.

Match.com

Not even Dr. Phil could convince me to do it... If you haven't seen it yet, Dr. Phil, the best thing to ever happen to Contemporary American Marriages has joined forces with the de facto leader of online dating Match.com. I thought it was odd at first since the benevolent Dr. Phil has been happily married to a wonderful woman named Robin McGraw for 29 long years... His expertise, at least from what i have read and seen on TV, is focused on salvaging marriages on the rocks, not serving as a dating conduit... I suppose in this modern era of relationships, he is the Star Athlete an oracle of sorts... If anyone were fit or worthy of endorsing the ultra-popular Match.com revolution, it would be the epitome, Dr. Phil McGraw. Though i suspect he was paid a lot of money to do it...

Personally, though only second hand, i have heard many many good stories about relationships that has stemmed from Match. Successful marriages even (believe it or not)... At first hand, at least from people that are close to me, although they are meeting a lot of interesting people, nothing real fruitful has come out of it thus far. I imagine you have to be more lucky than, well, anything else really, to land a real partner... Diligence i am sure pays off. Perseverance probably results in many many dates (good if you're picky), but nothing is ever a sure thing and often enough i hear sob stories about some guy or gal from Match.com who was all but too good to be true to begin with anyway. To its credit, Match.com according to numerous testimonies online, really does work for many (if not most). Whether that means they live happily ever after or not i do not know. And though i don't have any any real experience on online dating i think can offer some really good insights...

I think probably the most important thing to remember about online dating is one's state of mind. What one is looking for exactly? In order for this virtual dating thing to work one must understand wholeheartedly what that is. I'm no Dr. Phil but i am pretty damn sure it is potentially disastrous if one ignores that requisite rule...

When it comes to dating, we as a whole tend to ignore even the most easily perceived signs that clue us in on how things are actually going (or how things should go). If i have learned anything about dating, is that everything means something. Even the most subtle of gestures and most vestigial of conversations. If the girl twirls her fingers through her hair while talking or if she seems intent to listen when its her turn to do so. All those cute things actually mean a lot more than we think (or care to admit)... If one is desperate to meet someone or worse if one is seeking for Thee One, Match.com might not be the ideal place to look. It fact it is quite possibly the worst place to because Men (or women for that matter) can sense desperation a mile away. Moreover, it is probably impossible to try to conceal desperation because it tends to ooze out of our pores (so to speak) without any effort. I suppose to a certain degree anyone who makes a conscious decision to join the ever-growing online dating community is desperate. I do not think it is necessarily bad that people abandon contemporary means of dating and seek online instead but i do feel it is an aberration. I think to most its a matter of convenience (which is fine), to many perhaps a challenge or an experiment, and to a small percentage, it's desperation (which is never good).

To the busy professionals Match.com is all but the perfect dating place. For a mere $20 a month they get to browse an endless array of real people's profiles in and around their city or State (and if they prefer whoring out of State thats possible too). If you think of it in the business sense, the standard $20 fee is really an investment that potentially could return substantial gains. And if you're a cheap bastard they guarantee Money Back if you fail to meet that special someone within 6 months of paid subscription. Kind of risky because crooked people seem to have a knack for finding loopholes even when service is actually satisfactory. I would tend to think six months to many subscribers is probably enough time to at least land several dates but i doubt that it yields a really high success rate across the board overall. And if you factor in the many patrons who'd joined due to troubles finding dates in the real world to begin with, the success rate, i suspect, drops significantly. I surmise that diligence and perseverance (along with state of mind) plays the most important role in online dating. Go with the numbers so to speak... Meaning if you date enough people you should land someone special eventually-- unless you're a total twerp i guess. Quite simple really... The Match.com's un-empirical 6-month theory needn't necessarily translate in the traditional periodical sense but more in the trial and error one...

I wont pretend i know anything about online dating but i presume it's filled with pros and cons as in any kind of dating (service or self-service). The pros i guess is that its easier to make acquaintance because one need not muster up the strength and the charm to approach the opposite sex. You see for a lot of guys the approach is half the battle, but once they get over the edge they jump in with both feet (if you know what i mean). In the case of timid women that find it extremely nerve wrecking to approach men, well, that issue is basically non-existent. They can now be selectively brave... I suppose the con is the inherent expectation that comes along with online dating. People have to live up to what might be a slightly inflated profile. And as proven in the movie "Must Love Dogs" sometimes the voluptuous women aren't always as voluptuous as they claim to be lol.

Posted by: Marc Gabay
Wednesday, May 23, 2007