be wrong but when ppl try to find the online dating strategy, I imagine that’s what they see bc of the algorithm, which fuels the overanalysis…
I remember I saw “ex MIT/BCG/Stripe online dating coach” who “hacked her dating life” on LinkedIn, which gave me a second hand embarrassment ngl…
(I feel like LinkedIn has become a place overcrowded with attention seeker who don have “it” too lolol)
This stuff was all over reddit when I was in college, dudes who have absolutely no experience with serious relationships developing rube goldberg machines to solve the complex puzzle they imagined getting laid to be.
Yeah I mean just working on yourself and developing a sense of humor and perspective on the world is the hack. That’s how I got my wife and she was way out of my league.
I am now accepting VC funds for Coochie Insta cart
Pretty sure that was Backpage.
Now I see why the right hates DEI programs. They leave out Italians!
Michelle Trachtenberg's cause and manner of death are actually both undetermined. Her family doesn’t want an autopsy and there’s not going to be one because her death wasn’t suspicious. She had a liver transplant last year, so I’m sure it’s not unrelated, but we don’t know that she “died of liver disease.”
As much as I hate all the attention that Luigi bastard keeps getting, the “Mario and Luigi” picture made me laugh. 😄
Oh wow, I'm surprised you never learned Chris Rufo's lore. It's too much for a simple comment, but basically he ran for city council as a moderate in Seattle. This went poorly, so he dropped out claiming death threats. Not-particularly-far-left reporter Katie Herzog followed up on this and found out the death threats consisted of someone on Facebook telling Rufo's wife to get bent (based on everything Chris sent her). After that, IIRC, Rufo became a Smart Conservative reporter/journalist for places like the Manhattan Institute. In the early Biden years, he found his new niche: trying to destroy DEI/Woke stuff by doing inflammatory journalism about it. His unique contribution to the field was being as hellbent on complaining about it as everyone else, but at least trying to find actual hard evidence rather than making stuff up and then writing a scathing report on it. His most famous expose during this time was the one that ended up getting Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, fired for, among other things, plagiarism.
He is deeply, deeply focused on dismantling anything he considers woke/DEI and is clearly in higher level talks with White house folks like Elon. A lot of the playbook for ending the Civil Rights Act (his explicitly stated goal) is what you are seeing with DOGE now.
As a fun aside, one of the jr reporters who helped him with the Harvard story is a much more inflammatory Canadian named Chris Brunette. Chris was actually in shitposting spheres before COVID, kind of went crazy and has been posting his way through firings ever since, including a huge blowout with Chris Rufo earlier this year over God knows what.
Slight correction, he claimed “violent sexual threats” and “get bent” was the only receipt he produced. His family was genuinely getting harassed though, including one dude that contacted police claiming Rufo’s wife had doxxed him (she posted on Facebook that they had kids in the same school as an olive branch in a thread where he was badmouthing Rufo).
Man Jay is a blast from the past. Here I was regretting going a bit overboard in reddit arguments back in the day, forgetting that TRP posters were a lot less emo and a lot more... whatever that is
literal ferengi brain, you hate to see it
Gotta admit, I'm still a bit fuzzy on why that Christopher Rufo guy thinks the Tranny Deep State hates Italians...? Kinda just threw that one out there, with no real explanation. I demand answers, hahaha!
Oooh I will be waiting with bated breath for your Ray Peat deep dive! I have a theory that the stress of getting picked up by RW grifters (he was a lifelong communist lol) killed him. @NoelleKovary on ig is the most extra of the Peat liars-she once claimed that the extra calories went right to her lips lmao.
"bitch UR THE RED FLAG" pretty much sums that guy up
No more dates guy has me wanting to fucking write a god damn novel. It’s so much more than just “man creepy” (in before whatever the fuck reaction; this man is far beyond creepy), the way in which we as men are socialized around body counts is so incredibly fucked up and we need to burn the whole mother fucking patriarchy to the grrround, Irving style. How absolutely and utterly miserable would it be to actively avoid ever getting to know any one? Like the literal loneliness of his life makes me want to puke. And for what? Sex? Anyone actually believe he does it for the sex? Nah fam. He is doing it to desperately trying to find self worth and acceptance among other men. Thats what makes it so sad. I doubt he’s ever even REALLY enjoyed sex, surrendered fully into his body in the moment. He’s out there knocking boots and doing math in his head the whole time, and not even just to last a little longer like a normal person, just wondering if this might be the one that pushes him over the line so he can look in the mirror and finally feel ok inside for just a brief moment. (editors note: I would give it a 1% chance this story is true, although I have met men in the real who have had 250+ sexual partners, I promise you it does happen).
It is almost certainly false. Even 10/10 attractive men still need to charm women and take them on a date first (if nothing else, just to prove they’re safe). The idea that 20%-30% of his matches agree to come over without meeting him is laughable.
On your broader point, I had a phase where I was reading a lot of articles by ex-pickup artists. They were getting laid a lot, like more than 99% of men, but almost all of them said it was bad for them and gave it up for serious relationships. To have that much casual sex, you have to make getting casual sex your primary obsession in life, which means little time for hobbies or friends. It also means spending a lot of time talking to women you don’t even like or have much in common with, which makes the sex ultimately hollow. It’s a miserable existence.
I could believe that an extremely attractive, extremely charming man can get some nontrivial proportion of his matches to come home with him after a brief meet-up in a public place.
But getting ~25% of them to come home with him without so much as meeting in person first? No. No way is that true.
Also is trying to sit next to your date in a restaurant some kind of PUA move? That’s fucking weird.
I have a friend who does this on the regular. He’s definitely a 0.01% outlier, and I agree this guy ain’t, but it’s a big world and nothing surprises me anymore. And I 100% agree! This particular friend is far from happy
All I’m saying is the world is full of many despicable creatures, and one can despise them and pity them at the same time.
I kind of doubt that, I suspect it’s the online dating experience. As a young man either you are one of the top 10% and you can be utterly horrible and still get matches or you are in the bottom 50% and you end up matchless and bitter.
The decline of OKCupid as a means for idiosyncratic at-least-midwits to get laid is what elected Trump in 2024.
I really think it's a pity and also a sign that good things on the internet are never rewarded with monetary success that OKCupid basically lost to Tinder and the other brainless dating apps. I really liked OKCupid in my online dating days in the early 2010s because it was so useful for figuring out whether it was even worth setting up a date at all. The match percentages genuinely were a good barometer if you'd answered enough questions.
Capitalism creates great things, and then fucking ruins them
My recollection of OKCupid in the Bay Area was that the quizzes took so long it felt like it took all the energy away from dating, and that everyone closely matching with me had lists of their 20 favorite movies I'd never watched.
Trump is definitely a symptom, not a cause. IRL dating has basically disappeared in the modern era due to a combination of youth being terminally online and lacking in-person social skills; a decline of the bar/club scenes and drinking in general; conscientious men being more worried about offending or upsetting women they approach IRL post #metoo; and the dating apps just frankly being much easier and faster.
So that leaves us with the apps, and the social dynamics at play on the apps was never going to be sustainable for either men or women. Most men are dying of thirst in a desert and most women are drowning in a swamp filled with players like the one from this article. Nobody from either gender is happy, except maybe the absolute top of men, and possibly young hot women with high sex drives for a couple years of their lives. But for almost everybody else the status quo is a nightmare.
Where we go from here I have no idea, but it feels like there'll be trouble ahead whatever happens.
The foodie call thread is so fascinating to me. I think one of the weirder parts of modern dating culture is how long the norm of men paying for the first date has persisted even though it makes no sense in modern life. Even 15 years ago when I was tearing through OKCupid, I felt pretty uncomfortable with it because of the exact problem he states: letting a guy pay for the date makes many of them feel entitled to me. If I didn't sleep with them, some of them would feel bitter about it. The ones who didn't were better, but in those cases I'd feel like I was ripping them off, because I'd feel like it was unfair that they were paying when we were essentially there for exactly the same purpose- why did the guy have to pay for that opportunity while I got it for free?
Because of this discomfort, I ended up pursuing a similar strategy to this guy, but it was different in some pretty key ways. I decided that all first dates with any person were coffee dates. If a guy was really attached to paying for the first date, this allowed him to be out less than $5 to show me that courtesy. There were other enormous benefits, but at least one of them was avoiding a lot of this entitlement question.
Similarly, if I was out at a bar or club, I'd make sure to buy a drink immediately upon entry. That way if someone came up and wanted to buy me a drink, I could easily decline with "No thank you, I already have one." That would be the end of it for people I didn't find attractive, but for those I did, I'd then say "But you can talk to me." If I was still having a good time with them by the time I finished my drink, I'd let them buy me the next one. But the most I'd ever do with someone at a bar or club was make out with the person and get their phone number. If I was still interested when I sobered up the next day, I'd call or text them (back then both forms of communication were normal). I learned very quickly not to give out my own number because of how clingy some dudes would get.
“Foodie call” is kinda clever tho
I mean I haven't dated since college but seems like trying out new restaurants you've wanted to go to would be a benefit of dating?? Like even if the date sucks, you'll still get a decent meal. But this person seems like a quasi-psychotic introvert.
Somewhat less appealing if you’re always on the side that pays for two meals vs the side that gets free food!
Sure, but if you're middle class and above sans kids, honestly you can afford it. OTOH if you're taking a first date to a frikkin 5 star restaurant the only one to blame is yourself.
Oh I can afford it, just saying, if I got a date that was clearly only there for the free meal, I’d be a little annoyed. Definitely not “radicalized to first date Netflix and Chill only”, but annoyed. And “foodie call” is a clever phrase.
Sure, but why the heck is the man on the hook for the whole check this far into the 21st century? Because of course, I can make the exact same statement about women who are middle-class and above with no kids: they can also afford it! I'm all for killing off this patriarchal anachronism posthaste.
I can't argue with that on any logical grounds. I just grew up in a very traditional household so it just seems natural to me (I also haven't had to date in 20 years, so there's that too)
It was about 50/50 when I was dating 15 years ago between guys who wanted to split the check and guys who wanted to pay. I initially tried to pay my half but quickly found out even some of the good guys were disappointed if they couldn't pick up the check. I didn't understand it then and I don't get it now, but it's weird that there are guys who think it's so mandatory that they've sworn off real dates.
Don't go on facebook reels.... you will DIE of embarassment or cringe or similar
I guess at the very least I respect Veronica person for not going down the unoriginal path of “I do my own research and I love Hitler” lol
One thing I realized to dislike about those ppl among so many things is, while they try to maximize the attention, they try to come off as innocent - like you can’t have your cake and eat it
In addition to how pathetic Jay is, he's also really pathetic. 254 women over 10 years? And he's slept with them, what? Once each, twice each if we're generous? If we're really generous and claim he's had sex 500 times in 10 years.... I bet most married men hit that every 2-3 years. Especially newlyweds.
To say nothing of quality.
‘the faux pas of trying to sit next to a girl instead of opposite her’ ok I want to get into this. How bad is this? Why/since when? Is it ok if you ask first, according to whatever etiquette dictates this?
I like to sit next to people rather than opposite. I just prefer it and sometimes I’ll ask if it’s not awkward to do so (I don’t do it without asking). I’ve had a decent share of good dates where I was sat next to the other person 🤷🏼♂️
Human etiquette seems like such a weird thing sometimes if you’re a bit on the spectrum.
I think it’s so you can look your conversation partner in the eyes.
The reason the guy wants to do it in this scenario (he's trying to sleep with her and wants proximity to her flesh) is also the reason she is trying not to do it.
FWIW I agree with you that it's nice to sit next to someone. Helpful when it comes to eye contact getting a bit much lol. I think most people are against it, paradoxically, because it feels less intimate - you're 'supposed' to be facing each other if you want to connect.
Tbh, my ideal is each partner sitting on either side of like, a perpendicular angle... so we're like, half facing in, half facing out. It's win-win-win.
“Next to each other” at a 4 top (with a corner between you) is ideal. Also better if you’re sharing any food (although maybe that’s a second date thing). Across from each other at a 2 top makes it hard to share an app or dessert.
Yes, exactly. Also facilitates seeing a show.
Standup comedy dates are geometrically speaking the ideal dates
I think the main issue is that if you sit next to someone rather than across from them in a situation where there's a choice, that is usually closer physical proximity. If you have just met this person, they might want to keep a bit of distance between them and someone who's basically a stranger. If you're asking and getting a positive response the first time you meet the person, very likely they are already a bit comfortable with you and there's nothing wrong with taking them up on it.
I would be careful that when you ask, you take hesitation (long pause before an answer, "I guess so", ums or hmms) as a "no" and say something graceful to accept that no. "Heh, maybe a little early for that?" as you sit across from them and then a subject change would be a smooth way to handle it.
If you want to completely avoid the faux pas, you can always do dates where sitting across isn't an option: sitting at a bar or diner counter, getting to-go coffees to drink on a park bench, a movie, etc etc.
As someone who worked in a secret, classified environment for almost 25 years, I can assure you that what are apparently emails that Chris Rufo "unearthed" would have/ should have gotten both people fired or at least reprimanded.
I've just done some searching to see if policies have changed in the 20 years since my retirement. It may be that policies are more lenient now. But it is also very likely that policies are far more restrictive in classified settings.
Not that this should change your opinion about the NSFW content, but I’m not 100% sure the messages were on classified servers. I’ve heard them referenced to “Intelink”, which is an interagency intranet. My understanding is that Intelink has both classified and sensitive-but-unclassified instances. And they weren’t emails, but something equivalent to a Slack channel or Teams, that is, a group chat.