There are people who are in enduring, happy marriages who "met online". Granted, there aren't a lot, but that's because most people in general aren't in enduring, happy marriages. Yet the moment a female caller to the Dr. Laura Show says they met a guy online, the rest of the call is determined. That's because the hostess' bias against all things online kicks in (she has her reasons). She says she obtained bias confirmation (she doesn't put it in those words, but that's what it is) when she says "guys and articles" tell her guys go online for an easy lay.
Yes, many men do. But not all.
And men also go to bars and clubs and street festivals and a bunch of other places for easy lays.
But yes, some guys use dating and hookup services to, surprise, hookup. Some of the most effective tactics include going after all women whose pics attracted them and are in the area, regardless of whatever else her profile says. These guys aren't looking for general compatibility, just easy, no-strings-attached sex. This is one reason why women can be inundated with contacts from men. It's a numbers game. Guys throw as much against the wall as they can to get a little to stick.
But not all of the men online are looking for hookups. Especially with the more exclusive matchmaking services, the ones that take more time and money, there are men looking for a wife (because they think they can beat the odds or they are unaware of the odds or are masochists or losers who are desperate for a woman to take over for mommy).
My advice to women is that if they're really looking for a husband, they stick to the serious, more exclusive services (in addition to the old-fashioned ways of looking) and never assume that what the guy says about himself is actually true. This is just a way to establish contact. Like a guy you meet on the street, everything he says about himself could be a lie. Meet in a neutral, public place, and don't get sexual right away.
Just remember, though, ladies, if you do find a man who wants to get married: You will be sharing your life, home, and finances with a guy who is foolish enough to enter into contracts that have no guaranteed upside to him and horrendous risks and limitations.
I'm sure Dr. Laura gets calls from women in good marriages who met online, but that never comes up in the conversation because the calls are usually about things that are troubling them.
Dr. Laura has mentioned more than once that she'd been in talks to endorse and/or help facilitate an online matchmaking service, but she had so many requirements and restrictions that it would limit profitability so it wasn't a go.
The caller on yesterday's show did admit she got sexual right away with the guy she met online, so Dr. Laura again said "men used to have to pay" for that. Sigh.
Showing posts with label online dating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online dating. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Are These Double Standards or Not?
I'll get back to blogging about my marriage and life sooner or later. For now, it is time for another entry dealing with things said by my favorite (and I'm NOT being sarcastic - she's awesome) talk show host.
Recently, a woman called Dr. Laura to ask about having an open or polyamorous marriage or relationship. Dr. Laura asked if the woman's boyfriend of husband was asking for it, but that got shot down immediately by the woman saying it was what she wanted. This was clearly a Clueless Caller type #2 from my Dr. Laura Show Bingo.
Actually, I think Dr. Laura was very gentle with the woman, while still making it clear that since typical marriage vows include "forsaking all others", having sex with anyone other than your spouse (even with your spouse participating, present, or your spouse's permission) is a violation of the "sacred" vows. The caller probably had a specific third person in mind, but I don't recall she indicated whether the third person was a woman or a man. Since Dr. Laura doesn't believe bisexuality exists, if the caller had mentioned it was a woman, Dr. Laura would have told her she's a lesbian. Anyway, so the part of the vows (assuming someone even says them) including "forsaking all others" mandates sexual exclusivity. I agree with that. Here's where the possible double standard comes in. Most people who say that vow also vow "until death do us part", but Dr. Laura apparently considers that vow less sacred, at least if the married couple has no minor children together. See #15 on the Bingo sheet.
This previous entry (see #7 and #11) touches on these issues.
The other possible double standard comes with how people meet the person they're dating. Dr. Laura is, how should I put it, less than impressed with online dating/matchmaking services. She flat-out tells people not to use them. A caller toward the end of the second hour on Thursday, 11/20/2014, had been dating a guy for only a month after finding him through a dating website. Let me repeat: only a month. Dr. Laura told her it was mandatory she meet his friends and/or relatives before having another date with him. And yes, while Dr. Laura advises people looking to date (which means for Dr. Laura someone looking to get married) tell the people they respect and admire in their life, whose judgment they trust that they want to be formally introduced to quality people. The possible double standard is that I've never heard her tell someone who met their date at work, or at the gym, or anywhere else that didn't involve first making contact online, that they had to meet their date's family or friends by one month in.
I agree that, if you're looking for a spouse, it is very important verify the person is who they represent themselves to be, and it is important to meet their loved ones or anyone else who is going to be a regular part of their life and see the interpersonal dynamics at work. Meeting someone through an online connection doesn't make it more or less necessary.
So... what do you think? Are these double standards? Are there logical explanations for them not being double standards? Again, I agree with the underlying principles of the importance of monogamy and really knowing who a person is.
Recently, a woman called Dr. Laura to ask about having an open or polyamorous marriage or relationship. Dr. Laura asked if the woman's boyfriend of husband was asking for it, but that got shot down immediately by the woman saying it was what she wanted. This was clearly a Clueless Caller type #2 from my Dr. Laura Show Bingo.
Actually, I think Dr. Laura was very gentle with the woman, while still making it clear that since typical marriage vows include "forsaking all others", having sex with anyone other than your spouse (even with your spouse participating, present, or your spouse's permission) is a violation of the "sacred" vows. The caller probably had a specific third person in mind, but I don't recall she indicated whether the third person was a woman or a man. Since Dr. Laura doesn't believe bisexuality exists, if the caller had mentioned it was a woman, Dr. Laura would have told her she's a lesbian. Anyway, so the part of the vows (assuming someone even says them) including "forsaking all others" mandates sexual exclusivity. I agree with that. Here's where the possible double standard comes in. Most people who say that vow also vow "until death do us part", but Dr. Laura apparently considers that vow less sacred, at least if the married couple has no minor children together. See #15 on the Bingo sheet.
This previous entry (see #7 and #11) touches on these issues.
The other possible double standard comes with how people meet the person they're dating. Dr. Laura is, how should I put it, less than impressed with online dating/matchmaking services. She flat-out tells people not to use them. A caller toward the end of the second hour on Thursday, 11/20/2014, had been dating a guy for only a month after finding him through a dating website. Let me repeat: only a month. Dr. Laura told her it was mandatory she meet his friends and/or relatives before having another date with him. And yes, while Dr. Laura advises people looking to date (which means for Dr. Laura someone looking to get married) tell the people they respect and admire in their life, whose judgment they trust that they want to be formally introduced to quality people. The possible double standard is that I've never heard her tell someone who met their date at work, or at the gym, or anywhere else that didn't involve first making contact online, that they had to meet their date's family or friends by one month in.
I agree that, if you're looking for a spouse, it is very important verify the person is who they represent themselves to be, and it is important to meet their loved ones or anyone else who is going to be a regular part of their life and see the interpersonal dynamics at work. Meeting someone through an online connection doesn't make it more or less necessary.
So... what do you think? Are these double standards? Are there logical explanations for them not being double standards? Again, I agree with the underlying principles of the importance of monogamy and really knowing who a person is.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Letter Writer Didn't Get It
The woman who sent this recent E-mail of the Day to Dr. Laura misread/ignored a very important word said (written) by a man. Hard to believe, I know. I have no idea if Dr. Laura (who is on vacation) actually read this letter herself or not.
I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.
The woman who sent the letter starts off:
Then again she might not be attractive.
I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.
The woman who sent the letter starts off:
Dr. Laura,By "waiting" she means not having sex until married.
It's soooo hard being a woman who is waiting out there.
When the rest of the women give it up for free, the men won't even give me a chance.The phrase "for free" implies she expects to get paid for sex. "Without commitment" might be a better phrase, but I could quibble with that one, too. She's right, though, that smart or even just lazy men are going to seek the path of least resistance to getting whatever it is they want.
Then again she might not be attractive.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO: Look Up "Anita Hill"
"ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO" wrote in to Dear Abby:
She probably doesn't remember Anita Hill, because she is too young.
That's understandable, given the hours.
BZZZZZT WRONG! Well, since you're female and most of HR is female, you have nothing to worry about. But you shouldn't have done that.
He's trying not to get fired and sued.
He shouldn't do that. He's risking his job, his finances, and putting your employer at risk.
He should ignore you completely.
That was merciful of you.
Nothing. Do not interact with him at all. Unless you want to get him fired and score some money from suing your employer.
Yeah, well, welcome to the world creating by laws, courts, lawsuits, and employer policies. Never mind that people have met their spouses on the job. Now, whether or not a man keeps his job or an employer has to pay out is entirely up to the whims of a woman. Man A can say X, Y, and Z to a woman and get fired. Man B can say the exact same thing to the exact same woman and get laid. It is all up to her whims. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't get the man fired or sue your employer - the fact is, you can. And some women do. Besides, you might become one of those women if you dated him and then he dumped you. It is just too risky for men. This is what we're doing to our brothers and sons, as well as our sisters and daughters who would, in the past, find a good husband on the job.
Men used to say X, Y, and Z to each other and there was no problem. Now, if a woman overhears them saying that to each other, they can get fired.
Dear Abby responded:
Easy for you to say, DA. You don't have a penis (as far as I know). It's not about manners. It is about survival. Enjoy the world that lawyers, juries, "sensitive" men, and anti-male feminists (not all feminists are anti-male) have created. It's great, isn't it?
I'm a 27-year-old professional who works long hours at a hospital.
She probably doesn't remember Anita Hill, because she is too young.
Dating isn't easy for me, so I decided to try an online service.
That's understandable, given the hours.
My first time online I recognized a co-worker I see on a regular basis and have always exchanged smiles with, but don't know personally. I wrote him a message just to say hi.
BZZZZZT WRONG! Well, since you're female and most of HR is female, you have nothing to worry about. But you shouldn't have done that.
I didn't say I was interested in him. I never heard back from him.
He's trying not to get fired and sued.
Since I sent that message he has checked my profile several times.
He shouldn't do that. He's risking his job, his finances, and putting your employer at risk.
But when he sees me in the hallways, he turns red and now just gives me half-smiles.
He should ignore you completely.
I was waiting at the elevator with him the other day, but he was so embarrassed by the silence that I bailed and took the stairs.
That was merciful of you.
He continues to smile, but I'm not sure what to say to him the next time I see him.
Nothing. Do not interact with him at all. Unless you want to get him fired and score some money from suing your employer.
I think it's rude that he didn't reply to my message -- even with a "See you around!" -- but I'm too embarrassed to do or say anything when I encounter him.
Yeah, well, welcome to the world creating by laws, courts, lawsuits, and employer policies. Never mind that people have met their spouses on the job. Now, whether or not a man keeps his job or an employer has to pay out is entirely up to the whims of a woman. Man A can say X, Y, and Z to a woman and get fired. Man B can say the exact same thing to the exact same woman and get laid. It is all up to her whims. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't get the man fired or sue your employer - the fact is, you can. And some women do. Besides, you might become one of those women if you dated him and then he dumped you. It is just too risky for men. This is what we're doing to our brothers and sons, as well as our sisters and daughters who would, in the past, find a good husband on the job.
Men used to say X, Y, and Z to each other and there was no problem. Now, if a woman overhears them saying that to each other, they can get fired.
Dear Abby responded:
The next time you run into him in the hall, just say hello. If he has any manners at all, he'll return your greeting and it may melt the ice.
Easy for you to say, DA. You don't have a penis (as far as I know). It's not about manners. It is about survival. Enjoy the world that lawyers, juries, "sensitive" men, and anti-male feminists (not all feminists are anti-male) have created. It's great, isn't it?
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
It All Started With That Dagnabit Telegraph Machine
As usual when I nitpick about something on Dr. Laura's radio show, I'll state that I love her show and books and agree with almost everything the says. She's made my life better and that of so many others.
On to the nitpick.
Dr. Laura's made no secret to her listeners of her concerns about technology. She had made comments about grown, married men being on Facebook ("even though" she tells her listeners to comment on Facebook). She recently noted what our technology is doing to our personal relationships and culture, and I think some (not all) of her concerns are like being concerned that the invention of the spear was cutting down on fathers showing their sons how to hunt without a spear.
On this past Friday’s show, she talked about "online dating". I don't think people really date online, though. They may communicate, they may have exhibition/masturbation sessions, but the issue that was really being addressed was finding a date online.
She tends to put research into her commentaries, and this was no exception. She said "1 out of 10 sex offenders uses online dating." My initial reaction to that stat: Is that all?!? I would think most sex offenders, like 7 or 8 out of 10, would use online dating, the rest either being too old to "get" technology or not wanting to violate probation.
This also brings up the question I always have with the phrase "sex offender". Are we talking about a 35-year-old man, now a model citizen, who, when he was 18, was prosecuted for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend? That's a far cry from someone who rapes a stranger or molests his relatives. It's like saying "sexual harassment". There's a difference between complimenting a woman on her new hairstyle and telling her you're going to fire her unless she does you.
I'm confident more than 1 in 10 sex offenders walks the aisles of supermarkets, so if someone asks you for your number or e-mail address when they meet you in a supermarket, look out!
Then Dr. Laura, based on that stat, made a common statistical error by saying it means that "one out of ten guys you find online is a sex offender". Nope! At least, not based on the stat she cited. That one in ten sex offenders uses online dating sites does NOT mean that one in ten guys on those sites is a sex offender. I won't bore you explaining that, but if you don't see what I mean, just trust me. Or ask someone who understands statistics.
She went on to say that online dating industry is bigger than the porn industry (which is good, because we all know that porn can lead to terrible things, like... dancing).
She cited a stat that said one of three women who meet men online, have sex on the first encounter. I do not think that has anything to do with online dating. The use of websites in general, and online dating in particular, are so common now that it is safe to say that these women would be doing this no matter how they met guys. Dr. Laura's comment reflected her overall attitude towards fornication: "Men are making out like bandits." That, as I've said before, implies that women don't enjoy fornication or get anything out of the dates. Yes, women tend to enjoy married lovemaking more (as do men), but many of them are getting orgasms, attention, ego boosts, free meals, or other things they want that they would not be getting if they weren't fornicating.
Anyway, the tips Dr. Laura went on to give about online dating, such as meeting in a neutral location, were very good. Even the best matchmaking services are simply ways of meeting people, and may be a way to keep in touch while dating. Nobody should assume that what someone has said about themselves is true or that the personality that comes across through the online communication is a thorough representation of the person. It takes spending time in person together in different circumstances to get to know that other person and see if they are what you need in a girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, or spouse.
On to the nitpick.
Dr. Laura's made no secret to her listeners of her concerns about technology. She had made comments about grown, married men being on Facebook ("even though" she tells her listeners to comment on Facebook). She recently noted what our technology is doing to our personal relationships and culture, and I think some (not all) of her concerns are like being concerned that the invention of the spear was cutting down on fathers showing their sons how to hunt without a spear.
On this past Friday’s show, she talked about "online dating". I don't think people really date online, though. They may communicate, they may have exhibition/masturbation sessions, but the issue that was really being addressed was finding a date online.
She tends to put research into her commentaries, and this was no exception. She said "1 out of 10 sex offenders uses online dating." My initial reaction to that stat: Is that all?!? I would think most sex offenders, like 7 or 8 out of 10, would use online dating, the rest either being too old to "get" technology or not wanting to violate probation.
This also brings up the question I always have with the phrase "sex offender". Are we talking about a 35-year-old man, now a model citizen, who, when he was 18, was prosecuted for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend? That's a far cry from someone who rapes a stranger or molests his relatives. It's like saying "sexual harassment". There's a difference between complimenting a woman on her new hairstyle and telling her you're going to fire her unless she does you.
I'm confident more than 1 in 10 sex offenders walks the aisles of supermarkets, so if someone asks you for your number or e-mail address when they meet you in a supermarket, look out!
Then Dr. Laura, based on that stat, made a common statistical error by saying it means that "one out of ten guys you find online is a sex offender". Nope! At least, not based on the stat she cited. That one in ten sex offenders uses online dating sites does NOT mean that one in ten guys on those sites is a sex offender. I won't bore you explaining that, but if you don't see what I mean, just trust me. Or ask someone who understands statistics.
She went on to say that online dating industry is bigger than the porn industry (which is good, because we all know that porn can lead to terrible things, like... dancing).
She cited a stat that said one of three women who meet men online, have sex on the first encounter. I do not think that has anything to do with online dating. The use of websites in general, and online dating in particular, are so common now that it is safe to say that these women would be doing this no matter how they met guys. Dr. Laura's comment reflected her overall attitude towards fornication: "Men are making out like bandits." That, as I've said before, implies that women don't enjoy fornication or get anything out of the dates. Yes, women tend to enjoy married lovemaking more (as do men), but many of them are getting orgasms, attention, ego boosts, free meals, or other things they want that they would not be getting if they weren't fornicating.
Anyway, the tips Dr. Laura went on to give about online dating, such as meeting in a neutral location, were very good. Even the best matchmaking services are simply ways of meeting people, and may be a way to keep in touch while dating. Nobody should assume that what someone has said about themselves is true or that the personality that comes across through the online communication is a thorough representation of the person. It takes spending time in person together in different circumstances to get to know that other person and see if they are what you need in a girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, or spouse.
Monday, April 21, 2008
EHarmony.com Gets Slammed By Christians, Conservatives
Many atheists, Leftists, swingers, cheaters, players, depressed people, people who have been divorced several times, and homosexuals are upset at EHarmony for not being geared towards serving them, or, in the case of the atheists and Leftists – purely because EHarmony.com was founded by someone who previously associated closely with Focus on the Family.
Now, an outcry from Christians and Conservatives has caused EHarmony.com to pull an advice piece dealing with one night stands. The piece was called “Navigating the One Night Stand” and was found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1961
There’s also anger over this piece:The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place, originally found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1969
According to Dr. Warren, one of the reasons he founded EHarmony.com was to lower the divorce rate and strengthen marriages. I think that is a good goal. Based on what he’s written, I can reasonably conclude that Dr. Warren is against one night stands and fornication in general – and believes that saving sex for marriage strengthens marriage. Let me say right now that I agree.
Having said that, if EHarmony.com is going to reach out to serve people who do not follow Biblical morality, there are areas where they can still offer advice to people in situations that they shouldn’t be in n the first place. However, when doing so, they should be careful about their tone and guide the reader to material that will explain why and how to avoid such situations in the first place, for the sake of increasing the chances of having a strong, happy marriage. To me, it is like a doctor treating an STD. Someone shouldn’t have an STD to begin with, but once they have it, they should be treated.
Now, let me go through the first article.
One night stands are often the goal for those who just want sex and nothing more. But they aren’t the target audience of EHarmony.com.
Guys should keep a cell phone so that they can claim they got a call and have to go. Great excuse for not spooning.
What a mess.
Moving on to the second piece - The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place:
It looks like EHarmony may be facing some of the same problems that happen to musical acts who start out appealing to a Christian audience and then try to go mainstream. One problem is losing their moral compass. The other problem, even if they don't lose their compass, is accusations of "selling out" by some of the original audience.
If EHarmony does things right, they can bring Christian principles to the mainstream practice, thereby strengthening marriage.
Now, an outcry from Christians and Conservatives has caused EHarmony.com to pull an advice piece dealing with one night stands. The piece was called “Navigating the One Night Stand” and was found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1961
There’s also anger over this piece:The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place, originally found here: http://advice.eharmony.com/?page=articles/view&AID=1969
According to Dr. Warren, one of the reasons he founded EHarmony.com was to lower the divorce rate and strengthen marriages. I think that is a good goal. Based on what he’s written, I can reasonably conclude that Dr. Warren is against one night stands and fornication in general – and believes that saving sex for marriage strengthens marriage. Let me say right now that I agree.
Having said that, if EHarmony.com is going to reach out to serve people who do not follow Biblical morality, there are areas where they can still offer advice to people in situations that they shouldn’t be in n the first place. However, when doing so, they should be careful about their tone and guide the reader to material that will explain why and how to avoid such situations in the first place, for the sake of increasing the chances of having a strong, happy marriage. To me, it is like a doctor treating an STD. Someone shouldn’t have an STD to begin with, but once they have it, they should be treated.
Now, let me go through the first article.
So you’re a swinging single and you’ve had a one-night stand.Bad move, if you are marriage-minded. It’s like going through a fast-food drive-through on the way to a seven-course gourmet meal at the best restaurant in town.
What’s the etiquette for establishing boundaries, calling the day after and getting out without hurting feelings?Feelings are likely to be hurt no matter what. But I do agree with minimizing the damage.
While most of us are looking for that special someone to spend our lives with, the single life dictates that sometimes the opportunity for companionship presents itself in the form of a one-night stand.This is part of what gets people riled up, but it is reality. Some people are weak, and they mess up. Yes, “mess up”. It is definitely a mistake, if you are EHarmony’s target market of someone looking for lasting love. In that case, you should just say "no".
One night stands are often the goal for those who just want sex and nothing more. But they aren’t the target audience of EHarmony.com.
While a one-time roll in the hay isn’t exactly emotionally fulfilling, sex in any form can be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun.While this is true, the tone could have been a lot better. Some sins are fun, at least in the moment. That doesn’t mean they aren’t damaging to your soul and risky for your body.
So maybe it’s closing time and you haven’t found Mr. or Ms. Right.Kind of hard to do in a bar or a club anyway. But if you’re in this situation, that’s when you GO HOME and get some sleep. But players take note of advice like this... the advice is a one night stand is okay as long as you haven't found the right person. Players read advice like that, and they resolve to NOT be Mr. or Mrs. Right, because that person has to wait for sex, while a jerk doesn't. Why? Because someone doesn't want to be seen by a potential marital partner as being morally loose, even though that it is exactly what they are. I write from experience.
If you are up for it, you can enjoy a romp with Mr. or Ms. Right-for-the-night. But when you find yourself in a position to get lucky, you should heed a few rendezvous rules to ensure a seamless one-night-only performance.How about “take a cold shower instead”?
Be Up FrontFine by whom? Legally? Yes. Morally? No. At least not in this case. And short-term happiness isn't the same thing as long-term, especially in this case.
As consenting adults, it’s absolutely fine for both of you to do what makes you happy.
The key is to make your intentions clear with your date and call it what it is: sex with no strings attached.Oh, come on now. If you’re going to tell someone how to score a one night stand, at least give good advice. (Hmmm, was this actually a clever attempt to make one night stands more difficult?) There are many women out there who engage in one night stands, but very few of those do so without the “plausible deniability” of the unspoken hope that it could lead to something more. Most women still need an “excuse” to do such things, and one major one is “I thought we had something special starting.” Another is “I was drinking.”
Once both of you have appropriate expectations, you can appreciate the spontaneous lovin’ for what it’s worth.What is the street value these days?
Do the Safety DanceHow do you even know it is your date’s real name?
Keep a cell phone with you, and if you can, tell your friends where you will be and your date’s name.
Guys should keep a cell phone so that they can claim they got a call and have to go. Great excuse for not spooning.
Further, always use protection. Without the risk of sounding like a high school health teacher, protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy every single time to avoid lingering consequences.Condoms are not 100% effective, nor do they prevent the transmission of all STDs.
Don’t Spend the NightDon't even if invited. Get out of there.
Unless invited, don’t sleep over.
Snoozing together is too official, and it should be reserved for an established relationship.Too official? But having a stranger inside you is unofficial?
Gather up your belongings and make a respectful exit.There’s nothing respectful about any of this.
Don’t try to leave a trail of personal “bread crumbs,” such as a wallet, a purse—or, worse, your unmentionables—as a gateway for a second meeting.Any guy who finds a one night stand’s stuff in his place should throw it away, and if she asks if he has it, he should say no. It is a trick. She'll never make that mistake with you again.
Hanging around implies desperation, pegging you as the sad Clingy Clarissa or Hopeless Harry.Uh, giving it up on the first date doesn't imply desperation?
Don’t CallThis is good advice for players, but bad advice for someone who is trying to adhere to morality. Such a person should call and apologize, and let things cool off before considering seeing that person again.
One-nighters need not call or check up on the whereabouts of the person they shared the evening with. Acting as if your near-anonymous night of passion was a first date will just confuse sex with love.
Keep Your Mouth Shut Don’t crow about your conquest or the amazing time you had with this lover to your friends like an adolescent.Good advice. Guys often tell their buddies that they "hit it". Women, however, will tell their friends exactly what went on in very detailed descriptions. Nobody should talk, except in a prayer for forgiveness.
One-night stands might solicit spontaneity and liberation, but you ought to know enough not to participate in short affairs unless you are capable of the detachment they require.If you are, there may be something wrong with you.
If you have the ability to live in the moment and not demand a long-term relationship afterward, then you are golden.Golden to players. You shouldn’t be fornicating in the first place.
What a mess.
Moving on to the second piece - The Girl’s Guide to Camping at Your Boyfriend’s Place:
You’ve met a great guy on eHarmony and so far things are going well. The two of you are going out, spending time together, and once in a while you’re probably crashing at his place. Here’s your guide to looking great by using what you’ve got.By crashing, you’d better mean the non-fornicating kind.
When you find yourself wearing his T-shirts and sometimes even using his toothbrush (ew), it’s tempting to ask him if you can stash some stuff at his house. However, there’s always a chance that this will come off as if you are moving too fast–as if you want to move in after knowing each other only a few weeks.There should be NO stashing unless marriage is pending in the next few weeks.
It looks like EHarmony may be facing some of the same problems that happen to musical acts who start out appealing to a Christian audience and then try to go mainstream. One problem is losing their moral compass. The other problem, even if they don't lose their compass, is accusations of "selling out" by some of the original audience.
If EHarmony does things right, they can bring Christian principles to the mainstream practice, thereby strengthening marriage.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
There’s Nothing Wrong with Online Dating
People still bag on online dating and matchmaking as if it is somehow fundamentally different from other ways of finding companionship, as if there is no difference between what amounts to the old newspaper personals (like on Yahoo.com) or advanced matchmaing sites like eHarmony.com
There was a time when most of the people online were tech nerds and women “on the edge”. Frankly, most of the women online back then were not very attractive, to put it politely. Not that the men were studs, either, but the men had a marketable skill, something that makes them attractive to women looking for a serious partner. Men really don’t care all that much what a woman does for a living, unless he can cite it as evidence to other guys about how hot she is, or unless he wouldn’t want to be married to someone in that profession – like a stripper.
Anyway, I find the present-day dismissal by some of finding a partner online to be outdated.
Dating or finding a partner is a process that has a history of changing with technology. In the U.S., when most people lived in agriculture-dominated and rural areas, men would court women by going to the home in which they lived – usually their father or brother’s home – and spending time there, often with other family members of hers present. With the automobile and the population shift to dense urban areas, it was easy for couples to get away from their families and find entertainment in town, and to find a secluded place to be alone.
And if you don’t think that “the pill” changed dating, you are fooling yourself.
So, with the rise of user-controlled online communications, it is no surprise that such technology is also having an impact on how people find each other, especially now that most adults are online.
And really, why is this alternative dismissed by some? What are the other ways people find partners?
Let’s see… courting is out in most places, and very few people go the arranged marriage route.
There’s the workplace, but the risks of raising favoritism and sexual harassment issues are very real – especially for men, as most of the people who investigate alleged sexual harassment and discrimination are women, and if a dating situation goes badly, how good is it for everyone to have those people working in the same place?
Church, temple or synagogue can be a good place, especially since it is more likely you will be religiously compatible, but this carries the same risk of awkwardness as workplace dating.
Many people meet through a common activity or hobby. This can be a great way to meet someone. But it still carries a the risk of the awkwardness factor and splits within that enthusiast community, and people who are fundamentally incompatible can still enjoy the same activities.
There are people who like to set up two of their friends, which can also carry the awkwardness factor. Plus, when a woman sets her friend up with a guy, she is telling them both “I’m not attracted to him, but you may be.” With reminds me that men can't date their female "friends", because if they are "friends" in the first place it is because the woman is not attracted to him.
Some people are set up by family members. For a lot of people, this spells disaster. Some people “steal” their date from a family member, which of course is a recipe for an even bigger disaster. Hey, but at least they didn’t discover each other online!
Bars and clubs can be a great place to meet someone – as long as you are just looking for a casual good time. But there are guys who don’t like to waste their money buying booze for a woman and all of her friends, or have no interest in “dancing”. And really, why is this any better than finding someone online? You both like to party. So what?
Finally, some people meet on the street or in transit, like on a flight. Again, why is this better than finding someone online?
Finding someone online can carry the benefit of more readily determining that someone has common goals, values, interests, likes, and dislikes as you. Yes, people online can be lying about themselves. No, communicating online is not the same thing as face-to-face interaction. So what? People you meet the other ways lie about themselves, too, and in either case it is up to you to figure it out. E-mails and instant messages aren’t supposed to replace face-to-face interaction any more than a phone call or snail mail is.
Let me be clear here. I’m referring to finding someone online, not the mistake of thinking that you are “dating” someone if you’ve never met them face-to-face and don’t see them regularly face-to-face. Online communications are only a tool in finding someone and a help in staying in touch. Once you have found someone who might be right for what you need at that time, it is up to you to actually date them. If that is how it goes, there is nothing wrong with “online dating”.
There was a time when most of the people online were tech nerds and women “on the edge”. Frankly, most of the women online back then were not very attractive, to put it politely. Not that the men were studs, either, but the men had a marketable skill, something that makes them attractive to women looking for a serious partner. Men really don’t care all that much what a woman does for a living, unless he can cite it as evidence to other guys about how hot she is, or unless he wouldn’t want to be married to someone in that profession – like a stripper.
Anyway, I find the present-day dismissal by some of finding a partner online to be outdated.
Dating or finding a partner is a process that has a history of changing with technology. In the U.S., when most people lived in agriculture-dominated and rural areas, men would court women by going to the home in which they lived – usually their father or brother’s home – and spending time there, often with other family members of hers present. With the automobile and the population shift to dense urban areas, it was easy for couples to get away from their families and find entertainment in town, and to find a secluded place to be alone.
And if you don’t think that “the pill” changed dating, you are fooling yourself.
So, with the rise of user-controlled online communications, it is no surprise that such technology is also having an impact on how people find each other, especially now that most adults are online.
And really, why is this alternative dismissed by some? What are the other ways people find partners?
Let’s see… courting is out in most places, and very few people go the arranged marriage route.
There’s the workplace, but the risks of raising favoritism and sexual harassment issues are very real – especially for men, as most of the people who investigate alleged sexual harassment and discrimination are women, and if a dating situation goes badly, how good is it for everyone to have those people working in the same place?
Church, temple or synagogue can be a good place, especially since it is more likely you will be religiously compatible, but this carries the same risk of awkwardness as workplace dating.
Many people meet through a common activity or hobby. This can be a great way to meet someone. But it still carries a the risk of the awkwardness factor and splits within that enthusiast community, and people who are fundamentally incompatible can still enjoy the same activities.
There are people who like to set up two of their friends, which can also carry the awkwardness factor. Plus, when a woman sets her friend up with a guy, she is telling them both “I’m not attracted to him, but you may be.” With reminds me that men can't date their female "friends", because if they are "friends" in the first place it is because the woman is not attracted to him.
Some people are set up by family members. For a lot of people, this spells disaster. Some people “steal” their date from a family member, which of course is a recipe for an even bigger disaster. Hey, but at least they didn’t discover each other online!
Bars and clubs can be a great place to meet someone – as long as you are just looking for a casual good time. But there are guys who don’t like to waste their money buying booze for a woman and all of her friends, or have no interest in “dancing”. And really, why is this any better than finding someone online? You both like to party. So what?
Finally, some people meet on the street or in transit, like on a flight. Again, why is this better than finding someone online?
Finding someone online can carry the benefit of more readily determining that someone has common goals, values, interests, likes, and dislikes as you. Yes, people online can be lying about themselves. No, communicating online is not the same thing as face-to-face interaction. So what? People you meet the other ways lie about themselves, too, and in either case it is up to you to figure it out. E-mails and instant messages aren’t supposed to replace face-to-face interaction any more than a phone call or snail mail is.
Let me be clear here. I’m referring to finding someone online, not the mistake of thinking that you are “dating” someone if you’ve never met them face-to-face and don’t see them regularly face-to-face. Online communications are only a tool in finding someone and a help in staying in touch. Once you have found someone who might be right for what you need at that time, it is up to you to actually date them. If that is how it goes, there is nothing wrong with “online dating”.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
EHarmony.com Attacked Again By Competitor
A dating website is trying to get traction by bashing EHarmony.com again. EHarmony.com is highly visible, has many more millions of subscribers, and often gets results, so it is understandable that this other service tries to make a name for itself using EHarmony.com’s name.
This new round of marketing will attempt to portray EHarmony.com as out-of-touch with American values. Why? Well, EHarmony.com won’t match people up who have serious depression or other serious relationship-damaging emotional/mental problems that its extensive personality profile detects. It won’t match up people who have demonstrated a repeated inability to stay married. It also won’t match up someone who is currently married, or people who are too young for serious, committed relationships.
Shocking, I know. Who doesn’t want to be matched with an unstable, depressed person who is legally married to someone else and has three divorces already?
The real topper is that EHarmony.com is based on years of intending-to-marry and marital counseling, so it is based on the dynamics between men and women, and thus does not have the experience to offer same-sex matching. Ooh, this one gets some people all worked up. They insist there is no difference. Which makes me wonder – if there is no difference, then why don’t these people try being matched with someone of the opposite sex? Answer: because there is a difference. Otherwise, everyone would be neutrally bisexual.
But this complaint about EHarmony.com is already tired, so the new one to is bash EHarmony.com by attacking founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s determinations that note the correlation between fornication, shacking up, and higher divorce rates. Yes, you see – Eharmony.com is “out touch with American values” because Dr. Warren has noticed that being a slut or a cad makes it less likely you will stay married. Never mind that EHarmony.com doesn’t keep a record of your sex life, or drop your account if you fornicate.
If you read what Dr. Warren wrote around the time of EHarmony.com’s launch, he makes it clear that he intended to use the service to lower the divorce rate by matching and guiding to open communication/first date only those people who are fundamentally compatible with each other and likely to get married and stay happily married. So it is “out of touch” with the “value” of the high divorce rate. Maybe that’s a good thing. It is “out of touch” with the American value where people in a relationship act like squabbling siblings competing for an edge over each other, trying to make it work with someone who is simply not compatible with them or able to have a healthy relationship. And yes, Dr. Warren is “out of touch” with Hollywood’s “value” of shameless casual fornication and shacking up.
But EHarmony.com does not bar fornicators. So who is really intolerant? Perhaps it is the service that makes fun of those who value purity and saving sex for marriage? What are their values anyway? The more fornication the better? Broken-hearts are good; out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and STDs are a-okay? Inflicting an untreated depressed person on someone looking for love? Spending time, money, emotions, and energy on someone with whom you are incompatible is fine, as long as they get you hot?
If you want to go with the rejects… be their guest! Go to that other site owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp. Go find people who are still married, people who have been divorced too many times, people who can’t answer a series of questions without appearing depressed or unstable...and good luck to you.
If you are just looking for a hookup, then there are easier places to go.
But if you want serious matchmaking with marriage in mind, I’d recommend a subscriber service that figures out who you are and puts you through a guided communication process; a service with a large number of subscribers – one like EHarmony.com. It’s not perfect, but it can be very useful.
This new round of marketing will attempt to portray EHarmony.com as out-of-touch with American values. Why? Well, EHarmony.com won’t match people up who have serious depression or other serious relationship-damaging emotional/mental problems that its extensive personality profile detects. It won’t match up people who have demonstrated a repeated inability to stay married. It also won’t match up someone who is currently married, or people who are too young for serious, committed relationships.
Shocking, I know. Who doesn’t want to be matched with an unstable, depressed person who is legally married to someone else and has three divorces already?
The real topper is that EHarmony.com is based on years of intending-to-marry and marital counseling, so it is based on the dynamics between men and women, and thus does not have the experience to offer same-sex matching. Ooh, this one gets some people all worked up. They insist there is no difference. Which makes me wonder – if there is no difference, then why don’t these people try being matched with someone of the opposite sex? Answer: because there is a difference. Otherwise, everyone would be neutrally bisexual.
But this complaint about EHarmony.com is already tired, so the new one to is bash EHarmony.com by attacking founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s determinations that note the correlation between fornication, shacking up, and higher divorce rates. Yes, you see – Eharmony.com is “out touch with American values” because Dr. Warren has noticed that being a slut or a cad makes it less likely you will stay married. Never mind that EHarmony.com doesn’t keep a record of your sex life, or drop your account if you fornicate.
If you read what Dr. Warren wrote around the time of EHarmony.com’s launch, he makes it clear that he intended to use the service to lower the divorce rate by matching and guiding to open communication/first date only those people who are fundamentally compatible with each other and likely to get married and stay happily married. So it is “out of touch” with the “value” of the high divorce rate. Maybe that’s a good thing. It is “out of touch” with the American value where people in a relationship act like squabbling siblings competing for an edge over each other, trying to make it work with someone who is simply not compatible with them or able to have a healthy relationship. And yes, Dr. Warren is “out of touch” with Hollywood’s “value” of shameless casual fornication and shacking up.
But EHarmony.com does not bar fornicators. So who is really intolerant? Perhaps it is the service that makes fun of those who value purity and saving sex for marriage? What are their values anyway? The more fornication the better? Broken-hearts are good; out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and STDs are a-okay? Inflicting an untreated depressed person on someone looking for love? Spending time, money, emotions, and energy on someone with whom you are incompatible is fine, as long as they get you hot?
If you want to go with the rejects… be their guest! Go to that other site owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp. Go find people who are still married, people who have been divorced too many times, people who can’t answer a series of questions without appearing depressed or unstable...and good luck to you.
If you are just looking for a hookup, then there are easier places to go.
But if you want serious matchmaking with marriage in mind, I’d recommend a subscriber service that figures out who you are and puts you through a guided communication process; a service with a large number of subscribers – one like EHarmony.com. It’s not perfect, but it can be very useful.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Stop Whining About EHarmony.com
A clinical psychologist spends decades counseling both-sex couples and learning why relationships fail and why they last, and what makes happy marriages happy. He figures out how to determine if a man and woman are compatible with each other in ways that will likely result in a happy, lasting relationship. He wants to increase marital happiness, reduce the divorce rate, and thereby help individuals, their children, their extended families, and thereby society as a whole.
He sees a business opportunity, and he takes what he has learned and modern day technology and launches EHarmony.com. Good for him, right?
It is a voluntary service that people have to log on to and pay to use. Nobody is obligated to use it, and there are many alternative online and offline services.
Yet this hasn’t stopped people from complaining and suing. The complaints and lawsuits are usually about what eHarmony.com isn’t, which is funny because it doesn’t claim to be those things in the first place.
It is a site dedicated to matching people based on their likelihood of entering into and maintaining happy, lasting marriages. It isn’t a “dating” site.
To determine if people are ready for such a relationship and with whom they’d be compatible, eHarmony has people fill answer an extensive list of questions to form and deliver a personality profile. The length and depth of the questioning is set up to smoke out people aren’t really serious or patient enough, may not know themselves well enough, may be misrepresenting themselves (intentionally or not), aren’t mature enough, or have some other emotional condition or character trait that renders them unlikely to be a good marriage partner. EHarmony does not take money from those people, because the people running the service do not think they will be able to successfully help those people find a lasting relationship. Such applicants are told that the site would be unlikely to find them partner. EHarmony also “rejects” people who are currently married, are “too young”, or have been divorced enough times to make another divorce likely.
There are people who are paranoid enough to believe that eHarmony “rejected” them because of their beliefs about religion or their weight, but there are at least thousands of eHarmony.com customers who can demonstrate that not to be true.
I find it curious when people balk at the results of the personality profile, get angry when eHarmony won’t take their money, or complain that they are consistently matched with losers. All of these things are a result of what someone has indicated about themselves. They only have themselves to blame.
Perhaps the most bitter attack against eHarmony.com is that it currently will only match people with someone from the other sex. A lawsuit was filed in California by a woman who was seeking to be matched with a woman. It is true that there are many, many services that already do this. However, none of them are based on the research and experience of Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Apparently, activists such as the one who filed this lawsuit really admire Dr. Warren’s matching abilities, which is interesting considering they usually are quick to bash his convictions as an evangelical Christian and his earlier ties to Focus on the Family. It seems these activists want it both ways – they want to benefit from Warren’s research while condemning the principles behind it.
Thanks to the Federal civil rights laws, businesses do not have the freedom to refuse to exchange goods/services/money with another party simply based on factors like race. You could have started the business with your own personal savings, built it from the ground up, etc., but you don’t have the freedom to choose to only serve certain races and exclude others. (And yes, this supposedly means that if you are “white” and a “black” business refuses to serve you because you are white, you can sue them.) In California, “sexual orientation” is one of those categories where it is illegal to discriminate. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he or she is a homosexual.
That is the law. I’d argue that everyone should have the freedom to hire, fire, and do business or not with whomever they want for whatever reason. If a woman only wants to work with women, she should be allowed to hire only women. If she only wants women as customers, she should be allowed to make that restriction. If she doesn’t want my money because I’m male, then she loses out when I take my money elsewhere. But, we must deal with the laws as they are, not as we want them to be.
I’d argue that eHarmony is not refusing service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can take the personality profile and be matched with men – provided she isn’t excluded for the things I mentioned above, like being divorced too many times. If you’re a woman and you don’t want to be matched with a man, then eHarmony is not for you. I wouldn’t go to the Olive Garden and demand that they serve me Mexican food, or sell me footballs. You may not want to be matched with a man, but why is that eHarmony.com's responsibility? It is a voluntary subscription for a non-essential service.
Dr. Warren has pointed out that his decades of research has been with both-sex couples, and so he doesn’t have the experience to match up men with men and women with women. The critics have balked at this, howling and shrieking at his assertion that there could be any difference in the dynamic within the sexes and the dynamic between the sexes. I find this puzzling, because almost none of these critics are bisexual, so clearly they know there is a difference. Men and women are different, and that makes the dynamic between them different than it is between two men and two women. If this wasn’t true, then gay people could easily choose to be straight.
The lesbian can’t have it both ways. Either men and women are different and she is attracted to women and not to men, or there is no difference and therefore she should be attracted to both, and thereby eHarmony matching her with a man should not be a problem for her. But there is a difference, and eHarmony.com’s matching criteria is based on the dynamic between a man and a woman, and thus wouldn’t work it matching a man with a man or a woman with a woman.
Some people assert that the only difference is in body parts, but this doesn’t past muster, either. Is a lesbian really a lesbian only because she prefers vaginas to penises? Such an assertion is ridiculously simplistic, especially considering the use of phallic toys by some lesbians.
Rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle? Counselors and psychologists who specialize in counseling same-sex couples should build up, collect, and analyze research about such couples who have happily lasted, and figure out what has made their relationship work. Then, they can take that research, and start their own service. Maybe eHarmony.com would be willing to license its technologies to such a business or launch the service itself. Or is the lawsuit really just about trying to tear down a business because they’re selling chicken when you’re in the mood for tuna?
EHarmony.com has been successful enough that other matchmaking and dating sites compare and contrast themselves to eHarmony. Match.com’s Chemistry.com has gone so far as to appeal to the “rejects” from eHarmony. Great. Go to Chemistry.com if want someone who is already married, or has been divorced a few times already, or is too young or immature to get married, or has some other challenge to having a happy marriage with you. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?
Finally, there are the people who simply don’t like the eHarmony.com ads with their happy couples and Dr. Warren. I don’t know - maybe they are lonely and bitter, or maybe they’d rather see a teen pitchman with a bunch of piercings, tats, and a rap sheet. People are entitled to their own tastes. The problem comes when they assert that everyone else has to cater to them and think like them and have the same exact experiences as them.
EHarmony.com is for people who want to find someone to marry - and in almost all of the world, that means someone of the opposite sex. There’s no guarantee you are ready for marriage, or that there’s someone out there who meets your needs/standards. Get over it. EHarmony.com has worked for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, move on and stop wasting your time and energy with whining and consipiracy theories.
Oh, and if that lawsuit against eHarmony.com is succesful, they I'll sue any OB/GYN who refuses to examine my testicles.
He sees a business opportunity, and he takes what he has learned and modern day technology and launches EHarmony.com. Good for him, right?
It is a voluntary service that people have to log on to and pay to use. Nobody is obligated to use it, and there are many alternative online and offline services.
Yet this hasn’t stopped people from complaining and suing. The complaints and lawsuits are usually about what eHarmony.com isn’t, which is funny because it doesn’t claim to be those things in the first place.
It is a site dedicated to matching people based on their likelihood of entering into and maintaining happy, lasting marriages. It isn’t a “dating” site.
To determine if people are ready for such a relationship and with whom they’d be compatible, eHarmony has people fill answer an extensive list of questions to form and deliver a personality profile. The length and depth of the questioning is set up to smoke out people aren’t really serious or patient enough, may not know themselves well enough, may be misrepresenting themselves (intentionally or not), aren’t mature enough, or have some other emotional condition or character trait that renders them unlikely to be a good marriage partner. EHarmony does not take money from those people, because the people running the service do not think they will be able to successfully help those people find a lasting relationship. Such applicants are told that the site would be unlikely to find them partner. EHarmony also “rejects” people who are currently married, are “too young”, or have been divorced enough times to make another divorce likely.
There are people who are paranoid enough to believe that eHarmony “rejected” them because of their beliefs about religion or their weight, but there are at least thousands of eHarmony.com customers who can demonstrate that not to be true.
I find it curious when people balk at the results of the personality profile, get angry when eHarmony won’t take their money, or complain that they are consistently matched with losers. All of these things are a result of what someone has indicated about themselves. They only have themselves to blame.
Perhaps the most bitter attack against eHarmony.com is that it currently will only match people with someone from the other sex. A lawsuit was filed in California by a woman who was seeking to be matched with a woman. It is true that there are many, many services that already do this. However, none of them are based on the research and experience of Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Apparently, activists such as the one who filed this lawsuit really admire Dr. Warren’s matching abilities, which is interesting considering they usually are quick to bash his convictions as an evangelical Christian and his earlier ties to Focus on the Family. It seems these activists want it both ways – they want to benefit from Warren’s research while condemning the principles behind it.
Thanks to the Federal civil rights laws, businesses do not have the freedom to refuse to exchange goods/services/money with another party simply based on factors like race. You could have started the business with your own personal savings, built it from the ground up, etc., but you don’t have the freedom to choose to only serve certain races and exclude others. (And yes, this supposedly means that if you are “white” and a “black” business refuses to serve you because you are white, you can sue them.) In California, “sexual orientation” is one of those categories where it is illegal to discriminate. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he or she is a homosexual.
That is the law. I’d argue that everyone should have the freedom to hire, fire, and do business or not with whomever they want for whatever reason. If a woman only wants to work with women, she should be allowed to hire only women. If she only wants women as customers, she should be allowed to make that restriction. If she doesn’t want my money because I’m male, then she loses out when I take my money elsewhere. But, we must deal with the laws as they are, not as we want them to be.
I’d argue that eHarmony is not refusing service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can take the personality profile and be matched with men – provided she isn’t excluded for the things I mentioned above, like being divorced too many times. If you’re a woman and you don’t want to be matched with a man, then eHarmony is not for you. I wouldn’t go to the Olive Garden and demand that they serve me Mexican food, or sell me footballs. You may not want to be matched with a man, but why is that eHarmony.com's responsibility? It is a voluntary subscription for a non-essential service.
Dr. Warren has pointed out that his decades of research has been with both-sex couples, and so he doesn’t have the experience to match up men with men and women with women. The critics have balked at this, howling and shrieking at his assertion that there could be any difference in the dynamic within the sexes and the dynamic between the sexes. I find this puzzling, because almost none of these critics are bisexual, so clearly they know there is a difference. Men and women are different, and that makes the dynamic between them different than it is between two men and two women. If this wasn’t true, then gay people could easily choose to be straight.
The lesbian can’t have it both ways. Either men and women are different and she is attracted to women and not to men, or there is no difference and therefore she should be attracted to both, and thereby eHarmony matching her with a man should not be a problem for her. But there is a difference, and eHarmony.com’s matching criteria is based on the dynamic between a man and a woman, and thus wouldn’t work it matching a man with a man or a woman with a woman.
Some people assert that the only difference is in body parts, but this doesn’t past muster, either. Is a lesbian really a lesbian only because she prefers vaginas to penises? Such an assertion is ridiculously simplistic, especially considering the use of phallic toys by some lesbians.
Rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle? Counselors and psychologists who specialize in counseling same-sex couples should build up, collect, and analyze research about such couples who have happily lasted, and figure out what has made their relationship work. Then, they can take that research, and start their own service. Maybe eHarmony.com would be willing to license its technologies to such a business or launch the service itself. Or is the lawsuit really just about trying to tear down a business because they’re selling chicken when you’re in the mood for tuna?
EHarmony.com has been successful enough that other matchmaking and dating sites compare and contrast themselves to eHarmony. Match.com’s Chemistry.com has gone so far as to appeal to the “rejects” from eHarmony. Great. Go to Chemistry.com if want someone who is already married, or has been divorced a few times already, or is too young or immature to get married, or has some other challenge to having a happy marriage with you. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?
Finally, there are the people who simply don’t like the eHarmony.com ads with their happy couples and Dr. Warren. I don’t know - maybe they are lonely and bitter, or maybe they’d rather see a teen pitchman with a bunch of piercings, tats, and a rap sheet. People are entitled to their own tastes. The problem comes when they assert that everyone else has to cater to them and think like them and have the same exact experiences as them.
EHarmony.com is for people who want to find someone to marry - and in almost all of the world, that means someone of the opposite sex. There’s no guarantee you are ready for marriage, or that there’s someone out there who meets your needs/standards. Get over it. EHarmony.com has worked for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, move on and stop wasting your time and energy with whining and consipiracy theories.
Oh, and if that lawsuit against eHarmony.com is succesful, they I'll sue any OB/GYN who refuses to examine my testicles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)