New York Post Dating: Let's ring in the New Year
As a sign that I'm coming back soon (and trust me, with the December that I've had, it's understandable that I've disappeared for a while), let's revive my favorite feature - the Dating review from the New York Post. Why is this my favorite feature? Two reasons:
1. Because it's about young people in New York making terrible mistakes due to their own narcissism, greed, and lack of morality.
2. Because we get to see these trainwrecks through the lenses of the Post, and because they're pulling the strings a bit as well - maximizing the potential for agony.
My 2005 project - getting into the Post's dating pool! It's ambitious, certainly, but if it's as bad as I say it is, then I deserve the punishment.
2005 started off with Heather having to choose a date among three guys:
* Eric, 27, Film and Video Editor, beta male extraordinaire
* Mike, 24, Product Designer, male model extraordinaire
* Keith, 29, Media Planner, potential "Best Week Ever" correspondent (reserved for those with a wry yet groan-inducing sense of humor)
Heather herself didn't seem like so much of a prize. She has average but cute looks; the self-description was kind of scattered and lacking in standout points. So, while she's not a bad girl, she didn't stand out as a great one, either.
I voted for Eric. 53% of the voting ended up with Eric. Those who didn't choose Eric mostly chose Keith. Heather chose Mike. As it turns out, everyone except Heather was wrong. And, after reading about the date, Heather is wrong too.
Heather's evaluation: "I chose him because his picture was cute, and his profile made him seem like a fun, interesting guy." Flashback to Mike's profile:
Oooooooo-kayyy.
Heather was impressed with the flowers - good call by Mike. Heather was also impressed with the Oyster Bar, which gets some beautiful product-placement love from our starry-eyed doe. Starry-eyed is right; Heather thinks Mike looks like a movie star. Well, now that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Heather remembers talking a lot, but doesn't remember anything that was actually said over dinner. The date went well, despite the fact that she had low expectations:
Based on her overall impression of Mike, it seems that he didn't have to swing for the fences to make this a great date. All he had to do was... ummm, show up. And he got a 4 heart rating for that. So, Mike, just show up for a few more dates and you'll have some no-effort sex in the near future.
Mike's evaluation: His recollection of the date reveals a little bit more about the date, as well as about the people involved. Mike, to give credit where credit is due, is a gentleman and a competent person. He began the night with a charming and sincere gesture, he handled a snotty maitre d' without becoming a snot himself, he actually remembered some of the topics discussed over dinner, he has an appreciation for food, he shared dessert with his date (a smooth maneuver), he ended the date without pressure, and he's open to seeing more of her - regardless of the fact that he's unsure about her relationship prospects. (I think he's right to be wary - she seems to not have much to offer)
I don't see a relationship here. Mike can have sex with Heather if he wants to, and if he decides not to, it's over. Mike can have any girl he wants otherwise. Heather, meanwhile, might still be going on blind dates in 5 years.
I've observed that there's a stunning role-reversal here; the man gets to evaluate the woman based on personality without making appearances much of a relative factor, while the woman seems excited to be seeing someone that easily exceeds her standards for looks and charm. Based on stereotypes, it's usually the other way around. Consider it a lesson about the New York dating scene: the women must outperform and the men must do the thinking. That, and it helps a lot if you're 6'2" and good looking.
This week's daters:
Chris looks awfully familiar to me. Has he been here before? Anyway, other than the financial industry background (ask almost any single female in NYC about financial industry men, and you'll hear an earful about how terrible they are), Chris seems to be an alright guy. From a glance at his expectations in a woman, you can see exactly what I discussed above about women having to outperform and men having to think about their date. Obviously Chris has been around some terrible women before, so he's looking for a girl on her best behavior.
Chris gets to choose among:
Kristie the singing cat. Big, sexy eyes (and a hint of giggly humility). Metrosexuals need not apply. Perhaps a little tomboy-ish, but overall easygoing. (that is, if you'd take her word for it!)
Jessica the staunch liberal serial dater. High expectations. Wants a nice Jewish man to take home to mom. (Read that profile twice. Remember what we know about Jewish people. Think about it.) This one seems a little bit batty to me.
Heather the smart-alecky serial dater. Is that red hair? If it is, I see a bold female personality but perhaps a little bit of clingy desires to go with it. She's in her 30's and using the Post to snag dates - that's a big warning flag right there.
In the end, while none of the females have a particularly compelling profile, it seems that Kristie is the cutest and most endearing of the three. Plus, there's nothing alarming hidden in the subtext of her description, unlike the other two. She's currently leading the voting with 46%.
But I must warn - although Heather is trailing far behind in the voting, she might be the most appropriate for Chris - who, I should add, did not provide his age. Kristie is attractive, but might be just a little too young and wild for Chris even if he is attracted to that type of personality. Heather might be a bit more settled and closer to Chris's type. Frankly, I don't see long term potential in any of these dating setups, and I'm unsure if any potential blind dates will result in fireworks. Still, it's something to ponder until next week.
1. Because it's about young people in New York making terrible mistakes due to their own narcissism, greed, and lack of morality.
2. Because we get to see these trainwrecks through the lenses of the Post, and because they're pulling the strings a bit as well - maximizing the potential for agony.
My 2005 project - getting into the Post's dating pool! It's ambitious, certainly, but if it's as bad as I say it is, then I deserve the punishment.
2005 started off with Heather having to choose a date among three guys:
* Eric, 27, Film and Video Editor, beta male extraordinaire
* Mike, 24, Product Designer, male model extraordinaire
* Keith, 29, Media Planner, potential "Best Week Ever" correspondent (reserved for those with a wry yet groan-inducing sense of humor)
Heather herself didn't seem like so much of a prize. She has average but cute looks; the self-description was kind of scattered and lacking in standout points. So, while she's not a bad girl, she didn't stand out as a great one, either.
I voted for Eric. 53% of the voting ended up with Eric. Those who didn't choose Eric mostly chose Keith. Heather chose Mike. As it turns out, everyone except Heather was wrong. And, after reading about the date, Heather is wrong too.
Heather's evaluation: "I chose him because his picture was cute, and his profile made him seem like a fun, interesting guy." Flashback to Mike's profile:
What three things can you not live without? Women, a paintbrush and weights.
Oooooooo-kayyy.
Heather was impressed with the flowers - good call by Mike. Heather was also impressed with the Oyster Bar, which gets some beautiful product-placement love from our starry-eyed doe. Starry-eyed is right; Heather thinks Mike looks like a movie star. Well, now that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Heather remembers talking a lot, but doesn't remember anything that was actually said over dinner. The date went well, despite the fact that she had low expectations:
Hey, I figured the worst-case scenario here would involve me eating a great (free) dinner, so I didn't have anything to lose.
Based on her overall impression of Mike, it seems that he didn't have to swing for the fences to make this a great date. All he had to do was... ummm, show up. And he got a 4 heart rating for that. So, Mike, just show up for a few more dates and you'll have some no-effort sex in the near future.
Mike's evaluation: His recollection of the date reveals a little bit more about the date, as well as about the people involved. Mike, to give credit where credit is due, is a gentleman and a competent person. He began the night with a charming and sincere gesture, he handled a snotty maitre d' without becoming a snot himself, he actually remembered some of the topics discussed over dinner, he has an appreciation for food, he shared dessert with his date (a smooth maneuver), he ended the date without pressure, and he's open to seeing more of her - regardless of the fact that he's unsure about her relationship prospects. (I think he's right to be wary - she seems to not have much to offer)
I don't see a relationship here. Mike can have sex with Heather if he wants to, and if he decides not to, it's over. Mike can have any girl he wants otherwise. Heather, meanwhile, might still be going on blind dates in 5 years.
I've observed that there's a stunning role-reversal here; the man gets to evaluate the woman based on personality without making appearances much of a relative factor, while the woman seems excited to be seeing someone that easily exceeds her standards for looks and charm. Based on stereotypes, it's usually the other way around. Consider it a lesson about the New York dating scene: the women must outperform and the men must do the thinking. That, and it helps a lot if you're 6'2" and good looking.
This week's daters:
Chris looks awfully familiar to me. Has he been here before? Anyway, other than the financial industry background (ask almost any single female in NYC about financial industry men, and you'll hear an earful about how terrible they are), Chris seems to be an alright guy. From a glance at his expectations in a woman, you can see exactly what I discussed above about women having to outperform and men having to think about their date. Obviously Chris has been around some terrible women before, so he's looking for a girl on her best behavior.
Chris gets to choose among:
Kristie the singing cat. Big, sexy eyes (and a hint of giggly humility). Metrosexuals need not apply. Perhaps a little tomboy-ish, but overall easygoing. (that is, if you'd take her word for it!)
Jessica the staunch liberal serial dater. High expectations. Wants a nice Jewish man to take home to mom. (Read that profile twice. Remember what we know about Jewish people. Think about it.) This one seems a little bit batty to me.
Heather the smart-alecky serial dater. Is that red hair? If it is, I see a bold female personality but perhaps a little bit of clingy desires to go with it. She's in her 30's and using the Post to snag dates - that's a big warning flag right there.
In the end, while none of the females have a particularly compelling profile, it seems that Kristie is the cutest and most endearing of the three. Plus, there's nothing alarming hidden in the subtext of her description, unlike the other two. She's currently leading the voting with 46%.
But I must warn - although Heather is trailing far behind in the voting, she might be the most appropriate for Chris - who, I should add, did not provide his age. Kristie is attractive, but might be just a little too young and wild for Chris even if he is attracted to that type of personality. Heather might be a bit more settled and closer to Chris's type. Frankly, I don't see long term potential in any of these dating setups, and I'm unsure if any potential blind dates will result in fireworks. Still, it's something to ponder until next week.
posted by Brian Van at
9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home