We Shouldn't Date | Ep 001 | We Should Date

Overview

Mark and Michael kick off “We Should Date (and We Shouldn’t)”—a new podcast where two comedians with “electric chemistry” insist they’re not romantically compatible despite banter that keeps veering into flirtation. Their New Year intro is immediately derailed by their dogs, which continuously interrupt and keep things chaotic.

Main Plot / Episode Premise

The episode plays like an extended “why we shouldn’t date” debate, especially around:

• Dana’s emotionally intense dating patterns
• Michael’s “soft eyes” / emotionally unavailable vibe

All while they try to turn the discussion into podcast segments, jokes, and “dating advice.”

Highlights, Jokes, and Key Reactions

• Podcast logistics + dog chaos

  • Mark complains about eye bags and being tired.
  • Michael keeps the energy up.
  • Their dogs repeatedly interrupt, turning the episode into a “live mess” comedy bit.

• “We should date / we shouldn’t” framing

  • The core irony is hammered repeatedly: the chemistry is undeniable, but they argue they’d be a bad match in real life.

• Sex/romance absurd honesty

  • Michael and Dana go back and forth on attraction.
  • A very crude joke (“would you have sex with you / with a clone?”) sets the intentionally candid tone—like a car crash you can’t look away from.

• “Get over it” dating philosophy

  • Dana explains that when things fizzle out, she doesn’t endlessly rehash the breakup.
  • Her goal is to extract lessons and move forward.
  • Mark challenges her logic, comparing it to analyzing preseason football instead of treating it like a real relationship.

• Accusations of emotional over-investment

  • Dana argues that her friends and audiences read the Mark/Michael cues as romantic interest when it’s not “safe” or healthy for her—and vice versa.

• Dating-app profile debate

  • They roast each other’s assumptions about what profiles signal.
  • Dana’s framing: once you see someone’s vibe/patterns (e.g., Burning Man energy, always dressing up, constant dinner photos), you can predict incompatibility.

• “Limitations” argument (sexiness categories)

  • The biggest comedic fight: Mark argues not everyone can be “hot/sexy/cute” in the same way.
  • Dana pushes back that women can be multifaceted and sexy in many forms.
  • They spiral into examples like Rosie O’Donnell, Kamala Harris, and the idea of “Jack Black hot to the right person.”

• “Therapy / personal history” bit

  • Dana gets vulnerable, mentioning her dad dying when she was 14.
  • The others keep converting it into jokes about boundaries and “working through limitations.”

• Soft eyes + past-life tangent

  • The episode gets intentionally bizarre:
    • They discuss “soft eyes” as a sign someone is in love.
    • Then they veer into past lives, reincarnation vs. logic, and “we’ve had history together before.”
  • Dana and Mark turn it into playful lore, including a claim of remembering a previous-life kiss.

• The “ending” punch

  • The episode culminates in tension between flirtation and denial:
    • soft-eyed looks
    • “he’s in love” insinuations
    • Mark defensively reframing things as “gifts” and “recalling memories”
  • It becomes clear they aren’t going to actually cross the line.

Overall Vibe / Takeaway

A comedy-heavy, slightly chaotic “dating incompatibility” episode with:

• lots of friendly roasting
• boundary talk disguised as humor
• a constant theme that their chemistry is real—but the emotional realities (maturity, attachment style, communication, what they want) make dating a bad idea.

Personalities (Appearing)

• Mark (host/comedian; likely Mark’s perspective and banter)
• Michael (host/comedian; more aggressive energy, emotionally unavailable angle)
• Dana (host/comedian; emotional, lesson-based dating philosophy, boundary discussions)
• Walter (briefly chiming in on-camera)