New York Post Dating: Another Cuba Libre? Or Maybe You Can't Wait To Be Freed From This Date?

Vikas starts us off:

I definitely thought that Kristen was much better-looking in person than she was in her photograph in the paper.

What the hell is he talking about? She was cute as hell in that photo! Oi.

Well, this week's dating columns are up. Vikas chose Kristen (as you can see), both were sent off to a Cuban restaurant (again, the owner stops by the table during the date... which doesn't usually happen unless you're Donald Trump), and each provided their writeups afterward. By the time I reach his second paragraph I am already baffled. It gets worse, after a review of much praising and happiness:

I think we both had a great time with each other and we exchanged numbers, but I don't know if we will necessarily meet up again.

Hmm, why?

Oh, I see why...

I will admit that I was slightly disturbed that as we were discussing his selection process, Vikas revealed that he didn't read any of our profile descriptions!

Huh? Why would you admit something like that? He's too weird. Also:

Vikas lives in Hoboken, and I am in Washington Heights, and I find it difficult enough to date someone who lives downtown. Jersey may be an impossible proposition.

Arrgh! Don't be hating on Jersey! You know, if you really liked him, the distance to Hoboken wouldn't be a problem. Some long-distance relationships span across countries and oceans, you know! It seems as if that's not the real issue, though. It seems this is a polite rejection, even though it's not entirely respectable to lie about a lack of attraction or romance. I wish people would be direct about such things, even though it's not entirely flattering at times.

Alternately, she looks pretty direct in that picture... Vikas is pouring her more wine, and she's saying, "No thanks!" I guess that answer covered more than just the wine.

Another thing I noticed - I could have sworn that the official rules of the game stated that participants could only be within the five boroughs of NYC... Hoboken is not a borough of New York. Fishy!

I'd say the date went well enough and no one did anything egregiously bad (save for Vikas' admission that the profiles meant nothing to him), but these two aren't compatible and we don't have a match. I told you I had a bad feeling about Vikas. Due to his complete lack of success despite Tom and Mackenzie's generosity, since I've complained about him more than enough here to qualify him for a special title, and since Queen Worst is getting kinda lonely at the bottom, I'm crowning Vikas as King Worst Dater Ever.

Onto this week:

Kat's a young publishing assistant who's social, "perky", and brainy. She likes weekend trips to the country; that sounds rather demanding considering New Yorkers' typical outdoors exposure, unless she'd be willing to accept The Hamptons as country-living.

Who do we have for her? Edward, a man who posesses looks that I cannot speak about - after all, Mamma told me if I don't have anything nice to say... I do have a few nice things to say about his profile, though. He seems to be level-headed, social, and easy-going. He might be the 1,000th guy to claim to be outgoing plus enjoy dancing (hey, did everyone else get some tip book that states you should say those types of things to women?), but I kinda like his personality and he knows how to dress. Kat claimed that looks weren't all that important, so she might be able to enjoy a date with Edward and his gigantic eyebrows. (I had to let at least one wisecrack through - trim those hedges, buddy!)

Next up, Sean's a comedian. He reminds me of another comedian, actually. Who doesn't look at a massive jaw and immediately think, "Jay Leno?" Overall, he's not that bad looking; if anything, he simply has to do something better with those sideburns. (as in chop them off)

How would you describe yourself? Liberal...

Hey, you're a winner! Everyone in New York loves a liberal! (sarcasm detector exploding. Everyone, please leave politics out of dating profiles. Thank you.) Speaking of profile mistakes, here's an example of not- answering-the-question:

What's sexy? Intelligence and beauty are really important, and a woman who has both and knows it - yet is still down to earth - and has a great sense of humor is really sexy.

Intelligence and beauty typically don't matter when the lights are off, so I don't understand this answer. The question asked, "What's sexy," yet this answer seems to go better with, "What are you looking for in a woman overall?" With the certainty of coming across as extremely vulgar, the answer to "What's sexy?" should be more along the lines of, "Tying me to the bed and licking my nutsack." (Yes, I know this is supposed to be a family paper, but no matter - 30 pages ahead of these articles, they're talking about who's doing cocaine off of Lindsay Lohan's inner thigh.) All considered, no one should be answering this question honestly, and it shouldn't be asked in the first place.

...umm, where were we? Oh, I remember now. Well, other than the above, Sean seems alright. I wouldn't fear to send Kat along with him for the night.

Finally, we have Walker, who must be sick of being called "Texas Ranger" by now. He seems to be a bit of a frat boy, and while he's not a bad pick as a guy overall (his profile is alright - it lacks real emotional substance but it's decent anyway), he doesn't seem to mesh well with Kat's agenda. He's a drinker and a partygoer, so Kat's out of luck if she's looking for a reading partner.

Believe it or not, I think Edward has the best potential to make Kat happy. He seems like a mature gentleman who knows how to have fun. Based on some of his profile answers, I think he knows how to treat a lady as well. Kat might like that sort of attention in lieu of being paired with someone who shares many of her interests (because, unfortunately, that someone doesn't exist in our dating column this week). I give him the nod over Sean just barely, and only because I see more of a man's-man hidden inside Edward than I see inside Sean. (Edward does happen to be six years older than Kat, but I'll look the other way for once.) Of course, with this being a popularity contest, and with Walker being handsome and close to Kat's age, guess who's winning the poll? Cripes! Does anyone actually READ before voting? Is everyone just like Vikas?

Eh, see ya next week.

New York Post Dating: Sundays with Tom and Mackenzie

This week, when first checking out http://www.nypost.com/dating/ (which, I sadly admit, I do on Saturday nights to beat the Sunday press - yes, I've become obsessed with this thing), I discovered that something was terribly amiss. They didn't review Vikas' date! There's a picture of Pamela, our favorite Celine Dion lookalike, on Ian's lap! What's going on here? Did they eliminate the dating column? (I've been living in fear that they will cancel this column before it redeems itself) Who are these people in the picture where Vikas' date review is supposed to be?

Not to worry, folks: this dating column is now one year old, and they're celebrating with a retrospective. Plus, those two people are none other than Tom Sykes and Mackenzie Dawson Parks, who share their thoughts on the dating scene. What did I think after reading it all? It's quite the treat! It's actually mindblowing in a positive way; after all the terrible values I've attributed to this column, this week's retrospective shows that the two people behind it can actually make sense. (You know, when they're not getting the daters' names wrong.) I'm so happy about this that I'm going to turn off my misanthropy for the rest of this writeup.

Let's begin with the retrospective article:

The biggest success was one that I did not predict; the pictured Ian and Pamela. For the record, I picked Ian for Pamela's date setup, but I thought it would be a laughingstock; boy, was I wrong. Apparently, they're quite serious about their relationship. And they look kinda cute together in the picture (a fact all the more impressive considering that the picture was taken in the Meatpacking District - thankfully, no assholes were captured in the frame). Other various successes include: a 6 1/2 hour date, a game of footsie in front of the Post's photographer (who was probably unfazed, considering some of the photo assignments that Page Six must require), and the relief of daters who have just left long term relationships and appreciate the chance to get back into the game. Awww! That's so sweet.

Of course, we haven't been without bumps along the way, and here's some of the more notable ones: a guy who asked for a hotel room to go with the date (sleaze), a picky dater who requires tall Brazillian model doctors (I don't think he made it into the column), a case of food poisoning (aren't talking up the restaurant now, are ya?), a "worst date" that unfortunately didn't involve Queen Worst (although it did sound pretty cold - it must have happened when I took a hiatus in December because of the reindeer-sweater thing; I'll hit the library sometime out of sheer curiosity), and, last but not least, our encounter with Carmine Gotti. I can't possibly overstate how bad of a move it was to set him up on a date for this column, and I believe Tom and Mackenzie agree as they use this retrospective as a chance to take another swipe at his poor manners. Well, enough is enough with the punk-bashing; I won't add to it any further.

Speaking of Tom and Mackenzie:

Tom Sykes is a Brit in his early 30's - and a smart dresser. Sorry ladies, he's married! In addition to lifestyle columns, he also contributes gossip items to the Post. The gossip connection is NOT accidental, as his biggest claim to fame is his family - his sisters are Plum Sykes ("Bergdorf Blondes") along with Lucy and Alice Sykes, all who have made a tear through the New York social scene over the years. They're all rather infamous if you read the gossip columns. (Yes, I do.)

Based on the various things I surmised about him from his other columns, I had him pegged to be a hipster-sympathizing jerk, but the shocker: he's a romantic! He hopes that, someday, one of the set-up couples gets married - how sweet! Also, although he declines to comment specifically on women - which was perhaps gentlemanly, considering what some of them have done on the dates - he has really accurate observations about men's dating habits! Yes, he sold us out, but he was absolutely right. There are sleazes, there are nice guys, and there are studs (or, as he calls them, the Hits). His advice is spot on, and it's exactly what I'd recommend to anyone who's thinking of trying out the New York dating scene.

Still, what the hell is this all about:

(when discussing the Sleazes) Girls, we try to weed these guys out, but a few slip through our net. And hey, they make great Sunday reading for the rest of New York.

Boooo! That's not right. I don't enjoy reading about some awful guy putting his tentacles all over a cute, innocent girl. Get better at screening these guys, buddy. I'll let it slide, though, seeing how Tom is overall a pretty nice guy.

And now, the lovely Mackenzie Dawson Parks - hands off, she's married too! Is she blowing a kiss, or are those duck lips? I'm not trying to make fun - she's quite a cutie. She's definitely the young one of the two (gotta be somewhere between 24-26). Enough swooning over her looks; time to swoon over her dating observations!

I'll agree with what Mackenzie says, with one addition: it mostly applies to WOMEN too. I will not disagree that any of it applies to men, because it does; some know how to really screw up a connection. Women aren't so mercurial post date as men can be - they pretty much know at the end of the date how they're going to feel about the guy. Women, however, can be quite picky, often provide phone numbers when they have no intentions of answering a man's calls, and definitely suffer from NBTS (I identified that effect here in New York over two years ago; it helps to know it's there). Still, I'm amazed - Mackenzie can accurately single out the biggest problems affecting New York daters. I'd recommend her opinions as required reading for all future daters.

While I remain somewhat baffled by some of the editorial decisions (and gaffes) that occur in this column, I'm feeling much more hopeful for the future now that we know something more about the people behind the column. In the end, against my own expectations, I actually LIKE Tom and Mackenzie now that I know some more about them, and about how they view their daters' adventures. I also must admit that there has been improvement in the results of the dates over time, and I expect things to get better in the future.

I'm hoping the Post keeps these two around for one more year... and maybe more. I'm hoping that someday, in the future, I'll find it hard to remember the last time I had to write something awful about this column. And, most of all, I'm hoping that writing about Vikas' date next week is much less painful than I think it'll be. (I guess I'm still not sold on him. Oh well!)

New York Post Dating: Aside From The Insensitive Comments About Religion, We're Not Doing Too Badly

Here's your weekly link to my favorite subject matter...

Despite my objections, Zoe thought Jay was her best shot at romance. At first glance I wanted to scream, but it seems that Jay is not so bad - perhaps much different than his profile initially suggested. I went back to last weeks' profiles to take a look, and I confirmed this. First of all, his name was Jonathan last week. Good job, Tom & Mackenzie! Second, that was a really bad profile picture - not just giving the appearance that he wasn't quite handsome, but that perhaps he wasn't clean either. I mean, with that hair, and the odd skin tones - who knew when he last bathed? Third, his short answers didn't really work too well, allowing me to make the mistake of making a lot of bad assumptions about his lifestyle - that he might be cheap, poor, or uninteresting.

I went for the worst case scenario when looking at his profile last week. That was a terrible mistake on my part, and I'm sorry that I was such an asshole about it. Readers, you should learn from it - this is the way many people think when they're quickly browsing a profile. It's not unusual for people to make (sometimes unfair) snap judgments on others based on appearance and limited information. It's often unintentional, almost subliminal. There are strategies in composing a dating profile that can ensure you'll make a clear, positive impression based on your interests and values. Jonathan... er, Jay, or whatever his name is... could have missed out on the chance had he been lined up against candidates with better profiles. (He squeaked by because the other guys weren't particularly good choices.) Assuming this dating setup doesn't lead to marriage (we'll get to that in a second), he would benefit from a profile makeover to better highlight his flattering qualities.

Too bad I wouldn't know what they are, because Zoe had too much to drink on the date and can't remember many details about what's-his-name. Never a good move, but he didn't seem to notice. It turned out they were somewhat compatible, even though he's a Gentile (these things matter, people!) and she's really insistent about celebrating her birthday. Oh, that, and Zoe thinks that dating someone who lives 6 miles away might be a bit of a commuting stretch. Is this a red herring for her lack of romantic interest, or is this just hipster subway snobbery? Ah, those wacky 23-year-olds! What a trip they are!

While we're talking about Zoe, I should mention that it was unbecoming of her to go down this road:

I did find the whole Jehovah's Witness thing kind of fascinating, because usually you only meet them when they come to your door and you don't answer.

I'm sure what's-his-name finds those kind of statements charming.

In the end, I'm not too sure what kind of future this couple has, but I'm all for them to continue seeing each other and feel out the situation. I hope Zoe keeps the silly Jehovah's Witness observations to a minimum, though - and, unlike the Post, she should probably always refer to him by his correct name.

Next week's adventure - probably once again set in a restuarant with the tab covered by the Post, featuring undue attention by the restaurant staff (hey, how come the chef never stops by to say hello on any of my dates?) - will feature Vikas, who just a few weeks ago was on the losing end of a strong contest for Pamela's heart (and drink tab). Back then, I was a little curious about whether or not Vikas was heavily ethnicized - that is, if he had a thick foreign accent and/or had a good sense of American culture. To be honest, I still don't know, but I no longer care. For one thing, he has potentially worse issues - I think his pursuits are blandly stated (which means there could be nothing interesting about him at all), and his sense of humor is either corny or arrogant. (I'll give him a bit of a break, though - he works in finance and dresses well! Your dad will approve!) Second, where I thought that ethnicity might hurt his chances with Pamela, I thought that was an issue with Pamela and not Vikas. I don't really see that being a problem with this week's women. Score one for diversity if we can make this thing work out.

Let's talk about this week's women already, because they're so promising - and because I dislike talking about Vikas! (Too bad I gotta write half the column about him next week, too! Please kill me.)

Kristin is a 25 year old teacher, and she's sooo cute! Her profile gets off to a great start:

I'm always up for trying anything new. I enjoy wandering the city, taking dance classes, playing the cello, going to museums, etc.

The cello? I'm swooning so much over that list that I don't want to make the easy "she loves a big instrument" joke. She seems pretty cool based on her total profile - no red flags, much to love about her down-to-earth sensiblities and her approach to dating. Did I mention she's sooo cute? She'd make a great date.

Then again, so would Molly. She's a pretty 29-year-old grad student, looks athletic (and fit), has a good head on her shoulders, and has excellent romantic priorities. Based on the athletic angle, I think Molly would make a better match for Vikas. I do hope that Vikas can handle knitting, though! As an aside, that's a really interesting and creative hobby - I think that's not only a great thing to do, but an excellent thing to mention in a dating profile. I'm also loving the fact that, this week, the ladies' hobbies are "cello" and "knitting", not "getting into Bungalow 8".

Last, we have Agnes. Another cutie! She's a photographer, likes concerts and the beach, and loves exploring the city. She's happy, perky, and smart. She also has good taste in music! (remember, Vikas loves the dated acts U2 and LL Cool J - that might be a miscompatibility, but you never know) I particularly loved this passage:

What has your New York dating experience been like? Wonderful, dreadful, interesting, dangerous, enlightening. I don't regret anything. Everyone I have dated has taught me something about myself and people in general. How could I regret that?

*sigh* Why are you still single? You could probably have a rock star if you wanted, girl. I heart you.

In the end, I think Molly is best with a very slight edge over Kristin and Agnes; in general, I think their particular preferences in humor, demeanor, activities, and romance make them the best possible connection. The poll is still really close among all three girls - because they're all fantastic choices. I do sincerely hope that Vikas is more interesting than his profile initially suggests, because all of these girls deserve to get a shot at an interesting date, not a bomb.

(Of course, being single myself, I'd like to get a shot at being in Vikas' position this week. Can I pick one too?)

New York Post Dating: If Looks Could Kill, This Would Be A Cemetery

Merrily we roll along
singing a familiar song
The New York Post is always wrong
Tom & Mackenzie must be hitting the bong...

Matt chose Lyla. Bad news, as I predicted? Well, let's see:

...we pulled out all the stops and sent them to the Lower East Side gastronomic temple, Suba... But at the end of the day (or night), well, there's only so much we can do.

Well, that doesn't sound too hopeful now, does it?

Matt's response was rather brief and non-observant - he mentions as much about himself in a few very short paragraphs as he does about Lyla. On the other hand, Lyla has much to say about Matt: that he's a little too hopeful for romance when there pretty much isn't any; that he's "self-important" (when the gesture that triggered that comment might have impressed others); that he drinks too much; and that he's got an ugly goatee. She clearly isn't interested. I think the phone number exchange was a gesture of mercy for our fashionably fallible foodie.

Reservations for Matt, party of one.

What about this week's daters?

Zoe is a pretty grad student who spends time "working out." I had to mention it; I didn't think it was so bad in this context, but I think specificity in athletics is better than admitting you're trying not to be fat. A simple profile mistake. Anyway, aside from providing the first reasonable answer to what I've nicknamed "The Bestiality Question" (there's something about putting yourself in the role of an animal for a matchmaking questionnaire - one of these guys is going to try to sleep with a dolphin? Ewww), her profile is run-of-the-mill, but she comes across as nice and sweet. Curiously, she requires her men know about "sports and cars." Symbolically, she wants a dominant masculine presence - so no metrosexuals! Literally taken, that's rather picky, but I assume that she's not going to quiz anyone on Chad Pennington's passing stats or the 0-60mph of a Lamborghini Gallardo.*

Let's take a look at the three handsome, charming men we've got to pick from.

Erm, I mean, let's take a look at these charming men, even if they're not quite handsome.

Scratch that. Here's the three men:

Andrew's positives are that he's an idealist, and he likes music. That's about it. Well, I'm not an idealist - and so I take issue with his admission to being absent-minded (could have left that out), the apology for being a steak-lover (that was somewhat offensive for vegetarians), ripping of shallow people and hipsters (that's MY job! besides, no place for that in a dating profile), the obvious numbers-game theory (I guess you'll just try to fuck every one of those 5 million until one says yes, right? Okay, maybe that's actually hilarious. heheheh), the weird answer to the dating experience question, and, finally, the Podbragging.

Eugene's best quality is that he would like to attend a classy event sometime. I suppose that's a counterbalance to the complete lack of class that his profile exudes. He might be a nice guy in the end, but his profile says he's a complete animal. He's probably happy about that, but he's not 23 - he's 31. When's this guy gonna settle down? He values social graces, but he also wants a girl who can sit with the guys at the poker table and burp and fart with the rest of them. Contradiction! I figure he has exquisite taste in women and uses the "classy" things to try to balance his party-animal persona; he knows he's shopping out of his league. Zoe's definitely out of his league.

Jonathan is one of those bizarre people that you might run into outside Cooper Union. All his profile statments are rather short; they tell the tale of a young poor East Village hipster who lives the punk rock lifestyle. I thought it was telling that his ideal date would be in the girl's kitchen; it means that he doesn't have food at his own place to cook, he doesn't want her to see his place, and he can't afford a restaurant date. So he's going to raid her fridge to show off his cooking skills, eh? Lame. His eyes creepily remind me of Vincent Gallo. His hair is ridiculous. Zoe will pass.

It seems like Andrew's the winner of this unfortunate masculinity contest. I can't tell if Zoe's going to like him based on his profile alone (the profile, while it could use some work, doesn't reveal any truly horrible flaws), but perhaps they can connect if there's any luck in the world. Zoe really doesn't have much of a choice anyway, does she? The public also solidly chose Andrew over the other two. And so we'll see what happens next week.

* 4.2 seconds