Three Myths of Online Dating
Four years ago, when I first considered signing up for an online dating site (Yahoo Personals) I had just become single again (“separated” was the box I checked off for my YP profile) after more than 20 years of marriage. Any experience that I had of dating was by then decades old and totally irrelevant to my new situation. I’m not shy, but I think I can also admit that I am not very adept at saloon repartee. And I have enough sense to know that approaching a single woman can more likely come across as threatening or pathetic, than as attractive, exciting, or seductive. But, although I knew nothing about online dating, I already assumed that I might as well have a virtual “L” tattooed across my cyber-forehead as soon as I sent my credit card info to Yahoo.
That online dating is for losers was the first of the myths that I had to let go of. Today, after four years of on-again, off-again cyber-hookups, it’s clear to me that it is not the medium of last resort for the unattractive, the inept, and the desperate. Many first time users still approach the whole process the way I did, and take for granted that they should check off a U, I, or D to indicate which of the three categories of loser they qualify for. A recent Nerve personal, under the question about your most humiliating experience, put “WRITING THIS.” It’s easy to find capsule bios that begin with some form of plea that the writer not be considered one of those people who use online personals: “I might as well try this,” “I’ve tried everything else,” “I’ve given up on the bar scene,” or something similar.
Of course, the millions of online personals users probably include a fair share of the U, I, and D types. It is much more common, though, for the medium to appeal to people who have somehow come to the conclusion (whether from reflection or experience) that a bar might be the wrong place to look for a steady partner, and that the pool of prospective partners at church, office, or school is depressingly small. Plus, let’s face it, getting turned down online means that someone doesn’t respond to an e-mail that took you five minutes to compose (or, if you send a “Wink” or some other pre-fabricated ice-breaker, it takes you zero seconds to compose). Compare that to being ignored at a bar after you’ve used one of those “can’t fail” opening lines that books like How To Succeed with Women list for you. The online medium makes flirting into something far safer for the ego than the usual casual personal encounter.
If anything still gives me pause at initiating contact with someone through one of these sites, it is not the thought, “I must really be desperate to write to her,” but “She’s out of my league.” I have regularly found profiles for women who have advanced degrees, who are physicians, writers, entrepreneurs, or who have other interesting and innovative careers. They have traveled, fallen in love, sometimes married, and for one reason or another find themselves in the prime of life without a partner. I cannot count the number of times I’ve looked at the pictures women have provided, then read that they consider their body type “Average,” and think, “Darling, there is nothing average about you.” I often wonder how these talented, beautiful women can possibly be alone. How it is that Manhattan and the adjacent boroughs are not holding lotteries or contests so that men will have the chance to meet these ladies? Well, perhaps a later Blue Monkey will deal with that enigma.
Because my mention of beauty brings me to a second myth about online dating, that is, looks don't count. Joe Tracy, publisher of Online Dating Magazine is quoted in this weeks Newsweek (Feb. 20, 2006): “As people get older, they definitely start dropping a lot of the look requirements they have in their mind.” This statement should fill any middle-aged retro-dater with hope and optimism, that perhaps dating has changed for the more mature, that now it will be about brains and personality and substance. Take a deep breath and enjoy the warmth of those good feelings, and then fuhgeddaboutit! The most charitable thing I can say about Joe’s statement is that he must not have tried post-40 online dating. Because for every personal that says some version of, “I don’t care what my guy looks like,” there are 50 that say, “I want a man who looks good.”
In fact, my statement above is misleading, because I’ve never seen a profile that said, “I don’t care.” All the evidence runs counter to this. Looks count! Women regularly include a requirement that a man be handsome or sexy, and while many will check off “Average” in the body type they are looking for, only a tiny minority will lower their standards to include “A Little Extra Padding.” Or, consider the height variable. On Match women give their own height and then specify the altitude they look for in their male companion. After years of research and careful statistical analysis I have concluded that women up to 5’4” will settle for a man who is four inches taller (the difference in height, or H-Delta) while beginning at 5’6” women demand men who are 5’10”. In fact, 5’10” seems to be the most popular stature for men, until women reach 5’10” themselves at which point they give up hope of finding someone with the 4+ H-Delta.
The notion that looks don’t count goes against both personal experience and scientific evidence. The best guides to the research, Ayala M. Pines, Falling in Love (1999) [my favorite] and Helen Fisher, Why We Love (2004) show that studies consistently find people attracted to and partnered with people at their same level of attractiveness. And, even though it is a mystery to me how people determine this, that finding meets the test of everyday life. When you see a couple together, it’s only the couples in which one partner looks strikingly different that really hold your attention. In fact, the only difference that doesn’t seem to hold much weight is H-Delta, though even there it’s noteworthy when you see a short/ tall couple. [Of course, we all recognize that high status and/or wealth on the part of the man can trump looks, something that social scientists refer to as the “Trump Effect.”]
Granted, many women do not list “looks” as a requirement. But, with almost cult-like regularity women will list “chemistry” as they key for them, the one sine qua non for the man who will be their soul-, bed-, and board-mate. In fact, after listing the desirable qualities in the man they seek (dignity, honesty, intelligence, success, whatever) many women will effectively abandon these virtues and say, “Above all, chemistry.”
And that brings me to the last of the myths, the one that supports the entire online dating industry. In essence, we believe in online personals because they give us access to a much wider population of potential partners, i.e. they improve the odds. If you think of the search for romance in terms of shopping (the marketplace metaphor was common, but not as pointed, pre-Marx), then an online service becomes a kind of Sears-Roebuck Catalogue, a Wal-Mart or Ikea for those looking for love. And, in a consumer-oriented culture, we take for granted that a bigger marketplace results in consumer satisfaction. Yet, in spite of the millions of people online, legitimately looking for someone more or less like you, s/he may never find you. And, even if s/he does, the two of you might not click.
Why? Because chemistry really does count. Whatever combination of physical appeal, wit, charm, quirkiness, and energy attract people to you only translates imperfectly into the online medium. Someone might find your picture and profile appealing, but not go for you in person. Or, in person you might have qualities that your online portfolio cannot convey. “This is devilishly tricky,” one woman wrote to me after we had met and she decided not to take our acquaintance any further. She was, and is, right. Even though I’ve probably contacted more than a hundred women online, and have met perhaps twenty of those in person, I’ve connected with only a few and never for very long. The very few more substantial relationships (in my case, the ones lasting at least a few months) that I’ve had in the last four years have been with women I’ve met in conventional ways, through friends or work. [Note added 6/18/06: This last statement seems no longer to be true.]
The other problem of the expanded marketplace is that the marketplace has expanded less than it seems. On Nerve, for instance, there are 1.25 million members. From my experience, however, it seems that most of female members live in New York City or a major metropolitan area on the West Coast. I’m sure there cannot be more than a few hundred in the Commonwealth of PA, and, of those, virtually all live in Philadelphia. So, it’s not only chemistry. Propinquity counts!