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.

Comments

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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?

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 10:34am | #

Is anyone reminded of the "Lowered Expectations" skit they'd occasionally have on MAD TV?

thoreau | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

mediageek | November 10, 2005, 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.

crimethink | November 10, 2005, 10:46am | #

thoreau,

I think the market already has sorted it out, by not bothering to provide any. ;-)

Viking Moose | November 10, 2005, 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?

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 10:55am | #

Yeah, I got that... could be time for you to get a new screensaver on your phone.

How 'bout them Bears?

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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]

Ruthless | November 10, 2005, 10:57am | #

I'm waiting for a female to comment on Kerry's point that a price cap kills the allure.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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. :)

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2005, 11:01am | #

smacky:

I'm curious.. what is it that you hate about Myspace.com?

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

:)

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 11:02am | #

How commonplace is Internet dating, anyway?

D-FENS | November 10, 2005, 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...

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Ayn Rand | November 10, 2005, 11:15am | #

After you dominate me ve kill moose ent skvirrel, dahlink.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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...

Ayn Rand | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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. :)

Yogi | November 10, 2005, 11:28am | #

Could it be possible these laws were inacted long ago to prevent these dating services from becoming escort services?

D.A. Ridgely | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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?

Yogi | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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. . . .

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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. ;)

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 11:58am | #

Frightening, and a great anti-smoking ad.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 12:02pm | #

Smacky--

I think a Canadian friend is one who doesn't exist.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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. ;)

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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."

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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. ;)

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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!

Trollumination | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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!

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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.

Trollumination | November 10, 2005, 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.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2005, 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..

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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?"

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2005, 12:50pm | #

linguist:

I thought we agreed never to talk about that incident.

And mom and dad are doing great. Thanks.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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!"

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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.

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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."

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Nada Surf | November 10, 2005, 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!

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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).

smacky | November 10, 2005, 1:21pm | #

Whoops....forgot to close my italics there.

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

mediageek | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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!"

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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. :)

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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.

mediageek | November 10, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | November 10, 2005, 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!"

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 2:43pm | #

Aw, I'm sorry to hear that, Akira.

Yeah, that's what a lot of people say.

Shem | November 10, 2005, 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.

Shem | November 10, 2005, 3:05pm | #

I think that's actually pretty sweet, smacky. Although I can well imagine being mortified if it happened to me.

David | November 10, 2005, 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?

Jennifer | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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.

Mad Scientist | November 10, 2005, 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.

Stevo Darkly | November 10, 2005, 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."

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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. :)

Steven Crane | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 4:13pm | #

Point of information: Next week Tuesday is the 8-year anniversary of the day she dumped me.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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?

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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?!

David | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 4:22pm | #

Akira: to celebrate, eat bacon while playing the Hot Coffee mod of GTA3: SA.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.)

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 4:34pm | #

linguist,

What smacky said, except it seems to have gone off my recent posts list, so here's a direct link.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 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.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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.

Akira MacKenzie | November 10, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Edit: I don't want to fight with her.

David | November 10, 2005, 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

David | November 10, 2005, 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.

Stevo Darkly | November 10, 2005, 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.

David | November 10, 2005, 4:44pm | #

Sorry, I didn't think the first one went through.

Akira MacKenze | November 10, 2005, 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.

Darkly | November 10, 2005, 4:46pm | #

... ERROR

I'm not sure I want to be a member of the club if smacky can't get in.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

Stevo Darkly | November 10, 2005, 5:10pm | #

Smacky: Excellent. I'll be applying shortly.

Stevo Darkly | November 10, 2005, 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.

Stevo Darkly | November 10, 2005, 5:14pm | #

Someday soon I'll regret the things I posted here today.

linguist | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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.

smacky | November 10, 2005, 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 | November 10, 2005, 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... :)

mark | November 10, 2005, 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.