New York Times Modern Love: Gin and Toxic

This week's Modern Love column is Kevin Callahane's recap on a life rescued from - and saved by - the clutches of alcoholism. While the general topic deals directly with the author's own struggle with a terrible affliction, the heart of this article deals lies in self-discovery, responsibility, and redemption. This contrasts with the finger-pointing, closed-minded judgment, and ignorant self-justification of the most recent columns in this series.

Kevin starts out hitting rock bottom, by being an unreliable person (missing a date) and severely offending - and hurting - someone whom he cares about deeply. In his struggle to try to make up for his failure, he finds both his fatal flaw and his angel. For Julie, the muse for this love letter (or at least that half of this essay), recovers maturely from her own justified anger and reaches out to Kevin:

"You're an alcoholic," she said, not unkindly. "You need help."

Although Kevin was young and wretched at the time, Julie's love overcomes his self-destructive tendencies and leads him on the path to eventual recovery.

Well, that's not literally true. It seems that Julie admired Kevin in some way back then, but it's not entirely clear that she loved him or that she tried really hard to drag him along. Kevin makes it seem that he was infatuated with Julie, and that his somewhat accidental start on the path of recovery was a result of the crush he was keeping inside. Then again, it seems that this was one of the many attempts that Kevin uses to "humanize" himself along the course of this essay, and the frequency in which this is done sends another message entirely. As an unreliable narrator, not to mention a potentially harmful person, Kevin's attempts at "humanizing" himself seem to be exercises in self-deprecation that are literary equivalents of cutting one's self for pleasure. (which, interestingly, also happens physically in the course of the essay) One could conclude, in the end, that Kevin is not nearly as error-prone, hapless, and unguided as he makes himself out to be.

The happy ending is that Kevin recovers from his alcoholism and enters a loving, happy marriage with Julie. (all together now: awwwwwwww!) In what must be listed as a great success in the annals of substance abuse recovery, he confidently expresses that his sobriety is an effortless journey and a welcome part of his life. His final thought, however, is part philosophy and part self-destructive romanticism:

The thing is, would [Julie] and I ever have gotten together if I hadn't been a drowning alcoholic in need of her outstretched hand? Sometimes I can't help but wonder if the burdens we carry don't end up carrying us.

As Kevin feels that his addiction was a necessary part of his life - because for some reason it made sense to him in the past to self-destruct - he tries to use his ends to justify the means, as if this validated all the trouble he went through to get to this point. He doesn't champion alcoholism, but he validates his own demolition. I don't judge him for this, but I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Kevin that, from this essay alone, I believe he is a wonderful and special person who deserves only the good things that he has earned for himself - and none of the bad things that he has wisely left in his past.

The interesting parallels of this essay to the other recent Modern Love essays is that the authors are heavily engaged with themselves, initially there is a romantically glorified target of affection/interest, the author comes to a sad realization, a schism occurs, and ultimately the author is flawed. It's just that in this case, the tables are turned and the author focuses all of the criticism and judgment within, and the author is down-to-earth enough to be cognizant of his own flaws. This is why I appreciate Kevin, and this essay, far better than anything or anyone we've seen in this column over the past three weeks.

Hey, sometimes it's nice to be happy to read these things.

More Meet Market Survivors, And A Brand New Contestant!

Just to catch up, here's some news about another two daters that have contacted me:

Dena dropped her compliments not long ago, and was pleasant and informative. Her backstory is that she met Mackenzie at a party, and that's how she got involved in the column. Apparently, I was very much keen on the real deal behind her date in my own writeup - spot-on, practically. She mentioned that, even back then in early June, Tom knew about the blog. Veeeerrry interesting. She was flattered by my comments about her in the blog and thanked me for them. I wish to her continuing good luck on the dating scene.

Also, I heard from the lovely and talented Jen Dziura, who was featured in Meet Market just prior to when I started writing about it here. She also paid her compliments and gave me the scoop on one of the column's former writers, Danica Lo. I somewhat knew already that Ms. Lo is a Dartmouth alumni and used her alumni connections quite heavily for her journalistic purposes (both the contest and her other clips for the Post), but here's how deep it got according to Jen:

Later I went to one of the Post's in-person mixers, and it was
basically like an alumni gathering of Dartmouth people, because the
reporter, Danica, had been harvesting all her old college contacts.

Oh my! Not that I have a problem with Dartmouth grads (Ms. Dziura is an alumni herself), but I think this concept is journalistically cringeworthy. It would have been better to do a little more legwork and cast a wider net for sources and contestants, you think?
(Honest clarification: Jen admits that she found more than a few Dartmouth people at the party, but that there defintely were non-Dartmouth people present - as in, "the other, oh, 195 people who didn't go to Dartmouth." So we both regret insinuating that this might have started as the "Meet-Dartmouth Market". That said, this posting on the Dartmouth Alumni Forums indicates that Danica was indeed looking to use her own alumni connections for the dating column, and I couldn't find anything similar at any alumni boards for the other 3,000+ accredited institutions in the United States. I'm not sure what any of this proves, other than that I have way too much time on my hands.)

Anyway, you can find Jen at http://www.jenisfamous.com/, and also at her new blog for the Williamsburg Spelling Bee held at Pete's Candy Store, for which you can find an updated schedule here - drop by sometime. She also performs live comedy, and is a writer and model. Hooray for the uber-talented!

Wait a sec... they have cocktail parties for the former daters? Oh wow. Wouldn't that just be a field day for me? So much to ask about!

Well, if they do have another one, I should be going along, because...

(*drumroll*)

As hinted previously, I will be participating in Meet Market myself! I finally got around to submitting an application - of course, I didn't announce myself in my application as the rogue blogger, but they knew exactly who I was. Luckily, both Mackenzie and Tom have an awesome sense of humor, and thought it'd be great to bring me on board as a single, eager dater willing to take a chance on love. (and putting myself at risk for potential widespread ridicule and embarassment, similar to what I've dished out to so many past daters over the past months)

I will write more details when I'll be allowed to do so - I'm not to leak anything until the story runs in the Post first. Also, this at least means that we'll have a guest blogger to cover my participation, as my own opinion would contain an immeasurable conflict-of-interest. All in all, more exciting things to come!

See you on Sunday, when we get back to usual business...

New York Times Modern Love: r u kidding me? :(

Today we strike new ground in the pursuit of romantic harmony in the New York publishing world. To complement the thoroughly sophmoric fun-poking going on with the Meet Market column, we'll now be taking a thoughtful look at a column in serious trouble - the New York Times Modern Love column in the Sunday Styles section. I'll go into further detail as to why this column is seriously flawed, but for now let's tackle the issue of Sandra Barron and her text-obsessed playboy friend.

Ms. Barron's biggest initial concern - or, more appropriately, collection of warning signs that she completely ignores - is her pursuer's disregard for some commonly accepted rules of dating and romantic pursuit. To clarify: this guy contacts early, often, and lamely. His worst error is a reliance on a method of communication that's simply childish, and with his grammar he takes immaturity to the extreme. Taking it one step further, he seems to be very aggressive, and does not care for things like the "2 day rule" and the concept of giving someone new a fair amount of space. At the beginning of the article, I felt that he was encroaching upon her. This makes it very clear who we are to see as the protagonist (the author) and the antagonist (the moblie-equipped pursuer).

Immediately I'm having problems with this situation. I don't like that the Modern Love columns are starting to take on a "survivor-tale" mentality, almost as the Lives column in the Sunday magazine had been doing consecutively for many weeks to the point where it was publicly noticed (specifically, by a column by James Rarus on mediabistro.com). I withhold full trust in Ms. Barron's account because it's clearly just a "she-said" story, and event descriptions are clearly being shaped to draw maximum empathy for the protagonist - herself.

Most important, though, throughout the first half of the article, is this observation: she feels that her pursuer's encroachment is not threatening. In fact, she encourages it. Look here:

I could already hear my friends citing his enthusiasm as evidence he was coming on too strong, but I'd had enough of aloof. I found his boldness refreshing.

So, at first, she likes the attention and the direct attitude.

This all changes down the line, all because he happened to get a little tipsy at the usual Wednesday night watering hole. What was accepted in the past is now spurned, mostly because Ms. Barron does a 180 degree turn and decides that her pursuer is an embarrassment and a potential threat. Her repulsion is almost spontaneously generated, and it's the result of a few key misunderstandings.

Let's break this down:

... [I, Sandra Barron, decided] it would be awkward trying to get to know him better while hanging out with people he had never met.

This is a decision that she made while she was heading to a common meeting place where both had been patrons previously. Which is to say that he has just as much of a right to be there as she does, and there's no indication that his only context at this bar is her presence. I think this is an incredibly selfish and anxiety-ridden decision on the author's part - in essence, "don't come to my neighborhood bar."

His reply was impossibly swift for its length: I live 45 seconds from there and I would be doing my own thing. I am not leachy. Very independent boy I am. I may or may not, depends where the wind takes me. Was it just me, or had things just taken a hairpin turn for the hostile?

One, anyone typing on one of today's souped-up mobile devices can spit this out rather quickly, so the author assigns anxiety here pointlessly. Two, this claim is fair enough, assuming that he isn't lying and that his place of residence really is within several blocks. Three, I read this message as witty and non-hostile; obviously Ms. Barron had a different opinion. If she hadn't fully decided that it was a hostile message, she had certainly let her concerns overwhelm the situation. It's all downhill from here:

Minutes later: Would u like me 2 stay away? Oh, dear. At this point, yes. Wires were crossing that would probably be best untangled in person, the next day. Entering the bar, I... whipped off a quick response, attempting to be polite and clear: Yeah, I guess that'd be better; you'd distract me if you were here.
A minute later, after I'd settled in with my friends, the orange light looked like a warning: 2 late, im here.

So, now, what is he supposed to do, leave?

Of course, I'm not defending the antagonist one bit. I think he's a social klutz. He never does anything truly threatening, but he never quite shuts up, either. His responses could be easily misconstrued as creepy. That's entirely his fault.

Still, Ms. Barron's response was undeserved. She becomes offended, defensive, and evasive within... oh, say, an hour and a half on her timeline. Her approval and congeniality speed away like it's a crime scene. Wouldn't this screw with any guy's head? She provides no understanding for the fact that he's tipsy and that the liquor is making him even more clumsy. She completely shuts him out. Every message is a threat.

Typically for this column, she ends the essay by presenting this as a personal disaster and reflects mainly on her own feelings of dread and regret. It's almost of no consequence that she's now at odds with an acquaintance with whom she shared some bonding - it's as if he's not a human being, but a seemingly-friendly stray dog that bit her hand one day. There's no motivation whatsoever to try and reach a friendly, if non-romantic, resolution. The only goal of the author is to paint herself as a victim and to justify her own neurotic behavior and decision-making. It's always about me in this column, isn't it?

I think she missed out on a good dinner, if you ask me. (But that's all she missed out on.)

The Modern Love column is in serious trouble because it has been justifying this type of solipistic reflection in increasingly intense forms over the past couple of months. The crescendo has been peaking in the past few weeks, with the "froky" column and the "nanny" story - both of which were effectively rebuked on the web. I think that the editors of the Styles section are not really trying to be the fairest publishers in the world, but are rather trying to strike up a common conversation - and maybe a controversy - by presenting these stories as such. I wonder why they're doing this. Certainly the reader gets a little more of their money's worth in the article - you have to now constantly wonder if the protagonist is more flawed than the antagonist, which makes it more interesting - but is this approach moral? Is it right to let the authors bury their former girlfriends/acquantainces/nannies, and bury themselves deeper in the process? Isn't this just a bit gimmicky? (not to mention the narrative use of technology - blogs and mobile phones - as a hackneyed gimmick to instill wonder first, dread later)

Or am I giving them too much credit for trying to be clever? Maybe they really do truly expect us to trust these authors, foolishly?

I hope to figure this all out as time goes on.

New York Post Meet Market: That &#$@ Stole My Umbrella!

On this week's Tom & Mac show:

Virnalisa did indeed choose Todd the (evil?) H.R. manager. How'd it go?

Todd is a great talker and a real gentleman, but I don't think there's any chemistry there.

Awww, rats! The streak's broken! So what went wrong?

Well, nothing, it seems! Sounds like Virnalisa had a good time:

While we were eating dinner, the conversation flowed really well.

We talked about what food we liked... it was a surprise to learn that Todd dislikes the same things as me.

Meli Melo is a really nice restaurant... definitely a great blind date spot.

Perhaps her writeup makes things seem rosy at first glance, but this is all she really has to say about Todd that's nice:

I thought that he looked way better in the flesh than he did in his picture, so that was a nice surprise!

He's a really cool guy: If I had a girlfriend and thought that they'd get on, I'd definitely recommend Todd.

Yikes! That's no good! I mean, these statements sound vaguely flattering if you're not talking about a dating companion, but do they give an impression that any guy really wants to leave on a girl he's trying to romance? That you're not as ugly as she thought? That you would hook him up with an available girlfriend, but not date him yourself? These are all backhanded compliments! Why not add in that he reminds you of your brother, V? (Or worse, ex-boyfriend. That is a comparison that often indicates zero romance.)

Sadly, Todd was hopeful for more until he cracked open the Sunday paper:

We didn't kiss, but I did get her phone number, and I would like to meet her again to see if we are compatible past a first impression.

That's gotta be a rough way to find out. That said, his writeup was rather brief and made the date look even less exciting than what Virnalisa described. So, while each dater enjoyed the evening overall (it was probably the escargot appetizer, the coq au vin main course, and the 1999 Cabernet Franc), Cupid's arrow sails wide right. Darn.

We'll just have to try again, won't we?

Another repeat dater: Leslie! I'm happy to see her again. I approved of Liberal Leslie the last time - well, except for the liberal part. Remember, as a political moderate and profile evaluator, I tell people to leave political alliances out of the profile unless it's absolutely 100% a part of your core identity - otherwise, that just serves to alienate a large portion of the dating pool, including people who could have been your true love. Enough about that; Leslie is as cute and nice as ever, and I have strong hopes for our matchup this week as long as we have at least one good Democratic hopeful to choose from. You know, unlike the mayoral race in NYC this year...

Quick aside - Tom & Mac reassure Leslie about her fears for another worst date:

Let it be noted that Meet Market does not send its daters to Taco Bell or other assorted fast food restaurants

Oh please. I could easily spend $200 at Taco Bell.
(Just kidding. And I promise never to do that... again! heh heh)

Who's bringing the romance for next week? Let's see:

Boris loves his job, plays chess, enjoys a good vodka, kids and pets love him! Yeah, and, what else?

I can be a bit cool with strangers.

I'm really bad at small talk; When the discussion has no flavor, I feel sad.

Oi. This wasn't even an answer to one of the trick questions; this is the answer you've gotta nail down, dude. When they ask, "How would you describe yourself", you need to be closing! Ahhh, poor Boris. Fix up the profile and you'll be a winner, trust me.

Next, Matt, who is a corporate research specialist. Here's another example of unnecessary negativity in a dating profile, although Matt's overall profile keeps him in the running:

What do you think of the New York dating scene? It's extremely easy to meet people, but a real challenge to find someone you get along with and want to see romantically. It's also difficult at times to determine the other person's objectives, and that's probably the thing that annoys me the most. A lot of people act shady and keep you in the dark about what they really want or expect.

Or, you could have just stopped after the first sentence and everything would have been fine. The last thing you want to admit is that you're running into severe problems or annoyance in your dating experiences. It doesn't gather a lick of sympathy, but it does generate a lot of doubt for the discerning reader. Plus, as I've mentioned before, it never looks good when you're pointing the finger at others. All other things considered, though, Matt's profile paints a picture of a fairly adventurous person who might be attractive to Leslie.

Finally, we have Steve the web designer. Aside from being handsome, this guy has the mental goods to succeed. He sounds rather busy, but he looks like a great match for Leslie. And he gives us our story of the week, which ends with, and is best summarized by, this:

But then, when I go to leave, I find out she's taken my umbrella!

Horrible! You gotta be a nasty kind of b-word to do that to someone on a date! (Well, a replacement is only 5 bucks, but still.)

I'm going solidly with Steve. The other two guys look like nice men, but Steve's profile is strong all the way. It's a tight initial contest, as Steve is leading Boris by 2 points and Matt by 4 on the first day of voting.

Meet a Meet Market Survivor: A Queen Worst Comes Clean

I re-introduce you to Jenny, who is about to be vindicated in a big way.

Jenny, as it stands, is our "Queen Worst the II", a label given because Jenny seemed to have conducted herself very rudely on a date with a nice man, therefore ruining the date and making the man question his noble purpose in pursuing romance. This type of bad behavior does not go unpunished 'round these parts: I gave her that awful nickname, printed the words "Jenny sucks," and openly pronounced that she deserved a case of genital crabs.

Thanks to Gawker (note: contradicting anyone's misperception of my sarcasm, I know exactly what it is; I'm as obsessed with it as much as I am with the Meet Market), my harsh criticism of Queen Worst the II was pushed directly into the heart of the Internet media complex, along with every other criticizing word in this blog since last September. So, it was only fair that I respond to Jenny when she left a note on the original entry that criticized her, herself describing a date experience that mostly contradicts the official report in the Post.

It's easy to disbelieve anything printed in the Post: just ask Dick Gephardt. Still, this was rather incredulous. Did Red Ryan, our reluctant hero (well, he wasn't the reluctant one; I was reluctant to make him the hero after reading his sad-sack story), indeed fabricate many of the key details that night to discredit Jenny after a date that did not go entirely as he expected?

Well, somewhat, but not entirely, as I would find out.

I had my initial doubts. For one, someone supposedly named "Jenny" responded to one of my blog entries, and did so in a rather anonymous way. For all I know, I could have been pranked. Second, we were proceeding into he-said-she-said territory, and who am I to declare the truth when I wasn't present for the date? Third, I truly hate backpedaling. I wished she simply had left a "Fuck you" message so that I could return the favor and get back to eating Corn Pops straight out of the box.

Still, I had to assume this was the real deal, and that I was being served notice of yet another interesting twist in the Meet Market column on a silver platter. How could I not sink my teeth into this? And, unlike Emily, my last interviewee, Jenny had actually gone out on a date sponsored by the Post and experienced the entire selection and rating process. I needed to know about all of this! My curiosity exploded like a gasoline truck dropped onto a dynamite factory. I just had to hear everything. This would be better than sex. (sort of an unexpected result when you're obsessed with a dating column. Or, as Foxy Jess called it, a "fucking column". Anyway...)

I led off with a sincere clarification - that is, I admitted that this blog was completely non-factual in relating the real-life stories behind every Meet Market column participant and blind date situation (and that’s the honest truth). I only believed Jenny did wrong to Ryan because it had been published in the Post, and the basis of my writing were facts that were only as good as the Post’s reputation for complete and unbiased information. (I’m cackling as I type this. Is this a cheap stab at the Post again? Let’s use a shotgun this time; all the New York papers have had recent credibility disasters. I could have written that Jenny also won Scratch n’ Match.)

Also, I said I’d retract the Queen Worst title; starting now, each of you reading this blog should now consider that designation completely nullified. I added that I never seriously hoped that anyone would catch a case of crabs for any reason. I then moved the conversation into email, where I groveled some more and invited her for an interview over a free cup of coffee to "set the record straight". She agreed, and we were in a Starbucks on the Upper East Side the very next morning to discuss exactly what went wrong and why she did not deserve all this negative attention.

(above: Jenny and I meet together)

Let me tell you about Jenny: she is a nice, polite young woman, originally from Dix Hills, NY, who currently lives in Manhattan and works as an assistant in the television industry. She spends a good deal of time with friends, often in bars, much like any other woman her age in Manhattan. She dates actively, participates in social events geared toward matching singles, and is looking to find a great man - and maybe a part of herself along the way. She is a friendly person who has a down-to-earth outlook on life; she does not carry herself with pretension or willful ignorance. She is intelligent, thoughtful, and daring. She is generally a happy person, easy to like and easy to please.

She is human, though, and makes mistakes. She is sometimes afraid of hurting other people's feelings, but can also be afraid of messing up her own life in revealing the truth when needed. She's afraid of being "too nice" and not direct enough with hopeful (or disappointing) romantic partners. She's young and vulnerable. At times, when we discussed something she did that could have been done better, she hid her face in her hands and made a regretful sound as if everything wrong in the world was coming down on top of her. Like many young people in New York, she is progressing, but not quite finished maturing.

Presented with the real life Jenny, it was apparent to me that she is not the monster that I made her out to be. That was a relief, not only because I wish not to find women like that in New York, but also because I wasn't tricked into this meeting just to pay for a Green Tea Frappuccino that would be dumped on my head in return for the insults. She really did wish to set the record straight.

Which brings us to that fateful night.

The restaurant portion of the date was fairly harmless, although certainly not ideal. Jenny's worst accusation is that Ryan tried some funny leg-touching business with his hands while the Post's freelance photographer was trying to get a shot to use in the resulting article. Given that things didn't really get worse than that overall, I'd have to say that the meal wasn't an overall disaster, but it wasn't exactly comfortable either. Jenny admits that, from the beginning, she did not really find sparks between herself and Ryan, which was due to (a lack of) physical attraction and mental connection. Apparently, Ryan's not as interesting and sharp-witted as Jenny would like, and she attributes this to the difference between being raised on Long Island and being raised in the Midwest. (sure, that's an unfair shot on Ryan's Midwest origins, but it's true that those are starkly different backgrounds). Jenny fully confesses that, as mentioned in the original article, she ran a half-hour late to the date and needed to call in ahead of time to let Ryan know. There was some pleasant smalltalk throughout the date, except at the point when Ryan mentioned a friend's observation that Jenny looked crazy in the pictures provided by the Post for review. That was indeed unflattering for Jenny, and quite stupid of Ryan to mention.

Jenny also admits that details after this are a little hazy, which might be due to servings of a strong liqueur that followed the main courses – and that she consumed a fairly large meal that made her tired in the first place. Still, all parties seem to have been lucid following the restaurant portion of the date. What followed, in a nutshell, was this: Ryan continued to accompany Jenny further into the night even as Jenny was rather weary of continuing the date, and Jenny protested only in subtle ways. She was not direct with him, but she did try to weasel out of the date by pretending that she had met a usual friend at the bar (when, in fact, this "friend" was someone who was a just familiar bar patron who she cajoled into posing as a friend). It seems that Ryan, however, took a very long time to "get the hint."

He did buy her a rose out on the street along the way, but failed to mention the fact that he asked her for the money to buy it first without telling her what it was for. This situation sounds very, very lame.

What followed that night is the part that is of most importance to Jenny's overall forgiveness. Ryan apparently called her a bunch of times after the date to ask her out again, and she did not return his calls. That was boorish behavior on her behalf, which she admits, and it would have been best to let Ryan know directly that she did not wish to continue seeing him romantically. But Ryan then committed a heinous foul: he changed his opinion of Jenny as a reflection of his disappointment in not being received well by her, and then delivered a scathing (and somewhat pathetic) assessment of his blind date to Tom, Mackenzie, and the Post's entire Sunday circulation. Dirty pool, my fellow man. Jenny, in the meantime, tried to take the high road with her own assessment and left out the scathing criticisms in favor of a rather bland recollection of the experience. That was her final mistake; the Post ran what they had, and it didn't make Jenny look good at all.

Ryan somehow continued this show of lameness in a subsequent encounter, but the details of that incident are hardly relevant. You just need to know that Ryan is clueless, cloying, and clumsy if you are to at all believe Jenny's account of the evening. As for Jenny, she knows in her heart and mind that she was clumsy herself, if only to try to avoid an unpleasant ending to an already disappointing evening. She had tried to justify it to herself, but she did the face-in-hands thing when I confronted her with it.

As I said earlier, Jenny makes mistakes. Each of us would hope not to be publicly crucified for our own mistakes the way Jenny was for her own. I found enough contrition in her recounting of the event to accept her sympathetically. I also engaged her with a lot of amusing and interesting conversation, and she seemed like a very nice and polite person; this leads me to believe that she would not have done these things in better conditions.

Now, the Meet Market dirt:

* She applied through the contest form on the website; no Friendster necessary.

* She at first got along really well with Mackenzie over the phone; they even discussed hair salons. You know, girl talk stuff. Apparently, this didn't continue after the date.

* A check mistakenly arrived at the end of the meal, and was soon afterward retracted by the management with sincere apologies. This was not before they had a look at the bill, which was around $200 before tip (a price Jenny balked at). This is what two young twentysomethings get when they win a contest from the Post! That’s excessive, don’t you think? Meanwhile, Ryan was so pleased with his free meal that he childishly bragged about it to everyone, during and afterward.

* "Imaging specialist" roughly means photocopier salesman in Ryan-speak.

* The questionnaire after the date includes questions about the meal and atmosphere at the restaurant. As with the profiles, responses are printed almost verbatim without the questions, just as I suspected. And Tom, who called almost two weeks after the date to provide the questionnaire, wanted the answers emailed rather than spoken.

* The Post is apparently desperate for worthy participants. (oooh oooh oooh!)

* And Ryan, it is rumored, might get a second chance at picking a date! (ick!)

Obviously, I got my coffee's worth out of this meeting.

We parted, and it left me pondering what this means for all of us. I've now seen up close that we truly have no idea what's going on behind the scenes at these dates. As I said in my original "clarification," this is a he-said-she-said story and I'd like to believe both of them, yet would be naive to fully accept either story. True, Jenny's story sounds more plausible because she doesn't contradict Ryan's unflattering facts about her behavior – yet did Jenny make any other mistakes that weren’t mentioned? Naturally, this applies to every other story we've heard about every date (except for Pamela and Ian, who, according to the freelance photographer by way of Jenny, really do love each other to pieces and spend lots of time together). I now need to consider a whole world of deeper possible motivations when reviewing a date gone wrong - unless I choose instead to continue being a callous bastard. (Yeah, probably.) And, from a wider point of view, we can see more ways in which love's fragile house of cards can fall apart. This both saddens and fascinates me.

Love is not nearly as fascinating as all this dirt on the Meet Market column, though! How crazy is all of this? I've met with TWO participants in the contest now, and I have all the inside info I could ever want, and then some. We have a Queen Worst dethroned, plus a BRAND NEW KING WORST in Ryan! Yes, it's Vikas no more! And we might have a sitting king reappear in the column, which should be LOADS of fun!

Soon, we’ll hear from two more Meet Market participants. One is Dena. The other: myself.

New York Post Dating: Dancing With The Stars

Let's cut the silliness for a second; everyone's reading this blog now. Tom & Mackenzie, many of the former daters, half of Gawker's readership, and probably all the girls I've dated in New York who dumped me for real estate brokers. Plus, my face is now on this blog. The stakes are indeed raised. I actually have to spellcheck my entries now. I'll meet the pressure with unbridled enthusiasm, of course; our vast team of creative professionals (all the voices in my head, that is) will be working around the clock to deliver more content than ever before. So keep reading!

Back to the silliness, because the Meet Market is what counts the most.

Kelli, our heroine, chose Mark the actor for her date. I initially warned against this because Mark, while looking good, seemed to be a bit average. I never found anything particularly wrong with being "average", but somehow I thought David was a better pick. No matter, though - Kelli and Mark had a wonderful time together, and hit it off fabulously.

In the column, you'll see a picture of them that's very appealing and looks as if it were captured mid-tango. Although dancing wasn't a part of the date, they seem to have both truly enjoyed themselves. Kelli spills that a future date is planned, so maybe there will be a tango in the future! Three cheers for these two happy winners!

I observed that Kelli's writeup, by the way, was far more interesting than Mark's. I guess Mark just isn't the writer type, and perhaps that threw me off last week. I thought he was phenomenally more charming on the date than he was in either his profile or post-date writeup. (Is that a pun? Post-date? Ugh.) Ah, such is the difficulty of trying to divine success from hasty answers to dating profile questions.

I also have to be thankful for this: I gave Kelli the benefit of the doubt when she said she wanted someone who wasn't "boring." That could mean a lot of things, on one extreme end meaning that Kelli is hard to entertain and has no patience for those who don't fit the Tom Wolfe-like definition of "master of the universe." Many girls in New York are like that, but that wasn't the case with Kelli, and I shied away from that assumption on a gut feeling. Not all of my gut feelings are correct, but sometimes they help a lot.

Speaking of instincts, next week's chooser is someone who in the past definitely seemed to be greater than the sum of her profile: Virnalisa! I said several weeks ago:

Virnalisa might be the type of girl that you'd want to marry.

The rest of her profile wasn't as strong, but I had a hunch that she was alright. I'm not sure if this was in her profile the last time, but this line shows that she's a nice girl with a healthy dose of date savvy:

Virnalisa's ideal date would involve a restaurant with great ambience and eclectic food - "And an impressive wine list, or at least good sangria! Afterwards, we'd go out dancing."

I like that. Especially the sangria part. *hiccup!*

Our suitors:

Phillip, a 27-year-old partner in a trading firm. He's got money, ladies! Otherwise, he seems like a man's man - plays poker, likes sports, and doesn't mind heavy drinking on a date. I think he's an interesting and cool guy, certainly, but is he a little too rough and tumble for Virnalisa? I don't know. We'll keep him in mind.

Oh, and guys, never admit drinking anything pink. Unless it's Pepto Bismol.

Next, we have Todd, who I'll nickname Catbert for fun. Yes, he works in Human Resources - which means he knows your medical records and he's been filing your expense forms for all those stops at the clinic recently. (It's all come up negative, I swear!)

How would you describe yourself? I'm the most well-rounded person that I know - and I'm not bragging!

Understood, Todd, but I'd have clipped that line anyway. Your interests are strong enough to give that impression on their own.

My life has never been about amassing wealth.

I don't think Phillip and Todd would have much to talk about together.

I'm a hopeless romantic who realizes that people who date in the 21st century are often anything but romantic.

Good guy, great beginning, bad ending. Don't blame others for your frustration. Just stand tall and let your heart do the talking. The only other noteworthy thing is that Todd ended up on a date with a Long Island girl who was sexually aggressive and kind of cheesy. Since he was freaked out, he might find Virnalisa (the polar opposite) to be quite the catch. Meanwhile, if you're the type of girl who wears a fake tan and boob glitter, give me a call, pookie-wookie.

Last, we have Luke. Does he have the Force with him? (Do I have anything better than jokes from a quarter of a century ago?) He looks exactly like Curt Schilling, which we won't hold against him. (those awful Sox. gag.) He enjoys Sunday brunch, inappropriate conversations, good movies, good cheese, and Stella Artois. I couldn't have come up with better myself. Maybe Virnalisa will dig that? I noted that he abstained from the worst date question. Awesome! I hate that question, dude.

It’s a tough field this week. Virnalisa's got three pretty reasonable guys to choose from. I think Catbert is the softest and cuddliest, so I'll pick him. Virnalisa can't go wrong either way. (Phillip’s winning the voting, if you’re curious) Cheers to Tom and Mackenzie for setting up Virnalisa once again, and for giving her some excellent choices.

(Do something wrong again. Please. It's hard to write this when you're on a winning streak!)

Meet a Meet Market Survivor! Our Night With Emily

Some website named Gawker linked me earlier this week. Who the hell are they? Never heard of them. I guess I'll add them to my blogroll or something, if I ever get one. Anyway, they sent a hell of a lot of traffic my way, and people started buzzing.

Naturally, this meant people who were written about here in the column would find me and start writing back. Most responses, I assume, would be in defense of a dater - because I'm an asshole often when referring to the daters as I write my reviews. Luckily, my first experience in hearing directly from a dater was from Emily, who was part of a 3-girl selection from a few weeks back. At the time of the review, I was wary about her based on her pickiness from her profile.

Well, after meeting her, I can assure you that nothing changed. She's definitely picky. And I love her to death for it.

A little background:

I originally heard from Emily through a comment on the post where I wrote about her. She left me a link to her blog, where she had drafted a response that was hardly critical of my writeup but still defended her profile. It seems her hurriedly-completed questionnaire was copied verbatim for the column even though she thought it would be used not as copy, but as a guide for the authors to try to set her up with the right person. (She had never seen the column previously, so she didn't know how it worked.) Easy mistake, bad result. She would have spent more time crafting her answers had she known they would appear as-is in the paper. Plus, they skipped over all the good answers, naturally.

We exchanged polite e-mails after this, and I found that she'd be hosting a happy hour for Drinking Liberally in Park Slope; I offered to come along for the ride, as I've never been to a liberal-themed happy hour before (or Park Slope, for that matter) and I figured it would be something fun to try.

Or, I just initially figured the event wouldn't get too much in the way of me asking her about her experience in the column. After all, this was a chance to meet a real-life Meet Market participant! Wow! This would certainly blur the line between hack writing and reality! I was obsessively curious. I overflowed with potential questions. I wanted to know EVERYTHING.

Before we get to that part, I should add that I enjoyed the event very much, and I recommend it to others. I'm a moderate and not strictly a liberal, but I fit in quite well; no one acted like a partisan raving lunatic, which is something I feared I might possibly run into. Everyone was sensible and passionate about politics. I appreciated their perspective. There were some good conversations. Also, Yuengling pints were $3.

Back to the questions:
(Emily and I having a chat)
I didn't shy from getting to know her and asking the questions about the experience. She's a very cool person and answered all questions happily. We posed for pictures, acted goofy with other blog friends, and made fun of the Post.

I got to know that, yes, indeed, she is a dedicated liberal and would not want to be in a situation where a conservative male would butt heads with her. She is also insistent on avoiding dates with certain types of men, which is where the "What's Not Sexy?" list came from. My take: for a general dating profile, this is fair enough. Her list of criteria will surely exclude certain people from her potential dating pool, but that's sort of the point. She knows what she likes and what she stands for - and she isn't afraid to be clear and open about it from the beginning. She's not pompous or dismissive, either - she is friendly and cordial with everyone regardless of whether they're "sexy" or not. I find all of that admirable.

She knows that her criteria might have reduced her chances of winning the dating contest - and I agree with that - but to her, that's hardly a concern. She doesn't think she lost out on anything. As a matter of fact, she is now seeing a guy that she met soon after the column ran, and she's currently very happy with him. That's so nice, isn't it? (Especially considering that sparks didn't fly between Amber and Dave... Real Life - 1, Tom & Mackenzie - 0)

So, she's an alright person and didn't deserve to be summarily dismissed. Not that she cares, because she's a writer too and knows that this is all a harmless goof.

Now, the dirt:

* Mackenzie found her on... wait for it... wait for it... Friendster. Yes, folks, keep those Friendster profiles in tip-top shape so that you can land a date with the Post!

* Why is Mackenzie trolling Friendster for participants? Apparently, the people who write in with contest entries are often "creepy". Yeah, I could see that happening. I mean, these are Post readers...

* Mackenzie forwarded to Emily a questionnaire labeled "Dating_Questionnaire-Women". It contained many of the same questions as the online entry form, if not the exact same ones.

* Emily filled it out quickly (without thinking it would be used for copy) and returned it within 5 minutes. The result: hasty answers ended up unedited in the Sunday paper. She was somewhat horrified by this, so she clarified it in her blog.

* As we all know, Dave chose Amber instead and it's all over and done.

So, that's how the process worked for Emily. My curiosity sated, we went back to beer and burritos.

In the end, we now have a very clear insight as to how this whole process goes, and we know what to tell others to watch out for. I have also learned to treat the daters... ehhh, not any differently! If it's all a big joke, I can summarily dismiss whoever I want! Remember, Tom & Mackenzie aren't even getting the names right sometimes!

Coming soon: "Queen Worst the II" writes in! And, it turns out, she's not "Worst" at all! And I have to retract a comment about her catching crabs! Stay tuned!

New York Post Dating: Better Than Average

Winning streaks don't last forever, sadly. This week, we see our Meet Market matchup stumble out of the gate and never pick up steam. Tom and Mackenzie are no longer hot, but we might pick things back up again next week. So, let's begin with our recap...

David chose Amber for the date. My warning last week was that Amber needed someone quite interesting to be a romantic partner, because otherwise things wouldn't work out. I approved of David, but I didn't think he'd meet Amber's expectations.

And was I right?

I was right.

Amber was immediately dismissive of David due to a time mixup. He never quite recovered from his late arrival to El Faro ("which made for a great blind date spot!"), although the date was quite eventful overall. (After dinner, he took her out for dancing and "overpriced" drinks. Aww, how sweet. Now stop complaining about the prices.) I think she knew immediately that there wasn't the flame of romance burning between them. That's a shame, because David's a little more hopeful than she is for future romance. Love sucks.

So, in the end, Amber's rather picky and David's a little cheap. Crash, fire, burn. Sorry, try again.

There's better news for next week, though. Kelli is our female dater, and there's three critically important things you need to know about her:

• She's unbelievably hot. Like a porn star.
• She just moved to New York a month ago. This is on top of being rather young and perky.
• She's Jason's roommate. Jason? That's right, The Closer.

Needless to say, I'm overflowing with excitement for Kelli. I think her Closer connection is going to bring her good luck on the date. Still, though, as she admits herself, average isn't good enough. She's got three guys to pick from, so let's see if we can shoot for the moon here.

David is a 26-year-old "real estate finance executive." If God had a job title, that would be it. Quotables:

What do you think of the New York dating scene? Just because you pour syrup on it, doesn't make it pancakes.

What three things can you not live without? Ranch dressing, electricity and vacation days.

Gems! What the hell does any of that mean? Bizarre! And with all the food mentions, it's a good thing the date will probably be at a self-promoting restaurant! Otherwise, the most important nugget is, "I'm a genuine person, just trying to find my way like everyone else." Just like Kelli. I think he's got potential with her.

Next, we have Mark, a young actor.

I work out daily

Meh. I walk to the subway daily, too. After reading the rest of his profile, he seems alright - but rather average in every department, if you know what I mean. David's got it all over him.

Finally, we have Neil. He spooks me out a little bit, as some of these daters do when the photograph is really bad (or worse, when they're just not photogenic). Let's see if personality can make up for it:

We're buying. What are you drinking? Pabst Blue Ribbon in a can.

Classy! My kind of guy! But not Kelli's type of guy. Out.

So, in the end, it's David all the way. David's got 60% of the vote already on Monday. No brainer. Just cross your fingers and hope for the best for these two young love-seekers. (And we'll hope the restaurant has a "great atmosphere", as always.) Bounce.

New York Post Dating: If You Have Nothing Good To Say About A Free Meal, That's A Bad Sign

The title refers to this week's dater descriptions, clickable from the Post's Dating homepage. Elyse chose Evan (my first pick), and although Zanzibar comped them the cuisine, this is all either of them had to say about the place:

...the dinner had definite adventure potential.

The vibe at the restaurant really helped to ease the date. There were no candles or anything like that...

Okay, well, what about the food? Did these two even eat real food? It seems like all they had were cocktails. Either that, or they had little positive to say about the place when it came to the main courses. Again, it says nothing good about Zanzibar if they couldn't remember anything complimentary about the main course. Usually any meal is a great meal if it's seasoned with "free".
(As if I really cared about the restaurant...)

Onto the date review! And, it was fantastic! Although both daters come up short on details, there was definitely chemistry there (beyond mixology, anyway). Elyse likes Evan, Evan likes Elyse, and they should both see each other again. One goofy quote from Elyse warrants mention, though:

The dating scene in the city is challenging. There are so many good-looking people!

Attack of the Bigger Better Deal, eh? Or did she forget the follwing suffix: "good-looking people who are completely demented and borderline psychotic?" I mean, that makes more sense!

With another success, we're on a 4-week winning streak. Can Tom and Mackenzie keep it going? Hey, we always love a good winning streak in the summer! (something which the Yankees and Mets should take a hint from!)

Onto this week's choice. The man of the week is David, who seems to have a rather bland but hardly indicting profile. There's just not enough here to learn about him so that we have a good shot at finding the right kind of girl for a date. All we know for sure is that he's ambitious and motivated, and that nothing seems awful about him. For romance, he says he wants a dinner and a great kiss - that's not saying much. I'd hope that's what everyone would be looking for here.

Well, what can we do? Just pick the nicest girl of these three and hope for the best:

Amber's an administrative assistant in a glamour stance. Strike a pose! She looks rather tall, although that should have no meaning at all here. She loves her camera, she enjoys eating, and her family is important to her - all good signs. She likes ambitious men - score one for David! The only warning sign is Amber's worst-date-ever answer, which reveals that Amber needs her dates to be interesting. I don't consider this such a bad thing overall, but let's keep that one in the back of our heads for now... David hasn't revealed anything particularly interesting about himself in his profile, so we may have an issue here if he's not as colorful as Amber would prefer him to be.

Emily's profile is a little more troubling. The good parts: she's cute, likes ambitious guys, and is outgoing. The bad news: she's likely staunchly liberal and seems to be well-immersed in that scene. It comes up in three answers to various questions. So, she's poltically obsessed, and that could be divisive. A more pertinent concern: she seems to rule out guys who are super trendy, muscular, gadget-obsessed (or hyper-communicative), skinny, Republican, or slick-haired. Not that I defend any of those attributes, but she takes more time excluding people than describing what she really wants. I'm wary about her. Except for the knitting part.

Speaking of which, Annie likes knitting too! And photography! (Both are seemingly popular interests for women here in the Meet Market; just as common as guys enjoy "working out" and "dancing". Heh.) She looks a little soft on the edges, but she's still a very cute girl whom I wouldn't mind taking out on a date for looks alone. Her personality shines through nicely here; unlike Amber, Annie doesn't speak as if she's easily bored with someone quickly. That's a great sign for both Annie and David, especially since David likely qualifies as non-exciting if his profile above is any real indication.

I'm sold on Annie. She seems like the nicest girl who will probably have a great time on the date no matter what. Sounds like a great match for David; low-risk and excellent compatiblity make for a winning combination. The readers think so, too - she's winning the poll with over 70% of the vote! Wow, what a good showing!

And a happy air-conditioned week to you all! See you early next week...