There's a new internet site out there called Chatroulette. Basically, it lets you chat with random strangers and then hit next and move on whenever you get bored with that person. It's a harmless diversion! It's the kind of thing you know everyone you know is going to do once. Like sex in a turnpike dunkin donuts bathroom. It's not the kind of thing anyone would think twice about except for the fact that it's on the...internet! It's not a craze - the Macarana was a craze! This is an internet site that will very quickly become a repository of 5% curiosity-seekers and 95% free-floating dongs.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/headlines/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---march-2010/clip273960#clip273960

Loading mentions Retweet

Right smack on The Association for Psychological Science's front page is an excerpt from 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: #27 - In Romance, Opposites Attract. It's a very curious little piece -- considering the authors are taking such a, well, arrogant stand, one would expect they'd be right in there with significant scientific data to back them up. I mean, this is a scientific site. I assume.

Anyways, it takes almost a third of the piece to even get to the argument - but you have to work for it. After wading through a three-paragraph play-by-play of a generic "opposites attract" film storyline which illustrates for us that Hollywood, When Harry Met Sally and Maid In Manhattan are at the root of all popular culture confusion as to how we could possibly be so misled as to the ways of love - the authors finally quote a study from 1991 with data proving...the opposite of their argument. Yes, haha. Psychologist Lynn McCutcheon apparently found that 77% of undergraduates agreed that opposites attract in relationships. Um, okay - next?  Harville Hendrix from dating site Soulmatch (Soulmatch? really? Out of all the sites in all the world?) is quoted, and really, he sounds like an inexplicably obscure source until you google him and find out that he was on Oprah -- makes yet another great point opposite (haha again) to the author's argument: "The great myth in our culture [...] is that compatibility is the grounds for a relationship—actually, compatibility is grounds for boredom." So. 2 for opposites actually do attract. 0 (plus a weird, badly written screenplay treatment) for Myth #27.

Okay. So here we are, halfway into the article - and now the authors get out the big guns:  "dozens of studies demonstrate that people with similar personality traits are more likely to be attracted to each other than people with dissimilar personality traits." Great! Which ones? The authors cite two: the research of Donn Byrne and a study by biologists Peter Buston and Stephen Emlen. Byrne's research is summed up without getting into any real detail - we're told he "demonstrates that the more similar someone's attitudes (for example, political views) are to ours, the more we tend to like that person. Interestingly, statistical analysis shows proportionally more similarity in attitudes leads to proportionally more liking." Hold the presses -  that sounds like a ground-breaking scientific discovery! I'm going to like someone more...if they like the same things as me? Did anyone alert Obama??

You might like to know that the study was published in 1961 - something the authors didn't think was relevant. Another little tidbit they leave out? According to PsychWiki's article Interpersonal Attraction, Byrne's "finding is often criticized for its failure to satisfy external validity, since there was no actual human interaction."  Right. But hey, you say potato, I say potato...what's a little human interaction when it comes to evaluating attraction?

The Buston and Emlen study seems valid enough - 1,000 participants were asked to rank characteristics they look for in a mate - but the authors immediately discredit them by adding "we shouldn't take the Buston and Emlen findings too far, since they're based entirely on self-report." Huh. Take a look at PsychWiki's article - gee, they've managed to find a whole bunch of sources on this subject. Why on earth would you choose one that you'd have to add a disclaimer for...but hide the full truth on the other one? It's just sloppy.

The authors come to the ultimate conclusion that they like their point of view even though their evidence isn't conslusive - so it's probably much safer for all the nerds with messy hair to keep dating nerds with messy hair. And what they're really saying is: don't upset the status quo. Don't step out of your comfort zone. Cheerleaders should date the quarterback, smart people should only consider singles with qualifying IQs and if you just moved to the Big Apple from a farm in Wisconsin, holy christ don't even think of trying to meet a woman who works on wall street - even if all you've wondered about for the last five years, sitting in the barn milking Bob (your cow) and watching HBO, was the day you might get the chance to be a stay-at-home dad for a hot, super-agressive woman who complements your quiet, soothing way. But you'll never get to meet your wall street Nancy Botwin. Because opposites don't attract. Or didn't you hear? Total myth.

For an opposite view on attraction research, check out these (much more) recent studies:

Opposites Attract: How Genetics Influences Humans To Choose Their Mates - Science Daily (May 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090525105435.htm

Opposites attract: Compatibility's in the genes - MSNBC/LiveScience (Feb 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17048922/ns/health-livescience/

Loading mentions Retweet

Why should you help? Well, I'm a creative writing grad, and let's face it - I'm never going to cure cancer. Building a dating site is really a soul-killing venture of its own: this is a billion-dollar industry everyone wants a piece of without (as a far as I can tell) any genuine interest in helping the daters themselves. And yet, the irony is that the system can actually work. I mean - anyone who meets online successfully now is running just ridiculous odds. A fluke. Have I mentioned that Mr. Rogers is still around? Hmm...only took signing up on 26 sites, ditching Canada and driving three hours to another city - but who's counting? Online dating doesn't have to be this random or well, long-distance. The whole point should be about making your life less stressful - more streamlined. Ease of use. Back to the never curing cancer thing - maybe I can't make a difference in the nobel-peace-prize realm, but I can develop OPD as a platform that sets out to change the industry standards for online dating.

So how about helping us with a little market research - which could eventually help your single friends be as happy as you are? This will involve a bit of badgering on your part. As in tracking down said single friends ("single friends" meaning "male," "employed/professional,"  and hope upon hope somewhere within the 30-40-ish age range) and telling them what fun our teeny 16-question survey is to fill out! By multiple choice! Five minutes tops. I will personally call to thank each one by skype! And sing Oh Canada! Okay, maybe not. Oh, what the hell, sure. Actually - I'll sing it in French! ha ha.

Seriously - I know women. You know, being one. But more than that, women are much more forthcoming when it comes to feelings and relationships. Men are the great mystery. What do you want? We want to know. If you share, we might actually try to do something about it. Just saying.

OPD Survey Link for the magical unicorns known as single men with careers:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OPDm

Loading mentions Retweet

Happy New Year! Yep, I'm back - just needed a mini-break from stranger-dating and shopping my life all over the internet! I know, I know, hard to imagine. Keep your eyes on this space- we're starting design work on the new site at the end of the week, excitingness is rolling full steam ahead! And of course more dating...um, fun. ha! Well, that is if there are any more dates to be nailed down in Vancouver...ok, dates I can convince myself to go on. I'm three days off my 30 days deadline but have no fear, I'll keep plugging along. I'm dedicated like that. In the meantime, I thought I'd leave you with a little gem from SeekingArrangement:

So what's my little gem? I signed up without a picture and received this wonderful little profile - it had a message attached, but you can't read them unless you submit a pic (damn!). I've since canceled my account and yet I have full access to the profile.  Forever. Oh Seattle Santa, leg and ass man, since you're so proud of yourself, I thought it only fair to make your offering available to everyone. Hey! Maybe a sugar baby will get in touch through FindMeDateMe! It's like kismet.

Seattle Santa Leg And Ass Man's Profile

Loading mentions Retweet

...but damn I wish I was!

I refuse to admit that OkCupid deserves praise for introducing us though. If I had been using the site for non-research purposes I would have dismissed Mr. Rogers based on his checking off of the religious beliefs box as "Christianity and somewhat serious about it".  Not that there's anything wrong with having religious beliefs! But if you make a point of noting it on your profile, usually it's because you're a crackpot zealot. But being that Mr. Rogers had everything else going in his favor - and good god, the pickings were slim - I thought I'd go with it and hope he wasn't, you know, a nut.

As it happens, after hanging out with Mr. Rogers for the better part of the afternoon yesterday, I'm pretty sure he's not a nut. And I'd also tell him to get new pictures except then everyone else would figure out how adorable he really is and well, even though I live way up here on the other side of the border I'd just as soon not help other women to date him. Um, yet.  (You know how on POF women on a guy's favorites list can leave a note about how great he is, telling you to totally give him a chance? Right. There's a reason he's being thrown back into the sea. If they actually cared they'd shut up. Or blog about him under a different name.)

Anyways, Mr. Rogers is also very frustrated with online dating. While I've found OkCupid to be at least less freaky than other sites, Mr. Rogers says he finds that women tend to put up only one pic - usually a headshot - as a trick to avoid showing what they really look like. And then either avoid ever meeting in person - or when they do, look nothing like he expected. And not in a good way. He also tried out Match and said he came away after three months without a single date. (I've also found Match to be a wasteland for trying to connect with people - but then, now that I think about it I only had one pic up...) He countered my stories of creepy guy pics in basements and laundry rooms with emails from women who clearly looked like crack addicts. Fun times all this profile and pic dating!

I did say you'd get an loV-blog but as it turns out, it's a neighborly day in this beautywood and I'm signing off until the New Year!

Happy 2010!

Loading mentions Retweet

What - did you think I'd given up? Never! Haven't you heard that the
ratio of (eligible awesome) men to women in Vancouver is 1/8? May not
be a proven ratio, but I'm starting to believe it - although I don't
think it's just Vancouver. I think it's men 30-40. Anyways - I have a
date with a seemingly eligible friendly elementary school teacher from
OkCupid  - from a suburb of Seattle - and I'll be damned if he's the
first teacher I've come across on a dating site. So across the border
I go to meet MR. ROGERS! (Tomorrow at noon - you'll have to hang on a
day for the re-cap, but yes, a new lov-blog you'll get!)

Loading mentions Retweet

Here's what it comes down to: someone decided long ago that the concept of dating online would mean forgoing all the things we normally get to do when we date in the real world. Like being allowed to discover personal details - or have them revealed to you based on trust. In online dating world you check off a box if you want to date or have a relationship - or get married. In online dating world you let everyone know right up front whether or not you intend to have children. You tell the entire world whether you drink, smoke or do drugs. Or you lie about it. But it's right there on your profile. Sometimes you even have to answer questions about how you feel about one night stands, how important you feel sex is in a relationship, and how sexual a person you are - before you're even allowed to complete your profile.

Seriously? I mean - seriously??

These are personal questions people! If a guy asks me how I feel about marriage and kids on the first - let alone third date - and yes, it does happen, women aren't the only ones with ticking clocks - I'd be looking for an exit route. But online dating has the system completely screwed up. After all, why not discuss marriage and kids with a complete stranger? You know everything about their preferences; background-color: all neatly checked off on their profile! And on the flip side - why bother even considering a dater who doesn't check off the box for "want kids" if you do? Heck, why bother getting to know anyone. Clearly you can tell everything from their picture and profile. What's left for the date?

There are so many people out there genuinely trying to connect - it's mind-boggling. And yet every site I sign up on has a new gimmick - on top of more grocery-list profiles to shop. Is this really what you want? It's not what I want. I want a solution. Oh, wait - I'm working on one.

In the meantime, if you do want to meet peeps online, here's a late xmas/holiday/hannukah gift: you can use FINDMEDATEME to contact members you've searched from paid sites...and not pay. Woop. (I have nothing to do with the service - there's just nothing worth paying for on the paid sites. If they want to make their profiles public, searchable and hackable for however FMDM does it? Pfft. Go nuts.)

If you test FMDM out, swing by and share!

*Feb 17th, 2010 - I just checked the link and FMDM seems to be gone! If you're still curious, here's the link to the home page which was cached on Google January 20th:

Google's cache of http://www.findmedateme.com/

Loading mentions Retweet

Just in case you needed a quick break from all the turkey, here's the quick and dirty lowdown on all the dating insanity! Brief notes on a few sites below and I'll be back tomorrow to pontificate on the meaning of it all...Happy Christmas!

ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK: Singlesnet, Be2, Match, Chemistry, Jdate, Nerve/Fastcupid, Eharmony, Yahoo! Personals, TrulyMadlyDating, BeautifulPeople

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT: Lavalife, PlentyofTweeps, PlentyofFish, DatingBetter

BRAND SPANKING NEW: Flirtbox, Kizmeet, OkCupid, Millionairematch, Friendfinder, SeekingArrangement, BadOnlineDates, Spark, Omnidate

Millionairematch: what? I have to try them all! Yes, it's as hokey as it sounds. Signed up on this one for Vancouver - very few in metro Van and I'd be very, very surprised if any of these men actually had any money. Really guys? Really? I'd imagine any self-respecting millionaire wouldn't want a public, searchable profile - but hey, that's just me.

Seekingarrangment - Ha! ....and I’m pretty sure if you’re signed up on this one, you’re a guaranteed douchebag! Oops, did I say that out loud? I’m so glad that Seekingarrangement runs this warning as you sign your rights away: “Please take note that we prohibit anyone from promoting illegal activities (such as prostitution)… If you are an ESCORT, please do not join this website.” – ooo, I’m sure that works wonders! I had to sign up as a "sugar baby" and specify the monthly budget of support I was looking for (I went with "open/negotiable") and yes, I did throw up in my mouth, just a little. Ok, a lot. But they offered a lifetime membership to Lindsay Lohan after she got dumped by Samantha Ronson last spring (or hadn’t you heard?) – I mean, how could I not investigate such an amazing opportunity for a young, screwed up woman to post her entire life in a public, searchable space so that she can sort through profiles of um….I dunno. Dirtbags with gobs of money? Or dirtbags pretending to have gobs of money? Gee, I wonder if Lindsay turned them down! Totally classy Sugar Baby pic (#1) is below.

Datingbetter: Ever try searching your username after signing up on one of these sites? Dating.com makes your profile public and searchable to members -- and to the public. As in, my username popped up right at the top of my google search and then gave me complete access to the profile and pic while I was logged out of my account. (Plenty of Tweeps does the same thing). Datingbetter is another classy one using pics of hooker-women in their designs. Which is fine if that’s what you’re selling – but they say it’s not. Make up your own mind: Pic #2

   

Click here to download:

24_Sites_on_the_25th_A_Happy_X.zip (208 KB)

Singlesnet: Seriously, not a collection of men who inspire confidence and 2/3 of “local” Vancouver choices are in Washington. If only pics were taken by someone who could explain to these guys that a sunny day and a smile do wonders for first impressions...also that bare lightbulbs and your bleak basement/laundry room clearly visible in pic make you look like the unabomber. Just saying.

OmniDate: Virtual dating! Award winner for creepiest dating site I’ve signed up on to date - let alone creepiest collection of male pics. If there was anything to pay attention to in their profiles I didn't notice because I was too baffled by the rest of it. Why, why, why would I want to use an Avatar that looks like a hooker to represent me during an online date with men who look like guys I'd cross the street to avoid?

OkCupid: Described as “free, fun & smart” – and so far, does seem to be. Profiles are very well written – I have to admit I did actually go back to re-write mine because I felt like an underachiever after reading some of the interesting ones. No Vancouver presence unfortunately, so I signed up for Seattle - and even then I'm getting contacted by guys in Portland. Overall I wish that there was less going on with the site – and that they’d stop badgering me to play the match games. But generally this one seems like a big plus.I mean, considering the alternatives.

PlentyofTweeps: Sent emails and “likes” to three guys on Plenty of Tweeps – asked if they’d like to meet for coffee. Received one response after a few days:

Subject: Re: hi

What are your qualifications?

Have we met?

Ummm….right. Elected not to respond. The Vancouver-based pool of 30 – 40 year olds remained unchanged in the 2 1/2 odd weeks since I signed up: including one co-founder twice (who, from his twitter feed, appears to be attached), his business partner, another member I’ve been advised has a girlfriend and is only there for research purposes, and qualifications guy who doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a dating site. After finding out that POT profiles are searchable on google (as noted above), decided to delete my account. Except go figure, there’s nowhere to do it! Clever. And extremely annoying. So I deleted the twitter account I created for the site. Which still, even more frustrating, leaves my photo up on the site as a recent visitor and dead link. Apparently I have to deal with my profile footprints surviving on POT until site traffic eventually tramples out my path. Ugh.

Badonlinedates: “This dating and social network has been created to turn negative dating experiences into positive ones” – ok, fair enough. The site is indeed a bit quirky, there's some kind of a web series I couldn't be bothered to watch, if you care, you can upload video content and you do get to add a little blurb about your worst date, which is fun. But the site doesn't actually do anything about changing the dating process. Same old profile sign-ups, same old gallery search and shopping. And zero West Coast presence: 2 men within 100 miles of Seattle . 79 within 100 miles of a Beverly Hills zip code.

Loading mentions Retweet

*At the time of this posting not a single one of the 7 matches I initiated communication with - now going on 13 days from the first - have responded, and it's been two days since Chemistry has sent any new matches. The last one they sent? Based in Washington. So helpful. My email was also not regarding "communication times" - I specifically addressed the validity of Chemistry's memberships. Do you see them confirming that all matches sent are of course active, subscribed members of their community anywhere in this email? I don't. You'd think that would have been an easy one to confirm. If it was true.

Entered on 12/18/2009 at 09:15:13 by Ysauly C:

Dear Member,

Thanks for your question about response times during the guided communication process. We hope that this email gives you the information you need.

Why hasn't your match responded? It's hard to say. There are a number of possible explanations: they may be out of town, busy with work, or they simply may not check the site very often.

You have two options. You can choose to continue waiting for this match to respond, or you can go ahead and close this match by transferring their profile to your Archives. It's up to you.

Want to close this match? Click Chemistry to go to your Active Matches. Click on Not Interested next to their name to move their profile to your Archives.

Please take a moment to fill out this survey to let us know how we are performing.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a5oX1Z_2f14rEov_2bj7JCb1kw_3d_3d

Best of luck,

Chemistry.com
Customer Care Representative
Ysauly C.

Loading mentions Retweet