My generous pie chart

Ok, so I’ve got some more data on the whole who-contacts-who issue for online dating. Check it out. First, I can’t help but giggle at the distribution of male attractiveness as perceived by women. Unless they think all the really attractive guys don’t date online, then this distribution is hilarious. It represents what I’ll call the good driver response-- when you ask people if they think they’re in the top 50% of drivers, almost everyone responds yes. Apparently, this is called illusory superiority (thanks, Wikipedia). So apparently women don’t know what medium looks are.

I think I come out ok on this. I gave 25% of guys as being attractive to me (not quite the same as attractive). Also, of the four “totally decent” guys presented, I think the first two are a bit better than medium while the second two are the definition of medium. I would click to see the profiles of the first two based on their pictures. Of course, none of them are overweight which probably makes a big difference in how attractive I think they are.

But clearly I’ve been too generous to my male counterparts in saying that their experiences were the same as mine. Clearly, no, I’m getting more messages from much less attractive people than guys of similar looks. I love it when data shows I’m right. But I have to highlight one of the commenters who blamed the matching on the site. Dating sites ask you what you’re like and what you want, but if people lie about their attractiveness or have all kinds of personal characteristics in common than you’re going to be a good match even though the person could be much less attractive than you. As one person put it:

“’look! we both are liberal! I bet that goddess will totally love my desperate ass!’”

Or in my case, he likes dogs and is a night owl. No, don’t. I have no idea why these guys are being shopped to me. I like morning people.

The pursuit of man

I’ve been wanting to tackle this topic on the blog for a while. I think most of us fall naturally into either the pursuer or pursuee categories. Most of the time, I sit back and let the guys come to me although on occasion I’ll play the aggressor. I have long thought this is a really shitty strategy, but it’s hard to break myself of the habit because I’m naturally a bit shy with the opposite sex. Unless they’re unattractive or I’m unavailable in which case I’m very flirtatious. 

Online dating changes that completely. It’s still very easy for me to be the pursuee because I get contacted enough. But it’s much easier for me to be the pursuer. Online rejection is almost not like rejection at all. I have no problem shooting a guy an email and having him not respond. I’m disappointed, but rarely do I feel rejected. And I’m right that this is a better strategy. The only guys I’ve been out with more than once were all ones I emailed first.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why do the guys I attract passively never measure up to the guys I attract actively? I can think of several possible reasons:

1. People only hit on the people they think they can’t normally get.

2. I’m inhibited around attractive men so they don’t ask me out.

3. I’m a better judge of who I’ll match with than the guys who pick me.

4. I’ve made the choice so I’m more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and a real shot at dating.

5. Marxism is at it again—I just assume the guys who hit on me are inferior.

6. Hitting on guys makes them more attractive. This study explains this phenomenon.

7. I don’t understand statistics. This is probably best explained with a pie chart:

So if the pie chart represents all men and the guys who hit on me are a subset of this population, then there are going to be disproportionally more unattractive men hitting on me. Whereas I’m only hitting on the attractive ones.

There is one last possibility. Maybe, I’m just over thinking it. I don’t know what’s worse, thinking I’m doing everything right and the fates aren’t smiling on me or thinking I’m doing everything wrong.

Other places to find dates

Thank you Slate for telling us urbanites how to meet someone on a train. This is from a recent article:

“Has the era of the electronically immersed commuter, oblivious to all around him, lost in his playlists, signaled a decline in subway psychology? Not that I can find. One recent study conducted by officials at the Paris Metro—which looked at "missed connection" ads placed by urbanites looking for love in the city—found that the Metro "is without doubt the foremost producer of urban tales about falling in love." The seats closest to the door, it seemed, offered the best opportunities for falling in love with the proper stranger.”

Now, it is worth noting that this may only work in Paris, city of love that it is. But I will say that when I was in my early twenties, I did sporadically have guys come up to me with the line, “I’ve seen you on the train.” (I don’t know if it’s because I generally read during the commute, or not, but I never recognized any of these guys.)

This hasn’t happened in the six months I’ve been riding the train to work in my new town. I leave you to wonder if it’s because of my declining looks/approachability or if it’s because the train is much more crowded. Previously, I always got a seat, almost always by the door because it’s my favorite spot on the train. These days, I’m on a more popular route, shoved in with everyone else. As if meeting someone at this age, wasn’t hard enough…

Breaking up is hard to do (well)

Not surprisingly, dating two guys has mostly blown up in my face. The two of them have resolved into The One I Can’t Have and The Consolation Prize. But can I really date a consolation prize? Of course not. I wouldn’t spend so much time single if that were the case. Which means I have to tell the consolation prize that it’s not going to work out.

Here’s what I need to accomplish this goal. Someone, please, write a book on the topic of how to break up with someone without using any clichés. Because no matter how good my intentions are at the beginning, no matter how many times I’ve practiced my speech in my head, I end up standing there saying, “it’s not you, it’s me.” I hate dumping people, and the fact that I suck at it makes it so much worse.

I’m also very out of practice. For the past several years, I have been queen of the email dump. Before you get on my case about this, I’m careful about how far into things I get with guys. In fact, my preferred method of dumping generally forces me to be quite cagey in the early stages of dating. Because once you are too far into it, you can’t reasonably dump someone by email. Also, in several cases I attempted the guy dump (not responding to efforts to contact me) and it didn’t work so then I had to send the email. Proving that the guy dump is a lousy strategy regardless of gender. Or that I’m always the guy in my relationships. Possibly both.

In the absence of the book, I am open to all suggestions on how you prevent “I never want to have sex with you” from morphing into “it’s not you, it’s me.”

The Marxist cycle

If dating is already a game of wanting what you can’t have, then dating multiple people at once is just a more punishing version of this game. I admit to being a Marxist by being highly suspicious of guys who are too into me. I didn’t realize how far gone I was though. The truth is I’m not getting any closer to making a decision, though I highly suspect one is about to be made for me. (Impending rejection is a dish best served promptly).

I can’t decide which guy I like better because it changes depending on who I’m with. The minute one of them seems less available, my attention immediately becomes focused on winning him over. I’m normally prone to second guessing my instincts (you would be too if you had made the bad decisions I’ve made) but this just makes it impossible.

Ode to the druknen emaol

I know it’s become common among my generation to drink and dial. With the advent of cell phones, we’re never far away from an embarrassing conversation full of slurred words and insincere tokens of affection. But let me extol to you the virtues of drinking and typing. There’s nothing better than getting home from a night of drinking and sending out a delightful missive that is sure to amuse and bemuse your friends. And the best part is, you never have to wonder exactly what you said when you were drunk.

The other advantage of drunken typing is that the drunker you are, the more likely the string of letters you put together will not add up to actual words. Whereas, on the phone, this level of inebriation is likely to lead to things like inviting a douche-bag ex over for get back together sex. Mind you, I did recently use “love” to sign off an email. So there are pitfalls. I like to think I made up for that by misspelling my own name though.