Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Internet Dating: Now With Price Controls!
Two lonely hearts couldn't find love even in the misfit-matching world of internet dating. Naturally, they sued. And won:
Civil Court Judge Diane Lebedeff awarded one woman, identified by the pseudonym Jennifer Doe, the $1,000 she had paid for a six-month membership after the woman said she had met no one through the service. The judge awarded the other woman, Debra Roe, the $3,790 she paid for a 54-month deal.
Because Great Expectations' contract guaranteed no specific number of referrals each month, the service could legally charge no more than $25 per member, the judge said.
Putting aside the issue of why the hell New York gets to decide how much dating services cost, my gold-digging instincts tell me that there's only one reason to pay $3000 to pimp yourself out over the ether: to meet others with a little too much cash on their hands. So a price cap kinda kills the allure.
Whole thing here. New York's hilarious "Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights" here.
|11.10.05 @ 10:26AM|#
Serious, non-snarky question: couldn't this be used as a legal
precedent for people to sue their dating partners, if the
relationship doesn't end up according to expectations?
How much can a man expect to spend on dinner before he's legally
guaranteed nookie? If a man won't ask a woman to marry him, can she
sue him for all the fancy new underwear and such she bought to try
and snag him?
And wouldn't legalizing prostitution solve at least some of these
problems?
|11.10.05 @ 10:29AM|#
Interesting question Jennifer, but I think the difference here is that there is a paper contract of sorts, which most dating couples don't have. These women, apparently, paid some exhorbitant fee to be introduced to eligible males. I am not interested enough in the topic to dig further, but it sounds like the company failed to set up dates for these women, in which case they should get a refund.
|11.10.05 @ 10:31AM|#
Okay, here's my confusion: the phrase "she had met no one through the service." I took this to mean "she met nobody she was interested in dating, or who was interested in her." But if she literally met nobody, in that not a single man was even introduced to her through this service, then I guess she does have legit grounds to sue.
|11.10.05 @ 10:34AM|#
Is anyone reminded of the "Lowered Expectations" skit they'd occasionally have on MAD TV?
|11.10.05 @ 10:35AM|#
The obvious libertarian solution is to purchase insurance on
dating expenditures.
Florists, jewelers, fancy restaurants, even lingerie stores could
all sell insurance. If your date doesn't consent to sex or at least
another date, you get a refund. If your significant other doesn't
marry you within a certain time frame, you propose.
How will insurance companies verify that the claimant didn't get
laid when processing claims? What if somebody purchases "In case I
don't marry this person" insurance, and shortly after the policy
expiration date (and payment of the claim) gets married? I dunno.
Let the market sort it out.
|11.10.05 @ 10:42AM|#
You know, in my slightly younger days before I became the Adonis
I am today, I'd overbook for dates, airline-style, knowing that if
I had, say, dates set with four girls for one Friday night, at
least three of them would cancel by Wednesday.
Amazingly, this plan never backfired on me, which might have forced
me into a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air situation, where I would
constantly have to be "going to the bathroom" to shuttle between
dates.
|11.10.05 @ 10:44AM|#
But if she literally met nobody, in that not a single man
was even introduced to her through this service, then I guess she
does have legit grounds to sue.
Dare I speculate about personality and/or looks?
Regardless, $1,000 for a dating service? Holy crap, and I thought
shelling out $50 on match.com was a gamble.
|11.10.05 @ 10:46AM|#
thoreau,
I think the market already has sorted it out, by not bothering to
provide any. ;-)
Viking Moose|11.10.05 @ 10:52AM|#
Steven:
oh my! mercy!
Jennifer - your first post here took away the obvious joke of,
"whatcha gonna do with yer $1000?" sorry.
to your question: don't shudder. this scenario actually happened in
civilized europe. About nine years ago, a danish female was
attacked in some eurotrash daytona beach place in greece. the perps
were let off because, "she had spent the day with them in
flirtatious ways, and they naturally expected something". (had it
not been such a hideous crime, the exaggerated shock of the danes
was priceless. those self rightesous bastards)
combine that with the town in italy whose schtick is only certain
demensions may wear a bikini, all of a sudden, these leftie
paradises loose a little luster. or is it lustre. ha ha.
steven - got yer text - didja get the email i sent you?
|11.10.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Yeah, I got that... could be time for you to get a new
screensaver on your phone.
How 'bout them Bears?
|11.10.05 @ 10:56AM|#
You know, in my slightly younger days before I became the
Adonis I am today
Don't be so modest, Steven Crane. :)
mediageek,
Don't waste your time and money on Match.com. If you want to meet
someone, go to MySpace.com. Mind you, I hate that website sooo much
it hurts, but I am willing to vouch for it as a viable matchmaker.
And it's free.
[/not a paid advertisement, I hate that site]
|11.10.05 @ 10:57AM|#
I'm waiting for a female to comment on Kerry's point that a price cap kills the allure.
|11.10.05 @ 10:58AM|#
I must throw in my pitch for okcupid.com. It's free, which is
super-handy, plus there's a metric shitload of time-wasting tests.
It's really geared toward the under-30 set, though.
smacky, part of my schtick is overestimating my good looks. :)
|11.10.05 @ 10:58AM|#
VM--
Well, I don't get that thousand-dollar joke anyway, so I can't say
I mind that my statement precluded it. But good God! As someone
who's always viewed flirtation not merely as a means to an end but
often as a pleasant end in itself, I must say your story horrified
me.
And it doesn't help that just yesterday I finished reading "The
Fountainhead" for the first time.
|11.10.05 @ 11:02AM|#
Jennifer,
I hope you learned a valuable lesson from The
Fountainhead: namely, never call to get your fireplace fixed
just thinking that's all that's going to happen.
Ditto for having your swimming pool cleaned.
:)
|11.10.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Jennifer wrote
Serious, non-snarky question: couldn't this be used as a legal
precedent for people to sue their dating partners, if the
relationship doesn't end up according to expectations?
Interesting thought. There is a civil law doctrine called
"promissory estoppel," under which you can sue someone to recover
damages if they promise to take some action and don't, and if you
based your actions on their promise. OK, that's incomprehensible.
One example I've seen was, "Big Mortgage Company promises not to
foreclose/waives payments on Dan's home for one year. Given that
promise, Dan spends his money on a swimming pool, instead. BMC
suddenly turns around in six months and forecloses." Dan can sue
because he based his actions on their promise.
This allows a de facto contract to exist where there was no formal
document. I don't think it would work in the dating sense, because
you have to actually have the promise; it's not based on the
person's expectations.
Even with a verbal promise as to how the relationship will work
out, there is no guarantee that the "injured party" will have
standing in court. I happened to stumble across a California
statute that prevents civil actions for failure on a promise to
marry someone. Interesting...
|11.10.05 @ 11:05AM|#
And it doesn't help that just yesterday I finished reading
"The Fountainhead" for the first time.
That reminds me, Jennifer... for the hardcore Randroids among us,
there is always http://www.theatlasphere.com/ , the Ayn Rand dating
service.
"The Atlasphere�s mission is to bring together admirers of Ayn
Rand�s novels, from around the globe, to network both personally
and professionally."
Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's a total sausagefest.
|11.10.05 @ 11:08AM|#
Smacky--
You know, Ayn Rand once said that Dominique was herself in a bad
mood. Considering what Ms. Rand's marriage was like (she'd actually
make her husband write term papers on his thought processes or some
crap like that), and considering Dominique's portrayal of the Ideal
Female Sex Role, this is how I imagine Ayn Rand's sex life
with Frank O'Connor:
"Listen, you altruistic marry-me-so-I'm-not-deported piece of shit,
I want you to dominate and subdue me, like a real man! Right
now! You've got ten minutes, loser, and if I haven't been
forced to surrender to your superior male will by then I'll fucking
emasculate you. Stop cowering like that, you pussy!"
Since I understand the late Ms. Rand spoke with a Russian accent, I
always imagine her sounding like Natasha Fatale, too.
|11.10.05 @ 11:11AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Ugh....I'm not sure I'd want to go into it on a public
forum...
Let's just say the site is fine for people who are single. If
you're in a relationship, the site will probably end up causing
unneeded friction and conflict.
Jennifer,
Very common, to my understanding. It's weird; I was just looking
into a similar question yesterday. Can anybody here define what an
"internet girlfriend" or "internet boyfriend" is? My guess is that
it would be someone you are "dating" (for all intensive purposes)
on the internet without actually having physical contact.
Inevitably, I would guess, that that this "internet dating" leads
to a real life meeting?
Any thoughts?
I guess the internet is a double-edged sword, in my opinion. It can
be an awesome tool to meet like-minded people and good friends, but
it can also be a vehicle for dishonesty and cheating. I guess
virtuous people would in theory know how to use it in what (I view)
is the proper way.
|11.10.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Meeting people via the internets has come a long way since the days of the BBS, when the only way you could tell what someone looked like was by looking at an ASCII macro of themselves.
|11.10.05 @ 11:16AM|#
Steven Crane,
You mean like the illustrations Jennifer and I made of ourselves in
ASCII?
"The Atlasphere�s mission is to bring together admirers of Ayn
Rand�s novels, from around the globe, to network both personally
and professionally."
Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's a total sausagefest.
On a different note, thank you so much for mentioning this site! I
know of someone (a single female) who will be able to have her
"pick of the litter" of the Randroids on that site. I think she'll
appreciate it.
|11.10.05 @ 11:16AM|#
Jennifer, picturing you as Ayn Rand makes you lose all shreds of
attractiveness.
Though, she was of Jewish ancestry, so you'd become part of the
conspiracy you so dearly want to join...
|11.10.05 @ 11:21AM|#
Yeah, Steven, I see your point.
My One True Love takes Ms. Rand quite a bit more seriously than I
do, and he wasn't overly impressed by my impersonation of Ms.
Rand's submissive side. On the other hand, the fact that I did this
impression while he was driving through frustrating traffic in the
Adirondacks probably didn't help.
Also, my Natasha Fatale accent is really bad. I say it even worse
than I spell it.
|11.10.05 @ 11:22AM|#
Oh, crap, I forgot to change my name back from "Ayn Rand." This happens every time I post with a joke name.
Viking Moose|11.10.05 @ 11:28AM|#
Jennifer: the $1000 was awarded to "Jennifer (dil) Doe" at the
top of the story :)
as for internet girlfriends: you all MUST have seen Napoleon
Dynamite. After all, you have... skills.
and, from what i hear, StevenCrane is pretty good with a bow staff.
:)
|11.10.05 @ 11:28AM|#
Could it be possible these laws were inacted long ago to prevent these dating services from becoming escort services?
|11.10.05 @ 11:31AM|#
How will insurance companies verify that the claimant didn't
get laid when processing claims? What if somebody purchases "In
case I don't marry this person" insurance, and shortly after the
policy expiration date (and payment of the claim) gets married? I
dunno. Let the market sort it out.
I vaguely recall an old Woody Allen joke to the effect that he had
purchased orgasm insurance -- if he didn't completely satisfy a
woman, Mutual of Omaha had to pay her.
|11.10.05 @ 11:35AM|#
By "Internet dating" I was thinking more specifically of actual
dating services, as opposed to just the generic "meet someone on
the Internet."
Hmmph. These crazy kids of today and their crazy new-fangled
inventions. Why, in my day we met our significant others
the old-fashioned way: in dirty Goth clubs! And we were damned glad
to do it, too.
Did I mention that getting to the Goth club required traveling
uphill both ways? In the snow?
|11.10.05 @ 11:38AM|#
I think meeting people online is catching on because its losing its geeky or creepy conotations. I even have a 50 something divorced aunt who's found a couple boyfriends online. One was even a dairy farmer.
|11.10.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Thankfully, the dirty goth club is only three blocks from
me.
Meeting people on the internet really has its benefits, though,
when you think about it.. it's easy to screen out the dummies right
away, you have time to talk calmly without being distracted by
jiggly-boobs in a low-cut top, and you're (hopefully) not blinded
by beer-goggles when you're yakking on the 'nets.
It's rather casual and low-pressure and much cheaper than pouring
drinks down someone's throat hoping to get them interested in
you.
|11.10.05 @ 11:53AM|#
it's easy to screen out the dummies right away, you have
time to talk calmly without being distracted by jiggly-boobs in a
low-cut top,
MySpace definately does not accomplish this, for those of you
wondering why I hate that site.
It is the online version of the "seedy club", only with more people
posing as "intellectuals". It's a hoot.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Jennifer:
Internet dating services are one of the few online services that
actually made money during the dot bomb period. The other, of
course, being porn, though the margins apparently are far lower
there since the barrier to entry (sophisticated service with a
significant enough base of users to make it useful) is higher in
dating services.
I can assure you that when I first met someone online (not the
Internet) in 1992, it was tres unique. Now it seems like it has
real competition with bars, and non-nerds do it and talk about it
openly. My favorite a few years back was seeing personals that
started with "NPR said this was worth a try, so..." Needless to
say, I didn't bother with those.
Smacky:
My guess is that "internet boyfriend/girlfriend" has replaced
"Canadian boyfriend/girlfriend". Some really exist, though all of
them are overweight 45 year old males, especially the
girlfriends.
I'm soured on the whole thing, myself. You can meet people with
similar interests more reliably, but there's no real chemistry
there, which you get when you meet somebody in person. Maybe when a
pheremone sample becomes part of your profile that burden will be
overcome. But no question the best relationships I've had started
offline. Plus there's the inherent disadvantage of being a male on
these things--it's gotten better, but it's still a woman's
market.
Hmf. MySpace also looks geared for 20-something hipsters. I am
neither, despite my dashing good looks and preppy wardrobe.
|11.10.05 @ 11:54AM|#
That reminds me, Jennifer... for the hardcore Randroids
among us, there is always http://www.theatlasphere.com/ , the Ayn
Rand dating service.
Sigh. And there I can meet the man I've always fantasized about--a
quarry worker who will burst through my French doors and force me
to listen to a lecture proving the moral and economic superiority
of the gold standard. . . .
|11.10.05 @ 11:56AM|#
smacky,
At least the jiggly boobs aren't moving?
I mean sure, people post pictures, but still, there's a big
difference between having a pair of real live titt-ays in your
face, and staring at someone's grainy webcam picture of the same
real live titt-ays. Those people who can't seem to grasp the
difference probably aren't likely to leave the internets and
venture into the real world anyhow. ;)
|11.10.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Since I understand the late Ms. Rand spoke with a Russian
accent, I always imagine her sounding like Natasha Fatale,
too.
It's even worse than that, Jennifer. Somewhere round this here net
thingy I found an audio clip of her saying "Check your premises"
over and over again. It's truly frightening.
|11.10.05 @ 11:58AM|#
"Canadian boyfriend/girlfriend".
Sandy, what is a Canadian boyfriend/girlfriend? I've never heard
that phrase before.
hipsters
You said it, my friend. That's MySpace in a nutshell. It's a high
school popularity contest all over again.
|11.10.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Sigh. And there I can meet the man I've always fantasized
about--a quarry worker who will burst through my French doors and
force me to listen to a lecture proving the moral and economic
superiority of the gold standard. . . .
If by "quarry worker" you mean "insufferable basement
dweller".
There was a time, once, when I thought myself an objectivist... but
then I met OTHER O-ists, and it cleared me up of any desire to be
associated with that lot at all.
|11.10.05 @ 12:05PM|#
smacky, you're going to have to tell me your myspace horror
story sometime, as it seems to have you awfully bitter.
That said, I don't have a myspace profile either. But if it's as
good as you say, perhaps I should fix that. ;)
|11.10.05 @ 12:07PM|#
I'm so glad I'm not the only one apparently amused by the implications of Ayn Rand vs. "The Fountainhead." At times it reaches near-Jean Teasdalean heights of embarrassing self-revelation for the author.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 12:09PM|#
Smacky,
"I do too have a girlfriend--I met her at summer camp. You wouldn't
know her, though, she's from Canada."
That's the Canadian girlfriend--the fake one invented to seem like
less of a loser. Of course, that was such an obvious ploy it pretty
much solidified the user's reputation as a loser.
I actually never used that one--one of my few smart social choices
in pre-college school.
My guess is that there are more actual internet
boyfriends/girlfriends, but as you guessed, it's a much more
theoretical relationship. By the time it becomes real, it's
probably referred to as "long distance."
|11.10.05 @ 12:10PM|#
smacky, you're going to have to tell me your myspace horror
story sometime, as it seems to have you awfully bitter.
That said, I don't have a myspace profile either. But if it's as
good as you say, perhaps I should fix that. ;)
|11.10.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Jennifer,
Oh. Well, like I said, MySpace is a viable matchmaker.
There really are non-Canadian women you can meet there who aren't
45-year-old men. Most of them just don't have brains and are skanky
hoes.
Steven Crane,
Sure, I'll tell you about it sometime.
Now, I gotsta get some work done before my meeting with my
boss!
|11.10.05 @ 12:13PM|#
I like the way the Great Expectations guy makes excuses, by
citing Match.Net. If you've never used that site, you may not know
this - there are lots and lots of profiles on Match.Net sites,
JDate among them. But - and you can verify this by looking at their
annual report, perfectly public - 97% of the profiles on there are
"unpaid members". If you become a "paid member", you can send and
receive emails from other members, otherwise you can't. If you
write one of the "unpaid members", all you'll know is that your
mail is NEVER opened. Meanwhile, the "unpaid member" will receive
an email stating that they've gotten a message (no mention of who
it's from) and would they like to sign up and pay as well?
And you have no way to tell whether someone is a "paid member" or
not, other than writing them and waiting to see if they open the
letter.
So in my view MatchNet is a scam which exploits the lonely. When I
pay money to be allowed to contact people, I expect my mail to be
DELIVERED. The official line is "We DELIVER all messages, we just
don't let everyone read them"
It used to be, once, that unpaid members could continue a
conversation, but couldn't initiate one. They changed it and made
it the scam that it is. Official line is "we're weeding out people
who AREN'T SERIOUS". But it makes it all a big fucking scam. How
often does a letter on a dating site get a response anyway? Now
imagine 97% of the letters are automatically discarded. That's what
it's like. Nobody EVER fucking meets their fucking match. This
keeps them coming back for more, and more, and paying and paying.
MatchNEt is a scam!
But to Great Expectations, MatchNet is what they're using to
justify their own screwery.
I don't see anything libertarian about promising and not
delivering, nothing at all. You guys, honestly.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.10.05 @ 12:13PM|#
my gold-digging instincts tell me that there's only one
reason to pay $3000 to pimp yourself out over the ether: to meet
others with a little too much cash on their hands
That would be one good reason. The other good reason is that, in
the words of Sheryl Crow, ...he was plain ugly to me.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Ladies' Man: Not every man can afford a woman as fine as a
Delta Burke. That's why God created the skank.
Helen Hunt: Hello!
|11.10.05 @ 12:28PM|#
Trollumination makes the same point I tried to make earlier--if she paid this money and she literally never met a man, be it in person or via e-mail or however they do it, if nobody was introduced to her--then yeah, she should get her money back. Breach of contract.
|11.10.05 @ 12:30PM|#
I like the way the Great Expectations guy makes excuses, by
citing Match.Net. If you've never used that site, you may not know
this - there are lots and lots of profiles on Match.Net sites,
JDate among them. But - and you can verify this by looking at their
annual report, perfectly public - 97% of the profiles on there are
"unpaid members". If you become a "paid member", you can send and
receive emails from other members, otherwise you can't. If you
write one of the "unpaid members", all you'll know is that your
mail is NEVER opened. Meanwhile, the "unpaid member" will receive
an email stating that they've gotten a message (no mention of who
it's from) and would they like to sign up and pay as well?
And you have no way to tell whether someone is a "paid member" or
not, other than writing them and waiting to see if they open the
letter.
So in my view MatchNet is a scam which exploits the lonely. When I
pay money to be allowed to contact people, I expect my mail to be
DELIVERED. The official line is "We DELIVER all messages, we just
don't let everyone read them"
It used to be, once, that unpaid members could continue a
conversation, but couldn't initiate one. They changed it and made
it the scam that it is. Official line is "we're weeding out people
who AREN'T SERIOUS". But it makes it all a big fucking scam. How
often does a letter on a dating site get a response anyway? Now
imagine 97% of the letters are automatically discarded. That's what
it's like. Nobody EVER fucking meets their fucking match. This
keeps them coming back for more, and more, and paying and paying.
MatchNEt is a scam!
But to Great Expectations, MatchNet is what they're using to
justify their own screwery.
I don't see anything libertarian about promising and not
delivering, nothing at all. You guys, honestly.
|11.10.05 @ 12:45PM|#
Personally, I liked meeting people online BEFORE everyone had
pictures up. It's so disappointing not to be able to at least
imagine there's something halfway decent on the other end of the
exchange.
Disclaimer: lucky for me, I don't have to do this anymore! And I
was in the online dating crowd way before it was cool...1995-1996.
So yes, you all missed your chance. :-)
LOL, just reminded myself of the Worst...Date...Ever! After about
three beers the guy made ME drive him home while he cried in the
back seat of my car for his "Momsy" and "Dadsy". Seriously.
|11.10.05 @ 12:46PM|#
Sandy:
Yeah, I see what you're saying about Myspace.com I can't see a
Gen-Xer getting much traction there. It probably would've been cool
if I was freak'n 10 years younger.
And I see chicks declaring themselves bisexual and openly looking
for drugs. Jesus.. I guess I'll go ahead and check myself into a
retirement home..
|11.10.05 @ 12:48PM|#
Wow, Linguist. That tops mine--the one time I agreed to go on a
blind date (age 18), and the guy spends a good sixty percent of the
evening earnestly explaining to me why he just went AWOL from the
Navy.
The next time I saw the woman who set us up, all I asked was "Has
the Shore Patrol picked up your friend yet?"
|11.10.05 @ 12:48PM|#
linguist, it's times like this that remind me that "oh yeah,
she's older than me."
I would have online-dated you in 1995-1996. You would have had to
drive, though, because I was but a freshman in high school.
I was cool, though. Seriously. We could go to, like, the Smashing
Pumpkins concert. Or watch Daria. Or something.
|11.10.05 @ 12:50PM|#
linguist:
I thought we agreed never to talk about that incident.
And mom and dad are doing great. Thanks.
|11.10.05 @ 12:53PM|#
earnestly explaining to me why he just went AWOL from the
Navy.
LOL!!
Amazingly, Mr. Momsy actually called me for another date. "You
can't be serious! Here's a tip: when you're over 20 (we were both
21/22) and on a date, NEVER say the word Momsy!"
|11.10.05 @ 12:57PM|#
MNG - Ooops, sorry bout that. Glad they're well. Uh, err, had
any good dates lately?
Steve - Sorry babe, I've always gone for the older men. Current is
actually the youngest so far, at 1 mo. younger than me.
|11.10.05 @ 1:01PM|#
Hmm. Maybe if I travel back in time to 1995, I'll be 25 when
linguist is only 21, there for I'll be older... and also able to
impress her with my remarkably prescient knowledge about pop
culture!
"Listen, linguist. That "AOL" company we keep hearing so much
about? Don't waste your time. Pets.com is a much better
investment."
|11.10.05 @ 1:12PM|#
Personally, I liked meeting people online BEFORE everyone
had pictures up.
I agree....I have an aversion to online photos, because photos
detract from the substance of a person, I think. Example: if you
meet a girl without a picture and really like her, you may truly
like her for her mind and nothing else -- the bonus is if she's
attractive, which you find out later, if you make it that far. But
if you see photos first, it's human nature to gravitate toward the
hotties, and leave the people that you might have genuinely found a
connection with in the wake. I find that sad. I don't know
why.
Mr. Nice Guy,
Don't be fooled: MySpace was never cool.
linguist,
Holy shit, that is hilarious! That is one of the funniest stories I
have ever heard.
|11.10.05 @ 1:19PM|#
The obvious libertarian solution is to purchase insurance on
dating expenditures.
You can keep your time to your self
You don't need date insurance
You can go out with whoever you want to
Every boy, every boy, in the whole world could be yours
If you'll just listen to my plan
THE TEENAGE GUIDE TO POPULARITY!
|11.10.05 @ 1:19PM|#
I find that sad. I don't know why.
To clarify my view, it's not finding someone attractive<
based on looks that I have a problem with...like I said, that
is natural. I guess I don't like the nature of sites like
that, though, because there is an emphasis on looks as
opposed to substance. Substance is secondary at those sites.
With that thought, mediageek, if you're looking, maybe you should
look the traditional way by just doing what you like and finding
someone with common interests...you know, like the way thoreau met
his wife at a religious club. Join a gun club and meet a woman
who's a self-professed gun nut (assuming women join that kind of
club).
|11.10.05 @ 1:26PM|#
But if you see photos first, it's human nature to gravitate
toward the hotties, and leave the people that you might have
genuinely found a connection with in the wake. I find that sad. I
don't know why.
Of course, you could make the argument that posting photos makes
Internet dating have more in common with traditional dating.
Bill Watterson, the author of "Calvin and Hobbes," once said about
Calvin's favorite children's book (Hamster Huey and the Gooey
Kablooie) that he, Watterson, would never explain just what the
book is, because whatever the reader imagines it to be is much
better. So any revelation would be a letdown. And I wonder if
something like that isn't a problem in Internet dating.
I've always said that if anything happened to my One True Love I'd
never date again. Looks like I may not be technologically savvy
enough to even try. "Before you register with True Love dot com you
have to reconfigure your motherboard rotor modem to download the
Personal Magnetism Protection Software."
Forget it.
|11.10.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Bill Watterson, the author of "Calvin and Hobbes," once said
about Calvin's favorite children's book (Hamster Huey and the Gooey
Kablooie) that he, Watterson, would never explain just what the
book is, because whatever the reader imagines it to be is much
better. So any revelation would be a letdown. And I wonder if
something like that isn't a problem in Internet dating.
You know, funny you mention that Watterson quote. I think I read
that quote by him a long time ago, too...I'm pretty sure I did, in
fact, because when I was 13 or 14 I wrote my own version of
"Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooey", complete with illustrations.
I must have gotten the idea from that quote of his, which I had
forgotten until you mentioned it now.
|11.10.05 @ 1:39PM|#
Why, in my day we met our significant others the
old-fashioned way: in dirty Goth clubs!
Mmm...dirty goth clubs. I have one dirty goth club story, and maybe
some day I'll even tell it.
I've always found goth girls really hot.
There are, however, two problems with this:
1) I dress like a straighlaced nerd.
2) Goth girls, at least in my experience, tend to have a touch of
the cra-zah.
|11.10.05 @ 1:40PM|#
Since I understand the late Ms. Rand spoke with a Russian
accent, I always imagine her sounding like Natasha Fatale,
too.
Of course, the only proper response to Ayn's demand could only be:
"Shuddup yo mouth!"
|11.10.05 @ 1:44PM|#
mediageek, I'll agree with you there. I mean, I like the goth-girl look... but the goth-guy look is awfully dumb. I mean, I can generally put on all black, and even accessorize properly with a bit of eyeliner and etc, but dressing like Lord Byron or some sort of latex/fishnet video game character just doesn't do it for me... and is ridiculously expensive besides.
|11.10.05 @ 1:44PM|#
I was on Geek 2 Geek for a while and I never got any response.
In fact, I think my ad is still there:
http://www.gk2gk.com/matchprofile/details.asp?USER=2998
Go ahead, laugh it up.
|11.10.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Of course, you could make the argument that posting photos
makes Internet dating have more in common with traditional
dating.
You're right about that, Jennifer.
I seem to be having trouble saying what I mean today, for some
reason. What I've been trying to say is that it's fine to be
attracted to someone based on their appearence. I just
think it's nicer, like linguist suggested, to use your imagination,
as opposed to getting voyeuristic photos of someone. (Well, unless
you're strictly there for visuals, if you know what I'm saying.)
The photos just seem so...predatory, for one, and my other
objection to them is that they are so easy to doctor* -- anybody
can make themselves look good. However, I know the libertarian
standpoint would argue that that makes for good competition.
*Take my word for it...Mr. Nice Guy and Sandy know what I
really look like. That whole DC event photo bit was
Photoshop. :)
|11.10.05 @ 1:52PM|#
I just think it's nicer, like linguist suggested, to use
your imagination, as opposed to getting voyeuristic photos of
someone.
But that's assuming this will remain an exclusive online
relationship thing. I took "Internet dating" to mean you eventually
spend time with that person in real life. In which case, it
wouldn't be good to build up an imaginary ideal nobody could live
up to.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Smacky,
Trouble is, lots of stuff some of us like to do generally appeals
to other guys. You'll note how many women were in attendance at the
DC gathering a month ago.
Another is that some interest gatherings tend to bring out people
who turn me off of my own interest--nothing makes me want to watch
a foreign language film more than hearing some guy play
mine-is-bigger-than-yours over his knowledge of Star Wars trivia.
And nothing makes me want to watch Men in Black II more than
hearing some dreary film snob talk about how you *really* can't
like film unless you're thoroughly familiar with Czech
existentialists of the 60s.
So far, setups have worked the best, though I confess to a little
of the shyness problem that prevents me from giving random meetings
their due. But that's what I'm going to try this time.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 2:01PM|#
*Take my word for it...Mr. Nice Guy and Sandy know what I
really look like. That whole DC event photo bit was Photoshop.
:)
Bah. Don't listen to her. She looks even better in person.
In fact, we all looked fine, and I think I got better looking the
more drinks I had.
|11.10.05 @ 2:04PM|#
Join a gun club and meet a woman who's a self-professed gun
nut (assuming women join that kind of club).
And smacky totally nails my fantasy. Showing up to the range, and
bumping into an erudite, beautiful woman who is busily running
Mozambique Drills.
*sigh*
This almost happened once. Was at the range for a service
rifle match. I'd brought a pistol to test out.
Well, turned out there was an attractive woman over on the pistol
lanes shooting a SIG.After the match was over, I sidled up and
asked if I could staple a target up on her stand, having forgotten
to bring my own.
She obliged, I stapled the target up and ran a couple mags through.
We got to talking, and I asked her out.
Word from the wise: When a woman takes a two-handed grip on a
pistol it makes it difficult to see the wedding band.
God, I felt like a total shmuck.
|11.10.05 @ 2:05PM|#
Here's something weird. In the late 90s I met a girlfriend at a
dating website. She was mortified by this little fact, and insisted
to people that we actually hooked up at a bar, since that was
technically our first date (and, strangely, this was the exact same
bar we used for smacky's gathering a month ago).
Years later, I met another girlfriend at a Christmas party. When we
told people that, we got a lot of smirks "Yeah, right, you actually
hooked up on the internet!"
|11.10.05 @ 2:06PM|#
So far, setups have worked the best, though I confess to a
little of the shyness problem that prevents me from giving random
meetings their due.
In my circle, set-ups usually don't work since our interests are
mainly male-centric and the field for women who share them is
extremely competitive. Why should you pass off the rare geek-girl
who likes Firefly and role-playing games on a friend when you can
date her yourself?
BTW, there's a reason I'm bitter: The date thing I talked about a
few weeks ago? She changed her mind. It turns out she's already
spoken for and dropped the dinner thing. :(
Larry A|11.10.05 @ 2:17PM|#
Not having been dating for the last third of a century, I guess
I'll change the subject.
New York's hilarious "Dating Service Consumer Bill of Rights"
here.
It is hilarious, well worth checking out. There's actually a
requirement to provide hits before two months. So the OLS geek gets
told to set up the program so that any player not having a hit
after 45 days gets sent to every other player of the appropriate
sex who is also dateless. <twitch>
Now if we only had a bill of rights to protect us against
government.
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
|11.10.05 @ 2:22PM|#
BTW, there's a reason I'm bitter: The date thing I talked
about a few weeks ago? She changed her mind. It turns out she's
already spoken for and dropped the dinner thing. :(
Aw, I'm sorry to hear that, Akira.
|11.10.05 @ 2:34PM|#
mediageek,
I can sympathize with that plight. Since everyone's telling funny
stories, I'll go: When I was a senior in high school, I had this
student teacher in my music theory class who was only 21 years old
(three years older than me). So I had this big crush on him, and on
his last day of teaching I was planning on giving him this nice
book on 'music and the mind' -- with my phone number written inside
on the cover page. So I'm standing around, holding this book,
waiting with the three other people in the class for class to
begin, and he's talking to our real teacher...about how he and his
fincee were going to look for rings together.
I didn't want to keep the book (what a depressing keepsake), so I
just gave it to him anyway, very sheepishly.
He was at least nice enough to refuse to show my gift to the other
students, despite their wanting to see it. I'm so grateful that he
spared me. That was enough.
|11.10.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Yeah, sorry Akira.
That's nowhere near the worst blind date. I actually had a girl
arrive at the date drunk. She then proceded to puke into a flower
vase. As I was taking her home, she insisted we stop off so she
could get something. Turned out she wanted to make her boyfriend
jealous. He tried to start a fight, and, being that I had more than
a foot and probably at least 50 pounds on him, he lost. Then, she
started hitting *me* for being a bully or some such thing. So I
walk out, and one of their friends chases me down to apologize for
their behavior. We go for coffee, and get along fairly well, I'm
thinking, so I ask her out.
She was a lesbian.
Shot down by a lesbian is bad enough, but at the end of *that*
night? Last blind date I'll ever go on.
|11.10.05 @ 3:05PM|#
I think that's actually pretty sweet, smacky. Although I can well imagine being mortified if it happened to me.
|11.10.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Akira,
Looking at your profile, it doesn't seem like there's anything to
laugh at. It doesn't sound that different from me.
Sure, you're not going to meet many women while gaming, but most
guys have hobbies that women want nothing to do with. I'd say that
yours is largely a confidence problem.
Smacky,
Look back with the knowledge that a guy who willingly gets engaged
at 21 is a little weird(not good weird) or religious. I mean,
you're finally old enough to go out and have fun, and you want to
get married?
|11.10.05 @ 3:24PM|#
I concur, Akira. Better a gamer than a sports fan, I always say. (Well, I've never actually said that, but you know what I mean.)
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 3:48PM|#
OK, obligatory contribution: I met a woman online, and went out
with her a couple of times. As smacky notes, photoshopping is
always a danger and she was a designer with photoshop skills. But
we got along well enough I was willing to see if there was any
chemistry. She had listed her age as 32. On the second date she
says "well, from some of the things I've said I guess you can tell
I lied a little about my age. I'm really 35."
I was floored. First, I hadn't figured anything of the sort out,
and second, if you're going to lie about your age--why not break
the decade barrier? She could have passed easily for 29. It wasn't
the lie as much as how stupid and useless the lie was--if she was
going to lie about something as inconsequential as that, what else
was she going to lie about?
Needless to say, I didn't bother with a third date.
|11.10.05 @ 3:50PM|#
I've tried the internet dating thing too, Akira. Unfortunately,
I still can't find that hot, nymphomaniac, 22-year-old blonde who
races Italian motorcycles and lives for rubbing the knots out of my
back.
Now, if I were looking for a fat, 30- or 40-something, christian,
single-mom who needed someone to put her brats through college I'd
probably have better luck.
|11.10.05 @ 3:51PM|#
Oh, here's a second-hand "worst date" from one of my female
co-workers. It's short and sweet.
They got to have a few conversations, they made a date, and then he
picked her up at her house. As they were getting on the highway, he
casually mentioned, "Oh by the way, I'm married."
|11.10.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Stevo Darkly-like qualities I do not feel comfortable
detailing here
Stevo,
You should join grylliade's forum so you can dish all of your nasty
personal details there. :)
|11.10.05 @ 4:05PM|#
Stevo, there's no such thing as half an orgasm.
I'm reminded of the scene in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's
Nest where the Danny Devito character tries betting half a
cigarette at the poker table.
|11.10.05 @ 4:08PM|#
I've tried the internet dating thing too, Akira.
Unfortunately, I still can't find that hot, nymphomaniac,
22-year-old blonde who races Italian motorcycles and lives for
rubbing the knots out of my back.
I know beggers can't be choosers, but given my past dating history,
I don't know if I can make that many exceptions.
Eight years ago, my last, and so far only, girlfriend eventually
told me my hobbies were "childish" before she decided to dump me.
That and we had some philosophical differences that she wasn't
willing to overlook; animal rights (she joined PeTA a few months
before the end) and sex (I wanted it, she thought it was
revolting.).
I hate to sound picky, but I don't want to go through that again.
It took me nearly a year to stop literally crying about that
break-up more than once a week. I want a girl who likes me for me
and is instereted in the same things I do. Yes, a great bod would
be a nice plus, but my last (and only) girlfriend was hardly a
supermodel, so I guess it's a moot point.
|11.10.05 @ 4:13PM|#
Point of information: Next week Tuesday is the 8-year anniversary of the day she dumped me.
|11.10.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Akira!
You're younger than I thought (don't take that the wrong way,
remember I like older men).
Political views: Middle of the Road.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Call of Cthulhu
Seen the video game yet?
|11.10.05 @ 4:16PM|#
*Take my word for it...Mr. Nice Guy and Sandy know what I
really look like. That whole DC event photo bit was Photoshop.
:)
Hey! I never got to see the DC photos! Where are they? Where?
Where?!
|11.10.05 @ 4:19PM|#
Eight years ago, my last, and so far only, girlfriend
eventually told me my hobbies were "childish" before she decided to
dump me.
That sounds like the kind of mean-spririted thing people say when
they're breaking up with someone and just want to twist the knife.
Like the "bad breaker-upper" on Seinfeld.
I want a girl who likes me for me and is interested in the same
things I do.
Does it have to be all the same things though? Couldn't you get by
on some common interests? Trust me, you don't necessarily want to
spend 24/7/365 together. No matter how much you love someone,
you'll go crazy.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 4:22PM|#
Akira: to celebrate, eat bacon while playing the Hot Coffee mod of GTA3: SA.
|11.10.05 @ 4:23PM|#
David's right, Akira. You can't expect to have all the
same interests.
Don't be too upset by her "childish" comment. I've dated guys with
hobbies that I consider "childish" (and I may have told them
so...judge me as you will). Maybe she was looking for more of a
provider type, or maybe she just couldn't envision you as a father
or a serious partner. Not saying that's the case, just speculating,
if that helps. (I hope my comments didn't do any harm, at the very
least.)
|11.10.05 @ 4:24PM|#
Linguist:
It's funny, I'll officially be 31 two weeks from tomorrow, but feel
62. I suppose it's all down hill from here.
They didn't have "Curmudgeon" as a political choice. Also, that
religious preference should say "atheist" but for some reason it
keeps coming up "agnostic."
I haven't seen the video game yet, but I hear it's supposed to be
awesome. I've dropped out of video games in favor of pen-paper RPGs
and miniature wargames years ago when I realized that I just
couldn't keep up with the technology.
|11.10.05 @ 4:24PM|#
linguist,
Click on Sandy's name...his blogspot is linked there. There, if you
do some scrolling, you should find the DC H&R gathering
pics.
|11.10.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Akira: to celebrate, eat bacon while playing the Hot Coffee
mod of GTA3: SA.
Tuesdays are my weekly gaming night and I've been forbidden to
speak of "She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named" after the rest of my group got
sick of me constantly pining over her.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 4:34PM|#
linguist,
What smacky said, except it seems to have gone off my recent posts
list, so here's a direct
link.
|11.10.05 @ 4:37PM|#
"David's right, Akira. You can't expect to have all the same
interests."
Yeah, but I really want to avoid conflict and my hypothetical SO. I
don't fight with her.
|11.10.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Thanks Sandy...I actually just found it!
Smacky...gorgeous as usual!
Akira...finished (or, rather, my SO did while I happily watched)
Call of Cthulhu last night. It was ok. I found the storyline
predictible having read Lovecraft, though. You're probably better
off with the RPGs in that regard.
|11.10.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Tuesdays are my weekly gaming night and I've been forbidden
to speak of "She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named" after the rest of my group
got sick of me constantly pining over her.
If one of my friends had been pining over a girlfriend for eight
years, I may have killed him out of pity. I don't even think it
would have taken more that a few months.
Unless she cut your penis off and took it with her, I think enough
time has passed. You shouldn't waste anymore of your life
|11.10.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Tuesdays are my weekly gaming night and I've been forbidden
to speak of "She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named" after the rest of my group
got sick of me constantly pining over her.
If one of my friends had been pining over a girlfriend for eight
years, I may have killed him out of pity. I don't even think it
would have taken more than a few months.
Unless she cut your penis off and took it with her, I think enough
time has passed. You shouldn't waste anymore of your life on what
might have been.
Yeah, but I really want to avoid conflict and my hypothetical
SO. I don't fight with her.
This is a unrealistic goal, Akira. You will either be a doormat, or
argue every now and then. It's natural.
|11.10.05 @ 4:44PM|#
smacky:
You should join grylliade's forum so you can dish all of your
nasty personal details there. :)
I hesitate to reveal more at this time. Are you still having
trouble logging in over there? I'm not sure I want to be a member
of a club if smacky's can't get get.
|11.10.05 @ 4:45PM|#
Unless she cut your penis off and took it with her, I think
enough time has passed. You shouldn't waste anymore of your
life
Well it wasn't 8 years of mooping. More like 1 year, six months.
There are moments that I do miss her, or at least the way she was
when we got started. But I'm sufficently over her to get on with my
life. I just have touble getting over my real problem: Social
awkwardness and fear of rejection.
|11.10.05 @ 4:46PM|#
... ERROR
I'm not sure I want to be a member of the club if smacky can't get
in.
|11.10.05 @ 4:58PM|#
Smacky...gorgeous as usual!
Oh, linguist, that is a big compliment coming from you!
You're goregeous.
Did you think of anything to do yet on TG weekend? Keep me
updated...
Stevo,
I'm in da club.
|11.10.05 @ 5:13PM|#
Stevo, there's no such thing as half an orgasm.
Only in crass accounting terms.
See, the last time it was all about her and not "reciprocated."
Hence the hypothetical basis for a claim of "debt." However, the
truth is, while I contributed to the atmosphere, props and
stimulation, it was also self-inflicted to a large degree. Under
those circumstance, I don't feel comfortable taking credit for one
entire unreciprocated orgasm, so I applied one-half credit to her
account. I'm just trying to be fair. And you don't want any more
details than that.
|11.10.05 @ 5:25PM|#
smacky,
I thought of trying to cook.
Then I thought again.
So I think what I'll do is just invite friends who are around
(including you of course, and some other H&Rers) out to
someplace for food & drink. I'd like to say we could do some
Trivial Pursuit after, but since I no longer live alone I guess
that's going to have to be a "discussion".
Hmmm. This really belongs over at the new board, I suppose.
Sandy|11.10.05 @ 5:41PM|#
"Oh, linguist, that is a big compliment coming from
you! You're goregeous."
Coming from the rest of us, eh, she's not impressed.
|11.10.05 @ 5:44PM|#
linguist,
Agreed...this conversation belongs on grylliade's new board. But a
final suggestion here (I can't just abandon my threadjacks like
that...it's a habit-forming practice). I have a three-step,
failproof plan:
1.) Everyone meets up for food and drink at an accommodating
bar.
2.) Everyone adjourns to somewhere else together and drinks
heavily.
3.) Everyone stumbles, disoriented, out into the night and back to
their homes.
Just a suggestion....further discussion may be necessary.
|11.10.05 @ 5:46PM|#
Coming from the rest of us, eh, she's not
impressed.
Sandy,
He heh he...that's not what I meant, of course.
You're fucking beautiful.
There, is that better?
Viking Moose|11.10.05 @ 7:44PM|#
Stevo:
count on it (regretting). we've sent the text to poor Jean Bart's
grandma who fainted with a "sacre bleu".
Akira: dude, you HAVE to come to our next chicago gathering. May I
recommend a title for she-who-shall-not-be-named: "the Evil One".
I've found it a useful title once. And, your bio reads like a
sketch of many of my good friends. Gen Com, anyone? And only one
isn't married. She's out there.
Chicagoites (that's the chicago chapter of libertoid reason stuff
blah blah) - when should we plan the holiday party?
Smacky: tsk. language... tsk. Don't talk like you went to Brush or
anything... :)
|11.10.05 @ 8:11PM|#
I was at a party a couple years back and talked with a girl who
worked at one of those expensive video dating places. It might have
even been GE. Anyway, she said the clientele tended toward a couple
of architypes. The guys were nerdy engineers and lawyers who had
busted ass for 10-15 years to have a decent salary and were now
looking for a young hottie to validate their professional success,
but were too socially awkward to approach women on their own. The
problem with that was, hot young chicks don't need to pay big bucks
to a dating service, they already have more attention than they can
handle.
The female profile tended toward professional women who had
achieved managerial success to the point where they had priced
themselves out of the mkt. i.e. They all wanted to marry guys who
were more successful than they were, but the guys who were that
driven and successful were picking up their potential trophy wives
without 3rd party help. To a lesser extent there were a few cougars
looking for young, dumb and fulla cum too, but it's even more
difficult to get 20something guys to consider dating women in their
mid 40s.
She said very few clients ever got what they joined for because
objectively, nobody had very realistic expectations of their actual
mkt value. A lot of the times nobody even got past the video
viewing stage.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245