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!