Talk to Me (or Text Me)

To close the summer, Museum of Modern Art is hosting an exhibit called Talk to Me, chronicling  how people communicate with objects. From showcasing an interesting hand written code that was shared between homeless people to mark safe shelters in the 1900s to paying homage to the "human experience" of smart phones, the exhibit got me thinking about why it is so much easier to relate honestly to objects of technology instead of the objects of our affection.

Talk to Me highlights how overtime, people make objects more and more human to enhance our experiences with them. Think about it, the slightest human touch on ATMs, GPS and alarm clocks can make them feel more civilized and interactive.  But, ironically, when it comes to romance, we use objects to make our experiences less human, so we can open up more.

Online dating profiles are a great example. It has become almost normal to pour the intimate details of who we are and what we are hoping for onto a computer screen, but could you imagine actually articulating this information on a first or date? "Hi I'm Jewels, I work hard and play hard and am looking for a non-smoker who drinks occasionally, makes six figures and has a soft spot for REM. Additionally, I'm looking for a love that makes me want to jump out of the bed some mornings and never leave it other mornings. Did I mention he has to LOVE children and support my career?"

The offline dating game can be filled with pretense, obscurity and the infamous battle of HTG (hard to get). A funny game considering the purpose of dating is actually to be "gotten" in the end. Just think about the close of a date when you stumble through an awkward good-bye only two get a schmoopie text 5 minutes later saying "had so much fun, do it again?" Why is it so much easier to talk to your Iphone then to look in someone's eyes and speak honestly? 

Talk to me about what you think...via comments of course.  Talk to Me: through November 7th at MOMA, 11 West 53rd Street NY, NY.

IvyDate: Less Obnoxious Than a Winklevoss Twin

I have this pet peeve when people start dating someone new and mention where they went to college before they even mention if the person is hot, cool or fun. So when I heard about IvyDate, a new dating site for Ivy Leaguers and the singles that chase them, my initial reaction was to hate. But, after chatting with the two founders, and Harvard Alum, Phillip Triebel and Beri Meric, I was pleasantly surprised. What I thought would be one of the most superficial sites in the online dating spectrum, actually turned out to be one of the least. Here is a hint why: you can’t browse photos. For more details check out my Q&A with the founders below.

Where did you get the idea for IvyDate?
We thought there was a gap in the market and wanted to create a dating site for the "scholastically oriented" focusing on the values of education and intellectual curiosity. We think these are great qualifiers for a potential mate.

What about The Right Stuff, isn’t that a dating site for people that went to top schools?
Ivydate is a little different for a few reasons. 1) In addition to Ivy Leaguers we accept interested singles who appreciate and value learning. 2) Our site is not set up as a searchable database. Once you're accepted onto the site, we match you with the people in your city that you are most compatible with.

The average acceptance rate for Ivy League schools is around 9%? How do you get accepted to IvyDate?
We have a membership committee that reviews applicants and then we send members matches like a matchmaker. People get in as long as they have an interesting and lively profile that speaks to who they are. On your application we ask questions about your personality, life goals, occupation, values, hobbies and passions.


So how do looks come into play? Your Getty images girl here is pretty much a smoke train. 
We do not judge looks during the application or matching process. We match based on our proprietary compatibility software. Then once you get matches to your inbox you can decide if you want to reach out to them (three photos are included). This process gives our users a more curated and selective experience. Our database cannot be searched so users can also enjoy more privacy.

What do you say to people that think we are all too focused on resume dating? Like where people went to school and what they do for a living?
The qualities we promote are not exclusive to Ivy League alum. The reality is people want to find compatibility, get married and have a happy family life. On the path to that you have to start narrowing it down somewhere. If you are going online there are huge pools of people to choose from and it's overwhelming. We are trying to help users by connecting them with other people that have passion, determination and intellectual curiosity. These are positive things and important qualities for a mate.

You both sound adorable, are you guys single?
(Laughter). Yes. We are both single.

So you must be on the site then, right?
No we are not going to be included in the dating pool. We are focused on growing the user base in advance of our soft launch this spring. This is serious business after all.

IvyDate is accepting applications now and will be launching faster than a Winklevoss rowing for the Smith Cup. Apply here, just don't call it a soft launch.

Are Dating Reviews the Next Frontier?

We live in a recommendation based society. From finding restaurants, to hair dressers to new jobs, we solicit the advice of others to hedge our bets and make more informed opinions.  Recently I read a term for it called social searching -- which refers to how now search engines are being effected by our social networks. This concept got me wondering: are dates the next logical thing to be reviewed and recommended? I can see it now, Linked In style: "Jewels recommends Mister wonderful: he's charismatic, driven and can really close the deal if you know what I mean..."

Although matchmaking and set-ups have always existed to help provide friends with recommendations while making it all feel a little less random, the proliferation of social media is making it easier and easier for us to weigh in on each others dating lives. Recently two friends of mine connected on an online dating site and realized, through Facebook, that I was their friend in common. I got an email from one asking the scoop on the other and of course I dished. But I began to wonder if maybe I should have kept my personal thoughts out of the public domain.

To see if dating reviews were in fact, the future I chatted with Ross Felix, founder of Dating Revolution, a soon to launch dating site that will enforce dater honesty with community feedback. He shared the following thoughts: "It's a double edged sword in several ways: The reviews you're going to trust the most are ones from your own friends. Reviews from their friends are meaningless. But that would mean that you're either dating your friends friends -- or worse, your friends' exes. Option #2 is more like Yelp -- where you're getting reviews from strangers -- but lets be honest, unless it's one of those odd things -- He was absolutely amazing -- but unfortunately he's developed an allergy to my cat -- why would someone be writing a positive review?"

Although a site to review dates has yet to emerge, a new site called Clique just launched which allows you to search your social networks and date people that are within three degrees of your network. So what's the net? Maybe we're spending too much time social searching and need to spend more time soulful searching, that is, forming are own opinions about what we want. But hey if you really don't have a clue, I guess tapping the wisdom of crowds makes sense. Or better yet, the wisdom of friends.

Is Match.com the Olive Garden of Dating?

There is absolutely no stigma in dating online, that is as long as you aren't using Match.com. Sure their commercials try to give compelling statistics like "more dates than on any other site"-- a stat as convincing as when Patti Stanger says she is a matchmaker "with a very high success rate" during the intro to The Millionaire Matchmaker.

So why has Match.com hit its tipping point for the young, hip, urban set? Think about Match.com as the Olive Garden of dating sites. Everyone gets in and everything on the menu is just okay. You eat the endless bowl of salad and breadsticks because it's there, not because it satisfies you. So what's the alternative? Well as the huddled masses have flocked to Match.com, more young, urban professionals have migrated to sites where they can have a more curated dating experience. It's sort of like going to a small under the radar bar or social club instead of hanging out at a chain restaurant. The fact that people know about it speaks to their level of taste and curiosity--plus you're not left flipping through an endless menu of options with the feeling that everything looks better than it actually is.

So without further adieu, here it is, a rundown of dating sites that give you an alternative from the norm and inject some much needed life into the category. Would you try one?

Alikewise: With the cute tag line "dating by the book," this site appropriately matches book nerds. Although a quick scan revealed more characters than hotties we all know judging a book by its cover can be a major no no. The upside? Meet a mate on here and they might actually understand your dog Daisy is not named after a MTV VJ from the 90s.

Taste Buds: Remember falling for someone because they made you a mix tape that changed your life? Okay that never happened to me, but I believe it happens to others. This site hooks you up with mates based on your favorite song. P.S. if you say it's written by Phoenix or The National expect some stiff competition.

Chirp Me: Started by two brothers and a friend, this site is actually an app that runs through Facebook and twitter pairing you with friends of friends that have similar dining sensibilities. Although the founders look more likely to Yaeger Bomb than to help create a more culturally aligned dating experience, the concept seems promising. If this site doesn't work their plan B is to create a dating site for New Yorkers with a 973 phone number.

When Strangers Click & Creep

In an attempt to cure my Valentine's Day hangover, I decided to go with a hair of the dog remedy and watch the HBO special, When Strangers Click. The premise was simple and promising, a documentary that follows the journey of 5 couples who met online.

While I was hoping for stories about cute gays that met on GrindR and hipsters finding in each other in a sea of flannels and sending introductory emails exclaiming I'd shave my beard for you, what I got was very different. Instead of showing that online dating can be an honest way to connect for the 22% of couples that have reaped its benefits, it highlighted the freakish and awkward. From a couple that only contacted each other in second life to a woman who married a foreigner after knowing him for one day, these 5 stories reinforced the cliche that people who date online are living in an alternate reality, prolonging the inevitable disclosure of an epic deal breaker or lead a double life as a politician/sexual deviant(see story #2).

Trailer

Even the stats and figures in the film seem some what archaic. My personal favorite: the number one concern for a woman meeting a man online is that he is a serial killer, the number one concern for a man meeting a woman online is that she is fat. Maybe it is the truth and it was just the AOL dial up modem in the background throwing me off. I never thought I would say this, but this sh*t makes me long for eHarmony commercials, you know the one where the pretty boutique owner doesn't have time for love untill that adorable scruffy guy swings her around in a field of dandelions?! Sorry I couldn't resist.

Has Online Dating Affected Our Offline Game?

Posted by Alan Danzis

Most people that have met me more than a few times refuse to believe me when I tell them I'm a really shy person. Sure, I did musicals as a kid (yes, I admit, I have copies of them all). I do new business all the time. And I go on a lot of online dates. None of those things scare me--after the first ten seconds of course (I'm only human). I didn't go on my first date until I was quite a bit older than most people--don't worry, I was still in my teens. I also didn't have a girlfriend until much later either. It was because I was really afraid to approach girls--like deathly afraid. And I still am.

Online dating is easy. I didn't have it back then. But clearly, we all do now. You blindly email someone who looks cute. If she responds, awesome. If not, who cares. You completely forgot she existed anyway, because there's like 100 more for you to email...

Approaching a girl in a bar is different. You WILL remember that rejection. It'll fade over time--most will--but in that moment, you're still terrified of it.So this year, I did a New Year's resolution. Here's the rules:

If I am in a bar...

And I'm not on a date...

And I see a group of at least two girls...

Without any guys around them that might be boyfriends...

I must approach them at least one potential scenario a night--so after I've met my obligation, I don't have to "play" the rest of the night if I don't want to. Since New Year's Day, I've "played" my resolution four times. I'm not going to go into the particulars of how I did, or even if I've gone out on actual dates with any of the girls, but here's what I learned: all of the conversations lasted at least ten minutes. Whether they stopped because I got bored or they did--that's irrelevant. Clearly, people do want to talk to other people in a bar if they're just there with one or two friends.

Having a line helps, but it doesn't have to be an original one. On my second approach, which took place on New Year's day night, I spotted three girls at a bar, sitting down, while I was out with a few of my friends. They seemed pretty into their conversation, so I didn't feel comfortable just going up and talking to the one I liked. So, I called the bartender over, and sent down one beer to JUST the girl I liked. When she got it, and the bartender told her it was from me, she smiled and I smiled back. I waited about three minutes before I walked down to talk to her. My line? "I was going to come over sooner, but honestly, my friends all had terrible lines for me to use." Throwing your friends under the bus -- with their permission of course! -- is usually a win-win in lines if you do it right. I'll admit, I've done it three out of four times. Don't let your friends come over right away. Do the approach on your own -- it shows you're not a wussy, which of course I am, but the girls don't need to know that. Your friends should come over four to five minutes later, on their own, without your prompting. You're too interested in your new friends after all...

I hope my new approach helps other guys (and even girls) out there that have gotten so accustomed to the ease of "picking up" people online, that they're now terrified to do it in person. Have any tips for me on my next approach? Drop me a tweet at @adanzis.

The Shittiest Match from OK Stupid

I'm really not an online date hater, but the sh*t show that is being served up from OK Cupid is enough to make a straight girl tap the 2010 celesbian trend. Case in point one of my readers forwarded me a "QuickMatch" email that arrived in her inbox from the site.

Note the casual, conversational and patronizing tone they use to tell you that their are nine crappy people interested in you--and wait for it--one actually crapped in their pants. Maybe he's trying to be funny or has been dumped too many times and decided too return the favor. FAIL.

"One of these 9 people just gave you high marks (4 or 5 stars) on QuickMatch. Congratulations! If you give high marks to the same guy who chose you, we'll let you both know you match. If not, no biggie. Click anyone below to start playing or click here to login instantly. Somewhere in the first few people you rate will be your potential match."

OK Stupid: The Worst Introduction Known to Man

The golden rules of online dating should go something like this: Thou shalt never describe thyself as a "people person," use a profile picture from a web cam or openly disclose that we live with our parents. So you can imagine my surprise when my adorable friend and blogger, Sara of Searching for Sustenance, forwarded me the following email from a guy that approached her on OK Stupid Cupid.

Hi dont know how to start, its been a while since i'm writing to some one, lol, any ways let me be honest, you have written sooo beautifully that i'm sooo impressed, soo honest, i'm not going to praise you that you are sooo beautiful blah blah that you know already and i'm sure been told plenty of time, and may be every day. Presently i'm living with my parents and looking for a house to move in, its been only 6 months since i'm here, in a couple of months i'm moving out.

I looked at your profile couldnt able to stop my self to take out time from work and write you a letter, i'm gonna call this a letter its not a message lol, i really like you as a person not that you are beautiful but i dont know i like you, i've been blessed with every thing, but not every thing, its a saying, god never makes every one complete, with me i've never been blessed with a woman in my life, may be i'm too sincere and girls like bad guys, no seriously all the good looking girls in my school used to date really bad guys knowingly that those are bad guys still, and ive been told always that neil you are a really nice guy but i like him or that person, lol, sooo thats a part of my story

Its my humble request, if you could honor me with your friendship, i assure you i will leave no stone unturned to give you all the care and attention what is required in a friendship. I really dont know how to write to a girl but i tried my best to explain. If you dont like what i wrote please forgive and i apologize in advance and if you think i deserve your friendship, please do reply me, i'll be anxiously waiting for your reply!"

Thank you,
Neil

This email is so sad and heinous that disecting what is wrong with it is sort of like trying to to explain what is wrong with Sarah Palin--and no one has time for that. But here's some advice for online romeos trying to compose some introductory bate: if you have to "apologize in advance" for what you are saying, you shouldn't say it. Also sounding like you wrote an email with one hand down your pants is about as appealing as actually seeing you do it.

OK Cupid: Stats in the City

OKCupid, you complete me. The way you crunch data is even hotter than that guy on Numb3rs that used to be on Northern Exposure.

This week OKTrends, a blog by OKCupid, revealed stats on straight sex vs gay sex with some interesting tidbits like gay and straight singles are equally slutty and apparently equally dishonest, since the median # of sexual partners for both was 6.

But even more interesting were wordle-esque maps that show phrases that over-index in profiles by gender and sexual orientation. Things that didn't surprise me: gay men have the best cultural taste and straight men talk more about the show Breaking Bad than they do about having a wife. Things that did surprise me: straight women thinking that listing strong relationships with their moms and best girlfriends would increase their chances of meeting a guy online. Judge for yourself!

Gay Men

Gay Women


Straight Men


Straight Women

The Fugly Truth! A Dating Site for the Aesthetically Challenged

This week I have to give a techromance shout out to the Brits. First they brought us the dating website I Love Your Accent which we covered a few months back that matches Americans with hot Brits, Irishmen and Aussies -- now they bring us The Ugly Bug Ball (TUBB) -- a dating site that pairs the "aesthetically challenged."

In prep for the launch they even conducted a survey that proves the "ugly truth" on dating. My personal favorite "ah-ha" from the study: Ugly people try harder in bed. Did they fact check that with Philip Seymour Hoffman's wife? HA.

In any event, I think its incredibly romanTECH and well, ugly-sexy. I just wouldn't recommend it to anyone...directly. What do you all think?

How About We...Get a Grip

The new superficial in dating is not picking a date based on how hot the person is or on how high their earning potential might be–it’s picking someone based on where they are going to take you on your first date. This week the New York Times wrote an article about "How About We," a dating site we talked about in online meet markets a few months back, which works by giving suitors the opportunity to propose various dates with the phrase “How About We…” The text that follows generally resembles a post of the “stuff white people like” variety. For example: “How About We…search for the best Banh Mi in Brooklyn” or “drink Sangria and laugh until the sun comes up.”

Normally I support creative romanTECH endeavors but I just can't get behind a site that puts the cart before the whores (ha) emphasizing the social value of an activity over the person you're suppose to be dating. Hasn't the Bachelor taught us that the notion of the fantasy date is false–we can have the perfect setting, menu and music but still might wind up with Vienna.

As part of their first date investigation, the Times asked "How About We" to share their "date-a-base" and saw that over time in NYC you can even see specific dates trending. As if the faux hipster clip art on the site doesn’t make you feel generic enough now you can trace your date back to a New York magazine article about gourmet meatballs being "the new burger" for foodies in search of the next frontier in beef...

I’m just waiting for a rebel on the site to buck conformity with a realistic entry…you know “How About We…enjoy cheap Italian in my neighborhood and split the check if it doesn't look like you want my cannoli for dessert."

The Latest Online "Meet" Markets

I still recall dating a guy I met on Friendster a few years back and having him instruct me to tell his parents that we met through a mutual friend. I swear when they asked, I almost said "through a friendster" to make him feel uncomfortable. Luckily since then the stigma of online dating has disappeared like those free NYC condoms from an east village bar bathroom. Now singles can mingle in a variety of virtual "meet" markets and don't have to adhere to the randomosity of Match.com.

I Love Your Accent is a global site that pairs Americans with foreign guys, specifically brits, in hopes of fulfilling their Gwenyth Paltrow/Chris Martin fantasy (apparently in a mid-drift baring shirt). I kind of love this idea but the site leaves me with one question -- is it really that hard to attract a British guy? JK.















Beautiful People is an online dating site that has gained a lot of buzz in the past few months by exclusively matching the most beautiful people on the web. Acoording to Gizmodo the site even purged 5K members post holiday who weren't meeting the looks criteria. Or maybe it was becausen't they couldn't perch on their tippy toes in a wife beater while levitating an apple.























The last is HowAboutWe, a dating site that matches couples based on their desire to do the same activities, that is soon to launch in NYC. Take this photo for example, "How about we wear a rainbow sweater from H&M and attempt a crossword puzzle in a Brooklyn cafe that serves fair trade coffee?"
















Here's hoping for love at first (web)site.

eHarmony Is Not For Everyone

Apparently E is NOT for everyone. Thanks to the commenter that pointed out eHarmony's conservative agenda. Apparently they wouldn't create a same sex option and only launched the site Compatible Partners after a 2008 New Jersey court ruling. eHArmony your seperate but (not so) equal approach is a huge techromance FAIL.

eHarmony IS Socially Acceptable

During a dry patch about one year ago my sister suggested that I try eHarmony. I was insulted by the recomendation and was hell bent on never falling victim to their "real life" commercials so obviously targeting my demographic. You know the ones where the female boutique owner finally finds love with the smoking architect that looks like Brian Greenberg's more astute older brother....


Well this weekend I had the pleasure of going away for my friend Mike's bday with a group of people so highly educated and interesting I thought I was on a white episode of a Different World. Turns out a few of them were on eHarmony and one of the couples there was even the product of a match made on the site. The dude I knew in his singles days, and to be honest was never sure what type of chica he was after. But when they walked in I suddenly heard "This will be an everlasting love" cue up as one of my friends leaned in and whispered to me that the couple looked so matched they could share jeans. Over lunch I quickly learned they shared more than the same jean size as they gushed about their love of late night dining, the Vampire Diaries and meeting each others parents for the first time. Later on they even earned points in the house from everyone for spooning on the couch overnight and not pulling couple's rank and taking up a bed.

In talking to some other friends this weekend at least 2 mentioned they were on the site and talking to people they had a strong connection with commenting that Match.com wasnt any better than a summer happy hour at the Frying Pan-- a lot of above average faces but nothing particularly interesting. Maybe eHArmony will be the new Match.com for twentysomethings. And if they want to, they better start marketing in Murray Hill because the Young Jewish Professionals posters are taking over!

In Defense of Techromance

Last week David Brooks wrote a very one-sided op-ed in the New York Times Cell Phones, Texts, and Lovers criticizing today's dating world as laid out in New York Mag's the Sex Diaries. He applauded Yang's anaylsis saying that "the most interesting part of the diaries concerns the way cellphones have influenced courtship. On nights when they are out, the diarists are often texting multiple possible partners in search of the best arrangement."

Guys, let me interpret that scenario for you: it's called a group text. And what is so wrong with trying to figure out your best option for a Saturday night?


I am here in defense of techromance and to tell Brooks and others who scornfully describe daters today as "using their cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage their emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead” that they are stuck in a time warp and bring an archaic criticism of dating. Fighting technology and dating is as futile as complaining about a crowded subway that you have to get on to. If singles today don't hop on, the reality is they won't be getting off (ha) at their final destination, a relationship.

Today our e-dentities are as developed as our identities, so it makes perfect sense that we use digital personas to express ourselves during the courting stage. In many cases these channels can help us reach out and connect with people in low pressure ways that allow us to be a more sincere self then the one that we project on our 1st, 2nd and third dates. One of my time-stretched girlifriend met a cute equally time-stretched guy on Jdate and decided that their second date was actually their third because they had texted, emailed and chatted online so much it actually propelled them into a more comfortable zone. Two months later they are going strong online and offline.

I am 29 and can barely remember the world BC (before cellphone) but thank my lucky stars that I never have to wait by my landline for a guy to call. In fact my current relationship actually sprung from a Facebook message I sent to him after meeting in a bar the week before, eloquently stating, "hey dude is this you?" after tracking him down on Facebook. He replied quickly asking me out that weekend.

Now we all know that every text, Facebook, video and IM doesn't result in a great romanTECH story. From starlets exploited after sex messaging their boyfriends to real life stories where a Halloween "text from the ex" results in a walk of shame where we damn daylight savings and realize that yes a Pochahantas costume DOES stick out in the east village at 10 am...but that is how it goes.

I am always fascinated, and Brooks wouldn't be the first one, when older generations weigh in on how our generation dates. I mean look at the divorce rate of the baby boomer generation. Do they really have it figured out? The other news flash is that Brooks and others operate under the assumption that dating for us is defined by how people dated 30 years ago, but the reality is techromance is dating to us. It's the only way we know.

Recently I had an interesting conversation with my teenage nephew and I told him about the first time my highschool boyfriend told me he loved me on the phone late one night. At that moment I realized he'll probably hear he is loved for the first time over text message, and I don't think it will mean any less.

Busted: You Didn't Mention You Were On Match.com

Let me get this out of the way: there is no shame in online dating. That is unless someone you are dating spots you on there.



I don't have a profile on Match.com -- not that I'm opposed to it -- I did afterall meet one of my boyfriends on Friendster back in the day (hola). He told me I had to tell his parents we met through friends...my first clue that it would never work out. Anyway -- I was trolling dudes 24-35 (and must say the selection was not that shabby) with a gal pal who recently joined and I spotted a prospective that looked kind of adorable. But when we clicked on his picture and his headline opened up to something that sounded bizzarely familiar: "Looking for a partner-in-crime to tear up NYC," I realized why. It was someone I was kind of seeing. I couldn't decide what shocked me more the fact that he used the line "tear it up" in his opener or that he was actually looking for a serious girlfriend. Maybe because a romantic night for us was defined by a round of erotic photo hunt (babes obviously) and that the nicest places we ever went to were qualified by air conditioning, I never got the message that he wanted something serious. Then it hit me. Maybe he did, just not with me.

Please don't feel bad, we weren't a match(.com) for the above reasons. But, I must say, that after reading his profile and similar digital pleas from cute guys that "were sick of meeting girls in bars" and want someone they "are happy just watching Netflix with" I was surprised by the refreshing dose of honesty. At first glance you couldn't imagine that any of these polo wearing boys -- with bros strategically cropped out for their head shots -- were interested in anything beyond Southern Comfort night at the new Brother Jimmy's. But seeing their romanTECH online confessions juxtaposed next to their confidently preppy pics revealed a little vulnerabity that chicks, or at least I dig (kind of like when you see a hot dude with an arm cast). And just as I was thinking how counter-"e"tuitive it was that Match.com could be the least superficial of all the online dating sites a guy friend, that's on the site, let me know that in an attempt to up the interest in his page he added "staying home and cooking" to his profile. The result: his (f)e-mails almost doubled...